The Lie of Victory

[Reffo]

The article below from the Haaretz, by Bradley Burston, does have some substance. Parts of it ring true, but IMO it's an over simplification because it makes it sound as if Israel's options are as open as those of the Palestinians. Although I don't believe that the author wishes to do harm to Israel, on the contrary, I sense that in his own way he means well, nevertheless he makes it sound as if there is moral equivalence between Israel and the Palestinians and that's just ain't so!

Although I do agree with his conclusion that there is no possibility for victory, I don't agree with his seeming conclusions that Israel should therefore ease off the pressure. My fear is that if Israel mistakenly lets down it's guard, that may in fact result in total victory for the Arabs (and we all know what that means!). So all Israel can hope for is to do it's best to minimise the damage. Sure, there is no victory in sight for Israel in the foreseeable future but at least they can make sure that: "Massada does not fall again"! And that too is a victory of some sorts!!!!

Any other comments by anyone.........?

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/S...1&contrassID=2

The lie of victory

By Bradley Burston

We love the smell of victory in the morning.

It smells like ... a lie.

It smells like the lies we tell ourselves to ward off the terrible fear that our side may be, to some extent, mistaken, and our enemy may, to some extent, have a point.

It smells like the self-satisfaction with which we extol our virtuousness, our sacrifice, our very selflessness - all the while reducing the enemy to an abstraction, a caricature of bad intentions and vile deeds.

It smells like the near-erotic, near-narcotic rush that our hotheads get from extremism, especially the narcissistically heroic partisans who live nowhere near here.

It's a coping mechanism, this lying to ourselves. It's a defense mechanism, this lying to others. Who could blame us? Life here is hard, on both sides.

Where the truth hurts, a lie anesthetizes.

It could be argued that, since we tend to believe half-truths with our whole hearts, these are not lies at all.

Whatever we choose to call them, these tenets of suspended disbelief refuse to die.

So let us celebrate them for what they are: glorious crutches, magnificent stumbling blocks, our slippery rock, our inept redeemer.

Of all the lies, the lie of victory is surely the most insidious. It says to us - Israeli and Palestinian as one - that if we were to apply more firepower, endure more punishment, display more unity, take a harder line throughout - we will gain a final, permanent, satisfying victory over the other.

It is, like all of our lies, alluring. It is, in fact, the most alluring, perhaps because it is composed of all the others.

The Top 10 Lies We Live By:

10. The lie of We Were Here First

What Palestinians tell themselves: We are the descendants of the Canaanites, we were here before you. We are the heirs of Ishmael, the first son of Abraham. Your claims to be the descendants of the Hebrews are specious. You are Russians, Americans, Khazars. We were here before you. We have been here forever. Nothing can make us leave.

What Israelis tell themselves: We are the direct and genuine heirs of Abraham, who willed his inheritance to his son Isaac, whose son took the name Israel. Your claims to be Canaanites are specious. Many of you came from neighboring Arab lands a few generations ago. We were here before you. We have been here forever. Nothing can make us leave.

9. The lie of the State They Don't Deserve

Right-wing Israeli version: There is no such entity as a Palestine, and no Palestinian people, as such. They are artificial constructs, to serve the aim of ousting the Jews from their land. Moreover, terror has shown them undeserving of a state.

Militant Palestinian version: The Jews are a foreign growth in the body of Palestine. They came here from Europe and America, expelling Palestinians in the process, and it is time for both to return to their respective homes. The state of the Zionists is illegal, it is build on land that was part of the nation of Islam, and will not endure.

The truth: [Leaving alone the circumstance that most Israelis are native-born, and many trace their roots to Muslim countries from which their ancestors were expelled]

The principle of self-determination and the history of national movements, to say nothing of the development of Zionism and the Palestinian statehood movement, suggest that peoples themselves are empowered to decide if they constitute a people, and if that people legitimately aspires to independence.

This lie is close to, but not the same as:

8. We don't recognize them.

But we do, of course. Hamas talks about Israel incessantly. Israel talks about Hamas in nearly every breath. Then sides have an endless array of go-betweens managing every conceivable aspect of indirect contacts.

This lie is, in turn, similar to but not the same as:

7. There is no partner

The fact is that the lack of a partner serves the needs of both Ehud Olmert and Ismail Haniyeh. Olmert fervently wants to take advantage of the current split personality of the Israeli consensus, which has moved sharply right in its assessment of peace prospects with the Palestinians, and markedly left in its willingness to consider a future West Bank withdrawal.

To leverage this, Olmert has given indications of a preference for unilateralism, a position made much easier by an internationally shunned Hamas government.

At the same time, the last thing Palestinian Prime Minister Haniyeh needs, is to be viewed as a collaborator with Israel. "There is no partner," may have a different meaning when Hamas says it, but the advantage is mutual.

6. The lie of National Socialism.

Palestinian version: They are as bad as the Nazis.
Israeli version: They are as bad as the Nazis.

5. The lie of the Only Language

Both versions: Force is the only language they understand.

4. The lie of will.

Both versions: Our will is stronger than theirs, our cause more rooted, our stubbornness more pronounced, our endurance more bottomless, our tradition more timeless, our defiance more directed, our rage more justified, our presence more entrenched.

3. The lie of revenge

Arguably the hardest lie of all to resist. The lie that suggests that we alone have been wronged, that we have a duty - as well as a gut drive - to avenge that wrong, and that in so doing, we will somehow put an end to the injustice. The lie that masks the fact that the need for revenge is the engine of escalation, the breeder fuel of perpetual war.


2. The lie of victim monopoly

Both versions: We are the world, we are the victims. We kill in self-defense, our enemy kills innocents in cold blood. The moral high ground is clearly ours. The news media are demonstrably biased toward our enemy.

1. The lie of victory

In the Middle East, there is no such thing as victory. Ask George Bush. Ask the victors of the Six Day War. There is no such thing as Mission Accomplished, clear-cut triumph, a simple win.

We want to believe in victory, because the prospect of no hope for triumph, for some meaning to all the suffering, is beyond unbearable. Nonetheless ...

In the Mideast, today's victory is tomorrow's nightmare. In a situation pitting Western concepts of defeat and victory against the Islamist view of martyrdom, no one can win. The best that civilians on both sides can hope for, is a mutual improvement of circumstances, and a truce that -flawed as it may be -somehow manages to hold.

[Reffo]

The point that this guy (and others like him) miss is that Israel has no real choice. It's either the current situation (obviously not ideal) or a worse situation in which they suffer total defeat (obviously a much worse outcome).

The Palestinians on the other hand do have a better option: They can compromise and their situation will improve (a win win outcome).

[KettleWhistle]

This writer is either an outright moron, or a political agitator. Every single one of his points if false.

10. The lie of We Were Here First

What Palestinians tell themselves: We are the descendants of the Canaanites, we were here before you. We are the heirs of Ishmael, the first son of Abraham. Your claims to be the descendants of the Hebrews are specious. You are Russians, Americans, Khazars. We were here before you. We have been here forever. Nothing can make us leave.

What Israelis tell themselves: We are the direct and genuine heirs of Abraham, who willed his inheritance to his son Isaac, whose son took the name Israel. Your claims to be Canaanites are specious. Many of you came from neighboring Arab lands a few generations ago. We were here before you. We have been here forever. Nothing can make us leave.

Who cares what the Palestinians tell themselves? It's not about them, but about us. It is not about being good, or fair to them, but about us. And they ARE wrong, that's no lie, just a historical fact.

9. The lie of the State They Don't Deserve

Right-wing Israeli version: There is no such entity as a Palestine, and no Palestinian people, as such. They are artificial constructs, to serve the aim of ousting the Jews from their land. Moreover, terror has shown them undeserving of a state.

Militant Palestinian version: The Jews are a foreign growth in the body of Palestine. They came here from Europe and America, expelling Palestinians in the process, and it is time for both to return to their respective homes. The state of the Zionists is illegal, it is build on land that was part of the nation of Islam, and will not endure.

The truth: [Leaving alone the circumstance that most Israelis are native-born, and many trace their roots to Muslim countries from which their ancestors were expelled]

The principle of self-determination and the history of national movements, to say nothing of the development of Zionism and the Palestinian statehood movement, suggest that peoples themselves are empowered to decide if they constitute a people, and if that people legitimately aspires to independence.

More nonsense. Palestinians are not a single nation or ethnicity. Unlike the Jews, they are band of unrelated tribes and cultural groups without single history or ethnic identity. What they say is irrelevant. The history and reality is the only thing that should matter.

8. We don't recognize them.

But we do, of course. Hamas talks about Israel incessantly. Israel talks about Hamas in nearly every breath. Then sides have an endless array of go-betweens managing every conceivable aspect of indirect contacts.

Utter nonsense.

7. There is no partner

The fact is that the lack of a partner serves the needs of both Ehud Olmert and Ismail Haniyeh. Olmert fervently wants to take advantage of the current split personality of the Israeli consensus, which has moved sharply right in its assessment of peace prospects with the Palestinians, and markedly left in its willingness to consider a future West Bank withdrawal.

To leverage this, Olmert has given indications of a preference for unilateralism, a position made much easier by an internationally shunned Hamas government.

At the same time, the last thing Palestinian Prime Minister Haniyeh needs, is to be viewed as a collaborator with Israel. "There is no partner," may have a different meaning when Hamas says it, but the advantage is mutual.

Utter nonsense.

6. The lie of National Socialism.

Palestinian version: They are as bad as the Nazis.
Israeli version: They are as bad as the Nazis.

More nonsense. The "Palestinian" Arabs are like Nazis because exacly like the Nazis they want to eliminate the Jews, and deny us our natural rights. Israelis are not guilty of anything of the sort.

5. The lie of the Only Language

Both versions: Force is the only language they understand.

Israel hasn't applied any force as of yet. (see #1 for more elaborate explanation)

4. The lie of will.

Both versions: Our will is stronger than theirs, our cause more rooted, our stubbornness more pronounced, our endurance more bottomless, our tradition more timeless, our defiance more directed, our rage more justified, our presence more entrenched.

Well, that may be true. Israelis are disgustingly willingless cowards. Otherwise, the Arabs would've felt real persecution a long time ago. Instead Israel gives them humanitarian aid, water, electricity, and medical care.

3. The lie of revenge

Arguably the hardest lie of all to resist. The lie that suggests that we alone have been wronged, that we have a duty - as well as a gut drive - to avenge that wrong, and that in so doing, we will somehow put an end to the injustice. The lie that masks the fact that the need for revenge is the engine of escalation, the breeder fuel of perpetual war.

Nonsense again. Arabs were not wronged here. For those who lost a war, they were treated way too well, and this is the problem.

2. The lie of victim monopoly

Both versions: We are the world, we are the victims. We kill in self-defense, our enemy kills innocents in cold blood. The moral high ground is clearly ours. The news media are demonstrably biased toward our enemy.

Nonsense. Arabs are their own victims. Israel does kill their terrorists in self-defense.

1. The lie of victory

In the Middle East, there is no such thing as victory. Ask George Bush. Ask the victors of the Six Day War. There is no such thing as Mission Accomplished, clear-cut triumph, a simple win.

The only reason there was no victory is the leftists pussilanity, in that they refused to kick the Arabs out in 1967 and 1973. Have they done the right thing, this conflict wouldn't have seized to exist. So, well, the leftists won a battle, and lost us all a war by losing every battle after that one! The blame ought to go to it's rightful place -- the Israeli Left.

[Reffo]

7. There is no partner

The fact is that the lack of a partner serves the needs of both Ehud Olmert and Ismail Haniyeh. Olmert fervently wants to take advantage of the current split personality of the Israeli consensus, which has moved sharply right in its assessment of peace prospects with the Palestinians, and markedly left in its willingness to consider a future West Bank withdrawal.

To leverage this, Olmert has given indications of a preference for unilateralism, a position made much easier by an internationally shunned Hamas government.

At the same time, the last thing Palestinian Prime Minister Haniyeh needs, is to be viewed as a collaborator with Israel. "There is no partner," may have a different meaning when Hamas says it, but the advantage is mutual.

OK, I challange anyone to demonstrate to me how it is a lie for Israel to claim that "There is no partner"! To the contrary, I see that as a manifestly and self evidently true statement!

[MGB8]

They claim that the existence of the Pal Arabs in of itself proves a partner. And they will then say they believe (as a matter of faith) that the Pal Arabs will accept Israel (but don't have much to support that, in terms of Pal Arabs actually stopping pal Arab attacks on Israel, or incitement, or doing any more than saying nice words for a little while in English - nor do they consider what happens if this article of faith is wrong).

[Reffo]

Another word for their "Faith" is: Leftist dogma? Leftist double talk? Leftist self delusion? Leftist doctrine? Deliberate Blindness? Leftist religion? I'm sure there are many other ways to put it but I think that most pragmatic and sane people get the picture!

[Jorge]

Good of Reffo to bring up B. Burston’s article for discussion. It is one of those insightful articles that, whether we agree with it or not, merit in-depth discussion. Mr. Burnston writes as a preamble:

It smells like the lies we tell ourselves to ward off the terrible fear that our side may be, to some extent, mistaken, and our enemy may, to some extent, have a point.

I’d say that “lies” is not a happy choice of words. I’d rather choose to call them “convictions” prevalent amongst the two contenders in this conflict. Convictions that are not entirely false, because when closely examined we can see that there is at least some truth in them.

Now, I don’t see anything wrong with having “convictions” in its meaning of having “strong beliefs” in relation to a conflict; what I do see as a wrong attitude is to refuse to examine our convictions critically. If we follow that course we turn into fundamentalists or fanatics. What makes the Israeli-Palestinian conflict particularly loaded (and explosive) is that far too many, in both sides, refuse to accept that critical examination. This mainly, as Mr. Burston puts it “ to ward off the terrible fear that our enemy may, to some extent, have a point”.

Many Israelis and Diaspora Jews accept that, to some extent, our enemy may have a point. This doesn’t turn our enemy into our friend and, more important, doesn’t diminish one iota our “conviction” that we have a right to a sovereign Jewish State, delimited by secure borders. What makes a discussion problematic is that such people, (Mr. Burston included) are branded as Reffo does in #6 as believers or practitioners of:
“Leftist dogma? Leftist double talk? Leftist self delusion? Leftist doctrine? Deliberate Blindness? Leftist religion?” .

I say this makes any discussion problematic because, as opposed to all these “leftist distorted views of reality” we have Rightist Truths ;there and then rational discussion ends. The mere insinuation that the proposition “ There is no partner” might be false is met by Reffo in #4 with its elevation to the status of “a manifestly and self evidently true statement”.

Outside the field of Religion (and of certain parts of Mathematics) very few contain manifest and self-evident-true-statements. Hamas and other fundamentalist sectors in the other side confront their Palestinian opponents also with self-evident-true-statements. The merit of the article “The Lie of Victory” , in my view, lies precisely in that it induce us to confront the possibility that some of the self-evident truths brandished by both opponents may be shown to be false.

[MGB8]

No, Jorge, you are missing the point. Reffo certainly acknowledges that the Pal Arabs have a point. What he also acknowledges is that the LEFT, ie. YOU, do not "critically examine your convictions."

Instead, you accept the idea of a Pal Arab partner, or of their peaceful intentions, etc. etc., as a matter of faith, not as a matter of a conclusion based on the examination of the evidence.

[CoinToss]

The rebirth of Israel is the proof that 1400 years of muslim faith are a crookery. How do you want arabs to accept that ? They repress it (in a psychanalitic way). That makes them crazy. Most of them feel destruction of Israel as a prerogative in order to keep sane.
What treatment to advise ? Dropping islam for bahaiism or noahism would be a great choice.

[Reffo]

Many Israelis and Diaspora Jews accept that, to some extent, our enemy may have a point. This doesn’t turn our enemy into our friend and, more important, doesn’t diminish one iota our “conviction” that we have a right to a sovereign Jewish State, delimited by secure borders. What makes a discussion problematic is that such people, (Mr. Burston included) are branded as Reffo does in #6 as believers or practitioners of:
“Leftist dogma? Leftist double talk? Leftist self delusion? Leftist doctrine? Deliberate Blindness? Leftist religion?” .

Fine Jorge, I agree, I resorted to a bit of labelling and even name calling because I get frustrated by what I perceive as the severe distortions and over simplifications with which many people approach this conflict. So at a weak moment, I too resorted to such tactics. But if you look at my introductory remarks and my subsequent post, you'll have to admit that I openly invited people to debate the points that were raised in the article.

Now of course, if you disagree with me, let's just debate the issues and please prove to me that there is a serious partner for peace negotiations on the other side. My point was that I don't see evidence for that today. My hope though is that there should be one in the future. Let me know if you see things differently.

[Reffo]

I say this makes any discussion problematic because, as opposed to all these “leftist distorted views of reality” we have Rightist Truths ;there and then rational discussion ends. The mere insinuation that the proposition “ There is no partner” might be false is met by Reffo in #4 with its elevation to the status of “a manifestly and self evidently true statement”.

I see. The discussion is problematic because you perceive me, the "Rightist" to be dogmatic? Well, maybe I am and maybe other "Rightists" are dogmatic too but just remember the very premise of the writer of this article (who is a Leftist): He writes about the 10 lies, that sounds like pretty forceful language to me too. Nevertheless, I did acknowledge that I agree with some of his premise. I did however take exception to his assertion that Israeli leaders are lying when they deny that there is a viable peace partner. Now just remember Jorge: the accusation that someone is lying is a pretty robust accusation so please don't react with such a self self righteous manner if I responded in kind, unless of course you prefer to avoid debate. What else could one think if you limit your response to your one post above. After all, there has been plenty of robust debating about the Middle East elsewhere in this forum. So I find it hard to believe that a few descriptive words about leftist dogma, doctrine....etc should be so hurtful that you cannot bring yourself to debate the actual serious issue that I raised!

[MGB8]

What do you expect, reffo.

You challenged the great article of faith, the truth that must not be questioned: that there is a peace partner.

But what evidence supports this theory?

Hamas' charter? Their leader's statements (especially Mashall)? The Arab narrative? The pictures of all of Israel as a Muslim Palestine? The history of Arab, ahem, "efforts" to stop terror (such as revolving door prisons, letting back in the Nativity occupiers against agreement, smuggling in weapons, daily qassam launches, not condeming terror, polls showing vast majorities support suicide bombings, government and educational support of terrorism, Arafat's trojan horse and plan of phases, etc. etc. etc.)

This is the thing. The right is not willing to make itself beholden to a "peace partner." It is irrelevant whether there is one or is not one - the right will take steps to protect Israelis, and react to Pal Arab actions accordingly. If they want to deal, let them come to the table. So there is no "lie" of not a partner - there is a position - we will not assume a partner until it is proven.

The Left wants Israel, NEEDS to justify its own existence and pathology, to assume a partner, to believe in a partner, REGARDLESS OF THE EVIDENCE. That's the only way they make any sense.

THIS IS THE GREAT LIE.

They demand this article of faith. The right does not really require any.

[Reffo]

MGB8

Yes, I agree with you. But something else is becoming evident to me about some of the leftists: It seems that they want to always occupy the high moral ground and in order to do so, they are not shy in hurling accusations such as "Lies of the Rightist", "Racist Rightist", "Fascist Rightist" etc... But when they get challenged to debate some of those accusations, all some of them can do is to try to reflexively take the high moral ground and act indignant instead of having the courage to engage in a serious debate, Oh well, so be it.

[Reffo]

OK Jorge, this is my last try to convince you to debate the real issues rather than for us to continue to hurl slogans at each other.

I recognise that you at least, unlike Burston, preferred to use the word “convictions” rather than the word "lies". But equally, I hope that you would recognise that I said what I said in response to Burston's stronger language. So, I invite you to prove to us that when the current Israeli leaders claim that there is no partners for peace on the Palestinian side, that they are somehow wrong and that they just believe that through false convictions. I think that's what you intimated? If so, I invite you to please backup your convictions with some proof.

In the meanwhile, I'll list a few reasons below which make me believe that the convictions of the Israeli government are right:

1. Terrorism against Israeli civilians never stopped
2. The Palestinian leadership never did make any serious attempt to stop terrorism
3. The severe incitement against Israel never stopped even during the best years of Oslo
4. The Palestinian opinion makers always concentrated only on the negative aspects of Israel's behaviour, they never acknowledged or encouraged any positive behaviour or concessions that Israel made.
5. Any sign of moderation from individual Palestinians tended to be suppressed by the Palestinian elites. For example, they labelled people as collaborators and such labels were "very detrimental to the life expectancies" of those who were unfortunate to cop such tags.
6. They hold out for maximalist demands (eg the right of return for all), there appears to be very little will to compromise.
7. They don't appear to recognise their own shortcomings, they are constantly in blame mode. Just contrast this to the vigorous debate in Israeli society where all shades of opinions exist (even though there is heavy recrimination bordering on internal hate - which I personally consider to be unfortunate (the seeming hate that is)

There's probably more but this will suffice for now. Suffice it to say that it all adds up to a situation that makes one thinnk that the Palestinians, by and large, perhaps not all of them, but most of them are not yet ready for peace!

[Jorge]

I think Reffo is right in being skeptical about the assertion that we have a partner on the other side. I am as well.

I can’t recall who was that coined that sentence “ Partners for Peace” in connection to our conflict. Whoever he was it was, in my opinion, a dumb thing to say. Nevertheless it keeps being argued and counter argued profusely even if it has no bearing with the situation. A ‘partnership’ is an association of two or more parties which work together in order to better achieve a common goal. This is not at all the case regarding Israelis and Palestinians; it may have been but it’s surely not now with Hamas leading the PA.

The Palestinians want Jerusalem, the fulfillment of the Right of Return of the refugees and, at least, borders along the 1967 lines. The Israelis also want the whole of Jerusalem, no Right of Return and borders as far eastward from the 67 lines as possible. These are conflicting goals that, as such, cannot be attained through partnership.

I don’t recall the US administration or the press of the time ever calling the Vietcong a “partner for peace”. Neither the French calling the ALF similarly. In spite of not being partners for peace the parties involved decided to put an end to those conflicts. The main reason they were ended was that, both the US and France, although having far more power than their adversaries (not partners) realized that “staying put” had become more a liability than an asset.

The present Israeli government headed by Mr. Olmert, also appears to have realized at long last that holding the occupied territories is also a liability more than an asset. The Hamas-led PA appears to realize that terrorist attacks are not in their best interests, at least for the time being.

Upon this, admittedly, precarious basis, negotiations could and should be started. We don’t even have to talk to each other at the start but use intermediaries (the Quartet?). Negotiations undertook on the pragmatist basis that we are not ‘partners for peace’ but adversaries convinced that ‘coexistence’ might better serve their respective interests than head-on confrontation.

Reffo: I'll answer the 7 points you make in your last Post in a following one.