The Peaceful Realisation of The Palestinian Right of Self-determination

I found this link worth reading:

For nearly four decades, he expressed and symbolised in his person the national aspirations of the Palestinian people.

Now that he is gone, both Israelis and Palestinians, and the friends of both peoples throughout the world, must make even greater efforts to bring about the peaceful realisation of the Palestinian right of self-determination.

It looks like sort of new Gandhi to me...

Whatever, world leaders thoughts are alredy registered. My own comments will be too harsh if i publish them. Yet I wanna know, what do you think?

War and Peace

My friend (who I showcased an email correspondence with over here) wrote me a long email about his correspondence with a 'peace' group, and in it he wrote that he disagreed with their stance on Israel, but he agreed with their other stances. I wrote back that I doubted that he really agreed with them on their other stances. This is the exchange that followed. I am copying all you find folks, as I feel that in these emails I showed the utter hypocrisy of the 'peace' groups.

This is his email back to me:

We haven't really discussed the other positions of the 'peace group,' which I support. Here are a few:

1. paper ballots over electronic voting...at least until more testing is done; (i have to learn more though)
2. raising awareness about the conditions of, and resources avaibable to, Iraq War veterans.
3. anti-Iraq war
4. Darfur Genocide awareness
5. counter military recruitment (at least when it targets underage kids)

My reply was as follows:

I will give my stance on those issues, and then explain why I do not believe you actually agree with all of them...

1. Yes, I agree electronic voting has too many problems at present and I support a paper system; that said, New York's non-electronic system is one of the most faulty in the nation, and with the most machine breakdowns.
2. Raising awareness of Walter Reed medical center and problems that might be there is noble, certainly.
3. Anti-Iraq War is NOT noble from their position. And I doubt you agree with it. They want troops to be brought home NOW, this second. They are NOT looking for a staggered troop withdrawal. I read their statements, they believe it is most 'peaceful' to have mass pandemonium which has hundreds of thousands of troops leave at once and immediately dismantle the infrastructure. But oh, there is more. This sort of nonsensical policy would lead to mass slaughter of Iraqis. In other words, they are in favor of pandemonium and slaughter. And no, I am not exaggerating. Their petition says "bring home troops NOW." They are demanding the end to ANY funds for military action. (never mind the fact that it would take money, and lots of it, to suddenly bring hundreds of thousands of men and women back to the US at once) And never mind the fact that if troops lack money, they will have to cannibalize their resources. Military policy says that if suddenly they lack guns/arms/food due to the US not funding it, they will steal from locals, and do whatever it takes to get this.
   
   This horrific scenario is what the 'peace group' advocates. You cannot possibly agree with it, even if you do believe troops should be out of Iraq. I would like to add that this is the most anti-humane and anti-troop thing you could possibly think of. (not to mention anti-Iraqi) When I read they are in favor of veteran awareness, you have to laugh, given how anti-troop they really are.
   
   One more thing. These 'peacers' are un-American to even call this an 'Occupation' of Iraq. It is NOT an 'occupation,' and they only use the word to evoke the sympathies of anti-zionists to their cause.
4. Darfur we agree with, but then again, they are all fake. They like to scream about Darfur, but if the US were to go in there with a military action, they would be anti-war. They are only talking about Darfur because it's a way for them to be anti-Bush.
5. Finally, counter-military recruitment is another stupid and suicidal policy. Why, exactly, should we not be doing what we can to encourage kids to join the military? No one is forcing them to join; there is no draft, unlike in many other nations. If you are going to end military recruitment, why not end college recruitment? Is the military somehow a less legitimate life path than college? I know you do not believe that. For many kids, the military is the most sensible path and one they desire, rather than college. To be against military recruitment is to be against having an effective fighting force, and whatever your feelings on Iraq, you again cannot possibly be in favor of that. In contrast, I do believe that the 'peace group' is in favor of dismantling the US army, and this is but one way to do it.

In summary, I do not believe you actually agree with the phony "peace group's" other positions on other issues, however, I also know you are not passionate about Iraq, military equipment, or even Darfur as you are about Israel.

My friend wrote this in reply:

so you agree..... i do agree with them on other issues. no matter that they're fake on darfur. i still agree w/ the position. well, i'm not sure what their position is...military intervention, or bulking up the AU forces. no matter that i don't agree w/ where they're coming from....i still agree w/ raising awareness about veterans' needs. i agree they don't give a genuine shit about military issues and military families...only as it suits their agenda. i was at an ISO sponsored planning event for a Washington Heights anti-war rally earlier this summer...and they were talking about finding out where war widows in w. heights lived, visiting them and soliciting their help to march at the front -- so all the cameras can be on them. i played out the scenario in my head....i imagined some families would be happy to get the visit, but imagine the poor widow who gets visited and decides it's not for them and wants nothing to do w/ anti-war movement? can you imagine the condescension and self-righteousness from these socialist fuckers ...i'm sure they'd commit to not interrogating her, but they'd drop in a "you do know that your husband died for a lie, don't you? and oh, thanks for letting us use your bathroom mrs. gonzalez" i got chills sitting there.

yea, about the iraq war...you know i'm w/ you. i'm against the war, but i don't agree w/ them about ending it.

i also agree w/ you about counter-recruitment. what i agree w/ the 'peace group' about is how some recruitment centers have been targeting under-age kids....15 and 16. i don't think that's right, and they have been breaking rules doing it. counter-recruitment people in general yes, are retarded. they'd be willing to reduce america's military to the national guard....but only if they promised not to shoot.

I read that and I thought..."my friend still doesn't totally get it...I have to drive the point home!" So I wrote the following:

Let me sum up this 'peace group' as well as other 'peace' groups and their positions...

"Rethuglicans and BushCo are war mongers and hate mongers. Therefore, anything they advocate has to be bad, and we must do what is necessary to undermine any and everything they do, in the interest of peace and anti-hate."

This is the lens through which they view modern politics. So, let's examine how they view everything, with that lens...

1. Electronic voting machines are seen as bad because a Republican owns the Diebold corporation. They fear this can be exploited against Democratic (i.e., 'peace') candidates. As such, they work against electronic voting machines. Oh yeah, those 2006 Midterm elections worked out for the Dems, didn't they? And electronic voting was used in much of the country, electing Dems...hmmm...well, let's not talk about that, and ignore it, pretend it didn't happen. So even this position is hypocritical.
2. Despite the fact that Clinton set about eight years of cuts to the military, including to veteran facilities, the problems at Walter Reed Medical Center is another way to blame Bush, while appearing to be noble about it. They can pretend they care about the troops, when really this position again is only used to show how war-like Bush is, compared to their peacefulness.
3. Iraq - They are against this war solely because Bush and Rethugs started it. You heard nary a peep from 'peace' groups when Clinton was bombing aspirin factories in Sudan, or bombing Kosovo, including many civilian localities. (that was under the 'war hero' and 'peacenik,' Wesley Clark) That is right, our campaign in Kosovo included bombing civilian infrastructure...but no one said this was 'a war crime,' or was sobbing for the innocent Serbs who were killed. Feel free to read more about this humanitarian bombing'), but fighting a war in Iraq is a war crime.
4. Darfur again, under this lens, is merely a way to criticize Bush. They do not care about the Darfurians or anyone except excising BushCo from the White House.
5. In general, if there is one thing a 'peace' group is against, it is the military. They don't merely care about targetting 'underage kids,' because they want the military to be barred from college campuses as well. As far as targetting underage kids; you have to be 18 to enlist, anyway. The only wrong thing about military recruitment of underage kids (or ANYONE) is that they might tell lies to entice people to join. That is wrong; but that is not what this 'peace group' ultimately cares about. They just see the military as linked with Bush and anyway evil, but they know based on lessons from Vietnam War protesting that they cannot come right out and say that. So they do every single thing possible to weaken the strength, morale, and fighting ability of the military, with the goal of defanging our defenses. However, we are allowed to fight only when a non-"Rethug" is in the White House. All in the name of peace.
   
   Sorry for going off on this ramble, but I just find 'peace' groups to be the most dishonest racket around. They believe in peace insofar as they view anti-Chimpy McHalliburton to mean 'peace,' regardless of what policies must be used to be anti-Chimpy McHalliburton. If somehow such policies would cause Israel to be obliterated, Iraqis to be slaughtered en masse, and Americans to be subjected to the worst sorts of terrorism...that does not matter. As it is peaceful, simply because it is anti-BushCo.
   
   They sicken me to no end.

I hope this email exchange as as interesting for you as it was for me in the intellectual exercise of writing it!

More in the world of Indian Muslims

I wrote earlier of Taslima Nasreen, the ex-Muslim feminist (soon to be wife of PM ;-)), who faces an indictment in India for 'insulting Islam.' I also wrote of the violence against her in Hyderabad. Now it seems she has a 'fresh fatwa' against her life. She was given a month to leave Kolkhata, or she will be killed. This is how much the jihadis believe in freedom of speech.

And yet not all the news from India's Islamic community is bad. Witness a recent delegation of Indian imams to Israel, and what the leader had to say:

The time for violence has come to an end, and the era of peace and dialogue between Muslims and Jews has begun - that was the message delivered by Maulana Jameel Ahmed Ilyasi, secretary-general of the All-India Association of Imams and Mosques, during an interview with Ynetnews.

Ilaysi's organization represents half a million imams, who are the main religious leaders of India's 200 million Muslims.

In an extraordinary visit to Israel, organized by the American Jewish Committee's (AJC) India office, Ilaysi arrived as part of a delegation of Indian Muslim leaders and journalists.

Asked to address Hamas's call for jihad to destroy Israel, Ilaysi said, "I believe in peace and this is the message I take. I don't believe in anything that destroys another country."

The religious leader also said the time had come for Pakistan to establish official relations with Israel. "This is the right thing to do," he added.

These are honestly the words of peace, and I find them to be remarkable. I know PM thinks it is all bluster, but I have to disagree with him. The question, however, is whether this imam is long for the world, and how many Indian Muslims agree with him.

Perhaps Indian Muslims can lead the world as an example of what it truly means to show Islam can be a religion of peace?

Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty

I had the following exchange with a friend of mine who is a Zionist. I figured you would appreciate what I had to say.

My friend wrote me the following:

just to reiterate, i'm for the settlers and soldiers to be evacuated, and for soldiers' ability to go after terrorists and other threats. i'm also for israel to keep early warning stations as they see fit. i'm just not for this whole matrix of control over a hostile population....it won't convince them to change their ways, so it's unsustainable and pointless if israel can find just as effective means of self-defense. how don't care how it's viewed by them, they won't be able to penetrate israel and that'll be the best message to send.

This was my reply:

I understand why you believe in evacuating most of the West Bank, but to briefly outline why I do not believe it to be a fruitful platform...

1. Technically speaking, the 'hostile population' already is under the control over the thugs of the Palestinian Authority. In fact, times were best for this hostile population when Israelis were in control in the '80s, pre-Oslo.
2. To that end, the IDF is in there not to 'control' the hostile population, but rather to secure the Israeli population AGAINST the hostile population. Yes, road blocks can be crap, but we know when they were put in - after the Intifada. They were not, repeat, NOT, there pre-Intifada. As such, we have to evalualate them not from whether or not it is hurting Israeli psyche to be 'in control' over a hostile population, but rather, whether they are effective. If you look at the extreme drop in suicide bombings, then yes, they have been effective to at least some degree. I would be in favor of dropping anything ineffective, but ONLY if it is ineffective.
3. It is a human rights nightmare to just evacuate tens of thousands (if not many more) of Jews from the holiest part of Israel. There is not the infrastructure nor the sympathy to care for what will be homeless people. The settlers evacuated from Gaza have been reduced to living in trailers, the kids still, two years later, are not enrolled in schools.
4. If we were to evacuate the West Bank, then it is a guarantee that our holiest sites will be 100% destroyed. I am not so cool with our history and heritage being destroyed. We need only examine the example of Gaza, and the wholesale destruction of the ancient synagogues there.
5. As far as my understanding, the missile defense system will not be effective if the missiles come lobbed RIGHT over the wall, and they are certainly still at a test phase in general. The technology is not as effective as rooting out the terrorists in the way the IDF currently does.
6. WHY should Jews have to evacuate Jewish holy land (which they were slaughtered in in 1929, as you know), and Arabs are allowed to live in Israel? Honestly, if THAT is the philosophy of the JEWISH state - population exchange ONLY for Jews - then that rewards bad behavior. Rewarding bad behavior encourages bad behavior. And it makes me believe that if there is to be a population exchange, let's make it even - let's tell all Arab Israelis they have to declare they are a Zionist (and that their kids must join IDF), or they will be given money to leave. I do not believe it right or just to have a one-way population exchange.
7. Was the IDF set up to forcibly expel Jews from their homes? Having the IDF do such a thing undermines confidence in the IDF. There already is a concern about draft dodging, and such policies will only increase draft dodging.
8. None of this will change the opinion of the world, nor the Palestinians, nor the Arab Israelis, about Israel. If anything, it will make them more vigilant, rather than less. They will see that their actions lead to a reward. As such, if the goal is to curb the impulse to commit acts of terror, that is not achieved.
9. If the goal is to be more militarily effective, I do not believe that would be achieved, either. Let's examine: why are there no rockets being launched through the West Bank, but there are rockets being launched from Gaza? Answer: because of the vigilance of the IDF in rooting out the Islamist terrorists in the West Bank. THAT is the reason. You take away the IDF presence, and there will be, almost as a guarantee, an upsurge of terrorism and rockets being launched at Israel. The missile defense system is still in the test phase and cannot be relied upon and is no substitute for what the IDF does now. Meanwhile, the West Bank sits right on top of MAJOR POPULATON CENTERS of Israel! Thus, leaving the West Bank in the way you propose would expose the population centers, and make them less, and not more safe. And this is under the pretense of assuming that the IDF had to forcibly expel tens of thousands of Jews from their homes - and there is NO Jewish presence in the West Bank (save for the few settlement blocks).
10. Let's examine another scenario. Let's pretend that there is a Jewish presence in the West Bank. Let's pretend that the IDF leaves, and the Jews are told that they can stay, but they will be under the auspices of the corrupt, thug-like Palestinian Authority. These settlers will be armed, as they are now, and will certainly act to defend themselves and their homes. It will be like the Wild West. And a tenet of the IDF is to protect Jews in the world, wherever they may be. (most famously seen in the bravery during the Entebbe hijacking) So the IDF still has jurisdiction over these Jews and still would have a duty to defend them - only they will not be able to be as effective in doing so, having ceded power and control over to the Palestinian Authority. There would be massacres.
11. The bottom line is that Israel has only two logical paths it can follow if it seeks to avoid a human rights nightmare for its Jewish citizens. One is to remain constantly vigilant. Remember what Wendell Phillips said: "Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty." When I was in Israel, every soldier I saw, I cheered. I told them that I was grateful for their protecting my freedom. What they do is really amazing. We mustn't, and they musn't, buy into the propoganda that they are doing it "only" for the "ungrateful" settlers. We musn't, and they musn't, buy into the propoganda that they are "controlling a hostile native population." (these people are no more native than the Jews, if anything, they are less native, but that is another story) We cannot let THEM dictate the terms over how we see this, and we have to realize that if we remain eternally vigilant, there may be no peace in our lifetimes. We have to resolve ourselves that the only way towards peace is to do something that no one is willing to do, because it may break the very soul of the Jewish state. And that is to follow Kahane's advice and have a wholesale population transfer. This is the only longterm solution towards peace. If we are not willing to do it, as we are not (and as we shouldn't be, because I think it would break the soul of the Jewish state), then we have to acknowledge that peace is not possible with a foe whose goal is ultimately annhilation. Maybe a sizeable chunk of Palestinians can live in peaceful coexistence. Maybe. But not today, and not in three-five years.

If we are not going to follow Kahane's advice (I want to underline the fact that I do not believe we SHOULD follow Kahane's advice), then we have to look at how to dismantle the hate education system which produces programs such as "Farfour, the Hamas mouse," and "Nahoul the bee," teaching children the joys of shahid, martyrdom. We have to dismantle the hate education system which teaches children that Jews are subhuman. And if that is taught in Israel, certainly that too should be dismantled. The problem is not the people, it is the culture. There needs to be a wholesale change of culture, so that peaceful coexistence is possible. That cannot happen in our lifetimes, and we should resolve ourselves to that; maybe it can happen in the lifetimes of our children.

What do you all think about what I have to say?

How can 'peace' be achieved?

Abu Mazen (Abbas) is consistently put forward as a 'man of peace.' This is the same man with a phd in Holocaust denial as well as his funding of the 1972 Munich massacre. This is why I do not believe it wise to empower such a man.

What I am at a loss over is why people like Khaled Abu Toameh are not empowered by Israel. There *are* good Arab Israelis and Palestinians, and they are marginalized not only by Fatah/Hamas, but also by an Israeli government that does not send aid their way. If there is *any hope* for peace, it is NOT through Fatah or Hamas, it is through men like Khaled Abu Toameh. To that extent, I agree with some of the antizionists which hold that the Palestinians are in the position they are in because of Israel. No, directly, they are not, but Israel did help enable this to happen through a misguided idea that sending guns/weaponry to the worst elements of Palestinian society somehow will make the Palestinians more peaceful or moderate.

The root of the problem is Oslo, which placed power in the worst of the worst, Yassir Arafat. This man was not elected, and prior to Oslo, he was marginalized. Shimon Peres was an architect of Oslo, and he is at his old tricks again today.

There are good Palestinians, and as long as Israel deludes itself into thinking an Arafat or an Abbas are part of the "good" Palestinians, there can never be peace. Thus, if one wants to achieve 'peace' in Israel, the first and most necessary place to start is to STOP favoring one group of terrorists over another, and to START looking at parties who actually are truly moderate, and backing them. If none such parties exist at present, then DO NOTHING. By all means, DO NOT send aid to those who wish to genocide Jews. Let the terrorists duke things out themselves, as their disagreement does not concern Israel. WAIT for a truly moderate party to arise!

Moreover, I had some thoughts earlier today. When Israel gives up land, I believe that the Arab response is to think that NO ONE would willfully just GIVE UP land that was lawfully their's. Thus, not only does giving up land make Israel look weak, it ALSO makes it seem as if the land was illegally held to begin with! (as anyone holding land LEGALLY would NEVER give it up without fighting to the death for it) When Israel gives up terrorists it is holding prisoner, I believe the Arab response is to see this as confirmation that the terrorists were 'political prisoners' to begin with, since surely NO ONE would be willing to let killers out to the streets to kill again.

Thus, all these measures which are supposedly done to further 'peace' are in fact doing the opposite: they ensure there will be perpetual war.