Wednesday, August 8, 2007

Peace, Debate, and Dialogue

I was thinking about this the other day...

I am offended by the word "peace." Why should the VICTIM have to worry about 'peace'? Groups such as "Peace Now", and "Jewish Voice for Peace" claim to be even handed and claim to want peace... but by their very focus on ISRAEL as the source of problems guarantees there will NOT be peace. If you look at the history of the Mideast conflict, almost every time, Israel acted either defensively or in retaliation for slaughter of its citizens. Whether it acted in the right way is debateable, what is not debateable from a historical REALITY perspective is WHY Israel has acted. Many people do not actually live in reality and prefer to deny history; we both know that historical reality is not a friend to Arabs as well as Arab apologists. But still, the facts are the facts.

Those who advocate for 'peace' would really ONLY be advocating it from the perspective of putting the onus on Palestinians to stop their low-grade constant conflict and stop teaching hate to their children. The checkpoints did not exist until the Intifada; people forget that. The 'wall' did not exist until the Intifada; again, people forget that. The entire 'occupation' (what a loaded word!) exists solely due to Israel's defensive Six Day War.

'Peaceniks' who really are peaceful would realize Israel has a right to defend itself and stop pretending that settlers are per se evil and the reason for the problems. They would see the root of the problem and demand an end to it. The 'peace' groups I cited, in their failure to do this, necessarily promote war. They make 'peace' an offensive word. Don't sell that 'peace' to ME or to Israel - sell it to those who are preventing peace.

This brings me to a question of dialogue and debate. I believe that dialogue and debate will be counterproductive. I thought about it, as a result of dialogue and debate over the course of a year and a half online, I have become actually more set in my political opinions, and more convinced than ever that the other side are either brainwashed or antisemites, and basically not reachable. Let me put it this way; the other side is not merely claiming "Israel, you overreacted in this situation/that situation." They say "Israel, you are rotten to the core and have no right to exist!" So what "dialogue" is there with them? What "debate" is there with them? How do you "debate" your own existence?

And so I believe that the topic of Israel should simply not even be debated with these cretins, thugs, and brainwashed masses. We will NOT change them, and if anything, make them worse. Instead, I believe the best AND ONLY topic to discuss with Arabs is Lebanon. A secondary topic is possibly Iran. Lebanon is a country on the brink; anyone who actually believes in a future for the Lebanese is against a common (and existential) enemy of Israel's: Hezbollah and Syria. There are banners all over Lebanon that say "I love life." So, promote THAT. Promote an anti-Hezbollah culture of Lebanon, promote love of life and anti-hate; do not even discuss Israel as it will simply enflame passions and lead to nothing. Then maybe have a debate about the way to bring about peace in Lebanon. Bring together a broad spectrum of Lebanese and Arab society that is devoted against the hate. Then, maybe once they are anti-Hezbollah hate, they will start to be pro-Israel. But it has to be side-strike. The same goes with Iran; the Iranian mullahs are anti-Israel, but more than that, they are anti-Iranian. So bring together a broad spectrum of people who again love life and are devoted against the mullahs.

If you do a survey of the Mideast, other than Israelis, the only other countries filled with sophisticated people who love life are Lebanon (at least Sunni/Druze/Maronites, and a minority of Shia) and Iran. They can be reached, and should be reached. And the debate should not be Israel's existence or whether Israel leads a vast cabal controlling world foreign policy, as that debate will lead to nowhere. It should be over the future of a free, just, and pluralistic Lebanon and Iran.

Thoughts?

5 comments:

ratherdashing said...

Since "Israel" can be a buzz word that arouses contention and suspicion, you could frame the dialogue around the things that Israel represents as it tries to exist in a tough neighborhood - justice, democracy, and the rule of law. Stay with the positive and the attractive and point out the flaws in Arab & Iranian governments. This may help keep the debate from shifting to Israel being "rotten to the core." Just don't mention Israel with this audience.

Also, note that true pacifism can be immoral when nothing is done in the face of evil. Know that the lack of war is not a guarantee for peace.

Michael said...

RT:
It's interesting to note that the people (outside Israel) that you feel can be "reached" in the Middle East are the non-Arab peoples.

Ratherdashing:
I've tried that before. Most Arabs and muslims will very promptly turn the subject to Israel. "Yes, Assad is a dictator, but Israel's occupation of the palestinians forces him to keep his army on alert."

Yeah. That makes sense.

thecaptain said...

Shorter 'culture for all':

"they are just animals, basically, they would take advantage of 'peace'"

Honestly, go back to reading Harry Potter.

Red Tulips said...

thecaptain:

HUH? When did I say "they are just animals and will take advantage of peace"?

I never said that nor intimated it. I said that the Hamas/Fatah leadership will not build any real society if a state were offered tomorrow. They will merely use their state to attack another state. (Israel) We see evidence of this in Gaza and the West Bank.

This is reality, not fantasy-land.

Mr. Smarterthanyou said...

The peace movement is nothing more than the continuation of old soviet efforts to destabilize and weaken the capitalist west.

It is now carried over by modern socialists and idiots of various stripes.