Saturday, September 02, 2006

Without Justice, There can Be No Peace

Reader S. T. has some interesting things to say and wanted a place to say it.

===

It sounds reasonable. Justice is a pillar of civilization. When there is justice, people have confidence in authority and when there is no justice, they don't.

But not everybody who says this, or something like it, is saying something reasonable. When the subject is Israel, this phrase can often be more correctly interpreted as a direct threat. In the language of terrorists and their abettors, "justice" means the eradication of Israel, and "peace" means the successful conclusion of jihad. So the statement really means, "until Israel is destroyed, there will be no end of Jihad".

Here's a fairly typical example:


"A just peace or no peace"

"The problem is not with any particular Palestinian group but with the denial of our basic rights by Israel. We in Hamas are for peace and want to put an end to bloodshed."
.. yada
yada yada

For perspective, let's look at how Hamasnicks speak when they're speaking plainly:

"Zahar: Israel must change its flag"

Note the difference between the message above and the message given to the outside world:

"Hamas: No peace until Israel pulls out"

So there's a lot of double talk and flat out lying, but you probably already knew that. The double talk can be fairly simple, such as the example above, but it can also be subtle. Terrorist Abettors, as I like to call them, can be more transparent (eg- ISM), and
sometimes less so.

Here's an example of the less transparent sort:

"Lessons from history". Nevertheless, statements like:
"It is Israel’s barbarous behavior that turns the Jews – unjustly, but unsurprisingly - into targets of wrath, even in places with no significant history of anti-semitism."
certainly do get ones attention.

Of course there's nothing you can do to counter this argument because to
do so you would have to prove a negative, that some Pakistani or Malaysian who has never met a Jew in his life would hate the lot of them less if they were just a little more understanding about this whole suicide bomber thing.

As the reader, you're supposed to come away with the impression that the Jews could have peace if they could only be more peaceful themselves, notwithstanding what you already know about their enemies.

But if you give the statement a moment or two to settle in, then the real horror of it becomes apparent. It's a vicious accusation, almost worthy of the Jew hater tradition of blood libel, though done up here in pastels instead of the usual harsher tones, while the author expects to be applauded for his wisdom and peace loving nature.

Was it innocent and sincere; or could it possibly have been sinister? Do peaceniks really fail so completely to understand the dangers the Jewish state faces, or is there something else going on?

The answer is often "both". It is true both that peaceniks are too preoccupied with their image of themselves (as peace makers deserving of praise, sometimes even awards!!) to give as much thought as they should to the hard questions of war and peace, and, that the gap in their knowledge is readily filled by a script provided by people who, themselves, do indeed have a sinister agenda.

Let's just summarize that last point. The world is filled with people who will readily sacrifice Israel's safety on the alter of their own self image. They come from all classes, races, and social circumstances. They follow a script.

While they can be more or less transparent, in the more transparent cases you can see easily that the script is a sort of burned out pseudo Marxist screed where the Jew hatred is barely disguised (Jews are barbarous baby killers. Zionism is Racism. etc). But the essence of the script is always the same, and in this sense they are always transparent; it aims to de-legitimize any effort the state of Israel makes to defend its people.

There's a scene in La Femme Nikita where the character Victor, played by Jean Reno, is coming out of a building after having finished a kill that Nikita herself could not manage to finish. The police have already been called to the building, so as Victor comes down the stairs in front of the hotel lobby, three policemen approach with their guns drawn. He has one hand on his gun, but it's concealed. With the other hand, he signals to the police to stop, stay calm, stay quiet. Everything is under control, his gesture implies. This buys him a moment in which the policemen are off guard, and in that moment he shoots all three of them dead.

Something similar happened for real on 9/11. (9/11 recordings)
"Nobody move. Everything will be OK. If you try to make any moves, you'll endanger yourself and the airplane. Just stay quiet."
And on three of those four planes that day, that's what people did.

I actually started writing this article, or one similar to it, a few months after 9/11. Then my personal life got very busy and I never finished it or any of the others I was working on. In the years since then, I've been happy to learn that lessons such as this one have been absorbed by a great deal of the American public. More than that, I've discovered that rhetoric that at that time was exclusively being used by the Abettors has since been co-opted and is being used in turn by supporters of Israel. No Peace without Power.

Things have really changed. This Lebanon war has been full of surprises for the enemy. I'm discovering, to my delight, that the Jihadi had better get used to surprises.

16 comments:

Anonymous said...

Chas,

I'd be interested in having this dialogue with you. But I want to be sure first that you have some idea what you're talking about.

Can you name the Israeli leader who is famous for talking about "painful steps"? And can you list any of the painful and/or risky steps Israel has already taken for the sake of peace?

I just want to be sure we're aware of the same history so we're talking to each other and not past each other.

Anonymous said...

FROM CAROL HERMAN

We already know that passengers on airlines are not just sitting there to obey "just sit quietly" instructions. We've heard about flights disrupted when passengers didn't want to fly, after they saw muslems sitting and chatting about "ending all in 30 minutes." Pilot couldn't fly forward. But had to come out into the passenger section. Took the passports.

Again, during WW2, lots of Americans were the eyes and ears ALL OVER. It wasn't a passive nation. But one fully engaged. And, supportive of our troops.

That the terrorists want to scare us? Now they think only a nuke will work? They think we wouldn't throw one. AND, THIS IS TRUE! It is INSANE to throw a nuke! Kills too many people. And, when people are faced with the kinds of fire power America and Israel have, they actually seek "cease fires."

If Condi wasn't so incompetent; and America had a better set of criteria; what happened this summer would not have led to the American Made #1701. But we're not at the point yet, where our politicians are speaking for us.

They also spend our money as if they have no regard for us.

Doesn't mean that there isn't NOW a much more radical feeling towards Islam that what had existed. No matter what Bush says. Most people know the Saudis are his friends. And, most people see he has the ability to throw a staff person under the railroading; because he thinks Scooter Libby is a HUMAN SHIELD.

Bush is very misguided. If he can figure out he's not on the right road, though, he can, perhaps, change course; and not spend GOP capital. Not his capital, anyway.

If he doesn't change, then he keeps people less enthused about voting for the GOP. Even if they vote for the GOP.

I can point to two recent events that shows how this works. TRUMAN, in 1948 got the public's vote. But their confidence levels weren't all that high. Along came IKE, and Truman high-tailed it home. Letting someone else (Adeli Stevenson), face the IKE onslaught. And, the presidential loss in 1952. Ditto, 1958.

Then, move forward a little. See LBJ? He got the vote, in 1964. Goldwater did not. But by 1968, just four years later; he, too, ran away from the contest.

That's politics. People step up to the plate. But few of them win accolades. Some are definitely forgotten.

Since Bush tends to exhaust the public; rather than be good at public speaking, so he could refresh people and perk them up, instead; I'll guess that he exits "lackluster." And, he disappears along with his dad.

That's the problem when a man enjoys fighting people like Harry Ried. He really does enjoy that! Instead of concentrating on satisfying the public's wants. And, needs.

Okey, dokey. Watson at IBM once laughed at the idea of a personal computer. Thought his typewriters just sewed up all the markets. Funny, but he was wrong.

If you bought ENRON, you bought a bill of goods.

Bush had a lot of opportunities. Most of the time he just comes across as snarky. And, ya know what? That's his problem. But we are on the right road! Someone else won't be so exhausting to watch. And, no. He probably won't be a donk. Or McCain. Or a right wing nutter, either.

Americans really like to pay attention when the time comes.

Can Bush redeem himself? Isn't that his job? It's not mine.

Anonymous said...

FROM CAROL HERMAN

By the way, whatever else will get recorded, in time Israel's moves will be seen as BRILLIANT.

Just as Ulysses S. Grant carried the day for the UNION. He was beset with a president who didn't like him, much. And, who much preferred playing the "warrior," himself. So the Civil War went on for three extra years; and 400,000 needless deaths.

But then in the beginning, Lincoln wasn't willing to free the slaves, either. So the TIME it took worked out politically.

Up next Israel will return 1,000 prisoners. (But not Bargouti.) It will be done in 3 different programs. With anything the Palestinians do to SET THIS OFF TRACK, will keep the worst of the prisoners still sentenced to jail.

On the other hand, given how few arabs actually ever meet Jews; it's a brilliant tactic. (And, one used by Ulysses S. Grant, as well. He let 29,000 prisoners go home. He knew the word of mouth was gonna be good. AND, he knew it would cause DEPRESSION in the Confederacy, when these prisoners, after some fort fell; knew they were facing certain death. But were surrounded by Union troops. So they couldn't just run away.)

Grant got the unconditional surrender. (This is the will now lacking in Condi.)

But it doesn't matter. Half a loaf is better than none. If nasrallah wants credit that he won, sure. Give it to him. Better for Israel to keep her secrets. In time the military maneuvering gets analyzed.

It was the British Military that discovered Grant's genius. Too bad, but then, the American press was more concerned on all the Union Battles lost in the EAST. WHile Grant, when he was finally able to do so ... (And, Lincoln did send him a letter of apology ... stating "you were right, I was wrong. Showing that Lincoln really was a very good man. Unlike most of our recent presidents.) ... The truth comes out because battle plans can be analyzed.

You think Bush is qualified? HA!

You think Condi is a warrior? HA!

I think Condi is a spinster, with a personality of a school marm. And, a career that just hit the skids.

Not because #1701 hurts Israel. THIS WAS AMERICA DEALING AT THE UN. She lost because she let the french take advantage. And, it's about on par with folding a pretty good hand. But that's Bush. Typical "C" student behaviors. And, arrogant.

He's just lucky that his enemies are who they are! He'd never have made it if, for instance, his competition was someone of FDR's stature. And, abilities.

Lucky Bush. I can't wait to 2008, so he can go home.

Anonymous said...

> Much smaller "negotiated"
> concessions, which need not be
> one-sided, would mean a lot more

I think OSLO counts in that category. Israel made it official state policy to seek a viable Palestinian state. In fact that still is official state policy. In practical terms a lot was done to make it a reality, including arming a police force. That was a risk Israel took that turned out quite badly.

Can you point to any peace gestures the Palestinians have made? I'm not even asking for "painful steps". Maybe if they just stopped educating their children to hate Jews and glorify terrorists, it would be a start. Or if the PA took actual responsibility for the violence that emanates from their cities, that would be a start. BTW they're both empowered and required by agreements that they've signed to do those things.

> Certainly dismantling a
> (limited) number of
> settlements was internally
> devisive as was the withdrawal
> from Gaza.

But still not good enough? So OSLO didn't count for you, and unilateral withdrawals don't count for you. The facts are there, but you rationalize your way around them.

At some point you have to either admit that Israel has in fact taken more than its share of risks for peace, or it begins to look like you're not being objective.

And, at some point you should start demanding that the Palestinians take some risks for peace, or begins to look like you're not taking a balanced view.

M. Simon said...

The Palestinians cannot take any risks for "peace". Their business model is: we fight the Jews, you give us money.

Peace would mean working for a living.

At the very least the leadership is not up for that. The people either, if you trust the polls of the Palestinians.

I think Sharon saw what the outcome of returning Gaza would be. I certainly did:

The Sharon Plan

Anonymous said...

M. Simon,

Yes of course. The Palestinians have taken substantial and repeated risks to keep the conflict alive, some for the sake of ideology, others for money. I only meant to point out that Israel has done what Chas and others have asked of it, and more, while the Palestinians get a pass.

Chas,

I can understand how someone observiing superficially might think OSLO was a good process. It was flawed. Since you've run around this tree with others before, I won't get into it.

> So I am not speaking for
> either side, I am just
> speaking for a process

I see that clearly. You're the peacenik in my article. Look, I want to be clear. I wrote that article about this discussion we're having, not about israel/palestine itself, and that's why I keep coming back to your conduct and attitutes *in this discussion*.

Your posts in this blog alone would make the basis for a very good article on the rhetorical tactics and anti-israel bias of the peace camp. Would you be interested in reading such an article?

> Can you not imagine some
> legitimate claims that the
> Palestinians might have?

already answered that

> Can you not see some small
> concession that Israel could
> make without compromising their
> security?

I've shown that Israel has done that and more, even taken steps that did compromise security. You've shown that no matter what Israel does, it will not be enough for you, and that you will dismiss any affirmative answer given to your question rather than acknowledging it.

Anonymous said...

> There is a strong bias in
> the peace movemnent. It
> is regretable I know, but
> we are all, without exception
> anti-war.

There is a strong bias in YOUR posts. Let's keep it real.

> dedicated to the idea that
> conflict can and should be
> resolved peacefully.

Speaking of delusional.

kill them where you find them

Actually I'll bring back something from the article. "Zahar: Israel must change its flag"

Somebody has to deal with this. The PA won't deal with it, so Israel has to deal with it. Then we can talk about resolving things peacefully.

> Is the alternative to being
> pro-peace being pro-war? If
> not, what is the alternative,
> where does it lead and what
> are the possible outcomes?

Now you're starting to ask useful questions. If every effort to make peace fails, then yes, Israel is required for the sake of its own preservation to become pro-war.

You dismiss all of Israel's efforts to arrive at a negotiated settlement as being insincere, which is both facile and specious. While it says nothing about Israel, it says a lot about you.

It's also insulting. Do you think you can dismiss decades worth of diplomacy on one side of the conflict and expect to be taken seriously as a peace maker? Even Prime Minister Siniora called on the Arab world to stop making war on Israel, placing the blame where it belongs.

> the military strategy was
> only successful when there
> was no alternative and when
> it was followed by peace talks?

Your implied assumption, that Israel fights wars because it is aggressive, rather than because it has no choice.

> Why does expending resources
> for war seem so much more
> attractive than expending a much
> smaller amount for peace?

again. your implied assumption is that Israel prefers expensive wars to a less expensive peace.

Chas your biases have so overwhelmed your thought process that you can hardly make any statement at all that is not reflexively anti-israel.

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you never intended to be anti-israel, but that it's just a consequence of the way you've been educated about this conflict. But still you need to look deep inside and examine this.

M. Simon said...

Chas,

Yes I can see some small concession the Israelis can make to advance the peace.

They could stop occupying Gaza and let the Palestinians there govern themselves. If they made such a grand gesture I'm sure the Palestinians would gain confidence and make at least some small reciprocal moves.

M. Simon said...

Chas,

It would have been easy for the Palestinians to defeat the Sharon plan.

1. No firing rockets into Israel
2. No smuggling weapons from Egypt
3. Avoid electing Hamas which is more rejectionist than Fatah.

Sharon gave them a chance. If the Palestinians chose peace well and good.

If they chose war Gaza/Palestine as a defacto state gets treated like a state in a state of war.

Sharon was counting on the fact that the Stupidstinians could not stop being stupid although there was nothing in the way of them wising up except themselves.

The Palestinians are getting what they voted for. The fact that they are no longer happy with their choice is not my problem.

Lessons in democracy are hard.

Anonymous said...

I surrender. Do I get a cookie?

Anonymous said...

> I don't think that Israel
> is inherently aggressive

That's not what you've said in previous discussions here. You do have a right to change your mind, however.

> Israel is in fact a
> regional superpower.

A tiny country with one of the most effective armies in the world. One some level it's clear that people's attitudes towards Israel are simply a function of their attitudes towards the military in their own countries. US => favorable. EU => very troubled history. etc.

M. Simon said...

Chas,

The only thing sarcastic about my concessions idea is that it has been tried and failed.

Otherwise it is totally serious.

I was in favor of giving the Palis an opportunity. I never believed they would take it. Cynical? Maybe. How do you know if they really want peace unless you give them a real opportunity?

The move had the added effect of destroying the illusions of a lot of the left in Israel and America.

I thought it was a good idea. I still think it is a good idea. A monument to the value of good intentions.

Anonymous said...

> I don't recall saying Israel is inherently aggressive

not in so many words. What you said was "I am not opposed to Israel, just to militarism as an end in itself, ".

You might equivocate about the meaning, but the message is clear.

linearthinker said...

Wow. Spent a couple hours tunin' the chainsaw and cuttin' brush, and look what I missed.

Couple thoughts, linear of course:

1. Cookie for Shahar!

2. Adam, et al, waste of time debatin' the obvious with Chas. Blinders to the flanks, and rosey lenses to the fore. Reactions to reading the back-and-forth were y'all might as well be talkin' to the door, or a hamas delegate.

3. I did notice all Chas can do is beg others to give arguments, which he then puts through his own custom grinder. Those cogs are gettin' worn out, Chas.

4. Chas, you tell me what small concessions and proactive steps you envision the Palis bringin' to the banquet, for certainly we'll have a potluck before gettin' down to business, eh? I mean something other than the obvious, like stopping firing rockets into civilized neighborhoods, blowing up old folks and kids at restaurants and pizza parlors and on their buses, y'all know the list. If I'm at the banquet, ever' body gets frisked on the way in.

4. Interesting post, simon.

5. Nighty-night, Chas. So glad to hear you've gotta life.

Peace through superior firepower, y'all.

LT

linearthinker said...

"If the middle ground contains no stable states, then the situation will inexorably tend to one or another extreme."

C. Owen Johnson, responding to Charles "Chas" Stuart, "Reasons for Optimism" comments thread, Shrinkwrapped. September 3, 2006 at 5:25 am.

Hence, if I'm attending the banquet, ever'body gets frisked at the door.

LT

linearthinker said...

Chas,

That's a good list. I imagine you've communicated it to your friends on the other side. Did you get any feedback that wasn't laden with equivocation? That seems to be the norm.

Haven't those suggestions been offered by Israel, and others, for well over forty years, when circumstances permitted? To what end?

When the middle ground contains no stable states, and the situation has inexorably tended to the extreme, the only sane response is a wary defense, including targeted preemption on avowed murderers when warranted. Anything less would be suicide. All this touchy-feely dialogue about negotiating and finding middle ground and making more concessions piled on the last round of same has to be viewed through a prism that reveals reality sooner or later.

Turn the other cheek in a street fight, and you'll be handed your ass.