Israel: Saved From Destruction By Peace Treaties the Right Opposed
I tend to read everything I can about Israel, including some of the far-right websites and columnists. They are always predictable. Israel is invariably right (except when it negotiates) and the Arabs are invariably wrong (no matter what they do).
Not surprisingly, the horrific war with Hezbollah has not led the far right to have any second thoughts about its worldview. On the contrary, it has confirmed it in its view that negotiations with Arabs are always a bad idea.
Overlooked, again not surprisingly, is that if it wasn’t for the successful negotiations of the past several decades, Israel’s situation would be infinitely worse.
Imagine if Israel did not have signed peace treaties in place with Egypt and Jordan. Instead of just worrying about the damage being inflicted by Hezbollah, Israelis would be contemplating the possibility that, sensing Israel’s current vulnerability, its two closest neighbors might enter the war. The IDF would be fighting Hezbollah but worrying more about Jordan or Egypt attacking and cutting the state in half.
The only reason that is not a worry is because of those treaties and the fact that both countries abide by their terms, as does Israel.
Of course, the far right opposed both agreements. President Jimmy Carter was libeled as an enemy of Israel for having pushed the treaty with Egypt to fruition.
And Yitzhak Rabin is condemned – in fact, he was assassinated – for signing the Oslo Accord without which there would be no treaty with Jordan.
In a column last week, I borrowed from Al Smith (“the only cure for the ills of democracy is more democracy”) and said that the only cure for the ills of diplomacy is more diplomacy. Well, the main thing wrong with the peace treaties with Egypt and Jordan is that they weren’t followed by treaties with Syria (Rabin came close) and the Palestinians (again, almost within reach).
An agreement with Syria failed because the two sides could not agree on who would control 30 feet of Sea of Galilee shoreline. If they had, it is unlikely the war with Hezbollah would be taking place at all because restricting Hezbollah (which Syria has successfully done in the past) was one of the terms of the proposed Israeli-Syrian agreement.
Had Israelis and Palestinians actually finalized an agreement, Hezbollah might still have attacked (it doesn’t give a damn about the Palestinians) but, lacking a pretext , would be utterly isolated rather than being lionized throughout the Muslim world.
But don’t expect opponents of Arab-Israeli diplomacy to apologize for being wrong. They don’t even admit that Sharon's 1982 invasion of Lebanon was a blunder of colossal proportions, one for which Israelis and Lebanese both pay such a high price today
Some on the right, in fact, would rather blame Israel for its hesitation about fighting than to consider how much better off Israel would be if it didn’t have to fight at all.
In an earlier post, I referred to last Friday’s Charles Krauthammer column on Lebanon, In it, Krauthammer issued the threat that the United States might want to reconsider Israel’s “strategic value” if Prime Minister Olmert chooses not to engage in a ground war there.
Krauthammer wrote: Olmert’s “search for victory on the cheap has jeopardized not just the Lebanon operation but America's confidence in Israel as well. That confidence -- and the relationship it reinforces -- is as important to Israel's survival as its own army. The tremulous Olmert seems not to have a clue.”
He continued: the United States is not pleased with its ally. “The United States has gone far out on a limb to allow Israel to win and for all this to happen. It has counted on Israel's ability to do the job. It has been disappointed,” Krauthammer wrote.
Where to begin?
Factually, the piece is flat-out wrong. Neither President Bush nor Secretary of State Rice have given any indication that they want a full-fledged Israeli invasion (followed by an Israeli occupation of south Lebanon).
On the contrary, they are trying to avoid a ground war by pursuing a United Nations resolution that will set up an international force instead.
The administration will support Israel if it decides to go ahead on the ground but the suggestion that it will reappraise its relationship with Israel unless Olmert invades – an invasion which his generals tell him will cost 300-500 soldiers -- is Krauthammer’s threat not Bush’s.
But beyond the fact that Krauthammer is simply not telling the truth is the fact that he is so dismissive of an Israeli leader’s concerns about the lives of his soldiers.
Krauthammer, who lives in Maryland, does not have to see the faces of the boys he is so cavalier about sending into battle against fanatical terrorists. But Olmert does. And if he has a hard time sleeping because he is haunted at the thought of those already lost, more power to him.
I should not waste any more valuable TPM space on Krauthammer. He is one of those arm-chair General Pattons who rarely, if ever, indicates that he feels pain about the loss of soldiers whether in Lebanon, Iraq or anywhere else.
Never having experienced war, he seems to lack the imagination most of us who haven’t served are able to conjure up to imagine what it is like to be a 19-year old on the front lines. I read the other day that the soldiers who were not immediately killed when the shell landed at the kibbutz were crying out for their mothers as they died.
This is not unusual. But the Krauthammers of the world just view this suffering as a price he is willing to pay to advance his worldview He is not one to get sentimental about the loss of some kid soldier, whether in Lebanon or Iraq.
The rest of us, however, need to understand the dilemma Olmert and his Cabinet face. A ground war would be costly in blood and treasure. (Actually, that phrase is not used in Israel; the only “treasure” Israelis agonize over is their soldiers).
But the cost of allowing Hezbollah to win would be even higher. It would guarantee that this war, and these losses, would be followed by ones even more catastrophic.
That is why the Bush administration needs to work with our allies to devise a UN Resolution that will end both Lebanon’s travails and the threat Hezbollah poses to Israel.
But the United States should talk to Syria as well. The administration says that the Syrians “know what we think.” That is not enough.
Whether we like it or not, you can’t get anything from foreign governments by simply relaying messages through the media, through third parties or through low-level contacts.
Direct high-level contact from the world’s only superpower is a priceless commodity. It should be used, especially in a situation like this where so many are dying, in Lebanon and Israel, and US interests are imperiled.
One of the most prominent Lebanese journalists made that point yesterday. Speaking to Voice of America yesterday, Rami Khouri, editor of the Beirut Daily Star, said that “Syria is a key player in the Middle East and is linked to those issues that most concern Washington – Lebanon, Hezbollah, the Palestinians, Iraq, and Iran.” He said that even though “we can’t predict” what will come out of any discussions with Damascus, it’s “simplistic” not to talk with the most important players in the conflict because that’s just the way “normal diplomacy” works.
And, according to Israeli journalist Ori Nir (the Forward’s top-notch Washington correspondent), the Israelis want the Syrians engaged. Also speaking to VOA, Nir said that he had “ascertained for a fact” that Israel asked the United States to use its influence with the Syrian government after the first Israeli soldier was abducted by Palestinians into Gaza and again after two other Israeli soldiers were abducted by Hezbollah into Lebanon to bring about an early release.
But, he said, Washington was unwilling to help, which was “quite a disappointment for Israel.”
This is no time to stand on ceremony or even principle. If talking to Syria, or anybody else, can stop this war and end the Hezbollah threat, once and for all, it’s time to do it. There are enough graves at the Mount Herzl military cemetery in Jerusalem. Krauthammer and his neocon buddies should visit some time.
This is true, but the size and influence of far right Israel supporters is greatly exaggerated. They've lost a lot more than they've won in trying to influence Israeli policy over the years, despite what you often hear. Israel's treaties are sound. The Oslo formula of land-for-peace has become a mainstream position. A Palestinian state is something that Israel is on record accepting, provided it doesn't become a lawless base for more terrorism against Israel. And so on.
Of greater concern than the nuts who think Israel should have spurned the Camp David treaty are the commentators of the left who are the mirror image of the Israel-in-always-right crowd. And when I say left, I don't just mean certified radicals like Noam Chomsky or Robert Fisk. I mean mainstream center-left commentary here but especially in Europe. In this alternate universe, Israel is always wrong, always immoral and always deserving of condemnation. Any conflict is always Israel's fault. Any casualties inflicted on its Arab enemies are a cause of great concern while little or no concern is shown the victims of Arab terrorism and violence. All you have to do is compare the number of stories in your average newspaper in an average year devoted to Palestinian suffering vs. any stories at all about how the conflict is lived by Israelis. The contrast is stark in the extreme.
As for this...
...all I can say is that is one of the most naive and pathetic things I've read in a long time. Does MJ Rosenberg really think that it was just about a strip of land? Does he really think that the gangsters who run Syria were about to exchange ambassadors and agree to full economic ties and trade and tourism and so on if only Israel had just given the extra inch? How is that possible?
It's possible because of the refusal of people like Mr. Rosenberg to acknowledge that diplomacy can't solve every dispute. The treaties with Egypt and Jordan had their roots in the nature of those two governments. Anwar Sadat and King Hussein actually had relationships with Israelis, got to know how Israel works and had oriented their governments away from radicalism. The treaties were in a sense the culmination of a process. That is why a treaty with either Syria or the Palestinians is so unlikely. In the case of Syria, neither the present gangster nor his gangster father ever really intend to give up the fight against Israel. It's too valuable a tool as a means of running their police state. In the case of the Palestinians, the government has no power to enforce the terms of a treaty. Like all previous agreements, Israel would make concessions and the Palestinians would pocket them, all the while wringing their hands about how hard it is to do anything about the radicals. Why would Israel go for something like that.
In short, what Israel needs is a government that understands its enemy and doesn't let up in standing up for its security, but has the strategic flexibility to embrace peace when it is actually possible. Their have certainly been mistakes in the past - why Israel ever cared about Gaza is still a mystery to me - but for the most part Israel has kept its head in dealing with its neighbors.
August 11, 2006 9:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
It's interesting how this post starts out acknowledging the wisdom of Rosenberg's comments and the obvious utility of peace treaties with Jordan and Israel.
And, grudgingly, it concedes that the right wing Israeli's (or at least the most loony extreme righties, not the 'good righties' who now can't quite remember what their position was on the treaties way back when was) were wrong to oppose them.
But then, it veers irrationally (though not unexpectedly) into a wild and hairy attack on the 'loony left', which seems to be anyone not on the right of Ariel Sharon.
Not only is Noam Chomsky (the obscure bete noir of the right wing nutbars) targeted, but so is mainstream journalist Robert Fisk.
And it doesn't stop with them, no those guys are extremists. But a lot of people to the right of them are still too left!!!
After blundering around in circles for a spell, the post finds its feet and goes for a deranged attack on Syria's Assads. 'Gangster' and 'Gangster fils'.
Come on, the current ruler of Syria was an optomotrist for god's sakes. This is a guy whose natural inclination is to walk into a Syrian dungeon, examine a prisoner strapped to a chair and prescribe corrective lenses to correct astigmatism. Gangster? What a joke.
In actual fact, Syria has not fought a war with Israel since 1973, has not had a military conflict with Israel since 1983, and managed to cooperate and work quite effectively with Israel when the two countries were invading and occupying Lebanon.
Syria has since cooperated extensively with the US, particularly since 9/11. It has shared intelligence files, and it tortures Canadian citizens that US personnel abduct and ship to it.
So, I would hardly say that Syria is impossible to make a treaty with. Syria, in fact, has frequently sought rapprochement with both Israel and the United States and been rebuffed. It's not wholly their fault.
Anyway, this post is a textbook example of how monomania can take any subject and any point of view and twist it inevitably around to a standardized one note hate-rant.
August 11, 2006 9:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
You ought to read Itamar Rabinovich's history of negotiations with Syria. He was the chief Israeli negotiator. It did indeed come down to a strip of land.
Actually, Israel could have had a full treaty, full normalization with Syria, and Barak made Clinton go to see Assad in Geneva to wrap up the deal. But then Barak chickened out (domestic politics) and Clinton was left hanging.
This sad episode is detailed in both Dennis Ross's book and Clinton's memoir.
Those are the facts.
August 11, 2006 9:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
Talking to Syria, Hamas, Arafat, Lebanese government etc. may be a good idea, but as a rule, everyone wants something besides the pleasure of having a chat.
If they want something, perhaps we are better of without giving it to them. One has to be careful, because a concession today can cause a trouble tomorrow, a concession denied today can be always offered tomorrow.
And what are alternatives? Well, Israel and USA are much stronger, so the downside of not talking and of not having agreements is limited. It is hard to imagine diplomatic and even a military screwup that would seriously threaten either USA or Israel.
The fact that unresolved conflicts can flare up in the future seems a feature, not a bug. Whether they flare up or not is pretty much controlled by the stronger side. So we gain more flexibility -- if we want a flare-up we get a flare-up, if not than not.
For example, we can choose to attack Hezbollah before it gets really nasty stuff and make their
disarming the condition of
the interruption of hostilities.
I am trying to reconstruct "neo-connish" thinking. To counter-act, one has to answer this question: why should a stronger side offer concessions to the weaker side, without being forced to (well, the other side IS weaker)? Especially if the weaker side are not "nice people". "Neo-connish" thinking is that unforced concessions are foolish, and concessions to "not nice people" are outright immoral. So -- why not foolish, why moral?
August 11, 2006 9:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
. . . the downside of not talking and of not having agreements is limited.
And yet, many IR experts believe that the failure to resolve the Palestianian Question leads to heightened tensions in the worldwide Muslim community and endangers our personal security.
Do you disagree? Or if you don't, would you argue that Israel has no special duty to minimize our endangerment and therefore, no special obligation to enter into negotiations the benefits of which will accrue to us, primarily?
August 11, 2006 10:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
To be fair, piotr was reconstructing neocon thinking, not advocating it.
As far as the neocon perspective on the issue you've raised... That refusing to talk breeds resentment and terrorism:
1) The neocons could care less about resentment, so long as they hold the power, they do whatever they want, and the 'lesser peoples' had better learn to like it. Their resentment is irrelevant.
2) Terrorism in the neocon world is also more or less irrelevant. Now, I'm not talking about the windy speechifying, I'm talking in terms of the realpolitik of their world view. Terrorism is, politically, a minor irritant. It does not seriously damage governments or societies or alter the existing power arrangements. So on that level, its meaningless. Its regrettable that a bunch of people get blown up by suicide bombers at bus stops... but hey, that's the price, of having your cake and eating it too.
The truth is that neocons are perfectly prepared to tolerate terrorism because (a) normally it doesn't affect them or anyone they know personally, they're protected, they have their gated communities, their high security, their surveillance cameras, bodyguards, etc., and therefore undertake no real risk.
The people mostly affected by terrorism are the shmucks who have to wait at bus stops, go to pizza parlours, or take the london subway. Neocons have nothing in particular against these people, but looking at it statistically, the slight increased risk that is borne by the population can be reduced to almost nothing for the 'right' people, and is at an acceptable or tolerable level for the rest of them.
On the other hand, terrorism can be a positive boon to the neocons for its attention getting properties, its opportunity to wave the bloody shirt, and to use it not only as an excuse for just about anything you want to do, but as a motivating factor to get people screaming and howling to do their bidding... as the last five years of American history shows us.
August 11, 2006 10:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
Rosenberg's notion of "peace treaties" is extremely naive.
It was not "peace treaties" that saved Israel, but the fighting prowess of its armed forces. In fact "peace treaties" brokered by others have repeatedly put Israel at a disadvantage. Again and again, when Israel's enemies faced crushing defeat, the major powers intervened to bail them out- from the early wars of 1956 to Lebanon in 1982, setting the stage for yet more future conflict against the Jewish state by those enemies and their terror group proxies. "Peace treaties" have too often worked for Israel the way they did for American Indians- stopgaps for renewal of the conflict at a later time, and their eventual demise.
As for worrying about Egypt and Jordan while tackling Hezebollah, this too shows Rosenberg's naivete. In fact Israel does NOT have to worry about them because of defeats inflicted on them earlier. And Jordan invading to "cut Israel in two"? Laughable... Is Rosenberg back in 1948, or in the real world of 2006?
As for "far right" opposition to such treaties, Rosenberg is being disgenuous. There was opposition to the TERMS of various treaties that allowed aggressors to escape and try again later, while imposing limits on the actions of the Jewish state. Not surprisingly, Rosenberg can't give a single example of assorted "far right" bogeymen opposing treaties as such.
Trust in the talismanic powers of "negotiation" reveal yet more of Rosenberg's naivete.
The agreement with Syria failed because the real issue is not 30 feet of shoreline. The real issue is liquidation of the Jewish state. Unable to do it militarily at the state level, terror group proxies like Hezbollah and the Palestinians are used. As for pretext Hezebollah like the rest of the Arab world needs no "shoreline" diplomacy.
Rosenberg says he reads everything he can about Israel, but if this is indeed the case, he would see that groups like Hezebollah have been raiding and attacking Israel since the dawn of the nation.In the 1970s, the Palestinian cross border raids were only ended by resolute action of ground and air elements (who shocking as it is for some to beleive, took some casualties). Terror groups like Hezebollah were being lionized long before 2006, and will continue to be glorified in the Arab world whether on the "street" or in the suites.
Shocking as it may seem to some, warfare does involve casualties. The key is skillful use of military assets to minimize inevitable casualties, not knee-jerk appeasement.
As for losses and casualties taken by Israel, it may come as a surprise to Rosenberg but that is what it takes to defend a nation. If anything Israeli casualties would be even lower if policies of appeasement, including "peace" treaties had not been implemented. Such "peace" policies bailed out Israel's enemies repeatedly, giving them time to rebuild, rearm, and garner more international support. The Lebanon pullout was a short-term success in reducing monthly casualties, but an even heavier price is being paid NOW in the long term, for failure to continually degrade Hezebollah's capabilities and influence and keeping it on the run. Now the rockets number in the thousands rather than dozens. As for a ground war being bloody, not necessarily. Assorted "experts" for example predicted a bloodbath for Israel when it attacked built-up, urbanized Palestinian refugee areas in 2002. In fact nothing of the sort happened, despite dire predictions of another "Stalingrad."
Rosenberg speaks of "armchair General Pattons" but it is obvious that he himself is only too willing to play armchair expert and his naivete suggests another picture- that of another weak, naive liberal, only too willing to enter appeasement mode against threats to Israel's people and its existence. Rosenberg should take his own advice and not only visit mount Herzl military cemetery in Jerusalem, but the war graves of France and Germany to see the true fruit of the appeasement he promotes.
August 11, 2006 11:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
So I can add Barak's name as well as Arafat's to the list of "complete idiots who chickened out of making peace at the last minute"? How amazingly ironic.
August 11, 2006 11:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
Actually this just reinforces my point. What kind of peace could it have been if it collapsed over something like this? Why didn't Assad go to Israel if he was really interested in peace, the way Sadat or King Hussein did? Why didn't they expend even an ounce of energy trying to reassure the Israeli public so that Barak didn't have the domestic politics problem you point to.
This is the whole problem with the liberal analysis of the Middle East. It just takes Arab hostility and contempt as a given - a fixed point - and suggests that the onus is on Israel to expend all the effort to make peace and make the concessions etc. to get around that hostility. No one ever says, "Let the Arabs make the first move. Let them show they're serious."
August 11, 2006 12:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wow. It must be great to be so utterly sure of onself and be so utterly wrong.
This type of argument is the mirror image of the other side's.
For one side, Israel is always right. The Arabs only respect force and can only be beaten into submission.
For the other, the reverse is true. Israel only understands force. Etc.
And anyone who knows the history of the region can make a case for either side.
And it leads precisely nowhere -- except to more dead on both sides.
It's sad that in 2006, this kind of thinking -- very pre-WW 1 -- still prevails in so many parts of the world.
Because basically all it comes down to is (choose your own favorites):
"The Serbs suck." "No the Croats do."
"The Hungarians lie." "No the Romanians do."
"The French are decitful." "No the Germans are."
"Sunnis are great." "No. Shiites rule!."
It's the mentality of junior high school but it costs the lives of millions. Pathetic.
August 11, 2006 12:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Amazing.
Perhaps you'd like to explain to the family of Rafik Hariri, or indeed the hundreds of thousands of Lebanese who demonstrated in the so-called Cedar Revolution, that the humble ruler of Syria is just a misunderstood gentle optometrist.
Perhaps you'd like to explain to the people of Hama, Syria, some 20,000 of whose citizens were murdered in 1982 by gangster pere, that he was an honest man who always stood by his commitments.
Perhaps you'd like to explain to the parents of Gilad Shalit, the 19 year old soldier who was kidnapped by Gaza terrorists on the orders of Khaled Meshal, the exiled leader of Hamas. Meshal of course has found cosy sanctuary in Damascus, and is under the protection of the gentle opthamologist. Perhaps he's just there because he needs cataract surgery.
Perhaps you could explain to the victims of the 1985 attacks on the Rome and Vienna airports and numerous and sundry other attacks carried out by Abu Nidal who - what a coincidence! - also found refuge in Damascus.
Deranged indeed.
August 11, 2006 12:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wow. What a hatefest.
And hatefest is the appropriate word to describe this rant. Let's look at some of the derogatory terms applied to Mr. Rosenberg:
Well folks, isn't that a headlong lunge for the gutter? I particularly liked this one:
That's just a half step short of Godwinism here. I suspect if not for the name, Rosenberg would be accused of Nazi sympathies.
Oh, and here's another fun little bon mot:
This was my favourite actually, for its utter lack of irony. The flavour of the post is near hysterical in the intensity of its claim that treaties are useless and impossible as they only advance the quest of Arabs to destroy Israel.
Thus, not only are future treaties genocidal tricks, but previous treaties themselves are elaborate subterfuges to cripple Israel while giving Arabs a free hand.
But at this point, the writer begins to realize that he's gone a little too far. The modern consensus, even on the right, is that the treaties with Egypt and Jordan are good things.
How to back away?
Throw it back in Rosenbergs face!!! Denounce him for not proving that extreme right wing Israeli's opposed the treaties. And pillory him for not going out and naming a bunch of names.
This was never Rosenberg's issue, but too bad. Our hero has redefined the issue to his liking, and now he faults Rosenberg for failing to meet his retroactive challenge.
Oh, and it gets better. There's a poison pill in the screed.
Y'see, if you read carefully, his 'historical right wingers' are not objecting to the concept of treaties or a treaty with Egypt or Jordan... No, they've got principled objections to specific things in the treaty, to specific terms.
The devil is always in the detail of course, and opposition of this sort can always be tied to some quibble about some term or other. None of this matters though, because our hero has built himself a little end run around Rosenberg. He has framed the challenge in impossible terms, made it retroactive, and now claims victory for Rosenberg's failure to anticipate and address his attack.
Ladies and gentlemen, I'm a student of dishonest rhetoric, and this is like a Mountaineer turning the corner of some Himalalyan pass and seeing Everest come into view. I swear, I have a tear in my eye. A round of applause for our hero, if you please.
The only problem for Mr. Cardova at all, the only flaw in his rhetorical hat trick, is that he has so thoroughly denounced the concept of treaties with arabs past and present, that the right wing Israeli's who objected to specific terms of the treaty but endorsed the concept... well, they're apostate by Mr. Cardova's lights. They were sell outs, not right wing enough!
So, sadly, despite a brilliant effort, our hero does not quite avoid being host on his own rhetorical petard.
But still, give him a hand anyway folks. You won't see this kind of dancing anywhere else, outside a 50 cent rap video.
Oh, I like how he puts "peace treaties" in quotes all the time. It's an oldy but a goody. Sometimes cheap shots are the best.
There's a lovely turnabout here (in prison, turnabout is slang for anal sex, learn something new every day). Normally of course, the metaphor works the other way, with the Arabs or Palestinians being the Indians, originally on the land, not doing much with it, driven out by virtuous settlers making a new land out of nothing. The Arabs-Palestinians/Indians making war, engaging in savagery, but defeated by the bold 5th Cavalry/IDF, and eventually winding up on reservations. Of course, the lefties see this as a metaphor for two parallel sets of land grab and oppression.
But here, Mm. Cardova has neatly picked up the lefty metaphor and placed Israel in the position of the Indians... being lead to destruction by false peace treaties that only set the stage for further wars of conquest and expulsion. In short, he's appropriated the victimization of the Indians for Israel.
Well, chutzpah, thy name is Cordova. Again, let's give him a big round of applause.
But read it carefully, and our hero cunningly neglects to mention exactly who it was that was entering these treaties with false pretenses and secret plans for further war.
Why, in the right wing John Wayne world, it was those darned Indians.
So our hero, the stirling Cardova, singlehandedly has his cake and eats it too!!! He's appropriated two completely contradictory sets of victimization of the same event.
I don't mind telling you, I'm in awe.
And of course, no hatefest would be complete without its appeals to Xenophobia and Paranoia, so... (trumpets and fanfare):
Paranoia, Israel is the victim of a conspiracy, not just of Arabs, but of the major world powers.
You can't even trust your fellow Israeli's, too many of them are either 'useful idiots' or obviously 'willing accomplices.' There are no other categories for people who bail out Israel's enemies over and over.
Probably 'willing accomplices', after all, otherwise you'd think they'd learn from it happening 'over and over.'
Yeah, the Syrians tried to sneak that one into the fine print, but the sharp eyed Israeli negotiators spotted it at the last minute.
Or maybe the Syrians were up front about it, and it got discussed at the table for a good long time. The Israeli's thought it over, and eventually got back with "national suicide? nah"
Well... Palestinians are not actually a 'terror group' specifically. They're more of a general population, an ethnic group say. You could have terrorist groups of Palestinians or among Palestinians, but it would be racist to say all Palestinians are terrorist proxies. But why quibble, he's on a roll.
Actually, I can't help quibbling. It's an interesting little inference he makes here that the Palestinians are a 'proxy'. ie, they're not real, and have no complaint on their own.
Obviously, someone put them up to it. Who knows, possibly the Arabs, possibly Egypt, possibly the Major Powers.
Well... Hezbollah iself only existed since after Israel invaded Lebanon.
We should have just never stopped bombing everyone all the time.
What can I say. I might disagree with Mr. Cardova, I might despise everything he has to say, I might denounce, deconstruct and mock him. But in the end, I have to admire an artist at work.
So one last time, let's give a bit hand to EnriqueCardova.
Thenk yew, thenk yew ferry mich, yuf bin a traffic odynezh.
August 11, 2006 12:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Y'know, I suppose I could have just said:
"Wow, what a world class douchebag."
But my problem isn't with Mr. Cardova as a person, but with what he said.
And besides, it's not the destination, it's the journey that's fun.
August 11, 2006 12:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
The main reason is that Israel needs peace more than the Arabs do. Time is on their side. Securing the Zionist enterprise is not something that can be achieved through passivity. It means, has always meant, making things happen.
With Israel outnumber in the region, and soon to be outnumbered in Israel itself (if it keeps the West Bank, God forbid), and with an Iran nuke inevitable, Israel cannot wait for the Arabs to come to them.
The Arabs have all the time in the world (and the population, and the oil, and soon the nukes).
August 11, 2006 12:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks, Valdron. Well-said.
August 11, 2006 12:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
While good points are made in passing, the premise they're hung from (Israel always right except when negotiaties &c.) is a straw man argument, unless you go to the work of bringing in some examples.
There's also a progressive stance that sees Israel as right in its current actions against Hizbullah, by the way. Progressives, of course, believe in progress towards a future - one usually characterized by a higher level of civilization and social services. Israel is in many respects a progressive culture; Hizbullah is nothing if not regressive (despite providing some social services by passing through Iranian oil money to buy supporters). Those Muslim groups which are themselves progressive in outlook can of course be fruitfully negotiated with; those which are fundamentally regressive, however, and committed to violence to achieve regression ... well, any nonhypocritical progressive should see a problem in negotiating how much regression to grant them.
August 11, 2006 1:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Did ya like it? I left it dangling out there just to see if you'd snap it up.
You're right, the Assads are tyrannical thugs who run a dictatorship. No question.
And they kill people. Indeed, they killed a lot of people in Hama, just for being radical and potentially violent Islamic fundamentalist like Hamas, who would, presumably, hate Israel even more than the usual crowd. Funny how that all works out, eh?
And they torture people. You didn't mention that, but in fact, I threw that in there. Indeed, some of the people they torture are on behalf of the United States and Israel. In face (and I mentioned this), Syria tortured Canadian citizen Mahar Arar who was kidnapped in New York while returning to Canada from his vacation and 'rendered' to Syria by American intelligence.
So... Assad's a thug. But he's 'your thug', or just a freelance thug who occasionally serves the interests of America and Israel.
Ah well, life is funny, eh?
Take Anwar Sadat. There was a democrat, wasn't he? No actually, he was a thug too. He imprisoned lots of people, killed lots, had no use for Democracy, and he invaded Israel in 1973, in a sneak ambush attack.
So, when you think about it, he was just as big a thug as Assad Senior. Assad Junior, for his part, has yet to invade anyone, so I guess he's a thug, but not as big a thug as Sadat.
So... how is it that Sadat was an okay thug, but Assad 1 or 2 is a 'not okay' Thug?
The King of Jordan, that great respecter of democracy and civil rights? Thug? Perhaps not so big a thug as the other guys?
Oh and hey, what about Sharon? Bloody visit to the temple mount, Sabra and Shattillah, executing prisoners of war, invasion of Lebanon, wiping out villages... Y'know, when you think about it, he was a thug too, wasn't he?
Hey, I guess they're all thugs! Go figure. Who would have thought???
I gotta say, I'm loving this moral high horse you dragged me up onto. One can see so clearly from way on up here.
Are you enjoying the view too? Or do I detect some blinders? A bit of selective vision? Hmmmm
ROTFL
August 11, 2006 2:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think Israel has gotten itself -- over many years -- into the habit of equating peace with weakness. Ergo Barak's ultimate refusal to deal with Syria. Same thing here in the US. It's interesting how "peace" and "antiwar" have negative connotations here. Peace in our time? What kind of a fink wants that!
August 11, 2006 2:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wow. The turmoil roiling around in the Israeli media is amazing to behold. To the extent that it's reflecting reality, these are very trying and dangerous times in Israel; it looks like a circular firing squad with everybody taking aim.
The situation isn't being helped by the morons in the DOD who are evidently bummed that Israel refused to attack Syria, according to a "senior Defense Department official". (Eric Edelman?)
"Regarding Israel's decision to leave Syria out of the current fighting in Lebanon, he said: "I don't want to say what my opinion of this decision is."
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/749275.html
Once again. These fools are relying on their own blind wishful thinking rather than the obvious facts on the ground. Read the whole damn article and despair that these maniacs are in charge of our military options.
In this OpEd titled "War of the Generals" about the dumping of the Northern Commander, Udi Adam, there are a couple of interesting points:
"Adam was also angry that the chief of staff and the political echelon refused to allow him to push forward his plans for a ground war, performed in training exercises about a month before the war began."
........
"It is Halutz's right to feel that Adam, a veteran of the tank corps and logistics specialist, is not qualified to conduct a huge, complicated operation that is set to feature infantry and special forces, backed up by artillery, air force and navy support. It is also Halutz's right to believe that Udi Adam is not appropriate for the role he currently occupies.
More than that, it is reasonable to divide command between senior officers in a campaign such as the IDF is currently conducting in the north, a war that demands on-the-spot decisions, and in which forces commanded by the general staff are operating deep in Lebanon, alongside troops commanded by the Northern Command, and in which we must prepare for the possibility that Syria could get involved."
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3288555,00.html
Let's hope the Israeli decision to refrain from involving Syria holds.
August 11, 2006 4:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
mjrosenberg,
So what is the incentive, from the perspective of the Arab establishment, to cut any deal at all? What can Israel "make happen" that is truly in the interest of the Arab establishment to normalize its collective relationship with Israel? In other words, what evidence do we have that Palestine has ever been more a genuine cause than a platitude to the Arab establishment?
August 11, 2006 7:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Great post. I really liked this:
It reminds me of something I heard Rita Hauser say about a year ago. She was talking about the security refrain of the 2004 election: "We reserve the right to act alone in the face of external threats."
Hauser said something to the effect of, "Duh! Of course we reserve the right to act alone -- we always will -- but we must realize we won't do as well."
She went on to say the United States is not the only country dealing with terror, security, and natural disasters and that we shouldn't act like it. There is a lot we can learn from our global neighbors. We fought two world wars and spent an incredible amount of time and money to build the world community -- so why should we walk out now? The thrust of her argument was, "Do not turn our back on world ideas and capacities!"
That also applies to diplomacy.
August 11, 2006 7:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
With exceptions, mostly special operations, infantry does not operate alone. Tanks do not operate alone. Artillery does not operate alone. These three basic combat branches, along with army aviation, operate in balanced combined-arms team.
Adam may be an idiot, but being a tank specialist certainly doesn't mean he doesn't understand infantry. Infantry is a tank's primary protector against unfriendly people with short-range antitank weapons. Tanks give close-in fire support to infantry and keep enemy tanks off the infantry and artillery. Artillery also gets close protection from infantry, but, along with the more capable army aviation platforms such as the Apache, give the tactical commander a long reach beyond the Forward Line of Troops (FLOT) beyond the leading infantry and tanks.
Anything is possible, I suppose, but I would find it amazing that someone could rise to major-general rank and not understand combined arms operations. Unless the news op ed was written by someone ignorant of warfare, there's got to be a story below the story.
A Fredendall or Lucas or JCH Lee managed to rise to their level of incompetence in WWII, but modern training is intense enough that countries should know, in peacetime, which senior commanders are competent.
--
Howard
*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*
August 11, 2006 7:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
The Arab establishment sees the Palestine issue as a destabilizing force in their countries. They don't care about the Pals but the masses are inflamed by the issue. That scares all the Arab leaders.
Also, they are not the ones who make the deal. The Pals are desperate. They want the deal. And the other Arabs will just go along.
Of course, I don't see Israel as anxious to make a deal at all unless they have learned something from this war, which is doubtful.
August 12, 2006 11:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
MJRosenberg,
But do you remember Arafat's tour of Arab capitals ahead of Camp David? It seems that if the Arab establishment was not involved in cutting the deal, then why would Mubarak and King Abdullah have much say over particular issues such as Jerusalem.
I couldn't find the sources in an initial Google search, but I will see if I can find the statements from Cairo, Amman, and perhaps Riyadh, that I recall preemptorily condemning a deal on Jerusalem.
Do you recall the chain of events similarly?
Thanks.
August 13, 2006 6:35 AM | Reply | Permalink