I will let the man speak for himself, since there is nothing I could add that would more clearly and forcefully indict him and his beliefs that the language he himself chooses to use:
I suppose it would be interesting -- if it weren't so damn scary.From Bill (continuing earlier thread):
Just want to note that neither the word "embezzle" nor "stole" appears in the article. That is apparently your contribution. I suspect there is no pejorative adjective that you would consider over the top as applied to Arafat.
Are you suggesting that the West adopt the Israeli strategy of insisting that the Palestinians do everything before the it does anything? Given how well that strategy has worked for Israel, I would be very reluctant to see the West adopt it as well.
Enough for today.
Bill
PS. If you are interested, I've posted this exchange to my blog: www.parentheticals.blogspot.com. Feel free to comment there are well. (You don't have to sign up for an account; just post anonymously and put your initials at the bottom if you are so inclined).
From Yuval: Thank you for letting me contribute to your blog.
As to the subject, are you suggesting that Arafat and his cronies did not steal any moneys? Are you ignoring the mountain of evidence on the subject, including a major CBS piece on 60 Minutes and the BBC, both not known as great friends of Israel? No, the words 'embezzle' and 'stole' do not appear in the article. The article only deals with some of what was done with the stolen money after it was stolen.
As for the sequence of requirements, in the so called 'Road Map' all sides adopted, including the Arab-Palestinians, stopping the terror and reforming the PA are pre-requisites imposed on the PA leadership.
Best,
Yuval.
From Bill:
No, I am not suggesting that Arafat and his cronies never stole any money. Almost certainly they did. On the money issue, my point was simply that the particular money talked about in the article you distributed did not appear to be stolen, since the PA had records of it and was presumably in control of the "investments" (however foolish) that were made with it. Stolen money, by contrast, would either be entirely gone or in the hands of individuals other than the PA.
But my larger point was: so what? Why are we still beating up on a dead man? I assume your argument is that Arafat's successors are really just clones, that they too are utterly corrupt, and that they too are not fit to receive foreign aid largesse from the West.
From Yuval: Precisely!
From Bill: But, even if true, where does that leave us? Israel's official position for 3 years was that Arafat was irrelevant and that no progress could be achieved until he was replaced. Israel has now gotten its wish. Arafat is gone. Are we now to say "Oh well, never mind. Any successor to Arafat is going to be just like him so we won't deal with him either?"
From Yuval: Nothing has changed and will not for generations. The point is why do WE have to do anything? We only need to advance our national goals, just like they do. We owe nothing but to ourselves in our tiny little only country. As far as they are concerned, their goals are made clear in their National Charter of which I am sure you are familiar. Add to it the religious Islamic point of view that the Muslims are forbidden to give away "their holy lands" and the first Islamic command of Jihad against all infidels, and you will understand that a solution on the basis you dream about is impossible.
From Bill: I really do wonder what you think the solution to all of this is? Where do you thing things should end up? And, how do you think we should get there?
From Yuval: To me, and many with me, the road ahead is clear. Israelis are facing years of more struggle. Contrary to common beliefs, the Arab demographic threat is a fallacy. We have been hearing about it from Peres and his friends since 1956 and none of his predictions materialized. In fact, the Jewish population of Israel is growing and the Arabs in the Judea and Samaria are dwindling.
Israel should offer the Arab-Palestinians resettlement elsewhere with compensation. This option is in accordance with UN Resolution 194. At the same time, more Jews should be encouraged and helped to emigrate to Israel. Israel should establish conversion to Judaism schools and recruit non Jews to come to Israel and become Jewish. These people will be settled in Judea and Samaria and render it Jewish.
Those Arabs who choose to remain and live peacefully among us, will enjoy all the rights and privileges their Jewish neighbors enjoy, just like the Israeli Arabs in Israel today.
That would be my solution, the only solution that considers Israel's interests and national aspirations. The ONLY solution that any other country around the globe would accept for itself.
From Bill: As to my final remark about the order of things, it was a bit intemperate and I apologize. But I do get frustrated by Israeli demands that Palestinian violence completely cease as a prerequisite to any further progress. That's not a realistic demand. The power asymmetry between Israel and the Palestinians so overwhelmingly favors Israel that violence is the only tool the Palestinians have to work with. If the violence completely ceased, what incentive would Israel have to do anything more?
From Yuval: I totally fail to understand why people have the audacity to suggest that Israel just lie down and accept her citizens being murdered. We do not need to apologize to anybody or any country. Show me one country on earth that would accept such a travesty. Furthermore, both you and I know full well that if Arafat chose peace in 2000, he would now sit behind his desk, in a suit and tie, in Palestine's presidential mansion. But as I told you above, neither Arafat, nor anybody on the Palestinian side, has any intention to allow a Jewish Israel to exist and be satisfied with a non viable small enclave state with severely curtailed independence.
From Bill: The history of the Oslo accords is a case in point. Following those accords, the violence did pretty much stop and the PA did take some pretty aggressive steps against Hamas et al. And what happened? Barak failed to implement redeployments that even Netanyahu had agreed to. I understand why Barak did this: He was trying to preserve his own internal political capital for a big push to land a comprehensive deal -- and he almost succeeded. But, can't you see how that whole history looks to the Palestinian "street"?
From Yuval: The Arab-Palestinian violence after Oslo did not stop. Bringing Arafat and his gang from Tunis was a major historical mistake, if not a calamity. The PA relative calm had one purpose only, to arm themselves and establish their grip and terrorist networks in the territories. They never had any intentions for real peace, just a Hudna. Just as Abu Mazen explained just yesterday. He said violence was a mistake. Not because he is against violence, but because it caused damage to Palestinian image in the world. In other words, let us be calm for a while and let the world pressure Israel to make concessions that weakens her. Than we, the Palestinians, will proceed with our agenda. Don't you see that, Bill? How can you ignore the risk?
The "Palestinian street" is the least of my concern.
From Bill: Precisely because I am such a huge fan of Israel, I expect a lot of her. She needs the courage to go forward despite the violence; to believe that, in the end, the only way to achieve peace is to address the Palestinian sense of grievance and humiliation; and the only way to do that is to help them fulfill their aspiration for a State of their own; to give them something to lose as it were.
From Yuval: The Arab-Palestinians have already a state of their own (Jordan). If you were a real friend of Israel you would not wish upon her yet another pressure-cooker-Islamic-hostile-state, 8 miles from the center of Tel Aviv. 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.
Humiliation has nothing to do with national interests on either side. It is a term between privates, not two countries fighting for the same territory. I feel humiliated by the Arabs, so what? Do they care? Of course not. They want "their" land and So do I. Furthermore, the term humiliation is reminiscent of 1933 Germany. The Germans were "humiliated" therefore they saw themselves justified to murder the entire Europe. Come-on Bill...
I appreciate your comments and am happy to receive them. The discussion is interesting. Thanks.
Yuval.
I can't decide if I will bother to respond to this. On the one hand, it is pretty clear there is no reaching the man. On the other, I somehow feel obligated to renounce, publicly, his beliefs: As someone once said, "All that is required for evil to triumph is for enough good people to remain silent." In any event though, I find one thing is interesting: Yuval seeks to invoke the memory of Nazi Germany -- in a way that totally baffles me, but that's not really the point. Reading Yuval's theory of an appropriate solution to the Palestinian issue evokes but one word: Lebensraum. Like Hitler, Yuval has nothing but contempt for the indigenous people whose land he wants. Like Hitler, he believes his "race" is entitled to that land. And, like Hitler, he is prepared to subject both his people and his enemy's people to interminable war and suffering in order to achieve his goal of Lebensraum. The only difference is that, unlike Hitler, Yuval would pay "compensation". There is in this the makings of a very tasteless ethnic joke, but I will resist.
Update: I did respond. Here it is:
Do you have any idea how much like Hitler you sound? Like Hitler, you have nothing but contempt for the indigenous people who live on the land you want. Like Hitler, you believe your "race" is entitled to that land. You even have marshaled ethnic mythology to justify this claim. Like Hitler, you believe those people should be "relocated." Even the direction is the same: East. And, like Hitler, you are willing to subject your own people and the people of your enemies to interminable war and suffering in order to achieve your "lebensraum". True, you have not (yet) advocated actually killing these people. But then, neither did Hitler at first. Like Hitler, though, I suspect that the idea lurks in your heart and will eventually find vocalization as well.I suspect that will be the end of that "discussion."
It is pathetic that any person -- most especially a Jew -- would espouse such a "solution." Thank God you do not speak for Israel.
This discussion is not "interesting." It is repulsive.
No comments:
Post a Comment