Texas Talk on Palestine

[FRIZ]

The Wall Street Journal
April 16, 2004; Page A14

Texas Talk on Palestine
Editorial

http://online.wsj.com/article/0,,SB108207335944484516,00.html

Listening to the furious reaction to President Bush's letter to Ariel Sharon, you would never know that it reiterated his call for a Palestinian state that is "viable, contiguous, sovereign, and independent."

Instead, Mr. Bush now finds himself blasted for a "drastic and unfortunate policy reversal" that will "put the final nail in the coffin of the peace process." His move, say critics, risks "inflaming the Arab world," angers "moderate" Arab governments and might aggravate the situation in Iraq.

There may indeed be a lost opportunity here, but it's not the one Mr. Bush's opponents think. In his declaration that any two-state resolution of the crisis could include some Israeli settlements on post-1949 lands and the resettlement of Palestinian refugees in a Palestinian state, Mr. Bush did not so much break new ground as acknowledge demographic reality. Those attacking him for daring to speak this frankly only encourage Palestinian hardliners to continue along their debilitating course of rejectionism.

Rather than losing his credibility as an honest broker, as critics charge, the President's straight talk has strengthened his position. Anyone who claims to be a moderator in the pursuit of a just, two-state solution for Israelis and Palestinians cannot at the same time tolerate ideas that would lead to the demise of one of those states. A "right of return" for Palestinians to Israel is such an idea.

All this passion over Mr. Bush's words, moreover, overshadows the significance of the withdrawal plan itself. After three years of relentless terror, Prime Minister Sharon -- the father of the settlement movement -- has agreed to withdraw all 7,500 Israeli settlers and all military installations from Gaza and four settlements from the West Bank.

At the very least, such a withdrawal will remove frictions between Israelis and Palestinians in Gaza, ending daily confrontations over roadblocks, checkpoints and curfews. The security barrier Israel builds in conjunction with the disengagement plan is designed to make it harder for terrorists to carry out their attacks, reducing the number of Israeli counterattacks. This will be the first positive step in the region in more than three years. By leaving Gaza, Mr. Sharon puts the ball squarely into the Palestinian court.

In his letter, Mr. Bush lays out the obligations Palestinians have: to stop the terror, to demonstrate a commitment to political reform, to start behaving like a respectable government. But the underlying message -- underscored by the U.S. embrace of the Sharon plan -- is that the Palestinian failure to meet those obligations will have consequences in American foreign policy.

In this light, keeping alive the myth that Palestinian refugees will "return" to Israel does the Palestinian people a disservice by emboldening hardliners and making it impossible for moderate voices to gain popular support. Mr. Bush makes plain that he remains willing to work with the Palestinians in pursuit of a viable state and lays out the terms for doing so. The real question here is whether they will take him up on it.

 

[rich2u]

What peace process? I thought that went up in smoke when arafat unleashed the infada. Hey if the euros & palestineians are bithchin, Bush must have done something right

 

[JoeSF]

I used to have sympathy for the Palestinan cause. I do not any longer. Wherever the Islamists are they bring death and destruction, be it the Sudan, Ethiopia,Indonesia, Kashmir, Chechnya, Israel, Spain, the Phillpines,New York, Washington, Turkey, Kenya........and Palestine.

 

[Sam Adams]

The Pallie leadership is just a bunch of murderous terrorists (redundancy alert!). As such, Bush should let Israel know in no uncertain terms that it has as much right as the US does to pursue and capture/kill terrorist leaders and operatives and disrupt terrorist networks - and, in fact, that we encourage it, since the demise of such people and networks is to our benefit as well as Israel's. I, for one, wouldn't mind seeing the Israelis kill Arafat and everyone holed-up with him in that compound in Ramallah - he is, after all, their Bin Laden.

The WSJ is wrong: what Bush said wasn't "Texas Talk." Texas talk would be: "You're in the same war against the friends of those that we're fighting: kill as many as you can as fast as you can, just like we are, until you run out of targets."

 

[Standing Wolf]

If that's a peace process, I'd sure as @#$%^&! hate to see a war process!

 

[HBK]

The Palestinians should be allowed to go to their homeland, which is Jordan and other nearby Arab countries. There is really no such thing as a "Palestinian". They should certainly not be given any part of Israel. It's no secret that the Arabs want the Jews dead. The little Palestinian conflict is just a way to garner sympathy from idiots. THe Israeli army targets terror leaders. THe Palestinian terror groups target civilians. It's that simple.

 

[HBK]

I also like the "kill as many as you can as fast as you can until you run out of targets" approach put forth by Sam Adams. He makes a great beer too.

 

[ChristopherG]

Okay, I'll dissent; but rather than trying to champion the Palestinian cause or dredge up accounts of past peace attempts, let me just ask a simple question (and I really am open to hearing replies): How do our ties to Israel help the United States? What national interest is secured by the billions in miitary and other aid we continue to pour into Israel?

And, as a partial preemptive rebuttal, let's imagine someone says: "They are enemies of terrorists who are also our enemies." Well, yes, that's true--but why are they also our enemies? Poll the Arab street, and you'll find that the overwhelming mainspring of hostility to the US is its affiliation with Israel. So that defense of alliance with Israel is a bit of a vicious circle.

I know there are influential segments of the American electorate and establishment that think Israel is important for their visions of the divinely orchestrated end of the world; I can only hope (though I fear I'm wrong in this) that such factors play no role in American foreign policy.

Just in case anyone should wonder, I'm not a racist or antisemite or a holocaust denier or anything of the sort; I'm just trying to think clearly about foreign policy. Okay, I've said enough; what say you?

 

[Art Eatman]

Chris, I'll offer an admittedly simplistic answer to your first question "How do our ties to Israel help the United States? What national interest is secured by the billions in miitary and other aid we continue to pour into Israel?"

It's one of the few areas of our foreign policy that looks more to morality than to realpolitik. Support of Israel is just the right thing to do. Preventing genocide is the right thing to do.

As far as the Arabs' enmity toward us because of this support, well, send them to the Chaplain so they can get their TS cards punched. We helped prevent the genocidal attempts of 1967 and 1973; they're losers and like most losers, won't admit to any mistakes.

I really doubt that Biblical stuff affects more than some miniscule and relatively unimportant folks in either our general population or our government. IMO, the reasons for our support of Israel are secular.

To have any real understanding of the problems of the mideast means at least a more-than-cursory look at the history of the late 19th century and the first half of the 20th, insofar as European "carvings" and controls of the various areas. I've no idea why, but the whole 1948 UN thrash about the creation of Israel caught my imagination, even though I was only 14 and certainly not Jewish. Might have had to do with the 1945 newsreels of the liberations of the Nazi camps and the maltreatments the Jews endured.

And I gotta admit, I really like the philosophy behind "Masada shall not fall again."

Art

 

[Iain]

Often a forgotten people.

http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2003/131/53.0.html

Palestinian Christians have suffered discrimination—and brutality—from Israel. Even though the Israeli constitution assures Christians "freedom of religion, conscience, education and culture," they live as second-class citizens. Israel refuses to allow them to serve in its military, and Palestinian Christians have fewer educational and employment opportunities. Also, Israel's troops, in response to suicidal terrorists bombing Israeli citizens, have confiscated land belonging to Palestinian Christians.

Since the founding of Israel, massive numbers of Palestinian Christians have left the Holy Land, due to Israel's occupation of their land and the dismal state of the economy in Palestinian towns. Today, they make up only 2 percent of the country, when they claimed 17 percent of the population around 1900.

edited to add - more here http://www.jerusalemites.org/jerusalem/christianity/47.htm

Not sure what I think about this, merely pointing out that these people are often forgotten.

As far as the rest of it goes...Saddam may have given money to the families of suicide bombers and OBL may claim that the elimination of the existance of Israel is part of his cause but I don't see a huge link between the Palestinians as a whole and Arabic terrorists other than the links of ethnicity and religion. Some Palestinians want the eradication of Israel and obviously this cannot be supported or tolerated, some want what they see as justice.

I'm not entirely up on my Palestinian history, but I doubt those of you who want to drive them all to Jordan are either. Somebody was living there prior to 1948 - a lot of them were Jews and a good number were Palestinians.

As far as the reasons some may want Israel to be there - millenarian Christianity and Judaism make uneasy bedfellows.

 

[seeker_two]

The Palestinians should thank Allah that, due to recent Jewish cultural history, that the Israelis haven't decided to enact a "final solution" to the Palestinian terrorist problem...

However, I would expect some "selective amnesia" from Israel soon if Arafat doesn't rescind the intafada soon...

 

[Langenator]

Actually, I could see the Israelis reacting more like the Romans did a couple millenia ago when the Jews were being a PITA to Rome-can you say "Diaspora?"

 

[Iain]

The Palestinians should thank Allah that, due to recent Jewish cultural history, that the Israelis haven't decided to enact a "final solution" to the Palestinian terrorist problem..

I must have missed the day that Palestinians became less than people.

 

[ChristopherG]

Art, I think you're both thoughtful and probably right, here: it is in effect a 'moral' decision for the US to be uniquely and persistently allied with Israel (though my suspicions about the political role of both Jews and Apocalyptic Christians behind this particular 'moral' decision run pretty deep). It must have been instructive to have lived through the formation of the state of Israel; my information comes only from reading and Chaim Potok's 'The Chosen'. This question always comes up for me because, when I was on the debate team of my highschool, we developed this case (back in 82, I think) and argued for the advantages--clearly, realpolitik advantages--that a turn towards the Arab world (and away from Israel) might produce. It was, I think, a pretty good case.

Admittedly, the moral dimension of the question was pretty clear in 1948. I guess my ponderings over developments in my adult lifetime lead me down the path to asking something like this: How much violence--defensive or offensive or of any sort--is finally justified in the defense of a particular culture? I mean, Jews and Arabs are genetically undifferentiated; there's no 'people' here biologically at risk. And it is at least theoretically possible that a pluralistic and free state is possible in a land whose ethos is Islamic (indeed they existed, to an extent, while Europe was mired in totalitarian Medieval Christendom), so it's not like the choice is necessarily between Israel and the Taliban. One might argue, really, that in order for the US to help bring into existence such an Islamic society, to gain street cred in the Islamic world, turning away from Israel and toward the Arab world would be the best thing imaginable.

Oh, well, I'm certainly not going to hold my breath, nor would I greet such a move with unambiguous pleasure. Just something I ponder as we face a situation in which the only available moves have led to more dead people.

 

[seeker_two]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Palestinians should thank Allah that, due to recent Jewish cultural history, that the Israelis haven't decided to enact a "final solution" to the Palestinian terrorist problem..
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



I must have missed the day that Palestinians became less than people.


__________________

And I missed the day that Israeli women & children in shopping malls & nightclubs became considered legitimate military targets in a "war for independence"...

They've been lucky so far. I hope they wise up before said luck runs out...

 

[cheygriz]

Chris,

There are times when a man, or a nation, does something that will bring no pwersonal or national benefit, but it is done simply because it's right. IMHO, we support the Israelis because it's the right thing to do.

St. Johns- as an apologist for those animals, you won't read my response, but I'll post it anyway. The so-called Palestinians became less than people when they became terrorists. Plain and simple to anyone who isn't a left-wing apologist.

 

[Iain]

An apologist?

I've been awaiting responses on this thread with interest half expecting to be called an anti-semite or an apologist. I was actually hoping for some intelligent feedback on what I said, there are plenty here capable of that.

The so-called Palestinians became less than people when they became terrorists. Plain and simple to anyone who isn't a left-wing apologist.

Every palestinian is a terrorist and deserves a dogs death? Do you ever wonder how Hitler managed to persuade a good proportion of the German populace that everything that was wrong with Germany was the fault of the Jews? By demonising them and reducing them to a sub-human standard. You have to do this for it to become possible for ordinary people to accept the mass killing or ill treatment of a segment of society or a race.

Try and make an assumption about my politics on the basis of one post and I can guarantee you'll be wrong. And I'll read every response.

 

[Jeff Thomas]

1. Re: differentiating between radical Islamist terrorist savages who are Palestinian and radical Islamist terrorist savages who are Saudi, or Yemeni, or Filipino ... this effort obscures reality. How logical would it have been in the late 30's to differentiate between Nazi's in Germany, Norway, or even the U.S.? Eventually, even most of the apologists today will have to admit that radical Islamists are aiding and abetting each other. In the meantime, we have the intellectually embarrassing image of various American's taking the unlikely position that radical Islamists aren't cooperating with each other. It defies logic.

2. All Palestinians are obviously not terrorists no more than all Muslims are terrorists ... this is a specious, straw man argument. However, a legitimate question is the matter of degree and participation. It was a logical question during WWII to determine the culpability of the German people ... the debate continues today. But one fact was critical ... except for occasional assassination attempts against Hitler, the German people supported that murderous regime in act and to a great degree in spirit. At this time, significant numbers of Muslims appear to support radical Islamists. It is silly to argue whether all Muslims or Palestinians are terrorists ... the only fact that matters is whether their support is sufficient to continue the terror, and if significant numbers of Muslims aid and abet that terror. The jury is out.

3. Back to the point of the thread, I believe one major factor in our support for Israel is the Holocaust, and American revulsion at that action and our own relative inaction at the time. In addition, we have a significant Jewish population in the U.S., many of whom are understandably supportive of Israel. Finally, there is the historical American pull for the underdog ... and without American support, Israel would be facing well-armed enemies from every quarter who would likely make fast work of eliminating her from the face of the earth. Are most Americans really willing to wake up one day and read how Israelis were butchered by their neighbors, and driven from Israel. I don't think so ... though some American apologists for radical Islam seemingly call for this logical end.

Glad to see the WSJ piece ... thanks.

Regards from TX

 

[Iain]

1. Re: differentiating between radical Islamist terrorist savages who are Palestinian and radical Islamist terrorist savages who are Saudi, or Yemeni, or Filipino ... this effort obscures reality. How logical would it have been in the late 30's to differentiate between Nazi's in Germany, Norway, or even the U.S.? Eventually, even most of the apologists today will have to admit that radical Islamists are aiding and abetting each other. In the meantime, we have the intellectually embarrassing image of various American's taking the unlikely position that radical Islamists aren't cooperating with each other. It defies logic.

I don't see how it obscures reality. The Palestinian people (minus the terrorist element) are the pawns of figures such as OBL. Without them his views on the Jewish people would be simply one of hate. As it is the way things are now for the Palestinians means that he probably does garner support from certain Palestinians because he appears to be on their side. OBL's fight is with America and the West though, what has he done about Israel? Nothing so far, thank God. Saddam was a secular man who supported Palestinian terrorist attempts, again for his own reasons but who knows what they were.

2. All Palestinians are obviously not terrorists no more than all Muslims are terrorists ... this is a specious, straw man argument. However, a legitimate question is the matter of degree and participation. It was a logical question during WWII to determine the culpability of the German people ... the debate continues today. But one fact was critical ... except for occasional assassination attempts against Hitler, the German people supported that murderous regime in act and to a great degree in spirit. At this time, significant numbers of Muslims appear to support radical Islamists. It is silly to argue whether all Muslims or Palestinians are terrorists ... the only fact that matters is whether their support is sufficient to continue the terror, and if significant numbers of Muslims aid and abet that terror. The jury is out.

I assume you are saying that the argument that all Palestinians are terrorists is the specious argument. It is. The reason I am in this argument at all is because some people who have posted in this thread are getting very anti-arabic. The 'final solution' was a terrible thing in the 1940's, it still is a terrible thing to advocate upon any group.

Now, as for the 'the only fact that matters is whether their support is sufficient to continue the terror'. I ask those who wish to crush the populace of towns like Fallujah and those in Palestine due to some idea of 'guilt by association' how they would have reacted had the British destroyed the Falls Road in the 1980's because everyone along that road knew who the terrorists were and what they were up to? The thing is the Irish speak the same language and have a similar culture - had the British done that the anti-British posting around here would probably be worse, but how is it different to what they advocate in Israel and Iraq? Sometimes I thank God that the American and Israeli govts clearly do know better.

Hitler was widely supported because he seemed and claimed to be the only way out of the mess 1930's Germany was in. As long as we leave the field to men like him by acting terribly towards another nation and leaving it's populace with no hope, there will be men like him. Terribly left-wing thoughts huh?

On to point 3. I agree with Art, preventing genocide by supporting Israel is the right thing to do. As long as we don't become so blinded by the arguments of one side that we allow the reverse to occur by dehumanising and categorising all Palestinians as terrorists.
(Jeff, not addressing all those points at you, more using your post to present my own viewpoints, don't take personal offence)

SeekerTwo,

And I missed the day that Israeli women & children in shopping malls & nightclubs became considered legitimate military targets in a "war for independence"

I missed that day too.

Why is that people around here assume that because you don't support one side you must support the other fully and in all their actions? I never said I don't support Israel, and I never said I support Palestinian terrorists. You want to hear all the arguments from one side people? Fine, but I want to hear both - it seems like a good thing. Far too much creation of 'you're with us or against us' false dichotomies around here.

What do you want around here? Threads that advocate the mass killing and ill treatment of people (like the nuke Fallujah threads) and lots of posters responding in kind? A kind of massive 'yes man' forum for extremists?

 

[utahminirevolver]

About why it's in our national interest to help Israel:
Jihadists don't just hate and want to exterminate the Jews,
the Jews are merely first on their list of Infidels.
Infidels are any who do not subscribe to the Jihadists' brand of Islam.
That includes pretty well all of us in the west.
Jihadists dream of world conquest.
Infidels will be given the choice of the Book (Quran) or the Sword.
Convert or die.
And as converts, expect to be viewed with suspicion and treated as a slave.
Liberals effectively advise us to just stand idlely by and wait our turn.
Let the jihadists divide the world and conquer it bit by bit. First Israel, then the US, then Europe, India, Russia, Canada, Australia, China, etc.
Winston Churchill noted that death isn't as bad as slavery.
Lao Tzu in his Tao Te Ching circa 500BC noted, "Confront the difficult while it is still easy", prevent trouble before it arises", and "the giant pine tree grows from a tiny sprout". Worldwide jihad has become bigger than just a tiny sprout already, but stopping it now will be easier than later when it's morphed into an even bigger monster.

 

[El Tejon]

Wow, quoting Lao Tzu! Utah, welcome to THR.

Jeff Thomas, I think David Horowitz nailed the problem when he wrote that the American Left believe that because they are so much better than Arab terrorists that the Arab terrorists will never do as they say. I.e., the Left's arrogance blinds them to reality.

 

[atek3]

Forgive me, I haven't really be throwing my two cents into the palestine vs. israeli debate because (except for the tax money stolen to fund israel) it really doesn't affect me. However, after reading MadMike's fine book Freehold, war has become a more thought provoking topic for me.

As long as there are jewish people in israeli and palestinians that hate and wish to kill jews there will be a conflict in the middle east, right? I'm sympathetic to the arguement that establishing a palestinian state will not ameliorate the problems of israeli. For one, some palestinians rightly or wrongly view some pre-1967 israeli soil as theirs and will fight to get it. Secondly, any palestinian government which attempted to repress palestianian terrorists would be overthrown and replaced by one that was AT LEAST sympathetic to the terrorists. Thirdly, many palestians view the only good jew, as a dead jew, and won't stop fighting until they are either dead or rendered permenantly incapable of holding an AK, or strapping on semtex. Fourth, the inability to distinguish non-combatants from terrorists makes any kind of 'selective response' almost impossible for israel. I don´t see how any of the proposed solutions are going to permanently end the conflict in that region, save the kind of barbaric 'final solutions' that would get israel bombed off the map so fast it would make your head spin.
Has anyone thought about just ceding jewish people a huge swath of contigious uninhabited federal land and saying, 'come on in, the weather is fine?'. Then their wouldn't have to be 'checkpoints', security walls, 'extrajudicial killings', homicide bombers, etc. etc.
Granted moving expenses would be high, but compared to 30 years of low level war, pretty darn cheap.

To me this would be much preferable to having to take sides (financially and militarily) in a thousand year old war with only 9-11 and a bunch of dead people to show for our expense.

atek3

 

[Iain]

Unfortunately the problem with that is atek that the land all around there is highly symbolic to three major religions.

I can't see the establishment of a Palestinian state helping much either. A friend is Israeli and he is very pessimistic about there ever being a prospect of peace, and I have to agree to a great extent.

There is however, no need for a 'final solution' nor the dehumanising language and attitude demonstrated by some posters when referring to Palestinians (and Arabs in general). ChristopherG said it best for me:

"so it's not like the choice is necessarily between Israel and the Taliban"

Some here seem desperately keen to view all decisions and conflicts as though it were that choice.

 

[atek3]

Unfortunately the problem with that is atek that the land all around there is highly symbolic to three major religions.

If those three religions are willing to embrace irrationality and blow each other up over a few square miles then I say the US should get the heck out of the way and stop sending billions to israel.

atek3

 

[rich2u]

I think the religious aspects are overblown. The arabs use that as a cover to kill jews. The bottom line is the holy city was off limits to everyone except the muslims when it was under jordanian control. When Israel took over everyone is allowed to come in.

As the only democracy in the mideast we have an obligation to help Israel. my 2 cents anyways