State split in two

John Derbyshire in the National Review seems to think the Palestinian state made up of two seperate parts won't work because of the 30 miles of hostile territory in the middle. But the point is that Israel is not necessarily hostile to a Palestinian state. It's the Palestinian state that is hostile to Israel.

Two points: A. Most Israelis are not hostile to the idea of a Palestinian state. They are hostile to a Palestinian terrorist state out to destroy Israel. They are hostile to a Palestinian state headed by terrorists.
B. If I remember rightly, the road leading from Ghaza to the West bank used by Palestinians was working OK until the Palestinians started misbehaving. What we're striving for here is peace between these two states, like the U.S. and Canada, otherwise it's no go. The Palestinian state will not be able to survive economically, anyway, without cooperating with Israel, so hostilities between the two states are not an option in the long run.

Unfortunately, all this seems highly unlikely in my lifetime.
posted by Imshin 23:51

Misunderstood French

France's ambassador to the United States, Francois Bujon de l'Estang, tells the Washington Post that he is dismayed by what he calls slanderous and malicious comments made in columns published in the Post, about antisemitism in France.

posted by Imshin 23:24

Haaretz and self-flagellation

Yoel Marcus wrote in Haaretz yesterday that "what is hardest to digest is the self-flagellation here at home: Israelis, with pure intentions, one presumes, turning the accusing finger on us ... These good, high-minded people are helping to demonize Israel in the eyes of the world."
This is all very well, but "Haaretz" is the biggest self-flagellator of all and probably doing the greatest damage, because it’s published in English on the net, is widely read outside Israel and is perceived as a mainstream newspaper instead of a far left pro-Palestinian anti-Israel publication which is what it has become.

Actually “Haaretz” hasn’t changed, but reality has. “Haaretz” and it’s owner don’t seem to accept that previous truths have been proved to be lies, that peace is not possible with Arafat and that further bloodshed is sadly necessary so the Palestinians can see we are not weak and spoiled and we have no intention of going away just because they really really want us to.

So, is “Haaretz” buckling under the pressure to write something its ordinary non-radical, non-leftwing nutcase readers can bear to read? Time will tell.

Back to self-flagellators (I could talk about my dislike for “Haaretz” for hours) – they are damaging not just because they help Europeans feel good about their anti-Israel sentiments. They also help Palestinian leaders and intellectuals completely misread the widespread feelings and sentiment of Israelis, and thus encourage the terrorist attacks. Abd Rabo, for instance, mistakenly believes that Yossi Beilin has a chance of winning the next elections because polls show that the majority of Israelis are prepared to give up most of the territories and many of the settlements in exchange for peace. The guy has got it all wrong. Yes, we Israelis are prepared to do business. Unfortunately our former business partner took us for a ride and no way will we do business with him again. Yossi Beilin will never ever be voted as PM of Israel. No one forgets that he was the main guy to be fooled by Arafat, and there’s no evidence to show that Arafat and his henchmen aren’t still fooling him.

posted by Imshin 15:43

Well, isn't that nice

"Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat is prepared to accept a Mideast peace plan put forward by then-U.S. President Bill Clinton in December 2000, the Israeli newspaper"
Too late, buddy.
Now, we're not prepared to accept it.
posted by Imshin 15:46

I feel we're a bit undeserving of Suman Palit's admiration. He posted on his blog the top twenty reasons he's in awe of, and a not just a little bit in love with, the people of Israel and the Jewish diaspora all over the world. Don't get me wrong, I'm very grateful. But I'm a bit embarrassed. And nervous. I just hope Suman Palit doesn't come visiting one day and discover we're not as wonderful as he thought and then he'll start hating us.

I'm not saying we're in the wrong as far as the Palestinians are concerned. We've bent over backwards trying to make peace with them, taking great risks, even suicidal risks, as it turns out.

posted by Imshin 15:32

Daniel Johnson has an interesting interview with Bernard Lewis , prominent Middle East expert, in today's Telegraph. Registration is required. Here are a few excerpts (I have emphasized a few things):

...Lewis contrasts the Israeli attack on Jenin with the late Syrian President Assad's treatment of Hama in 1976.

"He had the city bombarded by artillery, then moved in tanks, then bulldozers and flattened the whole city, with the loss of tens of thousands of people. He didn't have to worry about booby-traps or snipers. This did not prevent two American presidents, plus many secretaries of state, from meeting Assad; Jacques Chirac walked a mile at his funeral.

"This is something which really infuriates Arabs, who say: 'This means you don't consider us as suitable to be judged by civilised standards.' When Saddam slaughtered hundreds of thousands of his own people after the Gulf war ceasefire, not a dog barked in the West - not even an indictment in Brussels. This is deeply insulting to an ancient and civilised people."

Is there a solution to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict? "As long as the Palestinians cling to the hope of eliminating Israel, obviously there is no solution. Once it is normalised, then there can be.

"Once you have two states existing side by side, well, there is a border question. I don't think it's all that difficult. Jerusalem is more difficult, but a compromise could be worked out. Settlements: clearly Arabs can live under Israeli rule; about a million do. The assumption seems to be that Jews cannot live under Arab rule. This is probably a regrettable but indisputable truth.

"The 'right of return' of Palestinian refugees: that is clearly a deal-breaker." Lewis points out that both sides had similar numbers of refugees in 1948; the Jews were resettled, the Palestinians were not. Other partitions, such as that of India, led to the resettlement of far larger numbers.

"Arafat, I think, is in no way a partner for peace. In 1991-92, Arafat was in a very bad situation. He had lost his superpower patron, the Soviet Union. He had lost his Arab patrons by his support for Saddam Hussein in the Gulf war: 750,000 Palestinians were summarily ejected from the Gulf states, with not a murmur of protest from Europe.

"At that moment, it seemed a wise and magnanimous gesture to throw Arafat a lifebelt, bring him on board and start on a peace process. I thought so at the time, and said so, and it turns out that we were all mistaken.

"He had no intention of making peace. As long as there is this situation, he is a world figure. If there is peace, he becomes the tin-pot dictator of a petty state, with the prospect that he will sooner or later be assassinated or thrown out."

"...Lawrence of Arabia wrote that it was a stroke of good luck for the Arabs that the Zionist colonisation of Palestine had started, because this would bring them the possibility of acquiring top-level Western technology and science, without submitting to Western imperial domination. He saw Zionism as a stimulus rather than an alien presence."

...(Lewis) finds many (Arabs) are struck by the spectacle of Israeli democracy on television. Some students learn Hebrew just to understand what the Israeli politicians are screaming at each other.

Might the war against terrorism actually increase Muslim respect for the West? "One has to impress people that one is serious and one is strong, yes."

Lewis quotes a classical Arabic writer, Ibn Hassan: "...if you treat your friends and enemies alike, you will arouse distaste for your friendship and contempt for your enmity. The Europeans insult the Arabs by implying that they are not answerable to civilised standards of behaviour, that they are not the same as Europeans, either in what is expected from them or what they can expect.

"At the same time, Europeans behave in a way that looks like self-seeking ingratiation. When democratic regimes do emerge in Iraq and Iran (Lewis says that these two countries are most ripe in the region for becoming democracies - J.P.), they will not look with favour on those who have developed close relations with their present rulers."

..."A lot of people are saying, 'We must do something to settle the Palestinian question before starting on Iraq.' This is, of course, a direct message to Saddam Hussein to make sure that we don't get anywhere on the Palestinian question. There is no doubt at all that the serious worsening of the situation in the past year has been due to Iraq and Iran intervening."

...He asks me whether anti-semitism is a factor in European attitudes to the Middle East. "Bin Laden," he muses, "is usually very eloquent and very clear in what he says. In earlier statements, he gave the Palestinian question a rather low priority.

In more recent ones, he has raised it to a much higher level. And the reason is very clear: he found that by blaming the Jews he could get a gratifying response in Europe."
posted by Imshin 09:53

Diane E. from "Letter from Gotham" posted this on the 19th, the day of the bus suicide-terrorist-attack which killed 19 in Jerusalem. This was the first thing I read when I got up the next morning and it stayed with me all day and gave me strength.:

From Ulysses S. Grant: Triumph over Adversity:

Following the first day of the battle of Shiloh, April 6, 1862:


As night came, so did a steady rain. Grant and his staff huddled around a fire. McPherson offered his grim report of the day's events, then waited for Grant's response. When none was forthcoming, McPherson spoke up, asking whether he should make plans for a retreat. Grant stirred and looked up at his aide. "Retreat? No. I propose to attack them at daylight and whip them."


...


The night was an especially difficult one for Grant. At first he sought rest under an oak tree, but the rain and his pain drove him to seek shelter in a cabin on the bluff. Originally designated as army headquarters, it had been turned into a temporary field hospital, and long into the night surgeons performed amputations on wounded men with shattered limbs. Grant, his ankle throbbing, huddled there, slumped in a broken chair, resting his head on his arm. But what he saw and heard in the cabin sickened him, and so he hobbled back outside and made his way back to the tree, where he stood, a lantern in his hand, puffing away at a cigar as the rain came down. Sherman, still pondering the possibility of retreat, appeared. One look at Grant convinced Sherman that it was best to put aside his query; instead, he offered: "Well, Grant, we've had the devil's own day, haven't we?"


Grant looked up. Water dripped from his hat. "Yes," he replied, followed by a puff. "Yes. Lick 'em tomorrow, though."


posted by Imshin 23:25

home