The Problem and the (partial) Solution

[Skeptic]

From the usually excellent Jerusalem Post:

What the problem (http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1239710784660&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull) is, as the "modetates" (http://cgis.jpost.com/Blogs/warpedmirror/entry/saeb_erekat_s_secret_posted) see it.

The solution -- in an article I for some reason can find online -- is Lieberman's. Tell the truth. No, the Palestinians don't want a state; they want Israel's destruction (or, more accurately, they want a state as part of the "Staged Plan" for Israel's destruction). No, this isn't true for the "extremists" alone, but applies to the PLO and the "moderates" in the PA just as much as to the Hamas, as seen in their speeches, textbooks, television shows, leaders' claims, and so on (which, of course, doesn't stop the USA from giving them tons of money -- oh, and by the way, most of it is, as usual, simply stolen (http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/jpost/access/1685041281.html?dids=1685041281:1685041281&FMT=ABS&FMTS=ABS:FT&date=Apr+17%2C+2009&author=KHALED+ABU+TOAMEH&pub=Jerusalem+Post&edition=&startpage=6&desc=PA+officials+scandalized+at+disclosure+by+Abb as%27s+son+of+vast+personal+fortune.+Millionaire+Y asser+Abbas+blasts+Hamas+for+economic+crisis%2C+sa ys+the+PA+owes+him+money+and+claims+%27most+Palest inians+collaborate+with+Israel%27), just as much today as in Arafat's time.) No, withdrawals did not bring peace but only bombings and rockets and further calls to Israel's destruction. Yes, Israel must brave US pressure and public opinion rants about its "extremism" for saying this and not flinch.

Not only is this the truth, it's the blindingly obvious truth.

Sorry.

[Tsukasa Buddha]

How the hell is that a solution?

It may be a PR solution for foreign media. But how does that address the Problem?

[Oliver]

From the usually excellent Jerusalem Post: *snip*



Could you stop using biased sources? That's so ... gay. :)

[gumboot]

Could you stop using biased sources? That's so ... gay. :)

How dare anyone listen to what Israelis have to say about the issue! :eek:

[Cleon]

The solution -- in an article I for some reason can find online -- is Lieberman's.

Once again, "Skeptic" explicitly endorses bigotry.

It's pathetic and disgusting.

Sorry.

[Skeptic]

To Cleon: sorry, but calling Lieberman a "bigot" or calling me "disgusting" or "pathetic" is simply an ad hominem doesn't change the fact that he is speaking the simple truth, as the articles above notes: all the Israeli withdrawals have done is make the Palestinians demand more, as per the "staged plan" for Israel's destruction, which they not only never renounced, but continue to support it (as well as supporting blood libels, holocaust denial, etc. -- see Abbas' Ph.D. and Hamas TV, to give two examples mentioned in the article).

To Dictator Cheney: thinking that those who disagree with you must be insane is an old progressive belief. It was seen in its worst form in the USSR (when those who opposed the party were put in mental asylums -- if they were lucky, that is) and is much lesser forms -- not so much evil as merely annoying -- in various compulsory "sensitivity training" courses in colleges and work places across the USA. In any case, IDF soldiers tend to be somewhat to the right of the national average, which means -- currently -- supporters of Lieberman or the Likud. So chances are, the mental health person in the army you wish I would see agrees with my, or for that matter Lieberman's, views on the issue.

To Tsukasa Buddha: suppose you had cancer and, as a cure, took homeopathic medicine. If I mentioned that it doesn't help, it's hardly fair to ask me: "so how do YOU cure cancer? How will NOT taking these homeopathic medicines help me?". The point isn't to offer a solution, but to try and stop a dangerous delusion -- namely, that the Palestinians want peace and can be appeased with land from their goal of wiping Israel off the map -- from claiming any more money, time, and above all, lives.

[The Fool]

You make yourselves an international laughing stock by calling that racist your foreign minister.

[Tricky]

The problem is stubbornness. It isn't that Israel or the Palestinians want a homeland. It is that they want that particular piece of land. Nothing else will do. My solution, if Israel would accept it, would be to give them a homeland in one of the states we're not using, like North Dakota. They would be practically free from attacks except the occasional Unibomber. Maybe we could arrange to have some of their holy shrines moved there too. But noooooooo...

[lionking]

Tricky, I know you are trying to fill the void left by TFT, but you need to try much harder. ;)

[zaphod2016]

No, the Palestinians don't want a state; they want Israel's destruction (or, more accurately, they want a state as part of the "Staged Plan" for Israel's destruction) [...] as seen in their speeches, textbooks, television shows, leaders' claims, and so on

Case in point:

AY0zE64thJ4

Which is to say, with family in Israel, I share your concerns, and will not condone this destructive culture of hate.

No, this isn't true for the "extremists" alone, but applies to the PLO and the "moderates" in the PA just as much as to the Hamas

This is where I will disagree. Case in point:

ZhOW__RKx_U

There is great diversity of political views among the Palestinians. And to assume that any race, culture or group is homogeneous politically is prejudiced to the point of being laughable. There are blacks who voted for Hillary, women who voted for Barack, Jews (like me) who support a Palestinian state, and most importantly, Palestinians who have no interest in the destruction of Israel, and seek only peaceful coexistence.

I think the fallacy at play is the false dilemma (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma); the false assertion that either the Palestinians support Israel's agenda, or they seek to destroy it. Or, the equally fallacious: either Israel accepts our demands, or we will reunite Palestine by force of arms. This paradigm rejects any compromise.

The "solution" you advocate here, once labeled the "Final Solution" when deployed against our people some 65 years ago, is nothing less than the total destruction and/or subjugation of the Palestinian people.

The word is genocide (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genocide).

Not only is this the truth, it's the blindingly obvious truth.

Shalom, brother.

[DC]

To Cleon: sorry, but calling Lieberman a "bigot" or calling me "disgusting" or "pathetic" is simply an ad hominem doesn't change the fact that he is speaking the simple truth, as the articles above notes: all the Israeli withdrawals have done is make the Palestinians demand more, as per the "staged plan" for Israel's destruction, which they not only never renounced, but continue to support it (as well as supporting blood libels, holocaust denial, etc. -- see Abbas' Ph.D. and Hamas TV, to give two examples mentioned in the article).

To Dictator Cheney: thinking that those who disagree with you must be insane is an old progressive belief. It was seen in its worst form in the USSR (when those who opposed the party were put in mental asylums -- if they were lucky, that is) and is much lesser forms -- not so much evil as merely annoying -- in various compulsory "sensitivity training" courses in colleges and work places across the USA. In any case, IDF soldiers tend to be somewhat to the right of the national average, which means -- currently -- supporters of Lieberman or the Likud. So chances are, the mental health person in the army you wish I would see agrees with my, or for that matter Lieberman's, views on the issue.

To Tsukasa Buddha: suppose you had cancer and, as a cure, took homeopathic medicine. If I mentioned that it doesn't help, it's hardly fair to ask me: "so how do YOU cure cancer? How will NOT taking these homeopathic medicines help me?". The point isn't to offer a solution, but to try and stop a dangerous delusion -- namely, that the Palestinians want peace and can be appeased with land from their goal of wiping Israel off the map -- from claiming any more money, time, and above all, lives.

hd nothing to do with Disagreement, many ppl are sane and disagree with me and others.
its more your radical ideas.

[Doctor Evil]

This thread is a fairly good representation for the discussion on this subject. It does not make a good picture. I have a few comments:

@Skeptic:

You bring two interesting articles, but I fail to see how they support your assertion regarding a staged plan. Furthermore, I can't understand how telling what you perceive as the truth may count as a solution. You should know that there is a lot of disagreement about facts regarding the I/P conflict, so claiming to have the truth is invariably unhelpful.

@Zhapod2016:
You seem to accuse Skeptic of advocating genocide? WTF? I could not see that in his posts. Misrepresenting other poster views is not a good way to make an argument. This one seems particularly bad to me.

On the linked articles:
One has to do with the demonetization of Jews, and the role that such language played in various genocides. This is a serious issue. As long as these views are credible, and the people espousing them are not embarrassed, the conflict will not be resolved.

The other article has to do with an interview that Saeb Erekat gave to Al-Jazeera. In it he claims that the Palestinians rejected what seems to be a very generous deal offered by Olmert. I have linked to that interview in another thread and no one seemed to notice.

This should be big political news. I fail to understand why this was not followed by other news organizations. For one, I would like to know if there is thruth in that. Why? There are a few reasons for that.

The most basic is that I want to know the truth so that I could readjust my view accordingly. It seems that there was a serious effort to resolve the conflict. If one side insists one unrealistic demands on the other, I would like to know, and appropriate political responsibility.

Lets be clear. To reach a solution both sides would have to make hard decisions. If one side is inflexible, and does not have to pay a political price for that inflexibility, there is no chance for an agreement. It is simple as that.

The last reason has to do with the future. There is a new US administration which will probably push for a new round of negotiations in the next few years. If this story is true then they have no real chance to reach a deal. It would take half a miracle to push the current Israeli government to make a proposal equivalent to the one that the Palestinians may have rejected a mere few months ago. As I said, I would like to know that, but more importantly, they (Clinton, Mitchel, etc.) need to know that.

[Skeptic]

Well, when you educate your children that the Jews wish to control the world, eat Muslim babies (literally), and that Palestine will be liberated "from the river to the sea" and that Israel must be wiped off the face of the earth, etc. -- as well as repeatedly have your leaders declare it, your Constitution claim it, etc. -- it is quite clear that what you want is not peace, but the destruction of Israel.

We can also add Arafat's repeated claims to his cronies that, yes, his goal is just that -- Jihad to destroy Israel -- both before and after the Oslo accord, which he repeatedly said would be broken the moment it's convenient after continuing to plan war, which is, of course, exactly what he did.

I mean, how much MORE proof could you want that the Palestinian goal is to destroy Israel, not peace?

And no, blaming it all on "the occupation" won't fly -- especially since there is a direct INVERSE link between how much land Israel occupied and how much terrorism it got: the less it occupied, the more it gave the Palestinians self-rule, the more it was attacked, since every square inch it gave up was just used as a base to launch attacks on it by Arafat's and Hamas' goons (not that there's much of a difference between the two).

By the way, in an independence day interview, the ex-chief of staff ("Boogy" Ye'elon) only yesterday said, essentially, what I said, only in a nicer way (e.g., that the Palestinians don't want peace and all this talk about "solution" and "peace" amout to "give them a state so they can use it to fight us"). So did, a couple of years ago, Dr. Aumann, the Nobel prize winner in economics from the Hebrew University (again in nicer words but with the same essence).

Buuuuuuuuuuuuut, what the heck do THEY know.

he other article has to do with an interview that Saeb Erekat gave to Al-Jazeera. In it he claims that the Palestinians rejected what seems to be a very generous deal offered by Olmert.

Er, not exactly. That was part of it, but, rejecting generous offers is one thing. The important part was that when Saeb Arekat, the chief Palestinian negotiator, was asked by Clinton (or Bush, I don't recall) to recognize that there was once a Jewish temple where the mosque now stands (merely as an historical fact, not as a claim for any Israeli demands), he replied:

(a) There was no such temple, it's all a Zionist invention;
(b) It does not matter what they sign now, because "someone will liberate Jerusalem" (that is, destroy Israel) "in 10, 50, 100 years" and then "there will be nothing except Allah" in the temple mount (that is, the Jews will all be killed or expelled).

This is Arekat (English sp?), the most "moderate" and "good" Palestinian of the "moderate" PA. But he was angry at the time so he blurted out the truth (as did Arafat, repeatedly, to friendly audiences, calling for Israel's destruction repeatedly long after signing the Oslo "peace" accords).

The difference between the "moderate" PA and the "extreme" Hamas is not in the goals -- the detruction of Israel -- but merely in the way to do it.

[Beerina]

The solution -- in an article I for some reason can find online -- is Lieberman's. Tell the truth. No, the Palestinians don't want a state; they want Israel's destruction (or, more accurately, they want a state as part of the "Staged Plan" for Israel's destruction).


Hmmm. I find the idea that the leaders are just the usual folks seeking power and wealth, and thus use the classic tactic of re-directing their subjects' hatred against an external enemy, to have far more explanatory and predictive value.


To separate the two, let's do a (sadly, still hopefully) gedankenexperiment: If the capacity to literally destroy Israel came up, e.g. several atomic bombs they got ahold of some way, would they use it?

By your theory, yes.

By my theory, no, because the leaders know they'd not only lose the support of the useful idiots in the West, but would also suffer from a rapid military response from what's left of Israel, not to mention the US. I.e. they'd be killed or captured.


I wonder which would happen? I give up. I cannot predict.

[Doctor Evil]

Er, not exactly. That was part of it, but, rejecting generous offers is one thing. The important part was that when Saeb Arekat, the chief Palestinian negotiator, was asked by Clinton (or Bush, I don't recall) to recognize that there was once a Jewish temple where the mosque now stands (merely as an historical fact, not as a claim for any Israeli demands), he replied:

(a) There was no such temple, it's all a Zionist invention;
(b) It does not matter what they sign now, because "someone will liberate Jerusalem" (that is, destroy Israel) "in 10, 50, 100 years" and then "there will be nothing except Allah" in the temple mount (that is, the Jews will all be killed or expelled).


Clinton was not talking to Erekat, but rather to Arafat. After hearing Arafat response, Clinton told him that if he claims this again he (Clinton) would leave the talks. You can conclude from the interview that Erekat agrees with Arafat's view.

Erekat seems to take pride in what I find an embarrassing and anti-historical viewpoint. He should be called on it. He should be embarrassed. I would agree with that.

As to your main point. You can claim that Arafat was not interested in ending the conflict. After reading Denis Ross' book, I would even agree with you. Where I disagree, is the idea that all Palestinian leaders share this position. You even seem to take this further, and claim that future Palestinian leaders will invariably hold such views. I strongly disagree with that.

The way forward, in my opinion, is to include a statement that declares that the Palestinians have give up any further claims as an integral part of any proposed final status agreement between the sides. This will be a binding, public commitment to drop any future intentions. It will change the notion on what is politically acceptable, and what is not.

[zaphod2016]

@Zhapod2016:
You seem to accuse Skeptic of advocating genocide? WTF? I could not see that in his posts. Misrepresenting other poster views is not a good way to make an argument. This one seems particularly bad to me.


I did not mean to misinterpret Skeptic; perhaps I misunderstood him.

As I understand it, Skeptic's opinion is that Palestine's goal is to destroy Israel, and no compromise can be made.

If this is the case, what, exactly, is the end-game for Israel and Palestine?

[Skeptic]

Why should there BE an end-game? There is no end-game with those who will wish to destroy you no matter what you offer them; indeed, that the more you offer them, the more they wish you dead. The whole point is that sometimes there is no solution, and searching for fake solutions ("end game", "comprehensive peace", etc.) is merely helping those who want you dead, since it amounts to simple appeasement of terror.

This does not mean to imply, at all, that the honest wish of many people to see a peaceful solution is DELIBERATELY serving Hamas' or PLO's goal of destroying Israel. If anything, the intention in most cases is the opposite. But just like Chamberline's appeasement in the 1930s, whose goal was to avoid war, made war more likely, the same occurs here.

[ImaginalDisc]

Some peple paint with a broad brush. You, Skeptic, paint with a hose.

[a_unique_person]

@Zhapod2016:
You seem to accuse Skeptic of advocating genocide? WTF? I could not see that in his posts. Misrepresenting other poster views is not a good way to make an argument. This one seems particularly bad to me.


You haven't read about Skeptic's army boots yet?

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=140994

[zaphod2016]

Why should there BE an end-game?

Because there is no good reason why any Israeli should want this to continue.

But just like Chamberline's appeasement in the 1930s, whose goal was to avoid war, made war more likely, the same occurs here.

So, you are advocating confrontation, rather than appeasement. I can understand that.

But in practice, what does this actually mean? Israel should just keep on bombing the [rule10] out of the Palestinians? And what about those who survive?

What are the options?

a) Lasting peace (impossible according to you)

b) Genocide of the Palestinians

c) Genocide of the Israelis

d) A never ending series of attacks in which civilians are killed

Is there another option I'm not aware of?

If you were to say to me: peace is impossible, the Palestinians are sub-human, and the only solution is to slaughter them all like animals, at least I can understand how the conflict might end. I don't agree, but at least it makes sense strategically.

But the current paradigm; Hammas kills Israeli civilians, so the Israelis respond by killing Palestinian civilians, wash, rinse, repeat, seems to do nothing but radicalize both sides.

Let me ask it like this: surely we agree that Israel has the military capability to wipe the Palestinians from the face of the Earth. So what are we waiting for? If the Palestinians cannot be handled peacefully, what choice is there other than genocide?

[lionking]

Because there is no good reason why any Israeli should want this to continue.



So, you are advocating confrontation, rather than appeasement. I can understand that.

But in practice, what does this actually mean? Israel should just keep on bombing the [rule10] out of the Palestinians? And what about those who survive?

What are the options?

a) Lasting peace (impossible according to you)

b) Genocide of the Palestinians

c) Genocide of the Israelis

d) A never ending series of attacks in which civilians are killed

Is there another option I'm not aware of?

If you were to say to me: peace is impossible, the Palestinians are sub-human, and the only solution is to slaughter them all like animals, at least I can understand how the conflict might end. I don't agree, but at least it makes sense strategically.

But the current paradigm; Hammas kills Israeli civilians, so the Israelis respond by killing Palestinian civilians, wash, rinse, repeat, seems to do nothing but radicalize both sides.

Let me ask it like this: surely we agree that Israel has the military capability to wipe the Palestinians from the face of the Earth. So what are we waiting for? If the Palestinians cannot be handled peacefully, what choice is there other than genocide?
I stopped counting the strawmen in this post after about five.

[zaphod2016]

I stopped counting the strawmen in this post after about five.

That doesn't really address the question.

Ignore my straw men, and help educate me: what is the best course of action here?

[zaphod2016]

Still waiting for an answer.

[Darth Rotor]

Because there is no good reason why any Israeli should want this to continue.

So, you are advocating confrontation, rather than appeasement. I can understand that.

But in practice, what does this actually mean? Israel should just keep on bombing the [rule10] out of the Palestinians? And what about those who survive?

What are the options?

a) Lasting peace (impossible according to you)

b) Genocide of the Palestinians

c) Genocide of the Israelis

d) A never ending series of attacks in which civilians are killed
Your use of the word "civilians" here strikes me as naive.

What the Pals and Israelis are doing is not enlightenment era war of kings. It's a more visceral war. It makes little distinction between "civilian" and "soldier" but rather clumps the lot into a group called "them sunzabitches" in various local dialects. Though I will say I found somewhat heartening the reports, from the recent Pal/Isr scrap in Gaza, that the Israelis were warning non combatants to leave certain areas due to them being about to bomb/shell said areas. If they did that, good on them.

As to your menu, item d is the most likely state of play, in which the rest of the world will be asked to care if today some thirty or forty 36 Palestinian Arabs died in a fight of some sort, or some dozen Israelis were killed in some scrap.

DR

[Marc39]

The problem is stubbornness. It isn't that Israel or the Palestinians want a homeland. It is that they want that particular piece of land.

Funny how the Pals never really wanted that particular piece of land until Jews wanted it.

Nothing else will do.

Sure, something else will do: Pals moving to Jordan for starters, or, the other Arab countries their families originated from.

My solution, if Israel would accept it, would be to give them a homeland in one of the states we're not using, like North Dakota.

Israel has a nicer view of the Mediterranean.

They would be practically free from attacks except the occasional Unibomber.

Can you get a good falafel there?

Maybe we could arrange to have some of their holy shrines moved there too. But noooooooo...

Does Bekins send moving trucks to the Middle East?

[Darth Rotor]

Funny how the Pals never really wanted that particular piece of land until Jews wanted it.

Huh? I live on a ranch, let's say. But I don't really want that ranch until someone comes along and tries to make me move off by cutting off the water supply.

Makes as much sense a you just made.
Sure, something else will do: Pals moving to Jordan for starters, or, the other Arab countries their families originated from.
OK, but did not some Arab families originate in the land they call Palestine, and you call Israel?

What then? Or are you really on the "send them back to Africa" jag George Wallace got onto in the US back in the 1960's.
Israel has a nicer view of the Mediterranean.
True.
Can you get a good falafel there?
I got a good one in Haifa once.
Does Bekins send moving trucks to the Middle East?
Why should they? Plenty of hard working local firms who can do the work.

DR

[Marc39]

Huh? I live on a ranch, let's say. But I don't really want that ranch until someone comes along and tries to make me move off by cutting off the water supply.

Makes as much sense a you just made.

No, not really. There was never a sense of yearning among Arabs of Palestine as a homeland, as exists among Jews.

OK, but did not some Arab families originate in the land they call Palestine, and you call Israel?

Some. Most did not.

What then? Or are you really on the "send them back to Africa" jag George Wallace got onto in the US back in the 1960's.

Well, Jordan IS mostly Palestinian. And, Jordan's Queen Noor is vastly better-looking than Mahmoud Abbas.

[Darth Rotor]

No, not really. There was never a sense of yearning among Arabs of Palestine as a homeland, as exists among Jews.
So the Pals, not being God's chosen people, were not gifted with yearning. Is that it?
Well, Jordan IS mostly Palestinian. And, Jordan's Queen Noor is vastly better-looking than Mahmoud Abbas.
Hard to argue against that. :boggled:

DR

[Marc39]

So the Pals, not being God's chosen people, were not gifted with yearning. Is that it?

Pals originated from the Arabian Peninsula, so, perhaps, their yearning has been really to return to Saudi Arabia.

[Darth Rotor]

Pals originated from the Arabian Peninsula, so, perhaps, their yearning has been really to return to Saudi Arabia.
Funny, I moved to Texas in 1981. In 2004, when I had been gone less than six months, I had a powerful yearning to return to Texas. I ended up back in Texas, where I still live.

Does that make me a Jew, or a True Texan?

DR

[Thunder]

Pals originated from the Arabian Peninsula, so, perhaps, their yearning has been really to return to Saudi Arabia.

The Jews originated from south-eastern Iraq. Read Genesis.

Never mind the fact that many many Mediteranean peoples converted to Judaism before Christianity made it illegal in the 4th Century.

ie.....Herod the Great, was a covert. Moses' wife, was an Arab.

[Marc39]

Funny, I moved to Texas in 1981. In 2004, when I had been gone less than six months, I had a powerful yearning to return to Texas. I ended up back in Texas, where I still live.

Does that make me a Jew, or a True Texan?

DR

It makes you too dependent on analogies.

[Cuddles]

Several posts have been moved to AAH. Stop the bickering and don't derail the topic with arguments from other threads.