From Rob (12/31/04):
Bill,From Bill (12/31/04):
I'll try to be brief (for once, though that is a skill that I have not yet mastered).
First, I'd ask you to re-read what I wrote you originally. Carefully. I actually don't advocate that Israel hangs onto Judea/Samaria entirely, or even mostly. Yuval and I are friends and we agree on much, but I offer a somewhat different solution than he does It is a solution that is outside of the various options you offer as possible solutions, though it is close to one of them. Addressing that one in particular, you say "Jordan doesn't want it back." Well, the monarchy doesn't want it back because it makes the case for ethnic Palestinian majority rule that much stronger, and his (the King's) legitimacy that much weaker. I doubt that you can make the statement that "Jordan doesn't want it back" with any assurance with respect to the general population of Jordan.
Second, we really don't have any reliable information, in the form of accurate polling data, what the Palestinian people in the West Bank want or expect with respect to Israel. We do know that they teach their schoolchildren that Israel as a Jewish state is evil and doesn't deserve to exist. We know that their clerics and the leaders of most of the various terrorist factions - still far from being brought under the control of the PA - preach the total destruction of the "Zionist entity". I could go on with many other examples, but Yuval has, I think, done a very good job of making this case for me, which is that there is practically no objective evidence out there to suggest that the Palestinian leaders would ever sincerely accept a final settlement that left them with "merely" the West Bank, or even the West Bank plus Gaza, and along with this, that they would really sincerely resolve on their own part to live in peace with Israel from that point onwards. There is all sorts of evidence that they mean to go for the whole nine yards, so to speak, if not right away, then at some future point when they are strong enough to think that they can. Their leaders have made this point very clear on many occasions and many contexts. And as I pointed out to you earlier, it isn't just the "extremists" who say this. Even prominent white-collar professionals, local leaders within their own community right here in Toledo, would obviously support them in this, based on what they have told our community leaders right to their faces.
Once they have a state, with all that entails, if there is not a complete and fundamental change in what they have demonstrated thus far as leaders and as a society, they do thus pose a larger problem for Israel than they do today. They can make treaties. They can build an army. And if their own economy can't support the latter (which it probably couldn't), I'm very certain that they would get all sorts of help in that regard from Saudi Arabia, Iran, etc. And then, when Israel inevitably has to "un-ring" that bell, as you put it, they have to pay a much bigger price. Not just in defeating this army to get at the terrorists, but also likely in terms of a larger Arab-Israeli war. Israel would probably win this fight (if it didn't escalate to WMDs), but at what cost? You say there is mostly upsides and no practical downsides to your scenario. Now consider the scenario I just laid out. Add Iran's ballistic missiles and nuke capability to this a few years down the road if nothing effective is done about that. You really believe this?
So why should Israel be pressured into making a deal with leaders she clearly cannot trust, who have proven time and again that they cannot be trusted, to buy a temporary peace that sets the stage for a much bigger bloodbath down the road? That is the main point that I am making here, that I'm sure Yuval would be in complete agreement with, and that I think many Israelis and Jews generally would also agree with. That is not to say that there are not a sizable number of Jews who may agree with you; many Jews are so tired of the current conflict that they are getting desperate for anything that even smells like peace. I can understand that. Many Europeans were so desperate for peace following the cataclysm of WW1 that they would go to practically any length to appease Hitler. Obviously, that doesn't mean that their judgment was sound. Clearly, events proved in hindsight that it wasn't.
And with the above in mind, I sure don't want to live to see the day that you, or anyone who espouses what you believe, looks back on the smoking irradiated ruins of Israel or the Middle East generally, or even into the eyes of the thousands of Jewish families that have lost loved ones in another major Middle Eastern war, and hear you say "Oh my, I guess I was wrong. We shouldn't have trusted Abbas."
Now, addressing your response to what you interpreted as my main point.....I can only say that you missed my point. Without going into a rehashing of my whole argument (again, I recommend a careful re-reading), my point is that the Arabs' often and loudly professed ire over the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is their "excuse", and a poor one at that, for their own failures. Why should we lend credence to their lie by behaving as though this is a sincere and justifiable grievance on their part? Without reform and modernization of their societies, or at least united pressure from the developed world that recognizes this as the central problem (not Israel), there just isn't going to be peace between Israel and the Arabs, or the Arab world and the West. And where Israel as a specific issue is concerned, the Arabs today are a very long way from accepting them at all. Indeed, I submit to you that precisely because of the internal dynamics of their polities that I described earlier, the Arabs simply cannot accept Israel. What difference can a temporary flawed "peace" agreement between the PA and Israel, giving the PA the West Bank, make in this dynamic? Bill, how much longer does Israel have to bleed to prove this to you? How many more Jews have to die before what has been made obvious by the events of the past 60 years is obvious to you?
Now, I'm not living in fantasy land, and I can see that Israel bleeds even today. I don't support the status quo. I at least agree with you that a solution must be found. And I mapped out what I believe is a reasonable and fair solution in my last communication with you. But, in the same practical terms that you say is your starting point, I'd rather that Israel bleed a little today, defending herself from a position of relative strength, than buy a temporary respite that practically guarantees that she bleeds a heck of a lot more later. Israel must stand fast and defend herself resolutely until the Arabs generally and the Palestinians in particular (and this must happen together) are really ready for participating in a just and lasting peace. And we must support her in this (and by "we", I'm not just referring to the U.S., but the developed secular first-world democracies as a community).
OK, you can't trust me either (to be brief, that is). But again, I'd ask you to carefully review what I wrote you earlier and tell me whatever is wrong with what I suggest as a solution. And/or, what is wrong with my appreciation of the real roots of this conflict, and if I am not wrong about that, how handing the West Bank over to the likes of Abbas and his cronies in the PA is going to contribute anything constructive to solving these problems in a substantial and lasting way.
Sincerely (and Happy New Year),
-Rob Vincent
Rob -- Thank you for not being brief. And for restoring a measure of civility.From Rob(1/1/05):
I will confess -- as your correctly surmised -- that I did not read your original message with the attention it deserved; in fact, I sort of skimmed it. Chalk it up to my being discouraged, frustrated and a bit angry. But I have read the second message with some care, and I find a lot of common ground there and a lot to think about.
Is the incitement against Israel in the PA really as bad as what you (and Linda) describe? It's hard for me to fathom that. There are always whackos in any society who preach hatred -- we certainly have our share in this country, and my guess is that there are some in Israel as well. But my sense is that, in most societies, these types of people are a tiny minority who, though loud, do not speak for the vast majority. My personal experience tells me that most people are pretty sane, rational and tolerant. Therefore, my "belief" that most Palestinians no longer wanted to destroy Israel was based at least in part on an assumption that the same was probably true of the Palestinians as well. While it is not hard at all to imagine individuals who harbor such hatred, it is very hard for me to imagine that an entire people do. But, what you are saying, I guess, is that that is exactly the case here. I still find that hard to believe, but I guess I have to concede that I could be wrong.
Rather than giving you a litany of all the things you say that I either agree with or that I at least acknowledge could well be right, let me jump to what I gather is your bottom line in all of this: But, in the same practical terms that you say is your starting point, I'd rather that Israel bleed a little today, defending herself from a position of relative strength, than buy a temporary respite that practically guarantees that she bleeds a heck of a lot more later.
If the premises of this statement are true; i.e. if it is true that the creation of a Palestinian State would be only a temporary respite and would practically guarantee that Israel bleeds a lot more later, then I can hardly argue with you conclusion. The issue, obviously, is the premises. I tend to be more hopeful on both of these scores than you are, but I have to admit that I could be wrong. And, you are right of course, that the consequences of being wrong could be terrible. However, the costs of doing nothing are already pretty bad and could get much worse. That's the dilemma. We can't afford to do nothing and we can't afford to do the wrong thing either.
As you recognize, a way has to be found to bring this conflict to a close. At some point, this is going to require an act of faith by Israel. At what point -- under what circumstances -- would you be willing to see Israel make that leap?
I have two concerns about your proposed solution -- assuming I understand it. The first is practical. If a way can be found to peacefully re-incorporate the West Bank and its population back into Jordan, I am all in favor of it. But, it seems to me that this outcome would actually be worse from the standpoint of Israeli security than a separate Palestinian state on the West Bank. Presumably, incorporation of the West Bank Palestinians into Jordan would not bring to an end their animosity toward Israel. So, are you are presuming that the Jordanian Palestinians (and other Jordanians) do not share than antipathy and would be willing and able to control the West Bank Palestinians? If so, I am curious why you believe that? And, if you are wrong on that, wouldn't an enlarged Jordan pose a much more formidable threat to Israel than a separate state confined to the West Bank?
The other concern relates to the Arab governments generally. Yes, I agree absolutely that the Arab governments are a HUGE part of the problem. But I am not sure whether we agree or disagree on the implications of that fact. You seem to imply that regime change in these countries (particularly Jordan) is a precondition for a lasting peace between Israel and the Palestinians. But I for one am not prepared to invade every (or indeed any other) country in the middle east to achieve that. Remember, my goal here is to improve relations with the Arab world, not to make them even worse. Yet, short of armed intervention, I see little reason to hope for meaningful change in those governments in my lifetime. Are you suggesting that there is no point in pursuing a resolution of the Palestinian issue until the Arab governments have evolved into liberal democracies? If so, then I disagree. I think Israel is going to have to take her "leap of faith" long before that happens.
(BTW: I have never said -- and do not believe -- that Israel is the problem. The problem is the conflict. But Israel certainly does have a role to play in bringing that conflict to an end. As do the Palestinians. But I am not speaking to them right now.
Thanks for your note. It really has given me a lot to think about. It was exactly in the hope of having a conversation like this that I embarked on this effort in the first place.
Bill
Bill,From Bill (1/1/05):
Thank you for your gracious reply.
A couple of points, one a little on the lengthy side, the rest, brief.
On the issue of moderates among the Arabs generally and Palestinians in particular:
Most people are people. We all pretty much want the same things: a comfortable, secure place to live, agreeable employment, good families, etc. I have not traveled widely, but my academic pursuits and military service have brought me into contact with many different people from around the world, including Arabs, and I would agree that bloody-minded, 'line-them-up-against-the-wall-and-shoot-them' haters are a comparatively rare breed.
That having been said, we also know that at least at the onset, most Germans did not support Hitler. It is a commonly held myth that he was elected, but he wasn't. When he ran for Chancellor in 1932, his party got 40% of the vote. That obviously means that 60% of the Germans at that time were not Nazis. We don't know to what extent the Japanese people honestly supported their leaders at a comparable point in history. But we do know the war these two nations launched, the dogged determination exhibited by both of these countries, and the horrific crimes they committed. The "fatherland" says it's "OK", propaganda whips people up, and there seems to be no limit to the depths of depravity that people will go. A very said fact about the human animal.
Now, when children are raised from a very young age to hate Jews and Israel, when clerics constantly preach hatred against Jews and Israel, when political leaders of very influential violent factions such as Hamas say again and again that they will continue to fight until the "Zionist entity" is no more, I think it is not hard to determine what to expect. My bottom line here is that maybe, hypothetically, a mini-state in the West Bank for the Palestinians might work if their political culture were something like that of other mini-states, such as Luxembourg or Andorra, but obviously, that is not the case. I don't think I'm being unreasonably pessimistic here.
Before I leave this subject, I would ask you to carefully think trough the implications of the very fact, that I've mentioned before, that neither the PA, nor all of the other Arab governments save Jordan and Egypt, have even recognized Israel's right to exist as a Jewish state (and even this is not a concession that a great many Jordanians and Egyptians readily make).
How could we have ever negotiated an end to the Cold War with the Russians if they didn't even recognize our right to exist, for example? Even at the height of the Cold War, when we were poised to annihilate each other on twenty minutes notice, we still at least had diplomatic relations.
Isn't this the most elemental requirement of any process that would lead towards peace? It doesn't require any final agreement on borders, Jerusalem, settlers, etc. It just means that an elemental fact that the rest of the world outside of the Arab-Moslem world, 130+ countries, has no problem with, is also recognized by the Arabs: that the Jews deserve a country. How hard is that? No, I don't say that there can only be peace when the rest of the Arab world evolves into Jeffersonian democracies. But I don't think asking for diplomatic recognition as a simple starting point is asking so much....but apparently, they do. Now do you see why I'm so pessimistic about them?
Now, onto my brief points:
In my plan, the West Bank confederates with Jordan, but as a demilitarized zone. Thus, there is a DMZ buffer between Israel and "Palestine" (i.e., Jordan). If Jordan subsequently introduces troops into the area or supports terrorists, that is justification for Israel to intervene. But, since the Palestinians could now call all of Jordan their home, if they provoked Israel into re-occupying the West Bank, they could no longer claim that Israel deprived them of a country. I think this arrangement would take an awful lot of wind out of the sails of the terrorists, especially in the eyes of world opinion, which is vital to them.
Second, I do not advocate violent regime change in Jordan. I don't think that would be necessary. Jordan already has a parliament, and broadly speaking, they have arguably moved farther down the path of developing a democracy than any other Arab state. I'm not talking about "off with their heads"; I'm talking about a dignified retirement for the royals. I'm talking about reforms that would leave them looking like the U.K., the Netherlands, Norway, etc. The monarchy keeps its palaces, but loses its power. I'm talking about persuading Jordan to make these reforms by peaceful means, economic/political carrots and sticks. (For example, nobody had to invade S. Africa for there to be majority rule in that country.) There just has to be a recognition on the part of the world community generally, and the developed secular democracies in particular, that the real onus for satisfying Palestinian national aspirations lies on Jordan's shoulders, not Israel's.
And following from this latter point, I'm glad you don't consider Israel to be "the problem". Unfortunately, the Arab-Moslem community generally, loudly, incessantly, says this. And by dint of repetition, combined with a 60's mindset on the part of a lot of Western journalists and academics that unquestioningly and automatically sides with who they perceive (or more properly in this case, are led to believe) are "oppressed third-world peoples taken advantage of by evil white-guy colonialists", a lot of self-described "progressives" also take up this cry. Most distressingly, even some Jews engage in this sort of self-flagellation, apparently believing that maintaining their "progressive" bona-fides leaves them with no other choice.
As a side point, it is astounding to me that any true progressive would ever take up the Arab cause against Israel. From the standpoint of any "progressive" parameter that you could name - religious freedom, human rights, political rights, freedom of the press, women's rights - Israel is light years ahead of any Arab country. Most Western progressives would simply be creamed if they had to live in Arab society (especially the women). Yet, to so many of them, Israel is the "bad guy". It just blows my mind. And FYI, this isn't some Rush Limbaugh conservative talking. I voted for Gore in 2000, Kerry in 2004, and on most domestic policy issues I'm decidedly to the left of center. That makes this phenomenon all the more galling to me.
Hope I've further clarified my positions to you.
Happy New Year,
-Rob Vincent
Rob –From Rob (1/1/05):
I had intended to let the Palestinian issue rest for a day, but I am watching Georgia stomp on Wisconsin (to whom I am currently paying obscene amounts of tuition) and it got so bad I needed something to distract me. So, blame John Stocco (the UW QB) for the fact that you have still more mail on this in your in box.
I couldn’t agree more on the recognition issue. It does not come through in this thread because I am talking to supporters of Israel here, but I have more than a few problems with the Arabs and the Palestinians. And their stupid posturing on recognition is certainly one of them. But, one thing you said surprised me. I thought that the PA/PLO did recognize Israel’s right to exist and subscribe to UNR 242 as a part of the Oslo accords. Maybe you think – as I think Yuval does – that this is a sham. But, if diplomatic legalities are important, don’t you at least have formal recognition from the Palestinians? And, it seems pretty clear than you could get the same from Syria and Lebanon if you could ever get a peace treaty with Syria.
But to be honest, I am not sure why these diplomatic legalities are that important to Israel. Trust me, all of these guys “recognize” that Israel exists: it’s very hard anyone, even for an Arab, to deny the reality of someone who has kicked the shit out of him half a dozen times. The Arabs seem to have this need to strut around and talk tough – they are SUCH drama queens. Partly of course this is compensation for the fact that they are so pathetically weak and ineffective. But isn’t it just childish posturing that any adult should see through – and ignore? Does it really mean anything?
I do know something about the history of Germany between the wars. (I’ll be damned if I will say “the H word” again, though. ;-) Funny how frequently we all find ourselves referring to that history in connection with these issues. In all sorts of ways, it is a “looming omnipresence”). And, yes you are right. Organized minorities can, and repeatedly have, taken countries in directions that the majority would have rejected if asked. Think, among others, of the Bolsheviks. So yes, the fact that the fire-breathers are a minority does not mean that they can be ignored. In fact, that very thought is why I speculated that incorporating the West Bank Palestinians into Jordan might well be worse in terms of the threat to Israel’s security. Isn’t there some danger that if they are really as committed as you think they would end up taking over Jordan and turning it back into an enemy? And, that same thought is also why I am very skeptical that Jordan itself will ever agree to it. Nobody wants these people in their country. That is one of the things that makes their situation so damn pathetic.
Don’t mistake me. I am not committed to a Palestinian State on the West Bank. All I am committed to is an end of the conflict. And, I can see no path to that goal that does not involve an end to the statelessness of the West Bank Palestinians. If a Jordanian confederation is the best way to do this, and if it can be implemented peacefully, then I am all for it. But, I must say that if I were Israel and I believed that the hatred of Israel is as deeply ingrained in these people as you do, I would much prefer to have them “quarantined” in a small, weak mini-state on the West Bank, surrounded on three side by Israel with a stable and friendly (or at least non-hostile) Jordan at their backs, than run the risk of having them do to Jordan what they did to Lebanon.
I don’t know what to do about the hate mongering you describe. It is soooo sad. But is it possible, just possible, that it is not as bad as it seems? Iraq provides an example of what I am talking about. Believe it or not there is actually a lot of good being done in Iraq, especially in the North and South. Whether it is enough to overcome the evil remains to be seen. But you never, ever hear anything about the good being done. All you see and hear are the acts of barbarism and the rhetoric of hatred. Is it possible that our perceptions of the Palestinians are colored by the same type of phenomenon? If we agree that “that bloody-minded, 'line-them-up-against-the-wall-and-shoot-them' haters are a comparatively rare breed” isn’t it possible that our perceptions of the depth and breadth of Palestinian hatred are overblown by the fact that evidence to the contrary is just not “newsworthy”?
My guess is you will say, “Sure, it’s possible, but Israel cannot afford to take the chance that the haters are a minority and that the “reasonable majority” (assuming it exists) will be able to control the new state.” I guess, in the end, that is where we diverge. I believe Israel cannot afford not to take that chance. And, I believe the West cannot afford to refrain from pressing her to do so and, at the same time, doing all it possibly can to assure that her fears are not realized once she does.
Thanks so much for bearing with me – and for being able to talk dispassionately about things about which your feelings are obviously very deep.
Oh, and a very a Happy New Year to you and yours.
Wisconsin has lost, so it’s on the Iowa-LSU, then Michigan-Texas to see if the Big Ten can win at least one game today.
Bill
Bill,From Bill (1/1/05):
Linda Olmert passed this along to me. Thought you'd find it educational.
Video 1, Video 2, Video 3, Video 4, Video 5, Video 6
-Rob
Rob --
Hadn't seen these [the videos linked above] when I sent my last note.
On behalf of humanity, let me apologize. No one should have to listen to stuff like this ever. And the Jews have been listening to it for what, 2000 years? It's disgusting and pathetic.
I don't know what to say about this in relation to what we have been talking about. The fact that they talk this way -- where does it lead you (other than to the bathroom to throw up)? That Peace is impossible?
Here's something Yuval wrote that sticks in my head: "Israel needs only one sort of courage, to continue its fight and prevail until she defeats all her enemies. Until they bag her to stop. Until they prove that they really really really mean peace this time." Is that really the answer? Doesn't she really need the courage to ignore this kind of talk? I don't know. This kind of hatred so depresses me.
Bill
No comments:
Post a Comment