Yes. Indonesia, the world’s most populous Muslim county, is a vast archipelago with porous maritime borders, a weak central government, separatist movements, corrupt officials, a floundering economy, and a loosely regulated financial system—all characteristics which make it fertile ground for terrorist groups. While Indonesia is known as a secular, tolerant society that practices a moderate form of Islam, radical Islamists have gained momentum. U.S. officials and terrorism experts worry about al-Qaeda using Indonesia as a base for a Southeast Asian front in its campaign against “infidels,” Jews, and the United States. Indonesia resisted international pressure to crack down on local militants suspected of al-Qaeda ties until a devastating October 2002 attack on a Bali nightclub—and the simultaneous bombing of a U.S. consular office on the island—which killed more than 200 people, most of them foreign tourists. To its credit, since October 2002 the Indonesian government has cooperated with U.S. and Australian officials in their attempts to disrupt terrorist networks in Southeast Asia. Council on Foreign Relations
I didn't know that Hizbollah had condemned terrorism against us. I must have missed that somehow.
So, I stand corrected: Muslim terrorist groups are nationalistic, not Muslim fanatics. The pro-American rally in Teheran must have been on a day when the "Death to America/Death to Israel" rallies were at a lull. So it's really unfair to call them "Muslim" terrorist groups. Hizbollah, for example, should be called the Lebanese National Liberation Front, and not the "Party of God;" Hamas should be called the Palestinian Army of National Liberation and not the "Islamic Resistance Movement."
You can believe all this if you want to. I really don't expect you to evaluate the evidence in any objective way. Aren't you the Doctor of Theology here? If you can believe that some god was born two thousand years ago, untouched by "sin" and who died and was resurrected to redeem mankind of "sin," then you'll believe anything.
Glad to have made you happy, if that's what the above comment means. I don't see where the threat to "hold me to the same standards that [I] apply to [myself]" comes from. Go right ahead and hold me to them, for all I care. I can't even figure out what you're trying to say, but forget it. It's just not important.
I failed to find an "all-terrorists-are-Muslims" quote by Pipes either. Attributing such a thought to him is laughable. I'd really like to see you come up with a direct quote.
I didn't think my question on Indonesian religious culture was "frivolous and irresponsible." I just thought it was a question. My impression is that Indonesia today is a center of al Qaeda-style Muslim fanaticism and that this has played havoc with traditional Indonesian religious culture. It's not worth it to me to come up with the context and/or evidence you require so as to take the question seriously. So I respectfully withdraw the question. Happy now?
Using Google for about thirty seconds failed to turn up an "all-terrorists-are-Muslims" quote by any of the two people you mention. Maybe it's in there somewhere. But my point is that this is not a "commonly held" opinion by anyone serious, since it's so obviously wrong. In fact, just about any "all of" or "none of" empirical statement will be easy to refute, as they surely taught you when you prepared for your SATs. That's why I say you're bravely destroying a straw man. Nobody really believes that all terrorists are Muslims.
My point is that the Muslim world supports terrorism in a way that other religions or groups don't. Even the ETA is a hated minority in the Basque Country, for example.
Didn't I say that Indonesia's religious culture was "open and tolerant? (as described by VS Naipaul)" Didn't I say that the fanaticism was imported from Saudi Arabia and not indigenous to Indonesia? Maybe you're the one with the reading comprehension problems?
I did ask you about the effects of the Wahabbi invasion on Indonesia, since I think it has destroyed traditional Indonesian tolerance. I was quite clear that I was asking you, as a self-styled expert on that country, to confirm or deny my own perception, which is apt to be mistaken.
I never claimed that you thought that most terrorists weren't Muslim. I just asked you if you agreed with this statement, since you hadn't included in your original post. Another example of your not "actually reading" my comments.
Isn't your so-called argument an example of the "straw man?" Can you give examples of people who have said that "all terrorists are Muslims?" I don't think they exist, since the examples of non-Muslim terrorists are well-known.
On the other hand, isn't it true that not all Muslims are terrorists but most terrorists are Muslims? Aside from this, isn't it true that terrorists of other religions face widespread opposition from within their own groups? Isn't it true that this contrasts with the Muslim world, where opposition to terrorism is a minority position?
Indonesia is an interesting case, as you seem to recognize. It is the exception that proves the rule. It is the only nation that accepted Islam peacefully, through Muslim trade, rather than by conquest. Indonesia's rather open and tolerant approach to Islam was described by VS Naipaul (Among the Believers) back in the early '80s. I'm not really sure about it, but I think that this traditional Indonesian culture is gone now, with the invasion of the Saudi-financed fanatics. In Naipaul's account, these people were still a fanatical minority.
Man! And you were the one who accused me of "deliberately talking past" you! When were you planning on coming back to the substance of my comments? It certainly wasn't in the above.
1. I mentioned blowing up the Western Wall/Mosque complex as a kind of black humor. But I was clear that my animus was against religion, not especially the Jewish one. Calling me Antisemitic because of this is deliberately "talking past" me.
2. Your response is almost entirely directed at showing why Israel must evacuate the WB/settlements. I was not arguing in favor of the settlements. I was clear about that. I said, "I’m not 'hesitating' to condemn the settlements or to call for their evacuation. I’m saying that it has to be accompanied by an equivalent pressure on the Arabs/Muslims/Palestinians." I never said that they were bargaining chips or a security barrier. I said that I could understand it if Israelis thought they were--I didn't say that settlers thought of their own lives as bargaining chips. Saying that I did is "talking past" me deliberately. You present some good arguments against the "bargaining chip" and "security barrier" ideas, but your arguments are not definitive. If they were, then there wouldn't be any settlements today. Some people disagree with you. Not me. Some people. I don't agree or disagree because I don't know enough about the settlements. They're complex. I'm not immersed in the situation. I can say "I don't know." You responded as if I were defending the settlements when this is plainly not the case. Taking my comments as supporting the settlement movement is "talking past" me.
3. You call Paul Berman's analysis a "fantasy." This is not correct. An analysis can't be a "fantasy." It can be wrong because it leaves important elements out or whatever. But how can it be a fantasy? It's an analysis. It's a way of thinking about the conflict that may clarify it for people, or not. You plainly think it's erroneous for some reason. Why?
In my case it does clarify the situation. As Oren says, the campaign to delegitimize the state of Israel is an existental threat, or one of Berman's "unjust wars." Antisemitism is one important pillar that supports this delegitimazation strategy. I'm certainly not "pouting" over a strategy to delegitimize Israel and in the end destroy it. Saying so is "talking past" me.
I insist on this not because I'm especially concerned about Antisemitism in the world and am working towards a world free of Antisemitism. It's because of all the strategies that are used to delegitimize Israel, Antisemitism is the only one that everyone agrees is wrong. Using the neocolonial/apartheid/racist state strategy garners a lot of support in Europe and in the US (see ChrisWWW on this blog). But nobody will argue that Jews are evil, etc etc. Nobody except Arabs and Muslims.
Like I said before (more than once and in different ways): this Arab/Muslim Antisemitism is a pillar of support not only for their drive to delegitimize and destroy Israel, but for their world view in general. It's a really concrete way to fight the ideological war that we share with Israel if we attack them on this point, as minor as you may think it is. Their Antisemitism is so crude and egregious that I can't imagine how they could defend themselves or how their defenders in the West could defend them for it (although I'm sure they'd find a way).
4. Antisemitism does not endure in the US. I don't think it's really a problem here, if it ever really was. In the past, Jews were excluded from certain neighborhoods, schools, clubs, etc but this can't be equated with European Antisemitism, which is murderous.
5. You correct me if I'm wrong: you said that Antisemitism was introduced into the ME by the Nazis, which is true (although the Nazis weren't the only Europeans to do so). Doesn't that mean that it wasn't there before?
I think it does. Before this European influence, Jews were treated as an inferior minority. The "apartheid" analogy is completely appropriate to describe their historical situation--although there was nothing racial about it. This "apartheid" situation existed in Europe as well, but also they were accused of poisoning wells, spreading the plague, eating babies, starting wars and revolutions, controlling finance, business, and the mass media. This is what was imported into the Arab/Muslim world by Europeans after WWI.
This is what delegitimizes Israel. Arabs and Muslims will be loathe to give it up just because of this reason alone. Plus, they probably believe it to begin with. But, just as they were induced to believe this stuff, they can be induced to not believing it anymore. I say that it isn't an endemic situation in the ME like it is in Europe. For this reason, I think it's a mistake to adopt your fatalism.
To sum up: I say the above not because it's the most important problem or the one that causes the most death and destruction. I say it because it's a strategy in the war of ideas. Attacking Arab/Muslim Antisemitism is a concrete and specific point upon which the vast majority of Westerners agree, or at least can't disagree with, at least in public. It would neutralize an important part of their strategy to delegitimize Israel.
I was very clear in insisting that this should be part of the "honest broker" strategy. Why is it so egregiously wrong, irresponsible, and dense to insist that anti settlement pressure on Israel must be accompanied by an equivalent pressure on Arabs/Muslims/Palestinians? According to Paul Berman's "fantasy" the war of expansion that the settlements represent is equivalent to the war of destruction the Arabs/Muslims/Palestinians wage against Israel. Their ideology is important here and Antisemitism is an important part of their ideology. Neither the settler nor the Arab and Muslim ideologies are acceptable, like I said before many times before you started to "talk past" me.
I say (and said before as well) that the root cause of the conflict is Arab/Muslim rejection of the state of Israel. As much as Israelis may have hated and feared Arabs and Muslims, they never rejected the partition of the British mandate. Therefore, Arabs and Muslims must be made to accept Israel. Attacking their crude Antisemitism is only one strategy for achieving this. There must be multiple strategies of course. But the goal is Arab and Muslim acceptance of Israel. I can't see anything in your post or comments that addresses this. All I can see is a recycling of the same old formulas and peace processes that have led nowhere for sixty years.
Here's what I'm talking about. One of seven existential threats Israel faces: Delegitimization.
Since the mid-1970s, Israel’s enemies have waged an increasingly successful campaign of delegitimizing Israel in world forums, intellectual and academic circles, and the press. The campaign has sought to depict Israel as a racist, colonialist state that proffers extraordinary rights to its Jewish citizens and denies fundamental freedoms to the Arabs. These accusations have found their way into standard textbooks on the Middle East and have become part of the daily discourse at the United Nations and other influential international organizations. Most recently, Israel has been depicted as an apartheid state, effectively comparing the Jewish State to South Africa under its former white supremacist regime. Many of Israel’s counterterrorism efforts are branded as war crimes, and Israeli generals are indicted by foreign courts.
Though the occupation of the West Bank and Gaza clearly contributed to the tarnishing of Israel’s image, increasingly the delegitimization campaign focuses not on Israel’s policy in the territories but on its essence as the Jewish national state.
Such calumny was, in the past, dismissed as harmless rhetoric. But as the delegitimization of Israel gained prominence, the basis was laid for international measures to isolate Israel and punish it with sanctions similar to those that brought down the South African regime. The academic campaigns to boycott Israeli universities and intellectuals are adumbrations of the type of strictures that could destroy Israel economically and deny it the ability to defend itself against the existential threats posed by terrorism and Iran.
Michael J. Oren, Israel's ambassador to the US, in Commentary Magazine
I didn't read this very carefully but I have to say that we agree here completely. Just so you know I'm not here just to try and stir up trouble.
One thing I didn't see is about the effects on children. Are children happier if they grow up in a household without a TV? My own would answer "yes" without hesitation. In fact, they're proud of it today. Of course at the time the opposite was true. They thought we were the worst parents on the block for not owning one.
[Y]ou’re really not seeing how, as a metaphor, it is trying to make the point that antisemitism in the West Bank is trivial IN COMPARISON TO keeping Hamas out of power and basic civil services running?
If you chose to respond to this, could you tone down the allcaps? No reason to yell at me. This is only a follow-up to my first question to you about what you would require of the Palestinians since your "way forward" was about what Israel could or should do. Your answer did not satisfy me because it would leave the cause of the conflict intact. That cause is Arab/Muslim/Palestinian rejectionism. If not, they would have had a state in 1947/48 just like the Jews did. Fighting Arab/Muslim/Palestinian Antisemitism does at least address this root cause.
I see that your above metaphor trivializes the situation, not that it shows that Arab/Muslim Antisemitism is trivial.
Providing basic services to the people of the WB is really not related to this at all. But keeping Hamas out of power is. Antisemitism is the foundation of their ideology and one of their basic principles. It allows them to openly work for the extermination of Israel and Jews in general. I don't say that Israel can put a stop to this but that the US and the EU could—if they wanted to, which they don't.
You correctly identify the source of Arab/Muslim Antisemitism with the Nazis—although the French were just as important here. It is not endemic to Arab/Muslim culture or to Islam, like it is in Europe. It has existed for the past seventy-eighty years. It can be eliminated. The Arab/Muslim region is the most ignorant on Earth (according to UNDP surveys). People get their information orally, like in any illiterate society. They get their information from the TV, the radio, and from preachers in the mosques and medrassas. All of these sources are under the state's control. These societies are running police states without exception. They can eliminate Antisemitism from the public discourse just as easily as they introduced it years ago.
I've mentioned the Paul Berman analysis here before that there are four wars in Palestine/Israel, two of which are just and two are unjust. I don't believe that ending these unjust wars should or could be part of any negotiation between Israel and Palestine. Israel cannot negotiate recognition of its right to exist. They have the right to exist because, well… they exist. It's a natural right that doesn't depend on anything or anyone. The others' right to exist is a given before any negotiation between anyone about anything ever takes place. Equally, Palestine cannot negotiate the right they have to their own territory. Their territory is theirs because, well… they're there. Israel has no right to occupy it at all by any means. Israeli expansionism, whether by settlements or anything else is an unjust war; extermination of Israel is an unjust war.
This is where I think the US and the EU should play their role as "honest brokers." They, and no one else, have the power to end these two unjust wars. Neither side will ever end them by themselves, short of an absolute military defeat followed by ethnic cleansing.
There is really no question in anyone's mind that the US and the EU should end the unjust occupation of the West Bank. There has been and is pressure on Israel to end it—although this pressure can always be more intense. But there is no pressure on the Palestinians to end their unjust war. On the contrary, every day brings news of government officials and opinion-makers in the US and the EU calling for negotiations with Hamas, Hiabollah, etc etc. thereby legitimizing their unjust war while continuing to delegitimize Israel's (as they should). I see this as the classic Antisemitic double standard.
Antisemitism is not just loose talk. It's a pillar of the ideologies of Hamas and of Islamic radicals and Arab nationalists everywhere. That's why Syrian state TV broadcasts series dramatizing the Protocols etc etc. It's not like they're broadcasting zombie movies where one could interpret the zombies as Jews. They're eliminating the metaphor and just showing the Jews themselves as the undead, walking the land, eating young Muslims, etc etc. It's no crime to kill the undead because…they're already dead! If Muslims knew that Jews were human beings just like they are, it would be harder to whip them up into frenzies murderous enough to shoot rockets at random at their cities, just to see how many Jews they can kill, etc etc. Israelis do not have equivalent feelings towards the Arabs/Palestinians, as much as they may hate and despise them. They are always torturing their own consciences over their methods because they know that the enemy is human. The Arabs/Muslims believe that Jews are sons of apes and pigs—animals. There is no equivalence.
Going back to the "honest brokers," the US and the EU should be demanding an end to both the unjust wars and to the ideologies that are their foundations. In the case of the Arabs/Muslims/Palestinians, this means Antisemitism, among other things. It just means demanding the same respect for Jews and Christians and any other non Muslim that Muslims demand for themselves. This would simply undermine the basis of their unjust war of extermination against Israel. It would undermine their whole world view, as a matter of fact, which believes that Islam is the one true religion etc etc. We (the US and the EU) have the absolute right to make this demand.
I'm not saying that this would then mean a "long term peace." I'm not "conflating" this with the long-term solution, although this would have to be part of it somehow. That involves resolving the just wars—Israel's war for survival and the Palestinian war for self-determination. That's a war that only Israel and Palestine can end. It's possible that if the US and the EU used their considerable power to end the unjust wars of expansion and of extermination, then the just wars would be easier to resolve without further violence. But maybe not. Then they'd just have to fight it out to the death, I guess. Somehow I doubt that it would ever come to that if the unjust wars are resolved.
"Putting Arab and Muslim Antisemitism front and center" means making them answer for it. It means making them defend it or withdraw it. It doesn't mean just shrugging one's shoulders at it. It means making it clear that this is not acceptable. It's part of the "honest broker" role that the US and the EU should be playing. Analogous practices would not be tolerated if it was against any other religion or ethnic group by any other. Why is it tolerated against Israel by Arabs and Muslims? For example, it means that academics would boycott Arab and Muslim nations that practice Antisemitism, just as they boycott Israel for their expansionism. They're both part of the unjust wars. They should both be fought equally by the "honest brokers."
I don't see anything particularly vindictive about this at all. If it's vindictive to "rub their noses" in their Antisemitism because it supports their unjust war of extermination against Israel it would be just as "vindictive" to harp on the settlements, if one truly wanted the role of "honest broker."
I brought up the Pacific War as an instance where state-sponsored racism was successfully eliminated. I brought it up simply to show that it's possible. From the 1930s to 1945 nobody would have thought it possible because everybody knew that Japanese and Americans hated each other, etc etc. The main difference with respect to <i>this one issue</i> is that in the Pacific War there were no "honest brokers" to force Americans and Japanese to give up their racist ideologies and resolve the just issues between them. If there had been, then, yes, I can imagine their giving up the racist speech before the war ended.
The PA and Arab/Muslim nations do not "engage in or allow anti-Semitic speech to be the norm." They sponsor it. They promote it. They produce it. They repress <i>anti</i> Antisemitic speech. It's not some free-speech issue. Hamas, the PA, and all other Arab/Muslim nations are running police states. It's either naïve or disingenuous to suggest that they can't control it.
Of course, violence is endemic in society. But that's a far cry from the violence of Palestine/Israel today. From what I know about the history of the region, before the partition there was a large percentage of Arabs who were willing to live in peace with Jews and the state of Israel. I really don't know how large a percentage this was but at least it was there and would have constituted the nucleus upon which they could have built. These people, who had no animosity towards Jews and considered them just neighbors, were bullied into cooperating with the rejectionist al Husseini clan. They were bullied by extreme violence or the threat of it. The opposition to the al Husseinis was systematically eliminated so that it remained leaderless. People were atomized and thereby easily bullied into line. I believe that the same percentage of Palestinians and Arabs and Muslims exists today, but that they have no leadership and no voice since they live in police states controlled by racist ideologies. Again, this is where the "honest brokers" come in. We have to do it for them because they can't do it for themselves. By "they" I mean Arabs and Palestinians and Muslims who have no interest in exterminating Israel.
I'm not "hesitating" to condemn the settlements or to call for their evacuation. I'm saying that it has to be accompanied by an equivalent pressure on the Arabs/Muslims/Palestinians. I can understand Israelis who refuse to evacuate, or who support the expansion of the settlements, even if I don't agree with them. They may believe that the settlements are a guarantee of security, that they're a bargaining chip, or whatever. I think they're wrong, but I can't really prove it and even if I could, that would never convince them. It doesn't matter anyhow since it's their country. The only way to convince them is by pressure from the "honest brokers." I think Israelis would be easier to convince if they saw an equivalent pressure on the Arab/Muslim/Palestinian unjust war as well. That is, they'd be easier to convince if the "honest brokers" were more honest.
The difference between taqiyya and western-style lying in the service of politics or whatever: There's a famous example of Arafat, a few weeks after the Oslo agreement was signed, in Johannesburg. In a mosque there he made a speech in which he apologized for signing the Oslo Agreements. Arafat continued that he was doing exactly what the prophet Mohammed did when he had made an agreement there with the tribe of Kuraish for ten years. Then he trained ten thousand soldiers and within two years marched on their city of Mecca. Since Mohammed is the only perfect human being for Muslims, anything he did automatically becomes either permitted or required for everyone. We have no comparable belief in the West. As much as we're used to our politicians lying, it's impossible to imagine them doing anything like what Arafat did in Johannesburg. Like I said, if they lie and they're caught, then they're punished for lying. Their careers may end in disgrace at the very least and at the most they're liable to face criminal charges. And don't start in on "Bush lied!" He hasn't been caught yet. There is no real proof, like there was in the case of Nixon, for example. So, although Nixon had much the same justifications for lying as the Muslims have for taqiyya, the result is not the same at all.
By the way, I'm about as not Jewish as they come. I think the Jewish religion is the most ridiculous one there is, with the possible exceptions of Christianity and Islam. If I was dictator over there I would take a page out of Lenin's book and just dynamite the whole Dome of the Rock/Western Wall complex and build the ugliest parking lot I could there.
Two things: Equating Arab state-sponsored Antisemitism with a contractor scuffing hardwood floors is just silly. It's not trivial. You just shrug your shoulders about it and say, that Palestinians can't become "shining stars of tolerance." But equivalent shifts have happened in modern history. I mentioned before the Pacific War. Where did all the race hatred go after that? Who made it go away? The leaders, both American and Japanese, were responsible. They actively combated the race-hatred that had fueled the war. If we could do it before, why can't we do it again?
At least by trying, we'd be putting Arab/Muslim Antisemitism front and center. Arabs and Muslims would have to answer for it. I doubt that they could.
Next: taqiyya is not the same as lying. It's religiously-sanctioned lying in the service of a greater cause. If we lie, we deny it, cover it up, and then go to jail for it if we fail. Taqiyya is one of the Muslim doctrines of war. It's like one of their weapons. How can we ever defend ourselves if we just rationalize it like you do?
And I also disagree that "changes on the ground" are somehow previous to changes in attitude, for example, giving up their Antisemitism and genocidal doctrines. I say it's just the opposite: these attitudes feed the violence. You can't stop the violence without stopping the cause. If you stop the cause then the "changes on the ground" that you require would happen easily.
I stand corrected on government support of the settlements.
Wasn't it more or less the same proposition on the right of return that the Palestinians rejected in 2000? What makes you think they'll accept it today?
Again, I'm taken aback (for real this time) that you don't require Palestinians to end their racist incitement to hatred of Israel, Israelis, and Jews. Check MEMRI for translations of their official, government, school textbooks for examples of stuff that would get any education official fired in two seconds in the US. While you're at it, look at some of kids shows on their TV. How can any so-called peace process have any chance for success if generations of Arab/Muslim/Palestinian people are raised on the most vile Antisemitic propaganda imaginable—cruder, even, than Der Sturmer. Even most Germans found Der Sturmer too crude and vulgar. That isn't the case with most Arabs/Muslims/Palestinians. University professors over there can write learned articles about why the Protocols of the Elders of Zion is true. Doesn't this offend you in the least? You don't require that they give up—entirely, and forever—the doctrine that Palestine is their god-given land. You don't require that they give up—entirely and forever—the idea that god must rule the whole world. You don't require any assurances that Palestinians are not using the Muslim doctrine of taqiyya, or deceit.
Working definition: “Antisemitism is a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews. Rhetorical and physical manifestations of antisemitism are directed toward Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their property, toward Jewish community institutions and religious facilities.”
In addition, such manifestations could also target the state of Israel, conceived as a Jewish collectivity. Antisemitism frequently charges Jews with conspiring to harm humanity, and it is often used to blame Jews for “why things go wrong.” It is expressed in speech, writing, visual forms and action, and employs sinister stereotypes and negative character traits.
Contemporary examples of antisemitism in public life, the media, schools, the workplace, and in the religious sphere could, taking into account the overall context, include, but are not limited to:
*
Calling for, aiding, or justifying the killing or harming of Jews in the name of a radical ideology or an extremist view of religion.
*
Making mendacious, dehumanizing, demonizing, or stereotypical allegations about Jews as such or the power of Jews as collective — such as, especially but not exclusively, the myth about a world Jewish conspiracy or of Jews controlling the media, economy, government or other societal institutions.
* Accusing Jews as a people of being responsible for real or imagined wrongdoing committed by a single Jewish person or group, or even for acts committed by non-Jews.
*Denying the fact, scope, mechanisms (e.g. gas chambers) or intentionality of the genocide of the Jewish people at the hands of National Socialist Germany and its supporters and accomplices during World War II (the Holocaust).
*Accusing the Jews as a people, or Israel as a state, of inventing or exaggerating the Holocaust.
* Accusing Jewish citizens of being more loyal to Israel, or to the alleged priorities of Jews worldwide, than to the interests of their own nations.
Examples of the ways in which antisemitism manifests itself with regard to the State of Israel taking into account the overall context could include:
*Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, e.g., by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavor
*Applying double standards by requiring of it a behavior not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation.
*Using the symbols and images associated with classic antisemitism (e.g., claims of Jews killing Jesus or blood libel) to characterize Israel or Israelis.
*Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis.
*Holding Jews collectively responsible for actions of the state of Israel.
However, criticism of Israel similar to that leveled against any other country cannot be regarded as antisemitic.</blockquote
Statements by ChrisWWW:
It’s all okay though, because your culture that allows that is superior.Qassam rockets are not an existential threat to Israel these rockets they can make in their kitchens? Why did the kid do that? [i.e., commit mass murder by suicide]There are similar feelings on both sides. [I.e., government-sponsored hate sessions, hate propaganda, etc etc]How is apartheid not an accurate term at this point?Technically that’s true, but you’re completely ignoring the nature of these offers. So you’re not lying, just being misleading. [I.e., believing that Palestinians have never been truly offered self-determination because of Israeli double-dealing]They should of course give that language up… [I.e., government incitement to hatred; Jews are sons of apes and pigs; Jews make matzo balls out of blood extracted from pubescent Muslims]
Does he "justify the killing or harming of Jews?" E.g., kitchen-made rockets; no existential threat; implying that the suicide mass-murderers have a reason that would explain their crimes.
Does he say or imply that Israelis are racist? e.g., the "apartheid" comments, comment #1, above etc etc.
Does he apply double standards? E.g., by blaming Israel for the violence and placing the burden for a solution on Israel alone, e.g., by holding the 60 Minutes broadcast up as "I urge you to watch this excellent 60 Minutes report on the Israeli settlements on Palestinian land. Along with walls and roadblocks, the settlements are making life for the Palestinians unbearable and decreasing the likelihood of a two state solution."
I agree that speculating about what Sharon knew and when he knew it is just conspiracy-mongering. It doesn't make any difference anyway. I'm sure the wasn't the only one who thought the Palestinians would make a mess of it in Gaza.
What takes me aback—a little bit—about your analysis is that there is no mention of the Palestinians except for the vague "negotiations can be restarted" and "negotiations will continue..." kind of thing.
I agree that expanding the settlements is illegitimate and the government has no business supporting it (I don't think they do so today at any rate). I agree that given the situation there that Israel will always be expected to make the first move and to make the famous painful concessions. So I agree that unilateral withdrawal from the West Bank is one way to achieve a peace treaty with Palestine.
But it has to be accompanied by concrete moves by Palestine. These moves cannot be just promises to make some concrete moves, like in the past. This seems only fair to me; plus it may be required to get the Israeli electorate to support such a thing.
If you agree with this, then what concrete moves would you require so that the withdrawal could begin?
You're impossible. You just willfully misinterpret what I say.
I have said over and over again that I know they were wrong about the WMDs. How can I get you to understand this? I just differ with you on how and why they were wrong.
When you say "If they had exercised “due care” they would not have invaded because they would have found out that there was no WMD threat!" you're saying essentially that if they had known then what we know now, they wouldn't have invaded. I agree but that's irrelevant. I say there is no way they could have known, short of invading, because Saddam didn't want us to know.
The proof, or evidence, of Saddam's WMD possession was produced by Saddam. He was lying about it, not Bush/Cheney. Why is is so Orwellian to say so?
How could they ever have found out that Saddam didn't have WMDs if he was using this to keep power? I repeat: the only reason we now know he didn't is because we invaded. Show me the Orwellian nature of this.
I remember Ritter. I'm not dismissing him either. It does turn out that he was right. Is this supposed to show that Bush lied?
I have said over and over again that I know they were wrong about the WMDs. How can I get you to understand this? I just differ with you on how and why they were wrong.
Let's look at it another way: post-invasion investigations agree that Saddam had the WMD programs, but not the WMDs themselves. They say he was waiting for the right time to reactivate them.
I have said over and over again that I know they were wrong about the WMDs. How can I get you to understand this? I just differ with you on how and why they were wrong.
Once the Oil for Food scam had done its work and the sanctions were removed—which was the tendency back then—the right time would have arrived. Then it would be too late to do anything about it. I'm not saying that this was a reason to invade. Do I have to repeat this so you'll understand? I'm saying that in hindsight, which is what you're using most of the time anyway, I can still justify the invasion on that basis.
Now then, when did I defend torture, reject honor, accountability, and effectiveness? Who are you talking to?
I have said over and over again that I know they were wrong about the WMDs. How can I get you to understand this? I just differ with you on how and why they were wrong.
Couldn't you have picked a more biased video clip to show? I never watch TV and never saw this 60 Minutes broadcast. At least now I understand why so many people share your attitude: They saw it on TV, so it must be true! At least it wasn't on the History Channel. Then it would be history!
Just a quick critique off the top of my head:
Interviews were with 90% Palestinians and 10% with Israelis. Of the 10% the majority were with settlers, who do not represent the Israeli government or the majority of Israeli opinion.
Biased interviews: For example, "Why do the Israelis have the checkpoints?"
"To fragment our land,... etc etc"
No mention of the years of suicide/murders against Israel based in the West Bank.
No mention of Palestinian violence. The only mention of violence is by Israelis. It shows the Wall but no mention of the years of mass murder/suicide bombings that made it necessary. Etc. Etc.
Use of inflammatory language taken from Palestinian propaganda: apartheid, etc etc.
In general, this is disgusting. Supposedly it advocates peace but it only incites more hatred against Israel. It blames them for the conflict and portrays the Palestinians as victims. I'm ashamed to be an American and see our TV producing this garbage. I thought that this was characteristic of French and European TV. Now I know how wrong I was.
Aside from the above, your clip does not relate to the point I brought up, "Even Orwell couldn’t have imagined what takes place during Friday afternoon “prayers” in Palestine and throughout the Middle East." Both sides do not gather at "prayer" every week to chant "Death to Israel/Palestine!" That only happens on the Muslim side. If not, then put up a link of an equivalent five-minute hate in Israel. Five-minute hates are routine incitements to hatred operated by governments, not spontaneous demonstrations. So, put up about your "both sides" canard, or shut up.
1. I never made any implicit demands that "possible rocket attacks from the West Bank are an unacceptable security threat if Gaza and the West Bank are allowed to reunify." I meant just what I said. There was nothing implicit about it. I supported this with facts and logic so there was nothing hypothetical about it either. You can argue with my facts and logic but you can't say it was hypothetical because it wasn't. My hypothetical was limited to a hypothetical solution to the problem; my analysis did not "hinge" on it, like yours does. I said that the world should demand that Palestinians step up and claim responsibility for their actions and for their unacceptable demands for the extermination of the Jewish state. I hypothesized that if this can be accomplished, then they can achieve peace. So my hypothetical ends in peace just like yours does. But my analysis of the situation does not depend on this.
On the other hand, yours does: you admit to basing your position on a hypothetical. This is progress for me.
You called me a liar: "This is a common sentiment but simply not true." "This" refers to the many times Palestinians have been offered self-determination. I don't have a time line at my fingertips, so I'm just going by memory. They were offered it in 1937, 1947, 2000, and 2001. Maybe sometime back in the '70s too. So your hypothetical is not even worth considering as an hypothetical. After so many tries, and so many rejections, who would agree to just trying the same old thing again? Only people who get their information from "60 Minutes."
The Palestinians have rejected self-determination so many times and they will continue to reject it if it means they have to live in peace with the Jewish state. That's the reason they rejected it in the past.
So, that's why I'm pointing to Palestinian rejectionism as the root cause of the conflict. It's not hypothetical. It's based on history. That's why I said that our policy should be directed at making them give up this unacceptable position. It should be directed at making Israel give up its unacceptable positions as well, i.e., the settlements and the occupation of the West Bank.
But even if Israel does give up the settlements and its occupation of the West Bank, without a corresponding move by Palestinians the violence will continue. The "corresponding move" is to give up their illegitimate demands for the extermination of the Jewish state.
I actually agree with Jaybird's solution, as much as he enjoys being facetious, which is to absorb the WB into Jordan. This was the original plan, or something like it, back in 1947. It's impossible today but, still, I agree it would be the best thing all around. This would also imply dismantling the settlements, etc. But if and only if Arabs/Muslims/Palestinians give up their illegitimate demands for the destruction of the Jewish state. If not, it's not a peace plan. It's a war plan.
So there's a lot you disagree with but you can't prove it? That's what I thought. You were just blowing gas. I never asked you to prove that Palestinians will stop shooting homemade rockets or will instantly stop hating Israelis. So you're not arguing with me about that.
As for the hypothetical, I simply said that to Israelis themselves none of this in hypothetical. They are legitimate security concerns. That's different from a hypothetical. They're the ones who control the fate of their own country.
Why doesn't your argument hinge on a hypothetical? You say, "giving the Palestinians a real chance at self-determination will remove the foundation for that hatred and violence." Remember that they have been given real chances at self-determination many times in the past and they have just said no. So your hypothetical is truly bullshit since it's not even hypothetical. It's a mistake.
There is no "thoughtcrime" here. Why do people immediately jump on the Orwell defense? That in itself should be a thoughtcrime. I was talking about race hatred. I was talking about race hatred plus incitement to extreme violence going back generations. This is not what Orwell had in mind at all.
If you want to go Orwell here, the three-minute hate is a much better fit. Even Orwell couldn't have imagined what takes place during Friday afternoon "prayers" in Palestine and throughout the Middle East.
Remember, for example, that this so-called thoughtcrime was part of the Oslo process. Palestinians agreed to end their indoctrination of hatred. They didn't. They made it worse.
Can it be done? Can governments end hatred and incitement to violence based on hatred? Of course they can. Of course they have. Of course that ending this is the surest way to achieve peace.
Think about the Pacific War (1941-45). It was a war of race hatred from beginning to end. Where did all the hatred go? Who hates the Japanese today and calls them monkey-men, like they did back in the '40s? What Japanese call us lice and vermin and devil men, like they did back in the '40s? If we did it before we can do it again. All that's missing is the willpower to to it.
That's why I say that Obama is missing his chance to be the greatest peacemaker since Ghandi. Greater. He has a shot at sainthood if he plays his cards right. He has the power and ability to do it. He doesn't have the will. That's what makes him a loser in my mind.
Proving that Bush/Cheney lied is not proving a negative, as the Gulf of Tonkin situation illustrates. Johnson said the US was in international waters and they weren't. It was easy to prove that, with the right information. That's not proving a negative.
It's the same thing here. You could prove that Bush/Cheney knew that Saddam didn't have any WMDs if you had the information. You don't. You finally admit it, which is progress of some sort, I guess.
The fact is, they were very certain and so was everyone else. They and everyone else was wrong. But they didn't lie. You could easily convince me just by pointing to people who said that Saddam didn't have WMDs. These people don't exist. Or, if they do, I think Bush would be justified in taking the vast majority as support enough to be certain enough about it.
That's why I said that they took "due care" before asking Congress for authorization for the invasion. Given that they did take "due care," which you now admit, you'll understand why I said you were whining. For example, if this was 1968 and you were an officer in Vietnam, you would not be whining if you said that the president had put your life at risk for nothing but a lie. Here the situation is the opposite.
They did have proof. It's just that the proof itself was a lie. But the lie wasn't propagated by Bush/Cheney, which is why the whole world believed it at the time. It's a crazy situation because we were dealing with a crazy man: Saddam. Even members of his inner circle thought he had WMDs and he didn't. He was the one who lied about his own WMDs.
Think about it: possession of WMDs was a crime and Saddam was faking it. Who would ever fake guilt of a crime? The system is set up to find the opposite, or people faking innocence not guilt. If anyone wants to fake guilt, they'll find it really easy to do so but they'd be crazy. I could go out today and fake guilt of just about any crime there is and everyone would believe me.
Why would Saddam do such a thing? This is just speculation, but to me it's easy to answer. He didn't really need the WMDs as much as he needed people to believe he had them. It was just a bluff. Bush called his bluff, which Saddam wasn't expecting. This is where he was crazy, not about the bluffing. Saddam wasn't expecting Bush to call his bluff because no one had ever done it before. He got overconfident. He was relying on the French, in particular, since they were living in his pockets through the Oil for Food scam, to block Bush. They sure gave it the best try they could, so Saddam really doesn't have a case against them for betrayal.
If you'll bear with me a bit longer, I can extend this line of thought for you. It will help you in the end because it will end your abasement to the fucking hippies, so it may be worthwhile for you.
The thing is, Saddam's guilt was a key element in his hold on power. If people had known he didn't have the WMDs, then quite probably he would have had rebellions and invasions on his hands, and not just from us.
What if the world had found out that Saddam was innocent? He could easily have proven that he was. Would the Shia population and the Kurds have risen up against him? Would Iran have invaded, or at least used the Shia as a proxy against Saddam? Would Saddam have run for the hills? Would this have created a power vacuum in the middle of the most volatile region on Earth? As a result, would Syria, Turkey, Saudi Arabia and others have gotten involved? Would the US then be obliged to intervene? Would we have then intervened under conditions that would have been impossible for us to deal with? Would we then have been up shit creek without a paddle?
This is the kind of thing that the fucking hippies never think about. They assume that if we hadn't invaded, things would have stayed just as they were, except that we wouldn't be involved in a war. This is the best illustration of the historical fallacy that anyone could ever invent—but they don't have to invent it because the fucking hippies are confronting them with it every day.
That's why I have to repeat: you don't have to abase yourself to the fucking hippies anymore. You can be proud that you served in a noble cause. For sure I am proud of you, even if you're not. I don't hate the fucking hippies like you do—they sell me the drugs I require to get through the night so I won't bite the hand that feeds me. But if you want to hate them, go right ahead. But make it stick to them like shit off the fan. Don't go around feeling sorry for yourself anymore. You did the right thing.
Forget the goalposts. It looks like that expression confused you. Nobody is talking about "existential threats" from the Qassam rockets alone. The existential threat comes from Hamas (and many others like Iran), who use the Qasaam rockets (among other things). If they had better rockets then there would be an existential threat from their rockets. They obviously want better rockets and have acquired some even now.
Should Israelis take your attitude? Should they wait until Hamas has the potential to threaten their existence before the get worried about it? Maybe. But for sure any politician with this for a plan will not even get elected dog catcher. That's what you're not understanding. It's their country. They're the ones who have to decide where the limits are, not you.
The threat from the Qassam rockets doesn't have to be "existential" for Israelis to consider them important enough threats to counteract. Of course, there's a range of threat that people will tolerate before counteracting it. In the case of the Qassam rockets, Israel has already tolerated quite a lot more than most other people would.
It's obvious that they are a threat to security no matter where they come from. People die and are hurt from them. People's lives are disrupted by them. You have to remember that Israel is a democracy and the people under this threat vote and petition their government. Other people who vote feel solidarity with the people under threat. Etc. Why is this so hard for you to understand?
I never said that Hamas was firing Qassam rockets from the West Bank so your search was practically useless. I said that it was reasonable to think that they would fire Qassam rockets from there if they could. Today they can't and it's because Israel is standing in their way, not because they don't want to.
You should read Max, above, about:
the incredibly complex network of internal Israeli checkpoints that currently keep the region stable. Do you have any sense of what the risk of a Hamas takeover is, should these checkpoints disappear?
That's all I'm saying. Israelis are correctly concerned about this risk. Why? Because of the Qassam rockets plus their genocidal ideology. We know that they want to upgrade their rocket capability. We know that Iran has already tried to help them do so. It's not just some "bullshit hypothetical" if you live in Israel.
And it's not only about Qassam rockets either. After the Gaza war, Palestinians in Gaza began to question Hamas's use of the rockets since they eventually brought Hell down on their heads. They began to think that maybe it would be better to go back to the martyrdom operations (suidide/mass murder). This kind of thing would be exponentially easier for them to operate from the West Bank, if Israel abandons it unilaterally.
These are real fears that Israelis are fully justified in holding, not just hypothetical bullshit. It's no Schweinflu, for example.
The peace process was not derailed by the Qassam rockets. It was derailed by Arafat in 2000 at Camp David. Palestinians can easily convince Israelis that they won't fire rockets at them simply by not doing it. The rockets are not fired by Palestinians in general, they're fired by Hamas. Probably most Palestinians don't want Hamas to do it. But they're not just pranks.
As for ED Kain, nobody is asking for a "total security guarantee" and Chris brings up a red herring. On the other hand, you're correct that the rockets are not the problem. The hatred for Israelis is. With this hatred, human ingenuity will always find a way, as you said. If this hatred didn't exist then it would be as close to a "total security guarantee" as anyone has a right to expect.
That's why I said that Obama should be using his immense popularity and talent to demand an end to the hatred and an end to the occupation of the West Bank. The two things are related. As long as this hatred exists, Israelis have a legitimate security concern. When it ends, they don't. This only seems fair to me.
You insist on misreading me. I can't explain why. What's in it for you?
First misreading: You say I "object" to your giving credit to the troops for "salvaging" a victory out of the war.
Remember that you had said that this was "ONLY because of the skill, professionalism and dedication of our military people?" I said: "I can think of another reason, off the top of my head: Bush himself refused to quit and upped the ante instead. Then he threw all the support he could to the military to accomplish what he was demanding. My emphasis" Another reason doesn't mean that your reason (the troops) is not a reason. It means that, along with the troops, there were other reasons. I'm not denying your reason (how in the name of Pete could anyone do that?). I was just giving, well, another reason. Few things have ONLY one explanation or are ENTIRELY based on anything. We're always part of some situation or other, which consists of different elements related to one another somehow.
Second misreading and for the last time: I don't deny that WMDs were a justification for the war. I just say they weren't the ENTIRE justification. I never "maintained otherwise." This is maybe the fourth or fifth time I've had to say this. I have agreed all along that without a WMD threat, there would have been no war—although there were other reasons. You even quote me saying so and then go on to say that I deny it. How can you do this?
Third misreading—really the most important one because this was the point that elicited your original comment on my posting: I keep asking you to tell me what new information you have that shows that Bush/Cheney knew all along that Saddam didn't have the WMDs. You just repeat that we never found the WMDs that Bush/Cheney said were there. I already knew that. You have to show that they knew all along that they weren't there. Then you'd have to show how they fooled the French, the UN, the former Clinton administration as well because they all thought Saddam had them too. The problem is, and again this is the second or third time I've had to ask you: what new truths do you know now that show that Bush/Cheney lied about the WMDs, instead of making a mistake. You don't have to go over all the evidence. Just a few quick examples will be enough for me and I can read the rest on my own. If you're right, then I'm changing sides right away. I told you this before.
On the other hand, it looks to me like you're the one who should be changing sides right about now. If you can't come up with anything to show I'm wrong and that Bush lied, etc etc, then you don't have to concede anything to the "dirty f*****g hippies" that you hate so much. On the contrary, you can proudly tell them to kiss your ass. Wouldn't that feel a whole lot better for you?
Here's an example that maybe will clarify things for you. The Gulf of Tonkin resolution. Johnson told the congress and the nation that US Naval vessels in international waters had been attacked by N Vietnam and requested and got authorization to escalate the war on that basis. This was later shown to be a lie. So, if I had supported the war, I'd be justified in changing my mind, calling Johnson a liar and a cheat, and saying that Americans had been sent to be killed and maimed under false pretenses. And they were "sent" back then by the Selective Service Agency.
There is nothing about the WMD issue that resembles this in the least. Unless you show me that there is. I've asked you over and over again and get nowhere.
I already told you that I agreed that Bush was an incompetent CIC up through 2006. You just give a lot more detail about it but I already said I agreed. So what do you imagine we're arguing about here?
Now you're off on another tangent: the Saddam/al Qaeda connection. Can we save this for later?
Sorry. I wrote the above without seeing the article you posted.
This is from Wikipedia:
In the summer of 2002, Zarqawi settled in northern Iraq, where he joined the Islamist Ansar al-Islam group that fought against the Kurdish-nationalist forces in the region. He became a leader in the group, although the extent of his authority has not been established. According to Perspectives on World History and Current Events (PWHCE), a not-for-profit project based in Melbourne, Australia, "Zarqawi was well positioned to lead the Islamic wing of the insurgency when the March 2003 invasion took place. Whether he remained in Ansar al-Islam camps until April 2003 or laid the preparations for the war during extensive visits to Baghdad and the Sunni Triangle is uncertain, but clearly he emerged as an important figure in the insurgency soon after the Coalition invasion."
This is the conclusion of an WaPo article about the inspector general's report on this stuff, cited by Wikipedia:
Zarqawi, whom Cheney depicted yesterday as an agent of al-Qaeda in Iraq before the war, was not then an al-Qaeda member but was the leader of an unaffiliated terrorist group who occasionally associated with al-Qaeda adherents, according to several intelligence analysts. He publicly allied himself with al-Qaeda in early 2004, after the U.S. invasion.
Well, that makes me feel a lot better! Zarqawi was only "occasionally associated with al Qaeda adherents." What's to worry?
The article is also about the operationality of the connectivism al Qaeda/Saddam, not about nonoperational connectivity. In fact, the article confirms such connectivity:
It quoted an August 2002 CIA report describing the relationship as more closely resembling "two organizations trying to feel out or exploit each other" rather than cooperating operationally.
So, at the time, Saddam and al Qaeda were only trying to negotiate a more operational form of connectivism. Cheney said they were operational but they weren't. They were only pre-operational.
Should this make me change my opinion in support of the invasion? Did Cheney lie? Maybe so.
I can't help thinking that this point is really too minor to justify my changing my position. If relations between al Qaeda and Saddam were only pre operational, then it's probably a good thing we invaded when we did. Later, when they finally became operational, it might have been immeasurably harder to invade and even more necessary to do it. Remember we invaded Afghanistan (aka the good war) because it was harboring al Qaeda. Al Qaeda is on record as wanting WMD potential. Once the connectivity Saddam/al Qaeda had achieved full operationality, we would then be justifying an invasion on that basis. Then we would find out what WMD capability really means. Remember the panic that Saddam would use the WMDs on us during the invasion? If you were the "decider" here, what would you do?
Instead of being a reason to change my position, I would think that it would be a reason for an opponent of the war to change his or hers. What would have happened if we hadn't invaded and allowed this pre operational connecitvity to flourish into full connectitud? Does that sound scary to you?
But Saddam also had operational connectivity with other terrorist organizations that are well-known. The article you posted above says this as well. I don't see why it should have mattered that Saddam only had operational connectivity with "other terrorist groups" that shared al Qaeda's enmity with us. If Saddam had the WMDs and was cooperating only with "other terrorist groups," why is it so unreasonable for Bush and other national security authorities to take this seriously as a threat?
What's missing here? I don't get it. Just from the stuff presented here it seems that Bush/Cheney exaggerated the Saddam/al Qaeda operational connectivity. The truth seems to be that this connectivity was only pre operational. Maybe it was a lie; maybe it was an honest mistake; maybe it was conscious exaggeration. Maybe future historians will find that Bush/Cheney were right all along. But I don't see how this would ever determine anyone's support for the war back in 2002-03, even without considering the multiple other reasons to support it. If I had known this back then, I would have still supported the war. That's because I knew that al Qaeda/Saddam/other terrorist groups; etc etc wanted to kill you and your family.
Are we talking about an al Qaeda/Saddam/9/11 connection now? When did we start doing that? Are you referring to operational connectivism? I don't know about that but I guess you're right for now. Remember the legend of the Prague Atta/Saddam secret police meeting, etc etc. But who knows what information will be uncovered by future historians? I wouldn't exactly blow my mind to find out that there was a direct operational connection there.
I was obviously talking about a nonoperational connectivism. I find that this is unexceptional and further just one more of many justifications for the invasion, since we thought Saddam had WMDs and further knew that al Qaeda wanted some to kill you with.
NDP405: You call it..”And there goes the canard that there was no link between al Qaeda and Iraq” and support it through anecdotal evidence from a CIA agent whose task it was to find this link and from a journalist writing a story.
Yes, I call the idea that there was no link between al Qaeda and Saddam before the invasion a "canard."
No, I didn't support this with anecdotal evidence from a CIA agent, etc etc. You must be confusing me with someone else. I simply quoted a Friedman column and my "canard" comment was a throwaway. But Friedman never used anecdotal evidence from a CIA agent, etc etc. He just observed that by making al Qaeda fight in Iraq, and by defeating them, we were protecting ourselves against further attacks by them. That seems like a reasonable conclusion to draw. Why not?
So what are you talking about? I know you're upset, and I'm sorry my diatribes have driven you to this point. For now, try and calm down a bit. Later, I'd suggest just scrolling past anything with my name on it. That way, you wouldn't have to go through this anymore. You tried to refute something I never said and even then you failed to refute the al Qaeda/Saddam connection.
Everybody knows that Zarqawi's group (al Qaeda in Iraq, no less!) was in that country soon after the invasion of Afghanistan. Also, there was an al Qaeda affiliate in the north before the invasion: Ansar al Islam (or something). These would be connections enough for me, since they could get WMD potential from Saddam and then use it against us. Later it turned out that Saddam didn't have the WMDs, but that has no bearing on the debate in 2002 because at the time everybody thought that he did. If you'll recall, at the time the nation was panicked about al Qaeda using some kind of WMD as a follow-on attack.
Better luck next time. Wait! I forgot: There won't be a next time since you're going to ignore my comments from now on. I hope.
I can’t believe you said that. You say your so-called solution will lead to a bloodbath.
That’s what ED Kain thinks will happen, sans a peace agreement / two state solution.
No. That's what he says will happen if the settlements are dismantled. As things stand today, the settlements will be dismantled only if there's a peace agreement/two state solution. So it looks like you're (you and ED Kain) in a bit of bind here.
That’s a pretty flimsy case. Qassam rockets are not an existential threat to Israel (Israel has admitted as much), and it’s a miracle more aren’t being shot from the West Bank. They are made from little more than a steel cylinder, fertilizer and traces of TNT.
Let's review: you asked me "How is he demanding Israel compromise its security [ie, by demanding dismantling the settlements and abandoning the West Bank]?" I explained the security risk and then you say I have a "flimsy case" and move the goalposts to "existential threats." Who ever said they were existential threats in the first place? Not me. What's going on here? Are you just not paying attention or are you playing around thinking you can "win" some bullshit argument by these tactics?
Let's remember that Israel is a democracy so politicians have to get voted into power. I can't imagine anyone getting voted into power in Israel with your attitude. Imagine their saying, "Oh come on! They're just a bit of TNT and fertilizer. We're not really under existential threat. No biggie. Let's just live and let live. They like to play with rockets. We like to play with science, technology, music and art. Why can't we all just get along?"
So, if 75% of the Israeli population is within Hamas rocket range, that means that 75% of voters will want a solution. That solution will not be to "engage" Hamas in conversation. It will be another wholesale invasion.
As for the "bit of fertilizer plus a bit of TNT," Hamas will be upgrading their rocket capability, like anyone else upgrades anything else. We're the upgrading species. There were some rockets fired at Israel last year with the capability of reaching the outskirts of Tel Aviv. Israel has caught and destroyed Iranian arms shipments to Hamas. So just because their rocket capability seems risible to you today doesn't mean it will stay that way. Israeli politicians will have to think at least that far ahead, just to stay in power, or get it, even if you can't.
Ed Kain:
"Civil war - Jews fighting Jews and Arabs fighting Arabs - when the settlements are finally dismantled. Then - who knows? Like any good tale, things will get worse before they get better…"
I can't believe you said that. You say your so-called solution will lead to a bloodbath. You look at it as a "good story." I never suspected you of applying such silly aesthetic criteria to such an intractable conflict. I thought you were more serious than that.
How, then, is your idea supposed to be a "solution" if it leads to a worse situation that we have today?
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.
On “it was never the case that all terrorists were Muslim”
Here's some data points for you.
I didn't know that Hizbollah had condemned terrorism against us. I must have missed that somehow.
So, I stand corrected: Muslim terrorist groups are nationalistic, not Muslim fanatics. The pro-American rally in Teheran must have been on a day when the "Death to America/Death to Israel" rallies were at a lull. So it's really unfair to call them "Muslim" terrorist groups. Hizbollah, for example, should be called the Lebanese National Liberation Front, and not the "Party of God;" Hamas should be called the Palestinian Army of National Liberation and not the "Islamic Resistance Movement."
You can believe all this if you want to. I really don't expect you to evaluate the evidence in any objective way. Aren't you the Doctor of Theology here? If you can believe that some god was born two thousand years ago, untouched by "sin" and who died and was resurrected to redeem mankind of "sin," then you'll believe anything.
"
Glad to have made you happy, if that's what the above comment means. I don't see where the threat to "hold me to the same standards that [I] apply to [myself]" comes from. Go right ahead and hold me to them, for all I care. I can't even figure out what you're trying to say, but forget it. It's just not important.
"
I failed to find an "all-terrorists-are-Muslims" quote by Pipes either. Attributing such a thought to him is laughable. I'd really like to see you come up with a direct quote.
I didn't think my question on Indonesian religious culture was "frivolous and irresponsible." I just thought it was a question. My impression is that Indonesia today is a center of al Qaeda-style Muslim fanaticism and that this has played havoc with traditional Indonesian religious culture. It's not worth it to me to come up with the context and/or evidence you require so as to take the question seriously. So I respectfully withdraw the question. Happy now?
"
Using Google for about thirty seconds failed to turn up an "all-terrorists-are-Muslims" quote by any of the two people you mention. Maybe it's in there somewhere. But my point is that this is not a "commonly held" opinion by anyone serious, since it's so obviously wrong. In fact, just about any "all of" or "none of" empirical statement will be easy to refute, as they surely taught you when you prepared for your SATs. That's why I say you're bravely destroying a straw man. Nobody really believes that all terrorists are Muslims.
My point is that the Muslim world supports terrorism in a way that other religions or groups don't. Even the ETA is a hated minority in the Basque Country, for example.
Didn't I say that Indonesia's religious culture was "open and tolerant? (as described by VS Naipaul)" Didn't I say that the fanaticism was imported from Saudi Arabia and not indigenous to Indonesia? Maybe you're the one with the reading comprehension problems?
I did ask you about the effects of the Wahabbi invasion on Indonesia, since I think it has destroyed traditional Indonesian tolerance. I was quite clear that I was asking you, as a self-styled expert on that country, to confirm or deny my own perception, which is apt to be mistaken.
I never claimed that you thought that most terrorists weren't Muslim. I just asked you if you agreed with this statement, since you hadn't included in your original post. Another example of your not "actually reading" my comments.
"
Isn't your so-called argument an example of the "straw man?" Can you give examples of people who have said that "all terrorists are Muslims?" I don't think they exist, since the examples of non-Muslim terrorists are well-known.
On the other hand, isn't it true that not all Muslims are terrorists but most terrorists are Muslims? Aside from this, isn't it true that terrorists of other religions face widespread opposition from within their own groups? Isn't it true that this contrasts with the Muslim world, where opposition to terrorism is a minority position?
Indonesia is an interesting case, as you seem to recognize. It is the exception that proves the rule. It is the only nation that accepted Islam peacefully, through Muslim trade, rather than by conquest. Indonesia's rather open and tolerant approach to Islam was described by VS Naipaul (Among the Believers) back in the early '80s. I'm not really sure about it, but I think that this traditional Indonesian culture is gone now, with the invasion of the Saudi-financed fanatics. In Naipaul's account, these people were still a fanatical minority.
On “One way forward for the West Bank”
Man! And you were the one who accused me of "deliberately talking past" you! When were you planning on coming back to the substance of my comments? It certainly wasn't in the above.
1. I mentioned blowing up the Western Wall/Mosque complex as a kind of black humor. But I was clear that my animus was against religion, not especially the Jewish one. Calling me Antisemitic because of this is deliberately "talking past" me.
2. Your response is almost entirely directed at showing why Israel must evacuate the WB/settlements. I was not arguing in favor of the settlements. I was clear about that. I said, "I’m not 'hesitating' to condemn the settlements or to call for their evacuation. I’m saying that it has to be accompanied by an equivalent pressure on the Arabs/Muslims/Palestinians." I never said that they were bargaining chips or a security barrier. I said that I could understand it if Israelis thought they were--I didn't say that settlers thought of their own lives as bargaining chips. Saying that I did is "talking past" me deliberately. You present some good arguments against the "bargaining chip" and "security barrier" ideas, but your arguments are not definitive. If they were, then there wouldn't be any settlements today. Some people disagree with you. Not me. Some people. I don't agree or disagree because I don't know enough about the settlements. They're complex. I'm not immersed in the situation. I can say "I don't know." You responded as if I were defending the settlements when this is plainly not the case. Taking my comments as supporting the settlement movement is "talking past" me.
3. You call Paul Berman's analysis a "fantasy." This is not correct. An analysis can't be a "fantasy." It can be wrong because it leaves important elements out or whatever. But how can it be a fantasy? It's an analysis. It's a way of thinking about the conflict that may clarify it for people, or not. You plainly think it's erroneous for some reason. Why?
In my case it does clarify the situation. As Oren says, the campaign to delegitimize the state of Israel is an existental threat, or one of Berman's "unjust wars." Antisemitism is one important pillar that supports this delegitimazation strategy. I'm certainly not "pouting" over a strategy to delegitimize Israel and in the end destroy it. Saying so is "talking past" me.
I insist on this not because I'm especially concerned about Antisemitism in the world and am working towards a world free of Antisemitism. It's because of all the strategies that are used to delegitimize Israel, Antisemitism is the only one that everyone agrees is wrong. Using the neocolonial/apartheid/racist state strategy garners a lot of support in Europe and in the US (see ChrisWWW on this blog). But nobody will argue that Jews are evil, etc etc. Nobody except Arabs and Muslims.
Like I said before (more than once and in different ways): this Arab/Muslim Antisemitism is a pillar of support not only for their drive to delegitimize and destroy Israel, but for their world view in general. It's a really concrete way to fight the ideological war that we share with Israel if we attack them on this point, as minor as you may think it is. Their Antisemitism is so crude and egregious that I can't imagine how they could defend themselves or how their defenders in the West could defend them for it (although I'm sure they'd find a way).
4. Antisemitism does not endure in the US. I don't think it's really a problem here, if it ever really was. In the past, Jews were excluded from certain neighborhoods, schools, clubs, etc but this can't be equated with European Antisemitism, which is murderous.
5. You correct me if I'm wrong: you said that Antisemitism was introduced into the ME by the Nazis, which is true (although the Nazis weren't the only Europeans to do so). Doesn't that mean that it wasn't there before?
I think it does. Before this European influence, Jews were treated as an inferior minority. The "apartheid" analogy is completely appropriate to describe their historical situation--although there was nothing racial about it. This "apartheid" situation existed in Europe as well, but also they were accused of poisoning wells, spreading the plague, eating babies, starting wars and revolutions, controlling finance, business, and the mass media. This is what was imported into the Arab/Muslim world by Europeans after WWI.
This is what delegitimizes Israel. Arabs and Muslims will be loathe to give it up just because of this reason alone. Plus, they probably believe it to begin with. But, just as they were induced to believe this stuff, they can be induced to not believing it anymore. I say that it isn't an endemic situation in the ME like it is in Europe. For this reason, I think it's a mistake to adopt your fatalism.
To sum up: I say the above not because it's the most important problem or the one that causes the most death and destruction. I say it because it's a strategy in the war of ideas. Attacking Arab/Muslim Antisemitism is a concrete and specific point upon which the vast majority of Westerners agree, or at least can't disagree with, at least in public. It would neutralize an important part of their strategy to delegitimize Israel.
I was very clear in insisting that this should be part of the "honest broker" strategy. Why is it so egregiously wrong, irresponsible, and dense to insist that anti settlement pressure on Israel must be accompanied by an equivalent pressure on Arabs/Muslims/Palestinians? According to Paul Berman's "fantasy" the war of expansion that the settlements represent is equivalent to the war of destruction the Arabs/Muslims/Palestinians wage against Israel. Their ideology is important here and Antisemitism is an important part of their ideology. Neither the settler nor the Arab and Muslim ideologies are acceptable, like I said before many times before you started to "talk past" me.
I say (and said before as well) that the root cause of the conflict is Arab/Muslim rejection of the state of Israel. As much as Israelis may have hated and feared Arabs and Muslims, they never rejected the partition of the British mandate. Therefore, Arabs and Muslims must be made to accept Israel. Attacking their crude Antisemitism is only one strategy for achieving this. There must be multiple strategies of course. But the goal is Arab and Muslim acceptance of Israel. I can't see anything in your post or comments that addresses this. All I can see is a recycling of the same old formulas and peace processes that have led nowhere for sixty years.
"
Here's what I'm talking about. One of seven existential threats Israel faces: Delegitimization.
Michael J. Oren, Israel's ambassador to the US, in Commentary Magazine
On “I don’t own a tv…”
I didn't read this very carefully but I have to say that we agree here completely. Just so you know I'm not here just to try and stir up trouble.
One thing I didn't see is about the effects on children. Are children happier if they grow up in a household without a TV? My own would answer "yes" without hesitation. In fact, they're proud of it today. Of course at the time the opposite was true. They thought we were the worst parents on the block for not owning one.
On “One way forward for the West Bank”
If you chose to respond to this, could you tone down the allcaps? No reason to yell at me. This is only a follow-up to my first question to you about what you would require of the Palestinians since your "way forward" was about what Israel could or should do. Your answer did not satisfy me because it would leave the cause of the conflict intact. That cause is Arab/Muslim/Palestinian rejectionism. If not, they would have had a state in 1947/48 just like the Jews did. Fighting Arab/Muslim/Palestinian Antisemitism does at least address this root cause.
I see that your above metaphor trivializes the situation, not that it shows that Arab/Muslim Antisemitism is trivial.
Providing basic services to the people of the WB is really not related to this at all. But keeping Hamas out of power is. Antisemitism is the foundation of their ideology and one of their basic principles. It allows them to openly work for the extermination of Israel and Jews in general. I don't say that Israel can put a stop to this but that the US and the EU could—if they wanted to, which they don't.
You correctly identify the source of Arab/Muslim Antisemitism with the Nazis—although the French were just as important here. It is not endemic to Arab/Muslim culture or to Islam, like it is in Europe. It has existed for the past seventy-eighty years. It can be eliminated. The Arab/Muslim region is the most ignorant on Earth (according to UNDP surveys). People get their information orally, like in any illiterate society. They get their information from the TV, the radio, and from preachers in the mosques and medrassas. All of these sources are under the state's control. These societies are running police states without exception. They can eliminate Antisemitism from the public discourse just as easily as they introduced it years ago.
I've mentioned the Paul Berman analysis here before that there are four wars in Palestine/Israel, two of which are just and two are unjust. I don't believe that ending these unjust wars should or could be part of any negotiation between Israel and Palestine. Israel cannot negotiate recognition of its right to exist. They have the right to exist because, well… they exist. It's a natural right that doesn't depend on anything or anyone. The others' right to exist is a given before any negotiation between anyone about anything ever takes place. Equally, Palestine cannot negotiate the right they have to their own territory. Their territory is theirs because, well… they're there. Israel has no right to occupy it at all by any means. Israeli expansionism, whether by settlements or anything else is an unjust war; extermination of Israel is an unjust war.
This is where I think the US and the EU should play their role as "honest brokers." They, and no one else, have the power to end these two unjust wars. Neither side will ever end them by themselves, short of an absolute military defeat followed by ethnic cleansing.
There is really no question in anyone's mind that the US and the EU should end the unjust occupation of the West Bank. There has been and is pressure on Israel to end it—although this pressure can always be more intense. But there is no pressure on the Palestinians to end their unjust war. On the contrary, every day brings news of government officials and opinion-makers in the US and the EU calling for negotiations with Hamas, Hiabollah, etc etc. thereby legitimizing their unjust war while continuing to delegitimize Israel's (as they should). I see this as the classic Antisemitic double standard.
Antisemitism is not just loose talk. It's a pillar of the ideologies of Hamas and of Islamic radicals and Arab nationalists everywhere. That's why Syrian state TV broadcasts series dramatizing the Protocols etc etc. It's not like they're broadcasting zombie movies where one could interpret the zombies as Jews. They're eliminating the metaphor and just showing the Jews themselves as the undead, walking the land, eating young Muslims, etc etc. It's no crime to kill the undead because…they're already dead! If Muslims knew that Jews were human beings just like they are, it would be harder to whip them up into frenzies murderous enough to shoot rockets at random at their cities, just to see how many Jews they can kill, etc etc. Israelis do not have equivalent feelings towards the Arabs/Palestinians, as much as they may hate and despise them. They are always torturing their own consciences over their methods because they know that the enemy is human. The Arabs/Muslims believe that Jews are sons of apes and pigs—animals. There is no equivalence.
Going back to the "honest brokers," the US and the EU should be demanding an end to both the unjust wars and to the ideologies that are their foundations. In the case of the Arabs/Muslims/Palestinians, this means Antisemitism, among other things. It just means demanding the same respect for Jews and Christians and any other non Muslim that Muslims demand for themselves. This would simply undermine the basis of their unjust war of extermination against Israel. It would undermine their whole world view, as a matter of fact, which believes that Islam is the one true religion etc etc. We (the US and the EU) have the absolute right to make this demand.
I'm not saying that this would then mean a "long term peace." I'm not "conflating" this with the long-term solution, although this would have to be part of it somehow. That involves resolving the just wars—Israel's war for survival and the Palestinian war for self-determination. That's a war that only Israel and Palestine can end. It's possible that if the US and the EU used their considerable power to end the unjust wars of expansion and of extermination, then the just wars would be easier to resolve without further violence. But maybe not. Then they'd just have to fight it out to the death, I guess. Somehow I doubt that it would ever come to that if the unjust wars are resolved.
"Putting Arab and Muslim Antisemitism front and center" means making them answer for it. It means making them defend it or withdraw it. It doesn't mean just shrugging one's shoulders at it. It means making it clear that this is not acceptable. It's part of the "honest broker" role that the US and the EU should be playing. Analogous practices would not be tolerated if it was against any other religion or ethnic group by any other. Why is it tolerated against Israel by Arabs and Muslims? For example, it means that academics would boycott Arab and Muslim nations that practice Antisemitism, just as they boycott Israel for their expansionism. They're both part of the unjust wars. They should both be fought equally by the "honest brokers."
I don't see anything particularly vindictive about this at all. If it's vindictive to "rub their noses" in their Antisemitism because it supports their unjust war of extermination against Israel it would be just as "vindictive" to harp on the settlements, if one truly wanted the role of "honest broker."
I brought up the Pacific War as an instance where state-sponsored racism was successfully eliminated. I brought it up simply to show that it's possible. From the 1930s to 1945 nobody would have thought it possible because everybody knew that Japanese and Americans hated each other, etc etc. The main difference with respect to <i>this one issue</i> is that in the Pacific War there were no "honest brokers" to force Americans and Japanese to give up their racist ideologies and resolve the just issues between them. If there had been, then, yes, I can imagine their giving up the racist speech before the war ended.
The PA and Arab/Muslim nations do not "engage in or allow anti-Semitic speech to be the norm." They sponsor it. They promote it. They produce it. They repress <i>anti</i> Antisemitic speech. It's not some free-speech issue. Hamas, the PA, and all other Arab/Muslim nations are running police states. It's either naïve or disingenuous to suggest that they can't control it.
Of course, violence is endemic in society. But that's a far cry from the violence of Palestine/Israel today. From what I know about the history of the region, before the partition there was a large percentage of Arabs who were willing to live in peace with Jews and the state of Israel. I really don't know how large a percentage this was but at least it was there and would have constituted the nucleus upon which they could have built. These people, who had no animosity towards Jews and considered them just neighbors, were bullied into cooperating with the rejectionist al Husseini clan. They were bullied by extreme violence or the threat of it. The opposition to the al Husseinis was systematically eliminated so that it remained leaderless. People were atomized and thereby easily bullied into line. I believe that the same percentage of Palestinians and Arabs and Muslims exists today, but that they have no leadership and no voice since they live in police states controlled by racist ideologies. Again, this is where the "honest brokers" come in. We have to do it for them because they can't do it for themselves. By "they" I mean Arabs and Palestinians and Muslims who have no interest in exterminating Israel.
I'm not "hesitating" to condemn the settlements or to call for their evacuation. I'm saying that it has to be accompanied by an equivalent pressure on the Arabs/Muslims/Palestinians. I can understand Israelis who refuse to evacuate, or who support the expansion of the settlements, even if I don't agree with them. They may believe that the settlements are a guarantee of security, that they're a bargaining chip, or whatever. I think they're wrong, but I can't really prove it and even if I could, that would never convince them. It doesn't matter anyhow since it's their country. The only way to convince them is by pressure from the "honest brokers." I think Israelis would be easier to convince if they saw an equivalent pressure on the Arab/Muslim/Palestinian unjust war as well. That is, they'd be easier to convince if the "honest brokers" were more honest.
The difference between taqiyya and western-style lying in the service of politics or whatever: There's a famous example of Arafat, a few weeks after the Oslo agreement was signed, in Johannesburg. In a mosque there he made a speech in which he apologized for signing the Oslo Agreements. Arafat continued that he was doing exactly what the prophet Mohammed did when he had made an agreement there with the tribe of Kuraish for ten years. Then he trained ten thousand soldiers and within two years marched on their city of Mecca. Since Mohammed is the only perfect human being for Muslims, anything he did automatically becomes either permitted or required for everyone. We have no comparable belief in the West. As much as we're used to our politicians lying, it's impossible to imagine them doing anything like what Arafat did in Johannesburg. Like I said, if they lie and they're caught, then they're punished for lying. Their careers may end in disgrace at the very least and at the most they're liable to face criminal charges. And don't start in on "Bush lied!" He hasn't been caught yet. There is no real proof, like there was in the case of Nixon, for example. So, although Nixon had much the same justifications for lying as the Muslims have for taqiyya, the result is not the same at all.
By the way, I'm about as not Jewish as they come. I think the Jewish religion is the most ridiculous one there is, with the possible exceptions of Christianity and Islam. If I was dictator over there I would take a page out of Lenin's book and just dynamite the whole Dome of the Rock/Western Wall complex and build the ugliest parking lot I could there.
"
Two things: Equating Arab state-sponsored Antisemitism with a contractor scuffing hardwood floors is just silly. It's not trivial. You just shrug your shoulders about it and say, that Palestinians can't become "shining stars of tolerance." But equivalent shifts have happened in modern history. I mentioned before the Pacific War. Where did all the race hatred go after that? Who made it go away? The leaders, both American and Japanese, were responsible. They actively combated the race-hatred that had fueled the war. If we could do it before, why can't we do it again?
At least by trying, we'd be putting Arab/Muslim Antisemitism front and center. Arabs and Muslims would have to answer for it. I doubt that they could.
Next: taqiyya is not the same as lying. It's religiously-sanctioned lying in the service of a greater cause. If we lie, we deny it, cover it up, and then go to jail for it if we fail. Taqiyya is one of the Muslim doctrines of war. It's like one of their weapons. How can we ever defend ourselves if we just rationalize it like you do?
And I also disagree that "changes on the ground" are somehow previous to changes in attitude, for example, giving up their Antisemitism and genocidal doctrines. I say it's just the opposite: these attitudes feed the violence. You can't stop the violence without stopping the cause. If you stop the cause then the "changes on the ground" that you require would happen easily.
"
I stand corrected on government support of the settlements.
Wasn't it more or less the same proposition on the right of return that the Palestinians rejected in 2000? What makes you think they'll accept it today?
Again, I'm taken aback (for real this time) that you don't require Palestinians to end their racist incitement to hatred of Israel, Israelis, and Jews. Check MEMRI for translations of their official, government, school textbooks for examples of stuff that would get any education official fired in two seconds in the US. While you're at it, look at some of kids shows on their TV. How can any so-called peace process have any chance for success if generations of Arab/Muslim/Palestinian people are raised on the most vile Antisemitic propaganda imaginable—cruder, even, than Der Sturmer. Even most Germans found Der Sturmer too crude and vulgar. That isn't the case with most Arabs/Muslims/Palestinians. University professors over there can write learned articles about why the Protocols of the Elders of Zion is true. Doesn't this offend you in the least? You don't require that they give up—entirely, and forever—the doctrine that Palestine is their god-given land. You don't require that they give up—entirely and forever—the idea that god must rule the whole world. You don't require any assurances that Palestinians are not using the Muslim doctrine of taqiyya, or deceit.
On “The Right to Exist”
The European Forum on Antisemitism defies Antisemitism like this:
On “One way forward for the West Bank”
I agree that speculating about what Sharon knew and when he knew it is just conspiracy-mongering. It doesn't make any difference anyway. I'm sure the wasn't the only one who thought the Palestinians would make a mess of it in Gaza.
What takes me aback—a little bit—about your analysis is that there is no mention of the Palestinians except for the vague "negotiations can be restarted" and "negotiations will continue..." kind of thing.
I agree that expanding the settlements is illegitimate and the government has no business supporting it (I don't think they do so today at any rate). I agree that given the situation there that Israel will always be expected to make the first move and to make the famous painful concessions. So I agree that unilateral withdrawal from the West Bank is one way to achieve a peace treaty with Palestine.
But it has to be accompanied by concrete moves by Palestine. These moves cannot be just promises to make some concrete moves, like in the past. This seems only fair to me; plus it may be required to get the Israeli electorate to support such a thing.
If you agree with this, then what concrete moves would you require so that the withdrawal could begin?
On “a quote for saturday”
Seth:
You're impossible. You just willfully misinterpret what I say.
I have said over and over again that I know they were wrong about the WMDs. How can I get you to understand this? I just differ with you on how and why they were wrong.
When you say "If they had exercised “due care” they would not have invaded because they would have found out that there was no WMD threat!" you're saying essentially that if they had known then what we know now, they wouldn't have invaded. I agree but that's irrelevant. I say there is no way they could have known, short of invading, because Saddam didn't want us to know.
The proof, or evidence, of Saddam's WMD possession was produced by Saddam. He was lying about it, not Bush/Cheney. Why is is so Orwellian to say so?
How could they ever have found out that Saddam didn't have WMDs if he was using this to keep power? I repeat: the only reason we now know he didn't is because we invaded. Show me the Orwellian nature of this.
I remember Ritter. I'm not dismissing him either. It does turn out that he was right. Is this supposed to show that Bush lied?
I have said over and over again that I know they were wrong about the WMDs. How can I get you to understand this? I just differ with you on how and why they were wrong.
Let's look at it another way: post-invasion investigations agree that Saddam had the WMD programs, but not the WMDs themselves. They say he was waiting for the right time to reactivate them.
I have said over and over again that I know they were wrong about the WMDs. How can I get you to understand this? I just differ with you on how and why they were wrong.
Once the Oil for Food scam had done its work and the sanctions were removed—which was the tendency back then—the right time would have arrived. Then it would be too late to do anything about it. I'm not saying that this was a reason to invade. Do I have to repeat this so you'll understand? I'm saying that in hindsight, which is what you're using most of the time anyway, I can still justify the invasion on that basis.
Now then, when did I defend torture, reject honor, accountability, and effectiveness? Who are you talking to?
I have said over and over again that I know they were wrong about the WMDs. How can I get you to understand this? I just differ with you on how and why they were wrong.
On “The Right to Exist”
ChrisWWW:
Couldn't you have picked a more biased video clip to show? I never watch TV and never saw this 60 Minutes broadcast. At least now I understand why so many people share your attitude: They saw it on TV, so it must be true! At least it wasn't on the History Channel. Then it would be history!
Just a quick critique off the top of my head:
Interviews were with 90% Palestinians and 10% with Israelis. Of the 10% the majority were with settlers, who do not represent the Israeli government or the majority of Israeli opinion.
Biased interviews: For example, "Why do the Israelis have the checkpoints?"
"To fragment our land,... etc etc"
No mention of the years of suicide/murders against Israel based in the West Bank.
No mention of Palestinian violence. The only mention of violence is by Israelis. It shows the Wall but no mention of the years of mass murder/suicide bombings that made it necessary. Etc. Etc.
Use of inflammatory language taken from Palestinian propaganda: apartheid, etc etc.
In general, this is disgusting. Supposedly it advocates peace but it only incites more hatred against Israel. It blames them for the conflict and portrays the Palestinians as victims. I'm ashamed to be an American and see our TV producing this garbage. I thought that this was characteristic of French and European TV. Now I know how wrong I was.
Aside from the above, your clip does not relate to the point I brought up, "Even Orwell couldn’t have imagined what takes place during Friday afternoon “prayers” in Palestine and throughout the Middle East." Both sides do not gather at "prayer" every week to chant "Death to Israel/Palestine!" That only happens on the Muslim side. If not, then put up a link of an equivalent five-minute hate in Israel. Five-minute hates are routine incitements to hatred operated by governments, not spontaneous demonstrations. So, put up about your "both sides" canard, or shut up.
1. I never made any implicit demands that "possible rocket attacks from the West Bank are an unacceptable security threat if Gaza and the West Bank are allowed to reunify." I meant just what I said. There was nothing implicit about it. I supported this with facts and logic so there was nothing hypothetical about it either. You can argue with my facts and logic but you can't say it was hypothetical because it wasn't. My hypothetical was limited to a hypothetical solution to the problem; my analysis did not "hinge" on it, like yours does. I said that the world should demand that Palestinians step up and claim responsibility for their actions and for their unacceptable demands for the extermination of the Jewish state. I hypothesized that if this can be accomplished, then they can achieve peace. So my hypothetical ends in peace just like yours does. But my analysis of the situation does not depend on this.
On the other hand, yours does: you admit to basing your position on a hypothetical. This is progress for me.
You called me a liar: "This is a common sentiment but simply not true." "This" refers to the many times Palestinians have been offered self-determination. I don't have a time line at my fingertips, so I'm just going by memory. They were offered it in 1937, 1947, 2000, and 2001. Maybe sometime back in the '70s too. So your hypothetical is not even worth considering as an hypothetical. After so many tries, and so many rejections, who would agree to just trying the same old thing again? Only people who get their information from "60 Minutes."
The Palestinians have rejected self-determination so many times and they will continue to reject it if it means they have to live in peace with the Jewish state. That's the reason they rejected it in the past.
So, that's why I'm pointing to Palestinian rejectionism as the root cause of the conflict. It's not hypothetical. It's based on history. That's why I said that our policy should be directed at making them give up this unacceptable position. It should be directed at making Israel give up its unacceptable positions as well, i.e., the settlements and the occupation of the West Bank.
But even if Israel does give up the settlements and its occupation of the West Bank, without a corresponding move by Palestinians the violence will continue. The "corresponding move" is to give up their illegitimate demands for the extermination of the Jewish state.
I actually agree with Jaybird's solution, as much as he enjoys being facetious, which is to absorb the WB into Jordan. This was the original plan, or something like it, back in 1947. It's impossible today but, still, I agree it would be the best thing all around. This would also imply dismantling the settlements, etc. But if and only if Arabs/Muslims/Palestinians give up their illegitimate demands for the destruction of the Jewish state. If not, it's not a peace plan. It's a war plan.
"
ChrisWWW:
So there's a lot you disagree with but you can't prove it? That's what I thought. You were just blowing gas. I never asked you to prove that Palestinians will stop shooting homemade rockets or will instantly stop hating Israelis. So you're not arguing with me about that.
As for the hypothetical, I simply said that to Israelis themselves none of this in hypothetical. They are legitimate security concerns. That's different from a hypothetical. They're the ones who control the fate of their own country.
Why doesn't your argument hinge on a hypothetical? You say, "giving the Palestinians a real chance at self-determination will remove the foundation for that hatred and violence." Remember that they have been given real chances at self-determination many times in the past and they have just said no. So your hypothetical is truly bullshit since it's not even hypothetical. It's a mistake.
There is no "thoughtcrime" here. Why do people immediately jump on the Orwell defense? That in itself should be a thoughtcrime. I was talking about race hatred. I was talking about race hatred plus incitement to extreme violence going back generations. This is not what Orwell had in mind at all.
If you want to go Orwell here, the three-minute hate is a much better fit. Even Orwell couldn't have imagined what takes place during Friday afternoon "prayers" in Palestine and throughout the Middle East.
Remember, for example, that this so-called thoughtcrime was part of the Oslo process. Palestinians agreed to end their indoctrination of hatred. They didn't. They made it worse.
Can it be done? Can governments end hatred and incitement to violence based on hatred? Of course they can. Of course they have. Of course that ending this is the surest way to achieve peace.
Think about the Pacific War (1941-45). It was a war of race hatred from beginning to end. Where did all the hatred go? Who hates the Japanese today and calls them monkey-men, like they did back in the '40s? What Japanese call us lice and vermin and devil men, like they did back in the '40s? If we did it before we can do it again. All that's missing is the willpower to to it.
That's why I say that Obama is missing his chance to be the greatest peacemaker since Ghandi. Greater. He has a shot at sainthood if he plays his cards right. He has the power and ability to do it. He doesn't have the will. That's what makes him a loser in my mind.
On “a quote for saturday”
Proving that Bush/Cheney lied is not proving a negative, as the Gulf of Tonkin situation illustrates. Johnson said the US was in international waters and they weren't. It was easy to prove that, with the right information. That's not proving a negative.
It's the same thing here. You could prove that Bush/Cheney knew that Saddam didn't have any WMDs if you had the information. You don't. You finally admit it, which is progress of some sort, I guess.
The fact is, they were very certain and so was everyone else. They and everyone else was wrong. But they didn't lie. You could easily convince me just by pointing to people who said that Saddam didn't have WMDs. These people don't exist. Or, if they do, I think Bush would be justified in taking the vast majority as support enough to be certain enough about it.
That's why I said that they took "due care" before asking Congress for authorization for the invasion. Given that they did take "due care," which you now admit, you'll understand why I said you were whining. For example, if this was 1968 and you were an officer in Vietnam, you would not be whining if you said that the president had put your life at risk for nothing but a lie. Here the situation is the opposite.
They did have proof. It's just that the proof itself was a lie. But the lie wasn't propagated by Bush/Cheney, which is why the whole world believed it at the time. It's a crazy situation because we were dealing with a crazy man: Saddam. Even members of his inner circle thought he had WMDs and he didn't. He was the one who lied about his own WMDs.
Think about it: possession of WMDs was a crime and Saddam was faking it. Who would ever fake guilt of a crime? The system is set up to find the opposite, or people faking innocence not guilt. If anyone wants to fake guilt, they'll find it really easy to do so but they'd be crazy. I could go out today and fake guilt of just about any crime there is and everyone would believe me.
Why would Saddam do such a thing? This is just speculation, but to me it's easy to answer. He didn't really need the WMDs as much as he needed people to believe he had them. It was just a bluff. Bush called his bluff, which Saddam wasn't expecting. This is where he was crazy, not about the bluffing. Saddam wasn't expecting Bush to call his bluff because no one had ever done it before. He got overconfident. He was relying on the French, in particular, since they were living in his pockets through the Oil for Food scam, to block Bush. They sure gave it the best try they could, so Saddam really doesn't have a case against them for betrayal.
If you'll bear with me a bit longer, I can extend this line of thought for you. It will help you in the end because it will end your abasement to the fucking hippies, so it may be worthwhile for you.
The thing is, Saddam's guilt was a key element in his hold on power. If people had known he didn't have the WMDs, then quite probably he would have had rebellions and invasions on his hands, and not just from us.
What if the world had found out that Saddam was innocent? He could easily have proven that he was. Would the Shia population and the Kurds have risen up against him? Would Iran have invaded, or at least used the Shia as a proxy against Saddam? Would Saddam have run for the hills? Would this have created a power vacuum in the middle of the most volatile region on Earth? As a result, would Syria, Turkey, Saudi Arabia and others have gotten involved? Would the US then be obliged to intervene? Would we have then intervened under conditions that would have been impossible for us to deal with? Would we then have been up shit creek without a paddle?
This is the kind of thing that the fucking hippies never think about. They assume that if we hadn't invaded, things would have stayed just as they were, except that we wouldn't be involved in a war. This is the best illustration of the historical fallacy that anyone could ever invent—but they don't have to invent it because the fucking hippies are confronting them with it every day.
That's why I have to repeat: you don't have to abase yourself to the fucking hippies anymore. You can be proud that you served in a noble cause. For sure I am proud of you, even if you're not. I don't hate the fucking hippies like you do—they sell me the drugs I require to get through the night so I won't bite the hand that feeds me. But if you want to hate them, go right ahead. But make it stick to them like shit off the fan. Don't go around feeling sorry for yourself anymore. You did the right thing.
On “The Right to Exist”
ChrisWWW:
Forget the goalposts. It looks like that expression confused you. Nobody is talking about "existential threats" from the Qassam rockets alone. The existential threat comes from Hamas (and many others like Iran), who use the Qasaam rockets (among other things). If they had better rockets then there would be an existential threat from their rockets. They obviously want better rockets and have acquired some even now.
Should Israelis take your attitude? Should they wait until Hamas has the potential to threaten their existence before the get worried about it? Maybe. But for sure any politician with this for a plan will not even get elected dog catcher. That's what you're not understanding. It's their country. They're the ones who have to decide where the limits are, not you.
The threat from the Qassam rockets doesn't have to be "existential" for Israelis to consider them important enough threats to counteract. Of course, there's a range of threat that people will tolerate before counteracting it. In the case of the Qassam rockets, Israel has already tolerated quite a lot more than most other people would.
It's obvious that they are a threat to security no matter where they come from. People die and are hurt from them. People's lives are disrupted by them. You have to remember that Israel is a democracy and the people under this threat vote and petition their government. Other people who vote feel solidarity with the people under threat. Etc. Why is this so hard for you to understand?
I never said that Hamas was firing Qassam rockets from the West Bank so your search was practically useless. I said that it was reasonable to think that they would fire Qassam rockets from there if they could. Today they can't and it's because Israel is standing in their way, not because they don't want to.
You should read Max, above, about:
That's all I'm saying. Israelis are correctly concerned about this risk. Why? Because of the Qassam rockets plus their genocidal ideology. We know that they want to upgrade their rocket capability. We know that Iran has already tried to help them do so. It's not just some "bullshit hypothetical" if you live in Israel.
And it's not only about Qassam rockets either. After the Gaza war, Palestinians in Gaza began to question Hamas's use of the rockets since they eventually brought Hell down on their heads. They began to think that maybe it would be better to go back to the martyrdom operations (suidide/mass murder). This kind of thing would be exponentially easier for them to operate from the West Bank, if Israel abandons it unilaterally.
These are real fears that Israelis are fully justified in holding, not just hypothetical bullshit. It's no Schweinflu, for example.
The peace process was not derailed by the Qassam rockets. It was derailed by Arafat in 2000 at Camp David. Palestinians can easily convince Israelis that they won't fire rockets at them simply by not doing it. The rockets are not fired by Palestinians in general, they're fired by Hamas. Probably most Palestinians don't want Hamas to do it. But they're not just pranks.
As for ED Kain, nobody is asking for a "total security guarantee" and Chris brings up a red herring. On the other hand, you're correct that the rockets are not the problem. The hatred for Israelis is. With this hatred, human ingenuity will always find a way, as you said. If this hatred didn't exist then it would be as close to a "total security guarantee" as anyone has a right to expect.
That's why I said that Obama should be using his immense popularity and talent to demand an end to the hatred and an end to the occupation of the West Bank. The two things are related. As long as this hatred exists, Israelis have a legitimate security concern. When it ends, they don't. This only seems fair to me.
On “a quote for saturday”
You insist on misreading me. I can't explain why. What's in it for you?
First misreading: You say I "object" to your giving credit to the troops for "salvaging" a victory out of the war.
Remember that you had said that this was "ONLY because of the skill, professionalism and dedication of our military people?" I said: "I can think of another reason, off the top of my head: Bush himself refused to quit and upped the ante instead. Then he threw all the support he could to the military to accomplish what he was demanding. My emphasis" Another reason doesn't mean that your reason (the troops) is not a reason. It means that, along with the troops, there were other reasons. I'm not denying your reason (how in the name of Pete could anyone do that?). I was just giving, well, another reason. Few things have ONLY one explanation or are ENTIRELY based on anything. We're always part of some situation or other, which consists of different elements related to one another somehow.
Second misreading and for the last time: I don't deny that WMDs were a justification for the war. I just say they weren't the ENTIRE justification. I never "maintained otherwise." This is maybe the fourth or fifth time I've had to say this. I have agreed all along that without a WMD threat, there would have been no war—although there were other reasons. You even quote me saying so and then go on to say that I deny it. How can you do this?
Third misreading—really the most important one because this was the point that elicited your original comment on my posting: I keep asking you to tell me what new information you have that shows that Bush/Cheney knew all along that Saddam didn't have the WMDs. You just repeat that we never found the WMDs that Bush/Cheney said were there. I already knew that. You have to show that they knew all along that they weren't there. Then you'd have to show how they fooled the French, the UN, the former Clinton administration as well because they all thought Saddam had them too. The problem is, and again this is the second or third time I've had to ask you: what new truths do you know now that show that Bush/Cheney lied about the WMDs, instead of making a mistake. You don't have to go over all the evidence. Just a few quick examples will be enough for me and I can read the rest on my own. If you're right, then I'm changing sides right away. I told you this before.
On the other hand, it looks to me like you're the one who should be changing sides right about now. If you can't come up with anything to show I'm wrong and that Bush lied, etc etc, then you don't have to concede anything to the "dirty f*****g hippies" that you hate so much. On the contrary, you can proudly tell them to kiss your ass. Wouldn't that feel a whole lot better for you?
Here's an example that maybe will clarify things for you. The Gulf of Tonkin resolution. Johnson told the congress and the nation that US Naval vessels in international waters had been attacked by N Vietnam and requested and got authorization to escalate the war on that basis. This was later shown to be a lie. So, if I had supported the war, I'd be justified in changing my mind, calling Johnson a liar and a cheat, and saying that Americans had been sent to be killed and maimed under false pretenses. And they were "sent" back then by the Selective Service Agency.
There is nothing about the WMD issue that resembles this in the least. Unless you show me that there is. I've asked you over and over again and get nowhere.
I already told you that I agreed that Bush was an incompetent CIC up through 2006. You just give a lot more detail about it but I already said I agreed. So what do you imagine we're arguing about here?
Now you're off on another tangent: the Saddam/al Qaeda connection. Can we save this for later?
On “Taking Leave of Our Senses”
Bob:
Sorry. I wrote the above without seeing the article you posted.
This is from Wikipedia:
This is the conclusion of an WaPo article about the inspector general's report on this stuff, cited by Wikipedia:
Well, that makes me feel a lot better! Zarqawi was only "occasionally associated with al Qaeda adherents." What's to worry?
The article is also about the operationality of the connectivism al Qaeda/Saddam, not about nonoperational connectivity. In fact, the article confirms such connectivity:
So, at the time, Saddam and al Qaeda were only trying to negotiate a more operational form of connectivism. Cheney said they were operational but they weren't. They were only pre-operational.
Should this make me change my opinion in support of the invasion? Did Cheney lie? Maybe so.
I can't help thinking that this point is really too minor to justify my changing my position. If relations between al Qaeda and Saddam were only pre operational, then it's probably a good thing we invaded when we did. Later, when they finally became operational, it might have been immeasurably harder to invade and even more necessary to do it. Remember we invaded Afghanistan (aka the good war) because it was harboring al Qaeda. Al Qaeda is on record as wanting WMD potential. Once the connectivity Saddam/al Qaeda had achieved full operationality, we would then be justifying an invasion on that basis. Then we would find out what WMD capability really means. Remember the panic that Saddam would use the WMDs on us during the invasion? If you were the "decider" here, what would you do?
Instead of being a reason to change my position, I would think that it would be a reason for an opponent of the war to change his or hers. What would have happened if we hadn't invaded and allowed this pre operational connecitvity to flourish into full connectitud? Does that sound scary to you?
But Saddam also had operational connectivity with other terrorist organizations that are well-known. The article you posted above says this as well. I don't see why it should have mattered that Saddam only had operational connectivity with "other terrorist groups" that shared al Qaeda's enmity with us. If Saddam had the WMDs and was cooperating only with "other terrorist groups," why is it so unreasonable for Bush and other national security authorities to take this seriously as a threat?
What's missing here? I don't get it. Just from the stuff presented here it seems that Bush/Cheney exaggerated the Saddam/al Qaeda operational connectivity. The truth seems to be that this connectivity was only pre operational. Maybe it was a lie; maybe it was an honest mistake; maybe it was conscious exaggeration. Maybe future historians will find that Bush/Cheney were right all along. But I don't see how this would ever determine anyone's support for the war back in 2002-03, even without considering the multiple other reasons to support it. If I had known this back then, I would have still supported the war. That's because I knew that al Qaeda/Saddam/other terrorist groups; etc etc wanted to kill you and your family.
"
Bob:
Are we talking about an al Qaeda/Saddam/9/11 connection now? When did we start doing that? Are you referring to operational connectivism? I don't know about that but I guess you're right for now. Remember the legend of the Prague Atta/Saddam secret police meeting, etc etc. But who knows what information will be uncovered by future historians? I wouldn't exactly blow my mind to find out that there was a direct operational connection there.
I was obviously talking about a nonoperational connectivism. I find that this is unexceptional and further just one more of many justifications for the invasion, since we thought Saddam had WMDs and further knew that al Qaeda wanted some to kill you with.
"
NDP405:
You call it..”And there goes the canard that there was no link between al Qaeda and Iraq” and support it through anecdotal evidence from a CIA agent whose task it was to find this link and from a journalist writing a story.
Yes, I call the idea that there was no link between al Qaeda and Saddam before the invasion a "canard."
No, I didn't support this with anecdotal evidence from a CIA agent, etc etc. You must be confusing me with someone else. I simply quoted a Friedman column and my "canard" comment was a throwaway. But Friedman never used anecdotal evidence from a CIA agent, etc etc. He just observed that by making al Qaeda fight in Iraq, and by defeating them, we were protecting ourselves against further attacks by them. That seems like a reasonable conclusion to draw. Why not?
So what are you talking about? I know you're upset, and I'm sorry my diatribes have driven you to this point. For now, try and calm down a bit. Later, I'd suggest just scrolling past anything with my name on it. That way, you wouldn't have to go through this anymore. You tried to refute something I never said and even then you failed to refute the al Qaeda/Saddam connection.
Everybody knows that Zarqawi's group (al Qaeda in Iraq, no less!) was in that country soon after the invasion of Afghanistan. Also, there was an al Qaeda affiliate in the north before the invasion: Ansar al Islam (or something). These would be connections enough for me, since they could get WMD potential from Saddam and then use it against us. Later it turned out that Saddam didn't have the WMDs, but that has no bearing on the debate in 2002 because at the time everybody thought that he did. If you'll recall, at the time the nation was panicked about al Qaeda using some kind of WMD as a follow-on attack.
Better luck next time. Wait! I forgot: There won't be a next time since you're going to ignore my comments from now on. I hope.
On “The Right to Exist”
ED Kain:
I forgot to say thanks for this. It shows you're a bigger man than I am. Keep it up!
"
ChrisWWW:
No. That's what he says will happen if the settlements are dismantled. As things stand today, the settlements will be dismantled only if there's a peace agreement/two state solution. So it looks like you're (you and ED Kain) in a bit of bind here.
Let's review: you asked me "How is he demanding Israel compromise its security [ie, by demanding dismantling the settlements and abandoning the West Bank]?" I explained the security risk and then you say I have a "flimsy case" and move the goalposts to "existential threats." Who ever said they were existential threats in the first place? Not me. What's going on here? Are you just not paying attention or are you playing around thinking you can "win" some bullshit argument by these tactics?
Let's remember that Israel is a democracy so politicians have to get voted into power. I can't imagine anyone getting voted into power in Israel with your attitude. Imagine their saying, "Oh come on! They're just a bit of TNT and fertilizer. We're not really under existential threat. No biggie. Let's just live and let live. They like to play with rockets. We like to play with science, technology, music and art. Why can't we all just get along?"
So, if 75% of the Israeli population is within Hamas rocket range, that means that 75% of voters will want a solution. That solution will not be to "engage" Hamas in conversation. It will be another wholesale invasion.
As for the "bit of fertilizer plus a bit of TNT," Hamas will be upgrading their rocket capability, like anyone else upgrades anything else. We're the upgrading species. There were some rockets fired at Israel last year with the capability of reaching the outskirts of Tel Aviv. Israel has caught and destroyed Iranian arms shipments to Hamas. So just because their rocket capability seems risible to you today doesn't mean it will stay that way. Israeli politicians will have to think at least that far ahead, just to stay in power, or get it, even if you can't.
"
Ed Kain:
"Civil war - Jews fighting Jews and Arabs fighting Arabs - when the settlements are finally dismantled. Then - who knows? Like any good tale, things will get worse before they get better…"
I can't believe you said that. You say your so-called solution will lead to a bloodbath. You look at it as a "good story." I never suspected you of applying such silly aesthetic criteria to such an intractable conflict. I thought you were more serious than that.
How, then, is your idea supposed to be a "solution" if it leads to a worse situation that we have today?
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.