11 February 2006

Too many Westerners have problems addressing Middle East issues accurately in our culture governed by stringent and totally irrational Political Correctness. Arab irredentism, liturgical violence, and general atavistic enthusiasm is regarded as quaint and appealing by people working very hard to redefine 'liberal' to mean, among other things, support of Muslim demands no matter how objectionable and no matter how vicious, violent, and antagonistic to modern values. Such "Liberals" simultaneously and reflexively reject any corresponding Christian interests no matter how reasonable and embracing of modernity they may be. Those "liberals" seem especially devoted to a worship of inaccuracy, imbalance, and intellectual dishonesty whenever Israel is involved in any international showcase, though other cultures and countries (except the US) generally get a pass under similar or identical circumstances. Why should I be surprised? Things haven't changed much in the last 60 years. Or, if you happen to be an Arab woman, in the last 600.

It's vitally important to repeatedly expose the lies and deceptions of those violent enemies of modernity, for their goal is not just the elimination of Israel and the death of all Jews (that has a familiar ring, doesn't it?). They also are determined to bless us all with their conquest of our immoral societies, and intend to allow us the privilege of living fully under Sharia law whether we like it or not. If people would just wake up, they might discover that their own self-interest is heavily entwined with Israel's.
Posted by at

2 comments:

  1. Ari Alexenberg24 March, 2006 13:49

    Richard, Glad to see you on board the blog ship. Your input is valuable! I must remember to whip out the dictionary before I read your bloggings.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Anonymous29 March, 2006 20:22

    Israel Shuns Victory

    by Daniel Pipes
    New York Sun
    March 28, 2006
    http://www.danielpipes.org/article/3479

    [NY Sun title: "Israel Avoids Victory"]

    As Israelis go to the polls, not one of the leading parties offers the option of winning the war against the Palestinian Arabs. It's a striking and dangerous lacuna.

    First, some background. Wars are won, the historical record shows, when one side feels compelled to give up on its goals. This is only logical, for so long as both sides hope to achieve their war ambitions, fighting either continues or potentially can resume. For example, although defeated in World War I, the Germans did not give up their goal of dominating Europe and soon again turned to Hitler to try again. The Korean War ended more than a half century ago, but neither North nor South having given up its aspirations means fighting could flare up at any time. Similarly, through the many rounds of the Arab-Israeli conflict (wars in 1948-49, 1956, 1967, 1973, and 1982) both sides retained their goals.

    Those goals are simple, static, and binary. The Arabs fight to eliminate Israel; Israel fights to win the acceptance of its neighbors. The first is offensive in intent; the second is defensive. The former is barbaric, and the latter civilized. For nearly 60 years, Arab rejectionists have sought to eliminate Israel via a range of strategies: undermining its legitimacy through propaganda, harming its economy through a trade boycott, demoralizing it through terrorism, and threatening its population via WMD.

    While the Arab effort has been patient, intense, and purposeful, it has also failed. Israelis have built a modern, affluent, and strong country, but one still largely rejected by Arabs. This mixed record has spawned two political developments: a sense of confidence among politically moderate Israelis; and a sense of guilt and self-criticism among its leftists. Very few Israelis still worry about the unfinished business of getting the Arabs to accept the permanence of the Jewish state. Call it Israel's invisible war goal.

    Rather than seek victory, Israelis have developed a lengthy menu of approaches to manage the conflict. These include:

    * Unilateralism (building a wall, partial withdrawals): the current policy, as espoused by Ariel Sharon, Ehud Olmert, and the Kadima Party.
    * Lease for 99 years the land under Israeli towns on the West Bank: the Labor Party of Amir Peretz
    * Palestinian Arab economic development: Shimon Peres.
    * Territorial compromise: The premise of Oslo diplomacy, as initiated by Yitzhak Rabin.
    * Outside funding for the Palestinian Arabs (on the Marshall Plan model): U.S. Representative Henry Hyde.
    * Retreat to the 1967 borders: Israel's far left.
    * Push the Palestinian Arabs to develop good government: Natan Sharansky (and President Bush).
    * Insist that Jordan is Palestine: Israel's right.
    * Transfer the Palestinian Arabs out of the West Bank: Israel's far right.

    These many approaches are very different in spirit and mutually exclusive. But they have a key element in common. All manage the conflict without resolving it. All ignore the need to defeat Palestinian rejectionism. All seek to finesse war rather than win it.

    For an outside observer who hopes for Arab acceptance of Israel sooner rather than later, this avoidance of the one winning strategy prompts a certain frustration, one that's the more profound on recalling how brilliantly the Israelis early on understood their war goals.

    Fortunately, at least one prominent Israeli politician advocates Israeli victory over the Palestinian Arabs. Uzi Landau notes simply that "when you're in a war you want to win the war." He had hoped to lead Likud in the current election but failed to win anything approaching a majority in his party and is ranked 14th on the election list this week, not even high enough to guarantee him a parliamentary seat. With Likud itself expected to get less than 15% of the popular vote, it is clear how deeply unpopular Israelis presently find the idea of winning their war.

    And so, they experiment with compromise, unilateralism, enriching their enemies, and other schemes. But as Douglas MacArthur observed, "In war, there is no substitute for victory." The Oslo diplomacy ended in dismal failure and so will all the other schemes that avoid the hard work of winning. Israelis eventually must gird themselves to resuming the difficult, bitter, long, and expensive effort needed to convince the Palestinians and others that their dream of eliminating Israel is defunct.

    Should Israelis fail to achieve this, then Israel itself will be defunct.

    To comment on this article, please go to http://www.danielpipes.org/article/3479#comment
    To see the Daniel Pipes archive, go to http://www.DanielPipes.org

    To subscribe to or unsubscribe from this list, go to http://www.DanielPipes.org/subscribe.php
    (Daniel Pipes sends out a mailing of his writings 2-3 times a week.)

    Sign up for related (but non-duplicating) e-mail services:
    Middle East Forum (media alerts, event reports, MEQ articles): http://www.meforum.org/subscribe.php
    Campus Watch (research, news items, press releases): http://www.campus-watch.org/subscribe.php

    You may freely forward this information, but on condition that you send the text as an integral whole along with complete information about its author, date, and source.

    ReplyDelete

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)