October 29, 2006

Rice-A-Ruiny

Hatched by Dafydd

I Processional

I think we're beginning to see a new phenomenon among conservatives: CDS, or Condi Derangement Syndrome. Like its near namesake BDS, it's diagnosed by several recognizable symptoms:

  • Reflexively gainsaying anything Condoleezza Rice says, disparaging everything she does;
  • Reading every statement of hers in the worst possible light (preferably one that fulfills the descriptor "treasonous");
  • Toadstool-picking statements to prove the above;
  • Imputing astonishing conspiracies to her malignant influence;
  • Caricaturing Ms. Rice as (a) a liberal, (b) a Socialist, or (c) feeble-minded.

Some of the kindest, most intelligent, and otherwise fairest people have fallen into the Carvillesque trap of CDS... including, sadly so, my friends over at Power Line. The latest example: in an interview, which Scott Johnson quotes and dismisses as "tripe," Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said the following:

[Cal] Thomas [for Jewish World Review] asks Secretary Rice what evidence she has that the denizens of such an independent state would give up the dream that actually seems to drive them -- the dream of eliminating Israel:

SECRETARY RICE: Well, you can look at any opinion poll in the Palestinian territories and 70 percent of the people will say they're perfectly ready to live side by side with Israel because they just want to live in peace. And when it comes right down to it, yeah, there are plenty of extremists in the Palestinian territories who are not going to be easily dealt with. They have to be dealt with -- Hezbollah in Lebanon, Hamas in the Palestinian territories -- they're terrorists and they have to be dealt with as terrorists.

But the great majority of Palestinian people -- this is -- I've been with these people. The great majority of people, they just want a better life. This is an educated population. I mean, they have a kind of culture of education and a culture of civil society. I just don't believe mothers want their children to grow up to be suicide bombers. I think the mothers want their children to grow up to go to university. And if you can create the right conditions, that's what people are going to do.

QUESTION: Do you think this or do you know this?

SECRETARY RICE: Well, I think I know it.

QUESTION: You think you know it?

SECRETARY RICE: I think I know it.

II Minuet

(Look, I may be hysterically overstating things; but it is Sunday morning, after all... the very time for histrionics and overstatement.)

Scott Johnson derides Dr. Rice's answers. But why? What exactly is wrong with what she said? One can (if one chooses) interpret them as ludicrously suggesting that all it takes is another peace-process agreement, and all will be well. But that's not the only, or even the most plausible, way to take her position -- especially considering later parts of the same interview that Scott did not quote.

Let's turn it around. Suppose Scott is right, and Rice's answers to Cal Thomas are completely, ludicrously wrong. What, then, must we conclude?

  • That Palestinians are unique among all the people of the world in their irrationality;
  • That while others, from Rwanda-Burundi to the Soviet Union to Nazi Germany, eventually come to their senses, act rationally for their own enlightened interest, and stop killing one another -- Palestinians are incapable of doing so;
  • That their incapacity cannot be cured; nothing can be done; hence, it must be a genetic mental deficiency that prevents them from thinking rationally, even if reality were to be clearly separated from the decades of propaganda and privation that have warped and twisted their thinking.

This is, to say the least, a rather odd way of looking at the problem. The last point -- that it's genetic -- is implicit in the idea that nothing can be done to awaken the Palestinians to the reality of their situation... so why bother trying? This belief is the inversion of Condoleezza Rice's faith:

[T]hat kind of ideology of hatred and hopelessness does not have a chance against an ideology of hope and a better future. We just have to realize that because of the way that the politics of the Middle East has developed for the last 60 years, that ideology of hope and a better future has not been there.

She says, that is, that Palestinians have not had the opportunity to make a rational choice; when forced to choose between several irrational choices, they pick an irrational one. Scott chose not to quote this answer; I presume he considers it as foolish as the ones he did quote.

III Quadrille

In spite of everything, I still believe
that people are really good at heart.

A lot of conservatives believe precisely the opposite: they believe that humans are born corrupted and evil, or at the best, utterly amoral, and that without careful watching and frequent walloping, any of us is one meal away from instigating an intifada.

The is a dour, neo-Calvinist view of the world, utterly at odds with rational-choice theory:

Rational choice theory assumes human behaviour as guided by instrumental reason. Accordingly, individuals always choose what they believe to be the best means to achieve their given ends. Thus, they are normally regarded as maximizing utility, the "currency" for everything they cherish (for example: money, a long life, moral standards). As the modern formulation of much older descriptions of rational behaviour, Rational choice theory belongs to the foundational theory of economics. Over the last decades it has also become increasingly prevalent in other social sciences.

Rational choice theory is an individualistic methodology and as such conceives of social situations or collective behaviors as the result of individual actions. However, rational choice theory is not only applied to individual human actors. Often, the same pursuit of cherished values is assumed for collective entities, for example corporations or national governments.

Neo-Calvinism presumes final collapse is predestined. They take Yeats as their prophet:

Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;
Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.

But predictions of imminent obliteration litter the ground like broken leaves in October. The patron saint of American conservatism, Ronald Reagan, never bit into the dessicated wafer of neo-Calvinism; he was always exuberent, joyous, excited and hopeful. He was very much like Condoleezza Rice is today; perhaps some have forgotten?

When Reagan called upon Mr. Gorbachev to "open this gate" and "tear down this wall," Reagan's own closest advisors thought he'd gone loopy. Surely he knew the Soviet Union would last a thousand years; it was predestined! Only a madman (or a Reagan-era Sovietologist like Condoleezza Rice) could hope for the impossible.

But what does Rice actually mean when she says that "hatred and hopelessness does not have a chance against... hope and a better future?" What must happen? What timescale is she thinking of? Here is the illuminating rest of her answer from that same interview by Calvin Thomas:

I don't believe that most people in the Middle East really want to blow themselves up and believe in this ideology any more than most Russians actually wanted to believe in international communism. There are always extremists who are going to do that. There are always ideologues who are going to believe and they are always going to recruit from a pool of disaffected people. So you both have to lessen the pool of disaffected people, give them alternatives, and people choose other paths. I just don't see a society yet where that hasn't been the case.

She is not being Pollyanna; she is a realist of the old Cold-War school... but one who chose the Reagan model of hope over the Buckley model of fatalism.

She knows the monumental difficulty of what she asks; but she is unwilling to concede defeat before the endgame is even in sight. Rice does not say that Hamas can lie down with Israel next Thursday after lunch; but that the way to the future is ultimately through capitalism and individualism -- the only Godzillas strong enough to defeat the Monster Zero of jihadism. Militant Islamism will ultimately die because it is a religion of death, and the worship of death. If there is any predestination, it is that final darkness cannot defeat the light.

(Of course, if darkness does win, you lot won't be around to say "I told you so!" So I'm on firm ground here.)

IIII Recessional and Exeunt

To paraphrase the president, you're either with the rational-choicers, and you believe that if you remove the beam from the eyes of the Palestinians, they will, in the end, discover that they love their children more than they hate the Jews.

Or you're with the neo-Calvinists, who believe that we're all destined to fall at Ragnarok, and the best we can hope for is that we dwellers in Asgard drag the giants of Jotunheim down with us when we go.

We who live in a world of hope may be wrong; but hope does not make us fools, or at least not utter fools.

Hatched by Dafydd on this day, October 29, 2006, at the time of 8:30 AM

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this hissing: http://biglizards.net/mt3.36/earendiltrack.cgi/1406

Comments

The following hissed in response by: marvls

You're right Dafydd. It was Sunday morning when you wrote it and your histrionics and overstatement totally miss the mark. This time Scott is right and Condi's position is unsupportable. To disagree with Bush 43 or Condi is not, in and of itself, derangement. Even though I agree with most of their positions, including Iraq, they are imperfect human beings and not beyond reproach. They are also guided by their advisors and the State Department has rarely been correct when it comes to the Middle East.

To use your examples of Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union, the general population no doubt valued a decent life and were not genetically predisposed to destruction. However, history shows that huge populations can be taken into the extreme ideology of a few and subverted into large conflagrations such as WWII and the Cold War. These populations, once set on a course of destruction had to be confronted, not consoled. Peace is sometimes reached only after the offending ideology has been decidely routed in war.

So, we return to the premises that underly Scott's points and are at odds with Condi's:
1) The evidence of the past 60 years is that the Palestinian Arabs do NOT want peace in the sense of a two state solution.
2) The Palestinian Arabs are willing to engage in an offensive, ongoing war at a huge cost to both sides.
3) Condi Rice is wrong to "assume" that peace can be reached by negotiations. She is truly lacking in insight, imagination and solutions when she looks at the militant terrorists among them and says that "they have to be dealt with."

After all, history has repeatedly shown that it is the extremists who can gain control of their general population when one looks at the world's biggest tragedies.

Is Scott engaging in Condi bashing or in calling her on faulty logic leading to faulty and potentially disasterous Middle East policy? I believe the latter and you do not.

The above hissed in response by: marvls [TypeKey Profile Page] at October 29, 2006 11:14 AM

The following hissed in response by: candy

Thanks for this post, Dafydd; your optimism is one of the things that makes you my favorite blogger!

The above hissed in response by: candy [TypeKey Profile Page] at October 29, 2006 11:26 AM

The following hissed in response by: Palladin

I agree with Scott. I have high respect for Condy and her achievements,but this is disgusting.

Palestinians left to their desires would do as Nazis would,murder all the Jews.

Certain cultures are inundated with evil,Palestinian culture is an example. Germany's culture in 1933 was. Hitler's and Arafat's don't grow out of dry ground.

Condy's delusional comparison of black Americans desiring equality and Palestinians is disgusting. Under NO conditions could I ever vote for her now.

I want to make a final point. How evil is the thought process that states we can chase and kill Islamic terrorists and often kill civilians,but when Israel needs to do it we always try to minimize their pursuit? Condy is as bad as Jimmy Carter on this hypocrisy meter.

The above hissed in response by: Palladin [TypeKey Profile Page] at October 29, 2006 12:29 PM

The following hissed in response by: Section9

Thanks, Daffyd, for a superb takedown of the Condi-bashers. Condi is both and optimist, and a superb realist of the Reagan school, as you say. She is confronting Israel now with the strategic problem of its own making: the occupation of the West Bank and Gaza. Ben Gurion warned the Israelis to be rid of the Palestinian Arabs. But Meir and Dayan thought they knew better.

Rice values the alliance with Israel, which is why Israel's peformance over the summer was so disappointing to her. She wanted the extremist impulse not to be seen to prosper, but Olmert handed the fascists a gift with his studied incompetence. People who blame Condi for the necessity of 1701 have yet to hold the Israeli government to account.

Behind all of this is the certainty of war with Persia. The diplomacy you see is a sham. Rice's Pallie diplomacy is about keeping fires doused on the Western front to prevent the Iranians from gathering new allies. Her bashers don't see this. However, the Persians have their own timetable. They will strike first.

The above hissed in response by: Section9 [TypeKey Profile Page] at October 29, 2006 1:22 PM

The following hissed in response by: Terrye

I have gotten to the place that I just blow right by powerline discussions of Condi Rice and immigration. They tend to annoy the hell out of me on both issues.

All Rice is saying is that we have to keep trying. Unless of course the people who disagree with her and go crazy everytime she says something sort of hopeful think we should just nuke the ME and be done with it.

The above hissed in response by: Terrye [TypeKey Profile Page] at October 29, 2006 1:31 PM

The following hissed in response by: Palladin

My contention is Condy is trying to assist the creation of a Palestinian state. Bush of course is the POTUS and it's his policy.

A Palestinian state next to Israel would be like Stalin's USSR plus Mao's China next to America.

WHY would anyone who does not hate Jews and/or Israel think like that? This could be a long discussion. We know they do not hate Jews,so WHAT is the answer?

The above hissed in response by: Palladin [TypeKey Profile Page] at October 29, 2006 2:37 PM

The following hissed in response by: Section9

A Pallie state next to Israel has been American policy since the Camp David accords, if not before then. What Rice is trying to do is to reduce Palestinian options to coexistence or penury. She understands that as long as Iran exists as a theocratic, revolutionary state, the Pallie leadership will follow the Arafat path to bankruptcy and hate.

Also, a new campaign is coming. The Hamas believe that Iranian help will give them a chance to ape Hezboallah's achievements. Rice will only make true progress when Iranian power has been demonstrably crushed and American credibility restored. The Iranians will strike first, however, opening a three front war against Israel, probably by the new year.

Only when the Persian bid for mastery of the Gulf has been turned back can the territorial questions be solved to the satisfaction of both parties, because only then will the Ultras on the Palestinian side lose their mojo.

The above hissed in response by: Section9 [TypeKey Profile Page] at October 29, 2006 2:58 PM

The following hissed in response by: Dafydd ab Hugh

Palladin:

A Palestinian state next to Israel would be like Stalin's USSR plus Mao's China next to America.

WHY would anyone who does not hate Jews and/or Israel think like that? This could be a long discussion. We know they do not hate Jews,so WHAT is the answer?

Palladin, there currently are about 3.9 million Palestinian Arabs living in Gaza and the West Bank, with a median age of about 17. If not a state, then what do you propose doing about them?

Dafydd

The above hissed in response by: Dafydd ab Hugh [TypeKey Profile Page] at October 29, 2006 3:00 PM

The following hissed in response by: Maetenloch

Normally I'm in agreement with Dafydd, but here I think he let his optimism get away from him. I'm a fan of Condi in general, but you don't have to be suffering from CDS to point out that she appears to have a blind spot when it comes to looking at the Palestinians.

Certainly over the last ten (or twenty or fifty) years, they have not proven that they can stop killing Israelis much less manage their own affairs. The problem with claiming that the Palestinians will eventually come to their senses via rational-choice theory is that from their perspective the ongoing intifada and goal of destroying Israel *is* a rational goal. The current generation of Palestinian youth have been indoctrinated almost daily with hatred of the Jews and the necessity to become martyrs and gain paradise in the afterlife. Even if only a minority have completely absorbed this social conditioning, that's still enough to make any possible state co-existing with Israel untenable. And given demographic trends favoring Israeli Arabs and Palestinians and perceived Israeli weakness, I believe that most Palestinians truely are convinced that they can succeed in destroying or taking over Israel. Given that most Palestinians have not yet paid much of a price for holding these views, why shouldn't they keep pursuing this goal. The aid from the EU and the UN has up till now kept flowing in, and many are still able to find work in the territories or Israel proper. If the status quo is tolerable and maintainable, why should they give up their current strategy?

Near the end of Mark Bowden's book "Blackhawk Down", he discussed the ongoing, nearly continuous violence with different Somalis in Mogadishu. Almost to a man or woman, they all declared they're desire for peace and an end to the violence. However when he pressed them on how peace could come about, it always turned out to be the 'peace' of victors with their clan on top. While they all genuinely wanted the fighting to end, they didn't want it enough to actually give up the chance that their group might end up in charge. I think the Palestinians are in a similar mindset. Will this last forever? Almost assuredly not, but the current generation is already likely ruined. Until/if they decide that victory over Israel is impossible or not worth the cost, they'll put a higher priority on the war with Israel than building their own state. They may come around eventually, but not until they've had to pay a bitter price in suffering and bloodshed. At this point the best Israel can do is to quarantine the Palestinians in their own areas until the poverty and in-fighting has burned out the desire to kill Israelis. The U.S. and Europe can help by withholding any further subsidies to the Palestinians. They may come around or they may not - in which case Israel (and Egypt and Jordan) will have to learn to live with Somalia-like chaotic territory next door.

The above hissed in response by: Maetenloch [TypeKey Profile Page] at October 29, 2006 4:05 PM

The following hissed in response by: Section9

Daffyd lays down the point that old Ben Gurion laid on the table to Meir and Dayan after the Six Day War. He told the Israeli leaders to refrain from Occupation. It would be a drain on the State.

Rice understands, as does Olmert, as does Netanyahu, that there must be a Palestinian State. Only the most extreme of the Gush Emunim crowd deny this. Israeli leaders are dealing with the duplicitous Abu Abbas, who is trying to stay alive while dealing with the Iranians and AQ. Meantime, Hamas is importing rockets from Egypt into Gaza with Iranian help. There's a smuggling route going on through Jordan. You'll see war on three fronts, perhaps by the turn of the year. This works to help the Iranians maintian deniability of missile attacks on southern Israel. Rather ingenious, but I don't think it will stop Bush.

Slowly, but surely, the Israeli body politic is disengaging from the Palestinians. Already, Palestinians have lost jobs in Israel to Thais and Filipinos, Christians who have no desire for suicide bombing. The wish dream of settlements must come to an end, and the Israelis must seperate themselves, allowing the Pallies to shake themselves out accordingly. This is part of what Rice is up to. You'll notice that we never actively discouraged the construction of the Security Wall. Once the wall went up, the utility of the Suicide Bomber went waaaay down.

However, the larger question of Persia's threat has yet to be dealt with. Bush is not the kind of man who will kick the can down the road. It's one of the reasons I voted for him.

The above hissed in response by: Section9 [TypeKey Profile Page] at October 29, 2006 4:29 PM

The following hissed in response by: Terrye

No one has answered the question however, if not a state for the Palestinians then what?

I know the Palestinians are dysfunctional and like any drunk or druggie they just about have to hit rock bottom before they see the light. The point Condi Rice is making is that most people over time given an oppurtunity for a decent life prefer a decent life to living in hopeless pooverty and strapping suicide belts to their children.

What it seems a lot of people are saying is that all hope is lost forever and ever and ever and anyone who says different is full of it or a traitor. I just think that is extreme. And so does Condi Rice.

The above hissed in response by: Terrye [TypeKey Profile Page] at October 29, 2006 4:32 PM

The following hissed in response by: Dafydd ab Hugh

Maetenloch:

The problem with claiming that the Palestinians will eventually come to their senses via rational-choice theory is that from their perspective the ongoing intifada and goal of destroying Israel *is* a rational goal.

The moment you admit this, you have given away the argument against Condi-ism. Because if this is true, then that means there truly is a rational series of tactics we can employ to undo that indoctrination.

You admit that Palestinians have been argued into their present intransigence; whatever a person has been argued into, he can be argued out of.

Far more dangerous are things that a person has never been argued into at all, but has always believed implicitly.

Dafydd

The above hissed in response by: Dafydd ab Hugh [TypeKey Profile Page] at October 29, 2006 6:48 PM

The following hissed in response by: Maetenloch

The moment you admit this, you have given away the argument against Condi-ism. Because if this is true, then that means there truly is a rational series of tactics we can employ to undo that indoctrination.

You admit that Palestinians have been argued into their present intransigence; whatever a person has been argued into, he can be argued out of.


Actually, Daffyd, I was arguing the opposite - the current generation of Palestinian youth, who account for almost half the population, have been indoctrinated from birth with Jew-hatred and the utter necessity of destroying Israel. This has been built into their psyches at such a deep level, that I don't think that they can be argued out of it. That's why I say that they have been ruined. Like the fanatics of the Hitler-jugend, they're unlikely to question the axioms of their existence short of death or massive suffering.

My complaint with Condi is that her statements seem to be pollyanna-ish assertions rather than accurate observations of the current situation. The Palestinians have a long track record of terrorism, violence, and dysfunction. Even if this is only due to a minority of the population, that's still enough to make an independent state or peace with Israel unworkable. Furthermore the majority accepts and doesn't punish the actions of this violent minority. And this supposed peaceful majority recently elected Hamas to control the Palestinian government. Ultimately people do get the governance they're willing to accept. And at some point you have to wonder just what the Palestinian people have to do to convince everyone that they really really are unwilling to co-exist with Israel.

Now this may all change one day, but I suspect that day is at least a generation or two away. My beef with Condi is that she seems to be sustituting this hope for the future for how things actually are today. Any reasonable solution for the Palestinian issue has to start with a realistic evaluation of where the Palestinian people are at the moment.

The above hissed in response by: Maetenloch [TypeKey Profile Page] at October 29, 2006 11:34 PM

The following hissed in response by: Dafydd ab Hugh

Maetenloch:

First, this is a straw man:

And this supposed peaceful majority recently elected Hamas to control the Palestinian government.

Neither I nor the secretary has ever claimed the Palestinians were "peaceful." I think we both believe they can be rational... but it will take work.

They must first be convinced that ultimate victory over Israel is impossible; then they can accept the thesis that living completely separated from Jews is as good as living in a world where there are no Jews.

That is also why I still believe Israel must pull completely out of the captured territories: while I certainly acknowledge that Israel had every right to settle them -- Israel was attacked and they won fair and square -- it's not in Israel's best interest to maintain a captive population of four million.

Remove the daily contact with Jews, and eventually (years), the Palestinians will forget that Jews even exist.

Also, I repeat to you the question I asked of another:

Palladin, there currently are about 3.9 million Palestinian Arabs living in Gaza and the West Bank, with a median age of about 17. If not a state, then what do you propose doing about them?

Well? What do you propose in place of the two-state solution?

Dafydd

The above hissed in response by: Dafydd ab Hugh [TypeKey Profile Page] at October 30, 2006 3:21 AM

The following hissed in response by: Section9

Ah, Dafydd ab Hugh, therein lies the rub, "...but it will take work."

Condi Rice once famously said two things: "Power matters." , and "Diplomacy is the art of the hard." She is placing Reagan's bet on the Palestinians in particular and the larger Islamic world in general. She's not a Scowcroftian at all, which is what the Condi-bashers don't get. She gets what Reagan got about people; in the long run, if you depend on the people, they will get things right.

It's the leaders that suck wind. And the terrorists. But the "Neo-Calivinists" who want to ride a popular Secretary of State out of town on a rail, want change to happen immediately if not sooner. They're not willing to do the hard work of decades.

You wouldn't believe the charges of naivete and anti-Semitism that have been leveled at Condi simply because too many conservatives like me, who are strong defenders of Israel, are not willing to remember how Reagan won the Cold War. It was not by weapons alone.

Perhaps they'll be happier after Iran is confronted. However, I doubt it.

The above hissed in response by: Section9 [TypeKey Profile Page] at October 30, 2006 12:45 PM

The following hissed in response by: Palladin

Daffyd,

I apologize for the late answer. Deport or kill them,whichever option THEY choose,that's what I would do with them.

I dare say if 300 million Palestinians lived within 10 miles of most Americans,we would NOT be clamoring to make them an independent nation where we no longer could control their evil.

Do you people think most Americans WOULD? If not,why do we expect Jews to tolerate this damnable evil culture?

The above hissed in response by: Palladin [TypeKey Profile Page] at October 31, 2006 10:10 AM

The following hissed in response by: Dafydd ab Hugh

Palladin:

Deport or kill them,whichever option THEY choose,that's what I would do with them.

That's not an answer; that's a desire. You're using the Phil Donohue argument technique.

On Bill O'Reilly's show, Donohue complained about the Afghanistan standoff over al-Qaeda, just before the war. O'Reilly asked him what we should do about bin Laden. This is pretty much the conversation:

Donohue: We should just go right in there (Afghanistan) and get him.

O'Reilly: Get him how? What specifically do we do?

D: We just go in and get him.

O: But you're not explaining what exactly we do... how do we "go in and get him?"

D: I have explained it!

O: Then what, specifically, do we do? Step by step.

D: Step one: we go right in there. Step two: we get him!

O: Can't you tell us how we get him? Do we just ask the Taliban to hand him over? We've done that, and they refused. What do we do now?

D: I've said it a hundred times... we just go right in there and get him!

This is basically your solution, Palladin: there are four million Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank... how on earth is Israel to "deport or kill them?"

Look at the problems they had in Lebanon; do you think, if Israel launched an aggressive war to ethically cleanse the captured territories at this point, that Hezbollah and Iran, not to mention nearby Arab states, wouldn't jump into that war?

And how, physically, step by step, is Israel to round up 4 million people and put this choice to them, even in the absence of a war with half a dozen Arab states and Iran? I want the actual technique -- how many troops deployed where, what their mission will be, what the ROEs are, and so forth.

And please don't say "they just go right in there and get rid of them!"

Dafydd

The above hissed in response by: Dafydd ab Hugh [TypeKey Profile Page] at October 31, 2006 4:49 PM

The following hissed in response by: yonason

" . . . Palestinians have not had the opportunity to make a rational choice; when forced to choose between several irrational choices, they pick an irrational one."

. . . and then proceeds to fall into the same trap.

How so? Well, let us assume that the "Palestinian" Arabs aren't naturally sociopathic like so many other of their kin (despite massive historical evidence to the contrary). And let us also assume that they come to their senses and become peaceful "neighbors" of Israel in a state founded on land which is the heart of the heart of Biblical Israel. That all begs the question of who the hell thinks they have the right to give them OUR LAND?

If you think that stealing our Land, to which we have been attached for roughly 3500 years, in order to conduct some politico-social experiment is the right thing to do, than you are as blind as Rice.

I don't hate her irrationally. In fact, I don't hate her at all. But I am very angry with her, and with Bush (who I greatly respect for being an honest man who is doing better than most in an impossible situation), because they seem to think they have a right to deprive Israel of what is rightfully ours in order to pursue the fantasy of some utopian moral imperative that dosen't jibe with the evil they must necessarily perpetrate in order to attempt attaining it.

Rice is no dummy, but she is a fool. And the Arabs are playing her like a cheep mechanical piano.

Sorry Dafydd, but you are wrong on this one, BIG time.

There are a lot more than a handful of us who know she's totally out to lunch on this, so don't pretend it's an isolated phenomenon. If you want, I can get you even more links that may even change your mind. But you'll have to drop the "Palestinians can't be any worse than everyone else so why not commit a huge attrocity to prove that" logic first.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . LAST . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . S

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . T

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . E


. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . P

The above hissed in response by: yonason [TypeKey Profile Page] at June 28, 2007 3:08 PM

The following hissed in response by: yonason

the top of my post got cut off. This is it, with a little overlap to see how it connects

WATCH OUT FOR THAT . . . . .

(Paraphrasing Condi?), Dafydd says
" . . . Palestinians have not had the opportunity to make a rational choice; when forced to choose between several irrational choices, they pick an irrational one."

There was also a link to what appears to be a boorishy fishwifey side to Ms. Rice, who seems to identify much more with the "Palestinian" Arabs than their victims. And that's this link.

The above hissed in response by: yonason [TypeKey Profile Page] at June 28, 2007 3:19 PM

The following hissed in response by: Dafydd ab Hugh

Yonason:

[T]hey seem to think they have a right to deprive Israel of what is rightfully ours...

What makes the West Bank and Gaza "rightfully [y]ours?"

[T]he newspapers reported that [Condoleezza Rice] brutally forced Israel to accept the terms of this agreement.

You're saying that Israeli Defense Minister Shaul Mofaz let himself be bullied by a girl? If Israel cannot hang onto its own national-security interests because the Defense Minister lets some girl concert pianist push him around, then what more is there to say?

Look, Yonason, I know you're not going to like this; it's much easier to demonize Condi Rice than to admit the truth. But sooner or later, you have to face it.

It's not Condoleezza Rice choosing to push the Middle East Roadmap; it's George W. Bush. Rice is not an independent actor; she does not decide that we're going to try, yet again, to get some Palestinians somewhere to agree to renounce terrorism in exchange for land.

She is merely the Secretary of State... and we have a unitary Executive in this country: cabinet members do not run their own policy shops; they serve only to implement the policies of the president.

He sets the rules; he decides the policies; he defines the terms of negotiation. Rice's only job is to find a way to implement what the president chooses.

Bush very much believes in "land for peace" deals; you don't, I don't, but he does. Thus, because Rice is merely an adjunct of Bush, we have no idea whether she agrees with him or whether she would make the same decision, were she the president.

Stop blaming Rice for Bush's decisions; blame Bush.

In any event Israel has no "divine right" to the West Bank (or Judea and Samaria, if you prefer) or Gaza -- and neither do the Palestinians. Divine right does not exist. The only right Israel has even to Israel proper (the 1948 Israel) is threefold:

  1. They were given sovereignty over the land by the British, who won it, fair and square, from the Turks in WWI;
  2. Individual Jews purchased individual plots of land from individual Arabs;
  3. Israel has staunchly defended that land for 60 years.

That is the only provenance for Israel's "right" to exist; and this is true for every other country on the map, too, including the United States. Since none of the three criteria above apply to the West Bank or Gaza, the only claim Israel would have would be right by conquest... which requires Israel to reoccupy the land and formally annex it.

They have steadfastly refused to annex the occupied territories for 40 years now. What makes you imagine they're willing to do so now? And if Israel isn't even willing to go that far, why should anyone listen to any claim they make to sovereignty over those territories?

Dafydd

The above hissed in response by: Dafydd ab Hugh [TypeKey Profile Page] at June 28, 2007 7:56 PM

The following hissed in response by: yonason

“Rice is not an independent actor; she does not decide that we're going to try, yet again, to get some Palestinians somewhere to agree to renounce terrorism in exchange for land.”

That's a simplistic bit of nonsense I would expect from a Lefty. The fact is that . . .

"Secretary of State: Condoleezza Rice
Job Description: The Secretary of State is the President's chief adviser on matters that deal with foreign countries."

Rice: Mr. President, I think we should . . .
Bush: Can it, shweet cakes, no one caresh what you think. You know yer just here for show.

I don't think so. It’s more like . . .

Bush: What do you think we should do here, Ms. Rice?

She has a bit more independence, and a whole LOT more influence than you pretend. She is his eyes and ears over there, and if he trusts her (and apparently he does a lot more than he should) then she can sell him on things he might not otherwise buy into; (And I’m probably giving him more credit than I should here, too).

“Stop blaming Rice for Bush's decisions; blame Bush.”

I blame them both. Her for giving him bad advise, and him for taking it.

And as to her being blameless, if you were in a job that you thought was unethical, would you stay in it and say later “It wasn’t my fault, I was just taking orders?” We don’t even accept that as an excuse from someone who didn’t have a choice, which she does.

And whether they are her ideas or not, nonsense is nonsense and support for it is foolish. Here are a few articles relevant to her support for nonsense. . . .
here, here, here, here, here, here

I repeat. If you were able to get another job, why would you stay in one you felt was unethical. And if you didn't see something as unethical that really was, isn't that sufficient reason to call you a fool?

"[T]hey seem to think they have a right to deprive Israel of what is rightfully ours...
What makes the West Bank and Gaza "rightfully [y]ours?"

I addressed that in the very next paragraph, where I said . . .

"If you think that stealing our Land, to which we have been attached for roughly 3500 years, in order to conduct some politico-social experiment is the right thing to do, than you are as blind as Rice."

Let me elaborate. All those cities in modern Israel have the SAME NAMES they had throughout history, and they are the same Hebrew names referenced on our Torah and Prophets, the most complete extant continuous history of any people anywhere. And the "Palestinians" have what . . . .”squatters rights” to once Jewish homes which were only recently "acquired" after their Jewish inhabitants were murdered or evicted by those vermin? No, given our historical claim, which is more solid than ANY other nation for ANY other land, it is clearly ours regardless of the fact that the nations in cooperation with our cowardly and treacherous leaders want to pretend otherwise.

“In any event Israel has no "divine right" to the West Bank (or Judea and Samaria, if you prefer) or Gaza”

Yes, we do have a “divine right” and we will, hopefully soon, have all of our land restored to us, as promised by our G-d. It is in fact our main claim, and if that weren’t true I wouldn’t be bothering with this.

I mean, mighty Ancient Egypt, Babylon, Greece, and Rome are all gone and we tiny Jews are still here, still preserving the same traditions that brought monotheism and hence civilization to everyone else, such as they were able to absorb it, and speaking the same language we always spoke. Nobody can pull that off unaided. It isn’t “natural.” If that doesn’t tell you there’s a G-d running things, you’re blind.

But for those who don’t recognize our G-d given right to our land, the name Judea (from where the name “Jew” is derived) virtually screams that it is ours, while the Arabs who pretend it’s theirs unimaginatively call it “The West Bank” after the Jordanian military term for what they called it after stealing it from the little the UN left for us of the original Mandate in 1948 when the State of Israel was founded. Then we captured it back, and they have the nerve to call it “occupied.”

Further, your list of factors defining ownership should include at least these details of one factor you barely alluded to, and that is the British mandate to restore Israel to ALL of the territory they renamed Palestine, after what the Romans renamed it to disguise it’s Jewish ownership. The Brits reneged on that mandate (i.e., they violated international law), and later the UN hacked off even more, then when Israel’s statehood was proclaimed, the Arabs invaded and stole even more of it. The Brits also violated their international legal obligation requiring them to aid Jews in emigrating to “Palestine” and settling there. Instead the Brits prevented us and assisted Arabs in numbers far in excess of what was legally permitted. Then they allowed Arabs to own guns with which they killed Jews, and Jews were forbidden to own guns for self protection under threat of capital punishment, which the Brits DID enforce.

You need to be more careful when invoking “international law,” because then you’ll have to explain why violation of it against party A by party B obligates party A to now obey the new law that party B created after depraving A of his rights under the first one, and absolving themselves of guilt for not obeying it.

It’s our Land, and no conspiracy of thieves and their enablers can change that. And if you want to be a party to the theft, that’s your business. But don’t try to pretend international law isn't being perverted. And don’t pretend Condi isn’t a fool for her part in it.

The above hissed in response by: yonason [TypeKey Profile Page] at July 1, 2007 7:42 PM

The following hissed in response by: yonason

And one more thing, about our "leaders" such as they are.

They were ALL elected because they promised security, and then when they were elected they betrayed the trust of the electorate and squandered our security and our lives. Israel voted for keeping Gaza as Sharon promised. You know what happened.

They pretend our inheritance is theirs to do with as they please. It is not. If you use their treachery to justify our loss, you are no better than they. And if you dismiss our victimization at the hands of our quisling "leaders" and the nations that pressure us into concessions that will make it easier for us to be destroyed, then I don't see how you can call yourself a conservative. Or, do you, anymore?

The above hissed in response by: yonason [TypeKey Profile Page] at July 1, 2007 8:17 PM

The following hissed in response by: Dafydd ab Hugh

Yonason:

“In any event Israel has no "divine right" to the West Bank (or Judea and Samaria, if you prefer) or Gaza”

Yes, we do have a “divine right” and we will, hopefully soon, have all of our land restored to us, as promised by our G-d. It is in fact our main claim, and if that weren’t true I wouldn’t be bothering with this.

Then we stand at impasse, because I will not accept anybody's claim to "divine right." If I accept yours, why not the "diving right" claimed by the sons of the Prophet? Why not the divine right claimed by the Christians, as that was the land where Jesus walked?

Call me when you've got a sentient pillar of fire.

Further, your list of factors defining ownership should include at least these details of one factor you barely alluded to, and that is the British mandate to restore Israel to ALL of the territory they renamed Palestine, after what the Romans renamed it to disguise it’s Jewish ownership. The Brits reneged on that mandate (i.e., they violated international law), and later the UN hacked off even more, then when Israel’s statehood was proclaimed, the Arabs invaded and stole even more of it.

Well, that's life.

The Brits also violated their international legal obligation requiring them to aid Jews in emigrating to “Palestine” and settling there.

There is no such thing as an "international legal obligation," either. There are treaty contracts, violation of which carries no penalty other than losing the benefits of the treaty. But I'll have no truck with the very concept of "international law." It's a foolish conceit that vanishes the very moment it butts into "national interest."

You need to be more careful when invoking "international law"...

Oh for Pete's sake, Yonason, when the hell did I ever invoke "international law?" If you're going to invent bizarre arguments and attribute them to me, I'll thank you not to put them into false quotation marks.

Then they allowed Arabs to own guns with which they killed Jews, and Jews were forbidden to own guns for self protection under threat of capital punishment, which the Brits DID enforce.

Moot point. The Brits were unable to hold onto the land; Irgun/Etzel saw to that. By 1948, the British decided "Palestine" (by which they meant the entire trans-Jordan) was too much trouble, and they scarpered. The Zionists set up a Socialist government, which eventually become somewhat more capitalist; and the Jews have managed to hold onto the reins of power to this day.

The Arabs have whined about it for 60 years. Too bad; that's life. They've been the weak horse and the Jews are still the strong horse. They're no longer the only democracy in the ME, but they're still our most important ally in that region... and there is very little chance of that changing, even if a Democrat is elected in 2008.

Israel doesn't have any "divine right" to Judea and Samaria, and the Palestinians have no divine right to the trans-Jordan. The Jews had it; the Romans kicked them out; the Byzantine Empire inherited it; the Ottomans grabbed it; the Brits defeated the Ottoman Empire; the Brits first offered it all to the Zionists, then (as you say) reneged on the offer and gave them only a part of it, giving the rest to Arabs who now call themselves Palestinians.

The Arabs invaded Israel repeatedly; the second time, the Arabs were beaten so badly that they lost what was then called (by the rest of the world) the West Bank of the Jordan River and the Gaza strip.

I have no problem with that; the Moslems have no "divine right" either -- until and unless God Allmighty walks the earth and files a claim in the land office. If the Arabs are clumsy and incompetent enough to lose an aggressive war they started, and to lose control of territory they controlled, then tough luck to them.

I'm glad Israel pulled out of Gaza, and I encourage them to pull out of the West Bank as well... not for any moral reasons but because it's ungovernable. What I have argued for many years is that Israel should pull out -- but then treat any attack from those territories as it would any other attack from a sovereign nation: They should retaliate disproportionately.

Alas, when they finished the pull-out from Gaza, and Hamas launched an attack from that land, Ariel Sharon was already braindead. Israelis went ahead and elected Ehud Olmert, a complete nincompoop, who proceeded to fight a half-assed war, leaving Hamas still in charge in Gaza (now de jure as well as de facto) and Hezbollah still running southern Lebanon.

Olmert did not do what I have urged, what I am certain Arik Sharon would have done. Oh well. "Not responsible for advice not taken."

Israel can still pummel Gaza or the West Bank anytime it wants: Just wait until a vicious rocket attack (it shouldn't take long), then retaliate; but retaliate not with a pinprick strike here or there but with major bombing of terrorist infrastructure and even industrial capacity, such as it is.

Leaflet the area explaining (in Arabic) why it did what it did, and warning against future attacks. The world will scream; let them.

If Israel can't bring itself to do that, then there's nothing more to be said, is there?

It’s our Land, and no conspiracy of thieves and their enablers can change that. And if you want to be a party to the theft, that’s your business.

This is what is called "lightswitch" or "binary" reasoning: I don't support your farcockteh "divine right" -- therefore I must be on the side of the Palestinians! Why, there's no other possibility!

Jeez Louise. I guess it never occurred to you that not everybody in the world divides into "Israeli partisans" or "Arab partisans."

And if you dismiss our victimization at the hands of our quisling "leaders" and the nations that pressure us into concessions that will make it easier for us to be destroyed, then I don't see how you can call yourself a conservative. Or, do you, anymore?

I don't give a sow's ear for your "victimization." I despise people who identify themselves as victims. What a horrible, wretched waste of the divine gift of life.

If you don't want to be a victim, then don't let people victimize you: Put on your manly gown, gird your loins, and pull up your socks. You don't want to be shot at? Then retaliate, attack, invade, whatever it takes to make the terrorists stop shooting.

And I have never called myself a "conservative." At least not since the early 1970s, when I was in junior high school. I only say that conservatives are a lot less dangerous to the United States and our allies and to the causes I support than the damned liberals are; so I vote Republican and (mostly) conservative.

But I, myself, am politically non-Euclidean.

Dafydd

The above hissed in response by: Dafydd ab Hugh [TypeKey Profile Page] at July 1, 2007 9:37 PM

Post a comment

Thanks for hissing in, . Now you can slither in with a comment, o wise. (sign out)

(If you haven't hissed a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Hang loose; don't shed your skin!)


Remember me unto the end of days?


© 2005-2009 by Dafydd ab Hugh - All Rights Reserved