Home | http://www.economist.com/opinion/dis...ory_id=9225670
"What self-defeating madness. For peace to come, Israel must give up the West Bank and share Jerusalem; the Palestinians must give up the dream of return and make Israel feel secure as a Jewish state. All the rest is detail"
what do you guys thinki feel its the only way to peace, not that with my new dawning convictions due to the jerusalem thread, sharing jerusalem sucks but i think thats what it will take....
A really good analysis shouldn't hide behind big words, like in this case "peace", but instead give a comprehensive overview of the situation, as well as at least one long-term vision. I skimmed through that article, but it really seems like it had none of that. Just a lot of "big" words.
There are things like "peace". But what does it mean? A peace on a piece of paper, and outright hostility and hatred otherwise? Well, we have that with Jordan and Egypt, the countries that make the most from any mutual engagements and business arrangements, that also work very hard to stub Israel in the back any chance they get. They'll do business with us to make money, but they are never shy to encourage international boycotts or otherwise try to harm us. Or is peace, just what it was for Jews in Israel prior to 1967, a situation where is no peace on paper, but no war either? I would settle for the latter, for the very least for the sake of our dignity.
Then there are words like "colonization". It is a truly abhorrent word in this case because it greatly misrepresents the relationship of Jews to this land. It claims that we want to colonize this land out of religious fervor, and yet that couldn't be further from the truth. It is neither a matter of religious fervor, not is it colonization. You can't colonize your native land, and that's what the Land of Israel is to bnei Israel. To say that Jews living in Judea are colonizers is like to claim that Italians are colonizing Rome, or Russians are colonizing Moscow.
As for the issue of Jerusalem I think that the Jewish anthem, which was adopted by the State of Israel as the national anthem, says it best:
As long as in the heart, within,
A Jewish soul still yearns,
And towards the end of the East
An eye still watches toward Zion,
Our hope is not yet lost,
The hope of two thousand years,
To be a free nation in our own land,
The land of Zion and Jerusalem
The Economist has this tendency to argue that the Israeli refusal to cede territory is a result of stubbornness and reluctance to make "painful compromises" in the interest of peace. But then, when Israel actually does withdraw and Palestinians take advantage of their newly acquired territory to amplify their war against Jews, The Economist either ignores it or blames it on Israel.
Sadat was desperately trying to draw the Palestinian Arabs into the peace process because it would have given his initiative a greater legitimacy in the Arab world. But Syria, Arafat and his cronies wouldn't hear of it and they were too busy vilifying Sadat instead.When, decades later, Egypt and Jordan did make peace with Israel, the Palestinians did not recover Gaza and the West Bank. This has left some 4m Palestinians desperate for independence
The analysis would have been more accurate had the Economist included this "itsy bitsy mere detail".
Idealism increases in direct proportion to one's distance from the problem.
Author: John Galsworthy 1867-1933, British Novelist, Playwright
and too much of the energy that should have gone into peacemaking has been squandered on the blame game.I love this one:Yasser Arafat should have accepted Israel's “generous offer” at Camp David in 2000. But, hang on, Israel's offer was not so generous...
Exhortation - "Too much blame game, not enough peacemaking" by both sides..
Next Sentence - Israel's offer (what was that if not wasn't peacemaking?), that wasn't so generous (not a blame game by the Arab side?).
Moral equivalency at it's best, isn't it lovely?
And they might have included another bit of "itsy bitsy, tiny" relevant detail. The generous offer was not rejected because of the land issue. The talks actually folded because Arafat produced the "Right of Return" demand which he knew Israel could not accept. And to top it all off, the next Palestinian response was? It was what comes naturally for them: Violence in the form of the Intifada. And it really isn't easy to be in peacemaking mode when homocidal maniacs indiscriminately go on a rampage...
Idealism increases in direct proportion to one's distance from the problem.
Author: John Galsworthy 1867-1933, British Novelist, Playwright
At least I do agree with their conclusion (more or less) but not the way they spun the story because in the name of impartiality, they used poetic licence to spin an inaccurate account of how history unfolded ...What self-defeating madness. For peace to come, Israel must give up the West Bank and share Jerusalem; the Palestinians must give up the dream of return and make Israel feel secure as a Jewish state. All the rest is detail.
Idealism increases in direct proportion to one's distance from the problem.
Author: John Galsworthy 1867-1933, British Novelist, Playwright
The Economist is wrong / Sever Plocker
Six Day War had significant positive effects and is not a 'wasted victory' as The Economist argued
Published: 05.27.07, 16:10 / Israel Opinion
"Israel's Wasted Victory," this is the headline of The Economist's editorial marking 40 years since the Six Day War. The Economist boasts a circulation of more than one million copies and its readership comprises members of the world's financial, political and cultural elites. The articles written by its authors (the majority of which go unsigned) are perceived as God's words. "The Economist says" - is a ruling that goes unchallenged in many circles.
Nonetheless, in describing the Six Day War as a "Pyrrhic victory" and "a calamity for the Jewish state no less than for its neighbors," The Economist is making a grave mistake. The Six Day War changed the course of history for the better, ensured Israel's existence and convinced the Arabs to come to terms with it. Thanks to Israel's full and shining victory, the rulers of the Arab states relinquished their vision of eliminating Israel, and by lack of choice engaged in dialogue based on the concept of "land for peace."
In his book "The Six Day War," historian Michael Oren wrote that events in the Middle East, which until 1967 only accumulated ahead of the conflict, could have moved towards peace even after the war. He added that diplomatic breakthroughs considered unrealistic became almost commonplace after the war.
In November of that year, the UN Security Council passed resolution 242, which since then has constituted a cornerstone for every diplomatic effort in the region including the recent Saudi Initiative.
Resolution 242 called for "just and lasting peace" between Arabs and Jews; Israel endorsed it immediately. It took Egypt another decade to internalize 242 and to sign a peace agreement with Israel in exchange for return of the Sinai.
The maturation process took Jordan an additional 20 years. Syria announced its willingness to sign a full normalization agreement with Israel in January 2000. Here is therefore, a basic fact: Due to Israel's military victory in June 1967, Israel was accepted by the Arab world as a legitimate "Jewish State" entitled to exist within peaceful borders, land that until then was deemed Zionist occupation.
Hubristic folly
Somehow, The Economist manages to ignore these developments and minimizes their significance. The editorial focuses on Israeli-Palestinian relations. Israel, wrote The Economist, "embarked on its hubristic folly of annexing the Arab half of Jerusalem and - in defiance of law, demography and common sense - planting Jewish settlements in all the occupied territories to secure a Greater Israel." And "When, decades later, Egypt and Jordan did make peace with Israel, the Palestinians did not recover Gaza and the West Bank."
The Palestinians did not recover Gaza and the West Bank? Until 1967, Gaza and the West Bank were territories administered by Egypt and Jordan. It may well be assumed that that the Jordanian regime would not have permitted Palestinian refugees, their children and grandchildren to realize their national sovereignty in Gaza and the West Bank and to establish the Palestinian state there.
As to criticism regarding Israel's acts of annexation and settlement since 1967, large parts of the Israeli population share these sentiments, including the author of this article. Under the charismatic and destructive influence of Moshe Dayan, at the end of the Six Day War the government chose to prevent Palestinian autonomy, oppressed Palestinian rights and subjugated the Palestinian workforce to the interests of Israeli employers. This is indeed "hubristic folly."
But is it only ours? The "Land for Peace" movement immediately challenged the Greater Israel movement, and they divided Israeli society from within. Not Palestinian society.
Palestinians prefer 'state of no state'
It should be said unabashedly: Had the Palestinians really wanted a state of their own it would have been established long ago; even Israel's excessive military might would not have sufficed in preventing its establishment within some type of border.
Yet the Palestinians prefer a state of "no state," no responsibility, no commitments and no solution, alongside ongoing terror.
Generation after generation, Palestinian nationalism has excelled in denouncement. Had Yitzhak Rabin and Shimon Peres not unwillingly dragged the PLO leadership to the Oslo Accords in 1993 it would not have initiated a thing by itself.
The Economist is very wrong. For Israel, the victory of 1967 was not wasted. Israel's population grew from 2.6 million to 7.1 million, 2 million of whom were new immigrants. The Gross National Product grew by 630 percent. Real per capita product, the benchmark for measuring economic development, grew by 163 percent and last year crossed the $21,000 mark. The average standard of living in Israel is only 22 percent lower than in Britain; on the eve of the Six Day War there was a 44 percent gap. And The Economist has often noted Israel's information technology achievements.
Among Palestinians, however, the situation has deteriorated drastically. Are we to blame? Yes, it is our fault as well as theirs. Two states for two peoples: If this vision was wasted, it was not so because of the Six Day War, but despite it. And if it is realized, it will be another outcome of the Arab plan's defeat in June 1967.
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7...404921,00.html
thanks for the article
And Scotland to the Scots, Wales to the Welsh, Northern Ireland to Ireland!
Israel's victory was wasted. Let's look at an alternative scenario here:
1967 victory, Arabs are incouraged to run away from the evil Joos (they were packing anyway, but the retarded Auntie Godie had a stroke, and decided to convince them to stay), they run away, Judea and Samaria are annexed, Gaza is annexed, the Temple Mount is turned into a historical/archeological site atracting millions of tourists every year, there are no Arabs to start intifadas or terrorism insde the country, so after 1982 the whole region cools down. There is no peace, but there is no war either. Egypt treaty or not, that's really inconsecuential. By 2007 Arafat dies somewhere in N. Africa, and his useless movement slips into oblivion after whatever funds are left to it find their ways into the accounts of its top echelons. Sounds good? Yes it does.
So why is this not the case then? Because the whole situation was mishandled to the core by the retards and traitors on the left, who put our enemies interests before ours.
Kettlewhistle
Sometimes, during weak moments, especially lately, I actually think you are right. I mean, no matter what Israel does, the Arabs and their allies, the so called humanists vilify and demonize it. So Israel may as well live up to the expectations of the polemicist accusers...
However, I don't think that Israel would have been allowed to get away with what you suggest. I think that the Soviet Union would have gone berserk and the USA would have twisted Israel's arms severely, even more than in 1956. So what you suggest, would not have been possible at all....nor would it be a practical proposition today (and I must admit, even though I am not a leftist, I too would be against it on moral grounds).
Idealism increases in direct proportion to one's distance from the problem.
Author: John Galsworthy 1867-1933, British Novelist, Playwright
Reffo,
Your type of attitude is what I call the Jewish version of the Stockholm syndrome. Why is it acceptable to you, or immoral, if Jews acted like any other normal and compassionate nation, and were treated like any other nation, and not with a special prejudice? So it's ok for us to run away or be kicked out from our land, but we have to always be a underclass type of people, and give in to whatever our enemies want, and then thank the world for allowing us to keep whatever little piece they let us?
In 1967 we won a battle. Instead of building on it, and bringing peace to this country, the Leftists lost us the war, and put us on the path of Arabization. That's the reality of it, and it's not immoral to wish that it was not the case, or to try to do whatever it takes to minimize the damage.
C'mon Kettle, this post was uncalled for. You know very well that the attitude that you attribute to me is way off the mark. Just read my ad nauseum interchanges with the likes of Takeo, Sumud, Michael and many others. I am certainly not one who advocates turning the other cheek but I also know what is practical and I also know that anyone who goes completely overboard in ignoring morality ends up with more than they bargained for, or in our case perhaps much less ....Originally Posted by Kettlewhistle
Idealism increases in direct proportion to one's distance from the problem.
Author: John Galsworthy 1867-1933, British Novelist, Playwright
And the yet the official Israeli policy since 1967 has been neither annexation nor a revetment to pre 67 lines. A kind of self imposed stalemate. We called this 'facts on the ground' and hoped that organic growth would obviate all those problems for us. But what Israelis miscalculated was that ANY level of Jewish presence in YESHA would be tolerated. First they believed a small number would be ignored then they believed a large number would be accepted. Now we come to understand, at least some people that Israelis are wrong on this point. Not 10% presence in the West Bank or 8% or 1%. Zero. Zero is the magic number for the Palestinians. Organic growth hasn't fixed anything or established any unavoidable facts on the ground. One could guess that if 25% of the total population of YESHA were Jewish then the 'world' would suddenly sit up on its hind legs and disavow their antisemitic hatreds? But that's not likely to happen, is it? No, because the number is zero and anything the Palestinians have to discuss or demand or threaten are only stepping stones to that zero number. And make no mistake that zero is merely the starting point. Zero Jews in YESHA is just the beach head from which Palestinians can get back to their pre 67 terrorism attacks aimed at driving the Jews out of Israel. And even that won't buy you any favor with pro Palestinian west. There's always some dumb rhetorical revisionist nonsense for them to babble about why it's wrong that Israel even exist. Just ask our Fine French Marxists here, they'll tell you. Any Israel at all is anathema to them.
But the basic problem is not them. They hate you and want you dead and they always will, no matter what. No point in arguing the point. You could be teaching algebra to dogs for all the good it would do. They want you dead. The Palestinians officially want you dead, their friends in the west want you dead. Takeo and all the characters like it want you dead. No the problem is that Israel has given them a 40 year opportunity to voice their hatred because of its vague non policy - neither annexation nor revetment. If nothing else Israel should seriously consider voicing a real policy about YESHA. Israel has already acted on its own by leaving Gaza. It should unilaterally voice whatever it wants to be the policy and direction for the West Bank. Be it retention of 8-10% of the West Bank, parts of E Jerusalem, or not and a rough timeline for doing that. And then move on it. Whatever they say whatever they do the Palestinians will continue to fail and lob rockets & do whatever it is they do best. No one cares. That's an unsolvable problem for them so we shouldn't worry too much about how much they hate Jews for not drowning in the muck with them. Just proceed and let the Palestinians declare a state or a warlordship or who knows what else? And what it matter? It matters no more that Palestinians erect what WE would call a modern state anymore than it matter that the People's Republic of China is a communist country with massive capitalist enterprise. E.g. they will never be Asian versions of us. The Palestinians will never resemble Holland in the Middle East. Never.
In the meantime what I said years ago is coming true. Israelis are getting adjusted to a water level of atrocities. An acceptable level of violence. A few dozen rockets a month, a shooting here and there. That's the other half of the so called bargain. And it will persist forever. Everyone in their heart knows this as 'peace' is an illusion and a falsely cynical and bitter hope.
I'm sorry, was a hasty reply, and I really missed the point you were making. The Syrian Arabs mostly ran away in 1967, and Israel haven't had any major problems in the areas that were captured from Syria. What would've been your moral problem if Israel instead of putting Golda and her crew on the radio begging Jordanian Arabs not leave, would've put a bunch of actors crying and yelling in Arabic about the "horrors" inflicted upon them and urging their brethren to run out East?
I would've call that being smart.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks