Observations and inanities by a second-shift assistant supervisor in the Puppy-Grinding division of the Evil Atheist Conspiracy® (our motto: "Sure it's cruel, but think of the jobs!"), your host, Brent Rasmussen.
Thanks a bunch, Ehud
A little over two weeks ago, I suggested that Iran was behind Hezbollah's kidnapping of two IDF soldiers and that its motive was to foment war. That can be disputed, but my recurrent predictions that American and/or Israeli aggression fueled Iran's militancy turned out to be true.
[Link] The Israeli onslaught in Lebanon and Hezbollah's daily victories in the regional public relations war over the conflict threaten to claim a victim in Iran: whatever hopes remained of resurrecting the political reform movement.
Day by day, even as Iran's officials assess the military setbacks of Hezbollah, they have grown more and more emboldened by the gathering support in the Islamic world for the Iranian- backed Lebanese militia on the front line with Israel, which they see as a validation of their confrontational approach to foreign policy.
(...)
"It looks like, if Hezbollah gains victory, this crackdown will intensify against all those forces opposed to the current establishment," Behzad Nabavi, a former deputy speaker of Parliament who has called for dialogue with the United States, said in an interview.
I hate to say "I told you so," but there's little else I can do. It's not a novel or unexpected idea that governments use war as a way of cracking down on dissent at home. It's not even radical; when the government in question is not the speaker's, it's thoroughly mainstream.
Among the many ways a fascist government controls its population is by convincing them the enemy is monolithic. Human rights organizations do their best to legitimize democrats and reformers in such countries as Russia and Iran; militant governments do their best to deny that such democrats exist. I haven't read Debka in years, but I do remember that it claimed that the democrats in Iran were as anti-Israel as the Islamists based on evidence that's about as compelling as the evidence for homeopathy.
I don't know that Israel makes a concerted effort to radicalize Iran in order to justify the occupation of Palestine. It's entirely possible, but I haven't seen any evidence that Israel is malicious rather than merely irrational or incompetent. What I do know is that each side's actions end up strengthening the other's wingnut contingent.
In fact, many here see the war in terms of what it means for Iranians - not the Iranian nation, but the Iranian people. That means their economy, their political freedoms and their relationship with the rest of the world.
From academic offices to newspapers, those concerns are spreading, however quietly. They have fueled a fear that what is happening in Lebanon threatens to stifle whatever democratic movement remained in Iran and to empower those, like Ahmadinejad, who have declared that liberal democracy is a failure.
So thanks a bunch, Ehud. If Israel holds Arab terrorist organizations responsible for every Arab civilian casualty, then I can hold Ehud Olmert, Defense Minister Amir Peretz (who I supported last election...), and the IDF's high command responsible for every political imprisonment, every political execution, every religious execution in Iran.
Bookmark/Search this post with:
Support for Amir Peretz.
Mr. Levy supported Peretz in the recent election? You mean, you didn't support Yossi Beilan or Ahmad Tibi or Azmi Bishara or Mohammad Barakeh? I am shocked, shocked! What a disillusionment!
You'll be surprised
Beilin and Peretz largely support the same policies, except that Beilin focuses more on foreign policy and Peretz focuses more on socioeconomics. So given these two, I'd rather support the one who heads the larger party.
You''ll be supprised.
How about the other three gentlemen I mentioned? Surely, their platforms are closer to yours then Mr. Peretz.
Are they?
Balad is a Palestinian nationalist party. Hadash is communist. Ra'am is Islamist. I am against nationalism and fundamentalism of all kinds, and see no difference between communism and fundamentalism. Why would I support any of these parties?
Refuted arguments
Re Levy
1. Contrary to Mr. Levys assertions, my arguments have in no way been refuted. As I have previously stated, polls in the voting booth are worth more then polls by pollsters, especially pro Arab pollsters such as John Zogby, and the Palestinians voted for the dissolution of the State of Israel in the recent elections and rejection of a two state solution. Period, end of story.
2. Mr. Levy is partially correct concerning the influence of the reparations demanded of Germany after the end of WW 1. However, he makes my point by his concession that Germany was not totally defeated in WW 1. At the armistice, not a single square centimeter of uncontested German land (other then portions of the disputed Alsace-Lorraine)was occupied by entente troops. In fact, there were negotiations conducted leading up the to 11/11/18 armistice, which was an armistice, not a surrender. The contrast was that, in WW 2. Germany was almost entirely occupied at the time of surrender and no negotiations were held. In fact, then the German generals showed up at Eisenhowers headquarters, they were under the delusion that they were there to negotiate a cease fire. Eisenhower quickly disabused then of that notion and informed them that they were there to sign the documents of unconditional surrender.
3. The curious notion that Israel has applied disproportionate force has been entirely refuted by, among others, Alan Dershowitz and Charles Krauthammer. There is no such thing as disproportionate force. There is only winning and losing and applying "proportionate" force is a recipe for losing (e.g. the US in Vietnam and the former Soviet Union in Afganistan). I have attached todays column by Dr. Krauthammer, who will, of course be immediately dismissed by Mr. Levy as a fascist neocon, in the Washington Post for the information of any interested parties who may possibly be curious as to what the argument is all about.
Israel's Lost Moment
By Charles Krauthammer
Friday, August 4, 2006; A17
Israel's war with Hezbollah is a war to secure its northern border, to defeat a terrorist militia bent on Israel's destruction, to restore Israeli deterrence in the age of the missile. But even more is at stake. Israel's leaders do not seem to understand how ruinous a military failure in Lebanon would be to its relationship with America, Israel's most vital lifeline.
For decades there has been a debate in the United States over Israel's strategic value. At critical moments in the past, Israel has indeed shown its value. In 1970 Israeli military moves against Syria saved King Hussein and the moderate pro-American Hashemite monarchy of Jordan. In 1982 American-made Israeli fighters engaged the Syrian air force, shooting down 86 MiGs in one week without a single loss, revealing a shocking Soviet technological backwardness that dealt a major blow to Soviet prestige abroad and self-confidence among its elites at home (including Politburo member Mikhail Gorbachev).
But that was decades ago. The question, as always, is: What have you done for me lately? There is fierce debate in the United States about whether, in the post-Sept. 11 world, Israel is a net asset or liability. Hezbollah's unprovoked attack on July 12 provided Israel the extraordinary opportunity to demonstrate its utility by making a major contribution to America's war on terrorism.
America's green light for Israel to defend itself is seen as a favor to Israel. But that is a tendentious, misleadingly partial analysis. The green light -- indeed, the encouragement -- is also an act of clear self-interest. America wants, America needs, a decisive Hezbollah defeat.
Unlike many of the other terrorist groups in the Middle East, Hezbollah is a serious enemy of the United States. In 1983 it massacred 241 American servicemen. Except for al-Qaeda, it has killed more Americans than any other terror organization.
More important, it is today the leading edge of an aggressive, nuclear-hungry Iran. Hezbollah is a wholly owned Iranian subsidiary. Its mission is to extend the Islamic Revolution's influence into Lebanon and Palestine, destabilize any Arab-Israeli peace, and advance an Islamist Shiite ascendancy, led and controlled by Iran, throughout the Levant.
America finds itself at war with radical Islam, a two-churched monster: Sunni al-Qaeda is now being challenged by Shiite Iran for primacy in its epic confrontation with the infidel West. With al-Qaeda in decline, Iran is on the march. It is intervening through proxies throughout the Arab world -- Hezbollah in Lebanon, Hamas in Palestine, Moqtada al-Sadr's Mahdi Army in Iraq -- to subvert modernizing, Western-oriented Arab governments and bring these territories under Iranian hegemony. Its nuclear ambitions would secure these advances and give it an overwhelming preponderance of power over the Arabs and an absolute deterrent against serious counteractions by the United States, Israel or any other rival.
The moderate pro-Western Arabs understand this very clearly. Which is why Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Jordan immediately came out against Hezbollah and privately urged the United States to let Israel take down that organization. They know that Hezbollah is fighting Iran's proxy war not only against Israel but also against them and, more generally, against the United States and the West.
Hence Israel's rare opportunity to demonstrate what it can do for its great American patron. The defeat of Hezbollah would be a huge loss for Iran, both psychologically and strategically. Iran would lose its foothold in Lebanon. It would lose its major means to destabilize and inject itself into the heart of the Middle East. It would be shown to have vastly overreached in trying to establish itself as the regional superpower.
The United States has gone far out on a limb to allow Israel to win and for all this to happen. It has counted on Israel's ability to do the job. It has been disappointed. Prime Minister Ehud Olmert has provided unsteady and uncertain leadership. Foolishly relying on air power alone, he denied his generals the ground offensive they wanted, only to reverse himself later. He has allowed his war cabinet meetings to become fully public through the kind of leaks no serious wartime leadership would ever countenance. Divisive cabinet debates are broadcast to the world, as was Olmert's own complaint that "I'm tired. I didn't sleep at all last night" (Haaretz, July 28). Hardly the stuff to instill Churchillian confidence.
His search for victory on the cheap has jeopardized not just the Lebanon operation but America's confidence in Israel as well. That confidence -- and the relationship it reinforces -- is as important to Israel's survival as its own army. The tremulous Olmert seems not to have a clue.
Re Concernedjoe
Unfortunately, the root cause of the problems in Palestine is the refusal of the Palestinians to accept a Jewish state in the midst of the Arab world. You have not provided a strategy, nor can I think of a strategy, which will remove this root cause, other then removal of the State of Israel as presently constituted.
Strategy Has to Be Predicated on Understanding
SLC -- frankly I think you can do better than this "root cause of the problems in Palestine is the refusal of the Palestinians to accept a Jewish state in the midst of the Arab world." And even at that the part that says "..Jewish state in the midst of the Arab world" says something about two sides to every story.
We cannot ignore that at least one very major root cause is the continuing injustice real or perceived to Arab people directly or indirectly by the hand of the West (UN and Israel included). Starting with the LOSS of established longstanding Palestinian homes and lands via artificial constructs so the West could solve the "Jewish Problem" (its collective guilt).
Listen I cannot justify Palestinian and Arab criminal actions, nor cotton at all fundies of any stripe. But peace will NEVER be achieved without somehow making the Palestines feel like winners. Why should they get that "courtesy?" Because if someone "unjustly took" your home you'd never forget or forgive them unless they did something very special to repay you.
It is way out of control now and complicated.. but that doesn't obviate the fact that injustice is one of the elephants in the room that must be JUSTLY and ADEQUATELY addressed. SLC I think you are plenty smart. Don't you think addressing legitimate Palestinian concerns will go a long way to helping cool the ME?
Understanding
Re Concernedjoe
Let's see, the charge is being made that Arab land was "stolen" by the Jews with the coniviance of the West. Unfortunately, this is an example of the big lie. The fact of the matter is that up until the 1850s, Palestine was almost depopulated. I would suggest that you read the account of a trip made by Mark Twain to Palestine, written by himself. He stated that he was hard put to find anybody living in the land which was desolate. The city of Jerusalem appeared to him to have fewer people living there then in his native town of Hannibal, Mo. It was only after interest was shown in Palestine by the King of England and the German Kaiser that people, both Jews and Arabs began moving into the heretofore almost empth land. However, lets' suppose that there may be some truth in the assertion of stealing. If we are going to apply the standard that the "stolen" land of Palestine be returned to its original owners, then apply the same standard to the USA. Every square inch of the USA was "stolen" from native Americans; therefore, return every square inch to the original owners or their decendents. Somehow, I don't think this will be accepted by the current residents of the USA.
Really Immaterial
1. what injustices we wrought in our Manifest Destiny have no bearing. No offense -- but immoral actions don't justify other immoral actions in my book.
2. And what we negotiate or do not negotiate to right our wrongs in regard to American Indians is not an international standard that people like the Palestinians must accept.
3. Real people lost real homes... became refugees in their own land -- etc. I am sure that is what many Palestinians would tell you ... while passing any lie detector test you throw at them (re: big lie). The facts from our perspective may have shades of grey -- but don't invalidate their perception of their reality! Israelis feel one way -- they feel another ... our job as powerful brother/sister humans is to try to bring a sense of justice and peace to all.
4. I actually sympathize with the Israelis alot!!! I actually view them as our friend for the most part. I have a lot of respect for the people. And I have profound sadness when their innocents suffer. It is too bad I may be misconstrued (not necessarially by you SLC) as anti-Israel. I am not in my mind. But extremists in Israel have to recognize also that the Palestine people have a right to dignity and they have some legit gripes. And we (USA, etc.) have to be more balanced.. we just have to be -- even if we get slapped down 70 times 70.
Oh - and BTW -- I stand by the statement ... we won the peace after WWII hostilities by enlightened programs and the right attitude in our efforts. JUST winning battles, conquering people, and/or extermination of sorts doesn't make a better world that endures. Never has, never will. Sure you have examples you think show the contrary -- but frankly -- I'm kinda fixed on this point. Fair warning.. call it a defect or hang-up.
Thanks for listening.
Hizbollah
Unfortunately, Hizbollah will probably end up intact after this activity is over, due to the timidity of the current Israeli government. The correct strategy should have concentrated the bombing canpaign south of the Litani river so as to, in the words of US General Curtis Lemay, make a parking lot out of it. There will probably be a cease fire sometime early next week as President Bush, yielding to international pressure, will force the hapless Olmert to accept same. It is quite clear that a tougher individual is needed as Prime Minister; good candidates would be Uzi Landau or Avigdor Lieberman. As for the opposition in Iran, it has no more chance to oust the current terrorist government then the opposition in Cuba has to oust Fidel Castro. Bush, Blair, and Olmert spend too much time and energy worrying about collateral damage. They should take a lesson from Roosevelt and Churchill who worried not at all about collateral damage during WW 2.
I want everyone to pay attention...
...to the fact that this comment says nothing that is relevant to my post. I don't mind shrill pro-Israeli rants, however detached from reality. But surely there's a way to be shrill in connection to my post, for example to concoct a Debka-style lie about the true colors of the Iranian democrats. You're probably creative enough not to need to resort to the same arguments ad nauseam.
Saying that the Iranian democrats are weak is a good start, but since my post deals with the fact that the fundamentalist regime is measurably stronger than it was a month ago, it's still a red herring (and an untrue one at that - the Iranian democrats march and protest en masse and get Nobel peace prizes, and polls taken in times of lull show that most Iranians are opposed to the regime).
Iran
1. There seems to be a quaint notion held by the Israel bashers of the world that all the problems in the Middle East would be solved if a magic wand could be waved and the State of Israel were to disappear tomorrow morning. Nothing could be further from the truth. The problems in the Middle East are due to the rise of Islamic extremism, which is in response to the backwardness of the region vis a vis the West. This is admirably discussed in a number of books and articles by Bernard Lewis, one of the most renown experts on the Islamic world. The fact of the matter is that the Islamic extremists don't want to modernize the Islamic world; they want to bring the Western world down to their level. Thus, the disappearance of the State of Israel will in no way influence whackjobs like Amadinejad, to suddenly alter his views, nor will it in any way increase the chances of the opposition to remove the mullahs from power.
2. The question of Iran is interesting because it highlights the futility of the appeasement strategy. We are in the current mess vis a vis Iran because of the absolute incompetence shown by the imbecile, James Earl Carter, unquestionably the worst president the US has ever had (yes, even worse then Bush II, Harding, Hoover, Buchanan, and Grant). Carters' unwillingness to respond to the illegal and unprecedented taking of the US embassy in Tehran and the kidnapping of US diplomats therein with overwhelming military force has enabled the mullahs who perpetrated that terrorist act to solidify their hold on Iran. It can only be obvious to any disinterested party that idiot Carter chose appeasement instead, as usual a total failure. This is, of course, in addition to his mishandling of the takeover of Iran by the mullahs in the first place. To their great distress, his 4 successors have had to live with the results of idiot Carters' incompetence.
3. I am not a regular reader of the Debka web site. However, when accusing them of perpertrating lies, it would be well to give specific examples, rather then throwing out ad hominen smears.
That's better...
...but still utterly irrelevant to what I said.
For the record, Bernard Lewis does not claim that fundamentalism is in any way central to Islam; on the contrary, he shows that it's simply an ephemeral political movement that can and eventually will wane. Far from trying to bring the world down to their level of development, Islamists practice what Huntington calls reformism, which entails material development à la China and Iran without political liberalization. To see what I'm talking about, consider Mahatir Mohamed's statement about how the Islamic Ummah has to modernize and be able to wage war effectively.
Nor does anyone say anything about the disappearance of Israel, except that it's just not going to happen. You're attacking a strawman.
Finally, about Debka, I already provided some evidence in my post and in previous comments. If you want a more thorough attack, go here.
Islamic fundamentalism
1. Nobody claimed that Islamic fundamentalism is central to Islam. In fact, Islam has been hijacked by the Islamic fundamentalists, just as Christian fundamentalists have hijacked Christianity in some parts of the US. The Islamic fundamentalists currently run the show in Iran and will continue to run the show as long as they have the armed forces on their side. As the Assad family has done in Syria, they have made sure of the loyalty of the armed forces by placing their operatives in positions of command authority (much as the Communists did in the former Soviet Union and as they have done in Cuba).
2. The Islamic fundamentalists oppose moderization in all elements of society, except for the military. They aren't totally stupid. They are quite aware that failure to accept moderization in the military is suicidal (thats' why Amadinejad wants to acquire a nuclear capability). The mullahs saw what happened in the Iran/Iraq war when their policy of trying to win using their huge numerical advantage failed against Iraqs' superior technology.
3. If the State of Israel followed the advice of the Israel bashers, it would indeed disappear in fairly short order.
Nonsense
Folks always want things to be nice and tidy, to the point that they suggest we should kill thousands and thousands of innocent people. The word for that is insane. Making a parking lot out of square miles of another country is insane. Israel does indeed need to protect themselves. I'll never argue with that. They way they are doing it will not help. In fact it will hurt. Israel is as bad at this stuff as the US is. You cannot bomb your way to peace. The Palestinians can't and the Israelis can't. If you could bomb your way to peace we'd have peace in Iraq. Unfortunately, Iraq is more unsafe than ever.
People always mention WWII. It was an entirely different situation and to suggest that carpet bombing and nuclear weapons will work in this situation is completely wrong.
The US and Israel should worry MORE about collateral damage.
Re Nonsense
1. Roosevelt and Churchill won their war. Bush, Blair, and Olmert are losing their wars.
2. Lolife is correct that this is not WW 2. In these wars, the US, Britain, and Israel are fighting with both hands tied behind their backs. The time has long past for them to take of the handcuffs and start using both fists, if they expect to win.
3. It's not a question of bombing your way to peace or being nice and tidy. It's a question of winning or losing, and as we sit here today, the three musketeers, B, B, and O, are losing. And they will continue to lose unless the handcuffs come off.
Re: Nonsense
The problem is, I'm not sure you have defined what "winning" means. We can kill a lot of Arabs and Muslims. We can get a lot of Americans and Israelis killed. We can eliminate the infrastructures of Lebanon, Syria and Iran and create seas of refugees. We can kill innocent people who get in the way. We can occupy the whole region and police it with military law and lock up every male. Where exactly would that get us? Unless we are going back to the colonial days we will be no closer to peace or prosperity for any participating party.
You guys think if we kill enough of the "enemy" we'll break the back of the resistance and will be able to exercise our will in the region. I don't think there is any evidence to back up that strategy.
No...we need to facilitate a two-state solution to the Israel-Palestine crisis. That is the core of the problem. If we get the Palestinians out from under the thumb of the Israelis we will remove the largest single obstacle to peace. Then the US/UK and Israel need to work in the Middle East in a way that is respectful to the interests and culture of the region and quit demanding our way through military might. The Arabs in the region must demand that Hamas and Hezbollah disband or reject terrorism completely.
I realize this is a long way away. There are elements which will need to be killed or controlled. But we cannot win this if we fight it like a traditional war. I'm not a pacifist. War is just the wrong tool for the job if our goals are in any way realistic.
Re Re Nonsense
1. The definition of "winning" is very simple. One side has won when the other side comes to the conclusion that they have no chance of gaining any of their their objectives through further military action. This can not be accomplished when the "good guys" fight using the little fingernail of the little finger. The best way to win is to use both fists.
2. The Palestinians could have had a state in 2000 at Taba (not my opinion, the testimony of Dennis Ross). They are not interested in a state located in part of Palestine. They want a state occupying all of Palestine (i.e. a one state solution). Until such time as they are willing to accept a two state solution, there is no point in even discussing the issue with them.
3. The State of Israel has tried the strategy of appeasement in Lebanon in 2000 and in Gaza in 2006. As Neville Chamberlain discovered in 1938, appeasement is a losing strategy. It only wets the appetites of the agressors. Hamas and Hizbollah have used the withdrawels to argue that terrorist action is the way to force the State of Israel to go out of business. The only way they will be disabused of this notion is by the application of overwhelming military pressure.
Let's say I disagree...
Where do I start SLC? Maybe I best here: I bet do not have the command of names, places, events, etc. that you do. I probably cannot bring to the table professorial talking points like you. Nor is follow-on debate my intent. I’ll hit and run because I do think your opinion is mightily dangerous, and thus I’m compelled to throw in my two cents.
Recognizing your superior “fact” knowledge, what makes me confident you’re going down the wrong path? I guess my living life for significant years, being in a variety of situations, and perhaps my Vietnam War experience. I come to the table with my commonsense tempered by experience with a variety of humanity. My intuition is that knowledge and a creed is not enough. One needs also wisdom and a heart to hit a homerun in this game of life.
But I better get to the points I want to make:
1. In a war NEVER play the enemy’s game. We do it all the time in the ME and that’s why we are going backwards. For example they wanted Israel to attack back with disproportioned force and Israel did! Praise Allah! – I’m sure they are saying. Without being specific as to alternatives, etc., let me just say it would NOT have been wimpy, and indeed it would have been MORE effective, to be more “diplomatic” in the response.
2. Wars are never won on the battlefield. That is to say they are never completed there. We won WWII because of the reconstructions and the dignity we gave back to the people we were bombing. In war, winning is winning REAL peace (not just compliance or submission). SLC, I don’t hear your strategy for REAL PEACE. WISE military powers always recognize the ultimate battle is for hearts and minds, and these can NEVER be won by force, and especially blind force.
3. Things take time. If criminal leaders blow their people’s best chances (e.g., what might have happened in 2000) in one situation that is not an excuse to never again give them other chances. They (people born into this mess) are victims too!! Our humanity DEMANDS that we honor and respect their needs too. Too soft for you? Not for me – because it is all about winning the REAL PEACE.
4. In this area you will sound impressive. I am sure, but that does not keep me from saying that your statements about President Carter and Iran border on LUDICROUS! No doubt in hindsight things could have been done better I guess. But starting a mini-WWIII would not have been one of the better things he could have done. And I’m sure they also said in the 80’s “Praise Allah for Reagan!” If you get my drift.
5. It is very convenient for you to label (or seemly imply a label) to all diplomatic efforts and agreements as “appeasement.” I do NOT. Appeasement is an AFTER the fact pejoratively said assessment. Hindsight is wonderful; it thinks it is never wrong! But realists know that good diplomacy has wins and loses. It has promise-makers and promise-breakers. And yes, of course there are STUPID one sided agreements (bad diplomacy – but shit happens). What do you suggest? We negotiate always with a bullet at the end of a rifle? We stop diplomacy? We stop trying to find a way to PEACE.
6. I’ll close by saying that if we’d have put the $600 billion of the Iraq war into solving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict the ME would be a much further along a path to peace and stability than it is now. But that is a hindsight I had BEFORE the war. And who am I, as a godless evil baby eating atheist, to pass any judgment on the god-fearing leaders running the show, or who want to run the show!
Peace out man!
Lets say I disagree
I think you make a number very fine arguments here which deserves a thoughful response. I am not in total disagreement with you. However, unlike Mr. Levy who started this discussion, I an not a teenager. In fact, I suspect I am probably older then you are, as I was a bit overage for Vietnam service.
1. You are absolutely correct. Never play the enemys' game. But that is exactly what President Bush is doing in Iraq and Mr. Olmert is doing in Lebanon. I won't burden this response with a recitation of Bushes' mistakes in Iraq. However, I would draw your attention to a column by retired Colonel Ralph Peters which I posted under Mr. Levys' validitorium above which ably disects Mr. Olmerts errors of judgement. You have to understand that the Islamic terrorists understand only one language, that of force (much like their predecessons in Nazi Germany and the former Soviet Union).
2. I think you are partially right here in that many wars have not been won on the battlefield (where we extend the concept of the battlefield beyond the enemys main forces in the field to his industrial and financial support at home). There are, however, counter examples in which wars have been won on the battlefield. These include the American Revolutionary War, the American Civil War, and, contrary to you example, WW 2. For your information, there was a reason that Roosevelt and Churchill insisted on unconditional surrender by the enemy (a decision that many military analysts have sharply critized). That reason was that the failure to demand unconditional surrender in WW 1 led to Hitler being able to claim that Germany really won the war on the battlefield but lost the war in the streets of Berlin due to actions of traitors.
3. Although I agree that Arafat was a criminal, there was a good reason why he did not agree to the Clinton/Ross proposal. That reason was that he knew very well that such acceptance could well lead to his suffering the same fate as Yitzak Rabin because the Palestinian street would not accept it. As we sit here today, the Palestinian street will not accept a two state solution. Therefore, there is nothing to talk about and nobody to talk to.
4. You characterization of my remarks relative to James Earl Carter (I am loath to refer to him by his title) as ludicrous is entirely without foundation. The fact of the matter is that his mishandling of the entire Iranian issue from beginning to end during his so-called presidency is the cause for much of the turmoil in the Middle East today and the presence of the whackjob mullahs that run that country. His stupidity, incompetence, and malfeasance while he took up space in the White House has burdened his 4 successors, including most especially the current occupant, with a burder which was entirely unnecessary and eminently avoidable.
5. I would not label all diplomatic efforts as appeasment. For instance, the diplomatic efforts which led to a standdown during the Cuban Missile crisis were certainly worthwhile and greatly preferable to the alternative which could well have resulted in you and I not being here today. However, it is clear that diplomacy can not succeed when one is dealing with megalomaniacs like Hitler, Amadinejad and the Islamic terror groups. As I have previously stated, they understand only one language, force.
6. The Israel/Palestinian problem cannot be solved by any amount of money. No amount of money will be sufficient to bribe the Palestinians into accepting a Jewish state in the area at this time. Maybe at some time in the future, this will change but probably not in our lifetimes.
Well I still disagree...
SLC .. I lean much more toward Mr. Levy's opinions than your opinions. But I accept you have sincere perceptions and have thought considerably about them. And on some specific I am sure you and I would see eye to eye. I appreciate your expressing yourself civily and am sorry if I was a bit more personal than I should have been.
Having said that I do basically strongly disagree with you. And though not as articulate as many I stand by my deep feeling that the days of force making us safe and peaceful in the longrun are long gone if they ever where. I know sometimes we have to fight. Immediate protection, wipe out isolated nuts, etc. But unless ROOT causes are fixed -- I mean REALLY fixed -- problems persist. So I will put aside that as an atheist I feel a very strong obligation to be responsible for the plight of the world (meaning unless we get it right and take care one another no other entity will), and that as a humanist I have to value and try to sympathize/empathize with all humans. But regardless, I just don't think your model addresses any root causes, and grows more. And that's my basic problem.
Saluti.
Why do you repeat the same refuted arguments?
I've shown you polls documenting that in fact, most Palestinians want a two-state solution, and most of those who don't want a binational state in which Jews and Arabs will be equal (one poll actually asked about the last part explicitly). I've linked to these polls on GrrlScientist's thread as well as rebutted criticisms thereof.
The idea that some people only understand force is something that has to apply to all parties equally. Israel understands no language but brute force; its response to Lebanon was characterized by madness and lack of proportion, even though the hospital showdown showed that it had other options that would both bring better results and kill fewer civilians. This, however, doesn't justify bombing buses in Tel Aviv in order to get Israel to stop occupying Palestine. The fact that there are a few hotheads on each side who need to share a cell in the Hague to learn to get along doesn't justify vindicative militarism.
What let Hitler claim that Germany could've won WW1 was not the nature of the surrender, which was for all intents and purposes unconditional. Rather, it was the timing: Germany was not conquered, and around the same time as the surrender underwent a democratic revolution, albeit a fairly abortive one. But more importantly, Germany was forced to pay exuberant reparations after WW1, which crippled its economy and exacerbated its experience of the Great Depression; after WW2, the Allies had learned from their mistake and only imposed slap-on-the-wrist reparations.