- FEBRUARY 9, 2010
-
-
TIGHTROPE
Obama’s China-Taiwan Challenge
-
DECODER
Parsing the State of the Union
-
SUPREME COURT
Decision Widens U.S. Credibility Gap
If only Israel would get over that darned Holocaust. Yeah, that's the ticket...
Posted By David Rothkopf
Monday, April 20, 2009 - 10:35 PM
Share
Roger Cohen's piece called "Israel, Iran and Fear" in the Sunday New York Times contained just enough truth to very likely distract some readers from the two deep and dangerous misunderstandings on which it is based.
The piece essentially argued at the outset that Israel should get over the Holocaust in the way that Germany has. The misconception here, of course, is failing to recognize that getting over the Holocaust was as essential to Germany's survival as never forgetting it has been to Israel's. Germany could not move forward into being the vibrant democracy Cohen praised it for being unless it did what was necessary to accept responsibility for its bestial heritage and then able to compartmentalize that, effectively putting it in a museum to be viewed periodically, to be acknowledged, but also to be quarantined off from daily life. An Israel that dropped its guard and accepted the promises of its neighbors at face value (or, as paradoxically implicitly suggested by Cohen, dismissed the threats of its neighbors as bombast) could very well have long ago ceased to exist.
Cohen believes Israel needs to stop "overstating" the threats around it, which he asserts are linked to never having gotten over the Holocaust, and for my money, undermines his credibility further by quoting Jimmy Carter to support his argument. Cohen suggests, as does Carter, that Israel's policies are too driven by unjustified fear of enemies that it easily outclasses in might. His implication is that if they did get over this fear, they would not act so harshly against their enemies and adopt policies that only inflame the situation. Further, if they got "over" the Holocaust (and the millennia of constant and brutal persecution that preceded it) perhaps they would not be so easily able or inclined to justify getting overly tough with their enemies.
The notable element of truth in Cohen's analysis is that the perpetuating the policy of building settlements on Palestinian land actually only inflames the situation. The policy needs to stop and Israel does need to move assertively forward toward a two-state solution for the reasons he states and that have been widely accepted worldwide.
However, his second major misconception (and Carter's) is of course, that somehow Israel is safer than it depicts, that the threat of its destruction is overstated by Israelis to serve political purposes. This is just patent nonsense. Sure, Israel has a powerful military. But that army has already proven to be an ineffective defense against asymmetric warfare: It may win battles but for over twenty years it has regularly lost ground for Israel politically while failing to reduce the threat from its enemies. Secondly, those enemies are the ones continuously calling for the destruction of Israel -- the Iranians and the extremist mullahs throughout the region are not doing it just to prop up the Israeli PR machine.
Third, as we move toward an era in the region in which there will be more nuclear weapons and materials scattered about we need realize that only one or two well placed devices (they can be delivered in VWs if missiles are unavailable) would have a devastating, perhaps permanently shattering impact on Israeli society.
There is one more thing that weakens Cohen's argument. He asserts Israel is strong in part because of the "cast-iron security guarantee" of the U.S. First, I find this kind of disingenuous given the regular efforts that Cohen makes to undercut that "guarantee by lobbying for a different U.S. stance on that front. But secondly, I think this point is overstated precisely because I think U.S. support for Israel is about to go through a measurable weakening. Part of this is due to the growing popularity of views like those of Cohen's regarding the U.S. having been too slavishly supportive of Israel in the past. Part of this is due to the odiousness of some of the approaches taken by the Israelis-either in Gaza or with regard to settlements. And part of this is due to the missteps of some supporters of Israel in Washington.
Notably on this front, see the CQ article, "Sources: Wiretap Recorded Rep. Harman Promising to Intervene for AIPAC" by Jeff Stein. If the piece is true, the degree to which some of Israel's most extreme supporters in Washington went to win favor for their views may well be their own undoing, not just legally or professionally but in terms of the debate about the future of the U.S.-Israel relationship.
So, let's see what we've got: Weaker backing from the U.S. Likely nukes in Iran and other countries in the region. Eroding political support worldwide. Continuing calls from neighbors for its destruction. A demographic timebomb at its heart. Sure, now I see why Israel should relax and "get over" its fears for its own survival.
The misconception here, of course, is failing to recognize that getting over the Holocaust was as essential to Germany's survival as never forgetting it has been to Israel's.
It was mis-stated. What germany had to get over -- and did get over -- was the mistreatment germany received in connection with the end of WWI. They wound up with heavy reparations to pay, with hyperinflation that wiped out every retirement fund, with old people starving in the streets. Maybe they shouldn't have objected that the Depression hit them particularly hard, but still they felt that nobody cared what happened to germans, that their only hope was to take what they needed independent of world opinion and international law. These were the grievances and attitudes that led to Hitler.
The notable element of truth in Cohen's analysis is that the perpetuating the policy of building settlements on Palestinian land actually only inflames the situation.
But like germany israel does need lebensraum. Palestinians can't hit israel harder due to strategic israeli settlements -- they can only hit less hard. And if world opinion is already solidly against israel, why should israel try to cater to it? World opinion did essentially nothing when germans were putting jews in concentration camps, and it does essentially nothing when israelis put palestinians into tiny isolated cantons. So how is inflaming the situation worse than not inflaming it?
So, let's see what we've got: Weaker backing from the U.S.
Partly due to israel's own actions.
Likely nukes in Iran and other countries in the region.
Partly due to israel's own actions, notably having nukes and threatening in israeli newspapers to use them. Not that the official israeli government has made official overt public threats....
Eroding political support worldwide.
Has that eroded or was it always weak? If it has eroded it's partly due to israel's own actions, but still that "support" never amounted to much and its reduction has had no actual effect yet, true?
Continuing calls from neighbors for its destruction.
The question is whether there is actually a chance for peace. There can't be while israel does nothing toward it. But maybe there could never be a chance for peace anyway, no matter what israel does. Could germany have had peace? At some point in WWII could they have negotiated some sort of solution? They keep alsace-lorraine and the sudetenland and a few things like that but otherwise pull back to their borders and live in peace with all mankind? I doubt they could have had a negotiated peace with the USSR after June 1942. Maybe a truce while both sides re-armed and trained etc. But germany would have lost a peace like that. Fight a later war against russia after pulling out of all the oilfields?
If israel is like nazi germany there is no chance for peace. The best chance is to take everything you can and give nothing back, ever. The more you can weaken your enemies the weaker their attacks will be. But what if israel is not like nazi germany, is there a chance for peace? Well, the more that israel's enemies are like nazi germany's enemies, the less chance there is for peace. The bitterness may already run too deep. It may be too late.
A demographic timebomb at its heart.
If you think about that one, you get three solutions, right? One is to arrange a peace and live with the demography. It of course might not work. A second is to do something about it. Sterilise or kill palestinians, arrange for many more jews to live in israel despite the water shortage, etc. The third is to move elsewhere. My suggestion is to move elswhere. The other options are too risky.
Sure, now I see why Israel should relax and "get over" its fears for its own survival.
A small population with larger neighbors. Who believe that the world is against them and they must take what they need because they cannot have it peacefully. Israel is not nazi germany, and Netanyahu is not Hitler, and israels' small military victories -- taking the sinai twice, and a bit of syria twice, and part of jordan, and invading lebanon some -- are not WWII. But the more that israelis are convinced that peace is impossible, the more like nazis they will become. And yet they might be correct. Maybe peace is impossible and the Holocaust is the central form they should consider for interaction with foreign nations.
On a personal level, what do you do if somebody hates you and threatens to kill you? The most certain strategy is to kill him secretly, when he doesn't expect it. But if you don't have the stomach to kill him in cold blood, you can still be relatively safe if you keep him chained up in your basement. You can feed him dry dog food and tell him if he can just persuade you that he doesn't hate you and he won't hurt you, then you'll let him go. If he spits at you that's evidence he really does hate you and he needs more punishments and fewer rewards.
Israel MUST abandon all settlements.
If Israel abandoned all settlements, and pulled out the IDF,If, as has been done successfully in Lebanon, they allowed mostly Arab UN peace keepers to fill the void and keep BOTH sides honest, there would indeed be a chance for peace.
The settlements are an ongoing act of war that ANY people would actively resist. Periodically occupying and utterly needlessly bombing the entire nation of Lebanon into the ground is the sort of thing that inspires people to line on the border to keep Israel out and to threaten to destroy it.
STOP doing these things, and peace has a chance.
In the midst of all of your doom saying,consider that for the 4 decades that the occupation has existed, ALMOST ALL Israelis have lived lives on par with Americans, while ALMOST ALL Palestinians (strictly as the result of the settlements and the occupation that they necessitate)
have lived in abject, unimaginable poverty, without a state, without many rights, and under the boot of Israeli soldiers and settlers.
If every settlement was razed tomorrow and the IDF was replaced with Arab UN peace keepers, the lives of the VAST majority of Israelis would remain exactly as it is.
If every settlement was razed tomorrow and the IDF was replaced with Arab UN peace keepers, the lives of the VAST majority of Israelis would remain exactly as it is.
Yes, you're probably right. Maybe. Possibly. Though at the least there would have to be treaties about water use and israel would not get as big a share of the water as they do now. So israeli wealth would be sharply reduced.
I think a lot of israelis though believe that in the situation you describe they would be slaughtered.
There's no real way to disprove that except to try it. And they won't want to try it while they believe the experiment would kill them.
....."getting over the Holocaust was as essential to Germany's survival as never forgetting it has been to Israel's". Perhaps that is so but the greatest majority of the world had nothing to do with the holocaust, in any way shape or form and tire of the incessant phrases such as 'anti-semitic' et al, day after day as Jewish people drop it at every opportunity when a contrary opinion is aired. The world has heard all these things for 60 years and it really is one of the things that has made Israel the most disliked country in the world. Of course, that as well as so many others; the non ratification of the NPT whilst having hundreds of nuclear warheads; the seizure of
Palestinian lands; the apartheid practices in Palestine, policies that are akin to the same activities of the much- hated Hitler. So Mr. Rothkopf, getting over the holocaust is 'the ticket;' and the sooner the better.
Fortunately, the world is becoming considerably more enlightened on the ways that Israel and her nefarious 'lobby groups' have manipulated public opinion over time. Eventually when the lifeline of US aid monies to Israel dry up and it becomes just another country, it may earn an element of respect from the rest of the world. But until then, it will continue to be seen for what it really is, an illegal state due to ethnic cleansing and illegal settlements, an blatant extension of the very worst of weak US foreign policy, having been allowed to get away for decades with bloody murder, literally.
policy of building settlements on Palestinian land actually only inflames the situation.
I hope you are not referring to the West Bank. It is not Palestinian land.
***
Getting over the Holocaust.
I obviously agree that to conflate unreasonable fear with Holocaust trauma, is unreasonable. Israel's enemies are real.
That said, the issue of the Holocaust has a very different dimension, and far more important.
It is the question of arguing for Israel's existence, in terms of the Holocaust, and garnering support for Israel abroad, through Holocaust symbolism.
This is a problem - and one that is backfiring spectacularly, across the world. One of the reasons anti-Zionists incessantly refer to Hitler in speaking of Israeli policy towards Palestinian's, is because there has been a nutcase overdose of justifying everything Israel does, with the Holocaust. We dished it out, we're getting it back.
The idiot who came up with the Holocaust justification for Israel, obviously never realized that instead of justifying Israeli sovereignty, it just undermines it! Every reasonable Arab is asking himself, if it was the Germans, why are we made to pay?!
To me, Israel exists, and has a right to exist, as a state. Basta. We need to get over the Holocaust in justifying Israel's existence.
Israel is a homeland of the Jews, and remains that homeland. Ottomans, Byzantines, and Jihadis be damned.
The Holocaust is something no one should ever get over - its not to be gotten over. It's something that needs to be remembered - just as the Armenian genocide, needs immediate recognition, and also remembering. Same goes for all genocides that have plagued the world. Those of us who lost family in such genocides, will obviously never forget our loved ones.
There are those of us who do not appreciate the way some who claim to speak in our name, have used that memory in the names of others. But I don't see how that is related to Israel's perception of threats. When you hear Arab youth in Canada and Denmark "to the ovens" we are not exaggerating the possibility of another Holocaust, if our enemies get the best of us. That is a reality. But Israel exists regardless of the Holocaust, and is not derived from it.
Sir, dropping the semantics and point by point argumentation that so many people seem prone to resort to on this subject, I find your analysis correct more or less. Isreals security is slipping, thanks in part to the fallout of the Gaza war. In fact, I would find it interesting to draw paralels between Georgias international standing before and after their agression and Israels before and after Gaza. In both instances, the active part was our allies, and they have come weakened out of it. It is unfortunate that the Nethanyahu government seems prone to act with paranoia and stonewalling instead of seeing the Obama admin. as a great opportunity to reshift the initiative back towards peaceful interaction.
I think ‘getting over’ is rather a strange, and not very helpful, choice of term to use with regard to the Holocaust. We should all learn about it, along with many other examples, as a process in which a group of previously normal, peaceful, fairly average humans morphed into a group that committed, or failed to stop, something which they should baulked at. This is a process which can be identified in the run up to most wars. There is something called the Fraud Triangle in which three things are normally required Incentive/Pressure (I/P), Opportunity (O) and Attitude/Rationalisation (A/R) – it works for wars as well. A/R can be any kind of wedge issue ‘A’s are typically ‘isms and ‘R’s may be perceived historical injustices or irredentist pressure. I/P can be anything from deflecting attention from domestic problems to coveting resources. For Opportunity you often need no more than a conviction you will win and some way of bring your people with you. When Iraq attacked Kuwait ‘I’ would have been wealth, ‘O’ = military superiority (and the misconception superior force would not be used against him) and ‘R’ was a historical ‘Greater Iraq’. As a tyrant there was no real need to bring his people onboard. In a democracy, or any other system where the rulers need the tacit support of the population, there is usually a need to either create, or at least deepen, the wedge issue (R) for which you need control of the media or at least a docile media. In 1930’s Germany the democratic National Socialist party perfected the use of propaganda to achieve their ends. In the last Gulf War the US media just failed to adequately question first if Iraq was a backer of AQ and then if there was hard evidence for WMDs and, even if there was, if this was a justification for invasion.
What we should be watching for at all times are attempts to exaggerate the good in our, or our friends, behaviour and the bad in others. I see a lot of this going on now regarding Israel et al vs Iran et al neither are snowy white and I strongly recommend reading all reports with the names reversed to see how you might react. Iran has placed 1.5 million Christians in a small barren strip of land and banned almost all movement of goods and people in or out, most have now fallen below the 2$/day poverty line. Israel is suspected of trying to develop nuclear weapons and Iran say this is unacceptable and will not permit this to happen.
Do you feel any different about either statement when read this way around and if so why? Is it because from your perspective one should be trusted and the other not? If so is that reasonable?
It is downright stupid to gather 6 million strong in one place
Very wise Jews foresaw before Israel was created, that if Jews ever got their own country they would face the contempt of all around, and the harsh measures that they would have to employ to cling unto this impossibility, are creating yet more enemies by the day, - and all over the world. With todays advancement in weapon technology it is also downright stupid to gather 6 million strong in one place; better and wiser from a survival point of view to live evenly distributed all over the world.
But the most important reason for closing this the worlds last colony down for good, is its destabilising effect on world politics, security and economy. The world simply cannot afford this anymore.
There is no significant existential treat to Jews anywhere - if a such exist it is ironically closely connected to Israels behaviour towards the indigeneous population of Palestine, witness the upflare of anti-semitism in France in 2002 and the one that is happening today in some quarters following Israels brutal onslaught on Gaza in January this year.
I can see validity to the arguments that Mr. Rothkopf raises. I would say that they indicate now is the time to negotiate with its neighbors while it can do so from a position of strength. If the tides change and Israel has maintained itself through belligerence, instead of compromise, is it not likely that some of the old adages will apply? For example, those that live by the sword, die by the sword.
Is it not better to secure ones position before the Balance of Power in the regions shifts? After all, power structures are not stagnant.
In this sense, the first article attempts to explore an important issue as well. Maybe, it might be better to argue that Israeli policy is to short sighted and then ask why? Is the immediate threat greater than the long term one?
Is it not better to secure ones position before the Balance of Power in the regions shifts? After all, power structures are not stagnant.
The problem is, after the balance of power shifts then israel cannot expect other nations to respect the old balance.
What if germany had tried to negotiate a peace in August, 1942? At that time germany had all of europe under uccupation except a few nominal allies (spain, italy, rumania, finland etc) and a few neutrals (switzerland, sweden, etc). And a big chunk of russia. Lots of north africa. If germany had wanted to trade land for peace that would have been a good time to do it.
But the result would have been to make germany weaker. Reduced access to oil and other strategic materials. Reduced access to slave-labor factories. And if they would have to fight a defensive war, why not retreat at their own pace and make the soviets pay for the land they took? Why give it away?
To even consider a peace deal germans would have had to believe that the USSR would honor a peace treaty after it was completed. And they did not believe that. So their best chance was to destroy the USSR. If they could take Moscow, maybe the various rebellious nonrussian provinces would go their own ways. (They missed a bet not being nicer to the ukrainians etc when they passed through.) If they could take enough of the russian factories, russia would get weaker. If they could take enough russian oilfields they would get stronger. It probably looked unlikely that they could win a true victory against the USSR. But getting the USSR to honor a peace would be even less likely. After all, the germans made a sneak attack on USSR after signing a treaty saying they wouldn't. Why would they expect better treatment from their victims, when the tides turned?
Israel is in a similar situation. Israel has not been as bad about breaking agreements as the germans were, but they did have a substantial agreement with a framework set up for handling the undecided parts, when Barak tore it all up and started from scratch. Palestinians did regard that as breaking the treaty, and they were unsure about signing the new treaty he wanted to make quickly.
Why should israel give up military advantages to promote peace, when they do not believe they will get peace but will only lose military advantages? If they instead use their military might (and their influence to manipulate US military might) to weaken their enemies, they will be safer than they would with a peace treaty. Unless their implacable enemies honored the peace treaty.
As to the first argument, I say that this is not a good example. You need to use like systems, or circumstances. Israel started as a colony. Yes, there is a historic claim to the land, but the process by which the current state was created was population transfers. Germany did have and could count on native allies in the region. Every border was not potentially hostile. It had like minded governments in several of the other Germanic and Slavic nations. That is not Israel's situation. It can face hostility on any of its borders, has not native allies, and unlike Germany, has no strategic depth.
Why should israel give up military advantages to promote peace, when they do not believe they will get peace but will only lose military advantages?
Certainly the latter part is true. Military advantage is very dependent on other things that can change over time. If they are not looking at peace at some point soon, it would not have time to normalize before a change in the international system.
I would add, I think it is idealized to think that all violence will end with set borders and a peace deal in place. Both societies have had population shifts to more radical ideologies. I would, however, expect true policing and severe punishment for breaches. It took three generations to get to suicide bombers; it will take a couple to have those that say "Jews are our cousins" as is said colloquially, and have that mean "and therefore they are a'yla and should stay".
The problem is Tess is that compromise is sorely lacking
among Israel's enemies as well.
Go back 10 years and you have Israel pulling out of Lebanon to the satisfaction of the UN.
Result? Ongoing conflict with Hizballah and declarations from its leader Nassrallah that Hizballah will never recognize Israel, even for 1,000 years.
Three years ago Israel pulls out of Gaza, lock stock and barrel. Every last Jew living and dead, civilian and military. History.
The settlements, either razed or turned over to the Palestinians.
Its greenhouses, left for the Palestinians to use to their benefit.
The result? Three years of daily rocket attacks on Israeli cities.
Expand that to the two peace treaties it has signed (with Egypt and Jordan).
Do we see normalized relations? Of course not. In fact, the attitude of both the Egyptians and their leadership seem to waver between a cold peace and outright hatred, seemingly a hairsbreath away from another outbreak for war.
It's a two-way street here.
Hi Jacob,
Nice to read you. ;-)
We don't see normalized relations where their are treaties, nor are we at the point where we could say there is an end to the conflict either. I would say you would have to judge once the Palestinians issue is resolved. I cannot imagine with dialogue still talking about making Jordan the solution to the Palestinians problem, which will likely unleash a civil war and a toppling of the current Jordanian system, that Jordanians would argue Israel has been so kind in their relationship either.
Of course, coming from the other perspective, I agree with Human Rights Watch that what happened in Gaza was not an end to the Occupation. Israel still controlled and controls identity cards of Palestinians, recognizing births, if Palestinians of Gaza can marry and share a home with a Palestinian in another territory. They maintained control of borders, waterways, and air space. This is not compromise any more than the errors of the Palestinians.
Compromise is a hard thing. Neither side seems to be so good at compromising. But, when you are in a region where you have no native allies, then you are best getting it when power is in your favor. You have no guarantee it will remain so.
Best Wishes,
Tess
But like germany israel does need lebensraum.
Whether you agree with it or not, Israeli hasdon't argue the settlements have been about space. They are about certain Israelis claiming that they are on their historical home even if it is the wrong thing to do for peace. Nice use of Nazi imagery by the way though to suggest Israel is just as bad as the Nazis.
These were the grievances and attitudes that led to Hitler.
So harsh sanctions led to the systematic murder of 6 million Jews and millions of others. I guess the west is responsible for the murders the Nazis are victims.
Palestinians can't hit israel harder due to strategic israeli settlements -- they can only hit less hard.
The settlements have no effect on rockets which can fly over them. In fact, the settlements are easy targets for rockets as they have been for other attacks.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7978699.stm
threatening in israeli newspapers to use them.
I am sure that they have implied a nuclear response to a nuclear attack by Iran. But Israel has never even hinted that they would start a war with nuclear weapons. They didn't even threaten to use them when they were being routed early in the Yom Kippur war.
Unlike Iran, whose past president has stated Iran would nuke Israel as soon as they got the bomb.
http://www.iran-press-service.com/articles_2001/dec_2001/israel_iran_nule_threat_301201.htm
If israel is like nazi germany there is no chance for peace.
It's really disgusting that you keep making this comparison. In addition, Israel gave up the entire Sinai for peace which had enough oil to make it energy independent.
Sterilise or kill palestinians
Right, the Palestinian population has grown to 10 times its total in 1948. Palestinian infant mortality rates dropped 75% from 1968 to 2000 thanks to Israeli immunization and other medical programs. Sounds like a program of extermination to me.
Hamas, however,--the ones on another thread, you want to give a chance to govern--, explicity calls for the extermination of all Jews (not just Israelis). Article 7 of the Hamas charter which was created two decades ago.
The bitterness may already run too deep.
The Hamas charter explicity rejects any peace with Israel and allowing any Jews to live in the middle east. There can not be peace without Hamas being totally defeated or Hamas changing its raison d'etre.
"There is no solution for the Palestinian problem except by Jihad. Initiatives, proposals and international conferences are but a waste of time, an exercise in futility." Article 13 of the Hamas Charter
The third is to move elsewhere. My suggestion is to move elswhere. The other options are too risky.
It’s funny how Ahmadinejad, Hamas and their supporters actually suggest ethnic cleansing of Israelis and then they turn around of accuse the Israelis of wanting to do the same. Classic turnspeak.
"'The land of Palestine is an Islamic Waqf [Holy Possession] consecrated for future Moslem generations until Judgment Day. No one can renounce it or any part, or abandon it or any part of it.' Article 11 of the Hamas Charter
But the more that israelis are convinced that peace is impossible, the more like nazis they will become.
Again your comparison to the Nazis is disgusting. You are entitled to your opinion, but you deliberately replace "intransient" with Nazi-like. This continuous use of this analogy, of course, is done on purpose to associate Israel with Nazi Germany. Then you back track by saying once that they aren’t to let yourself off the hook for all the Nazi comparisons.
"But like germany israel does need lebensraum."
Whether you agree with it or not, Israeli hasdon't argue the settlements have been about space.
But israel does need lebensraum. There is the argument for example that without the west bank at one point israel is only nine miles wide and could be easily cut in two. Israel needs defensible borders, which they do not have in the north without the golan heights, and do not have in the east without the west bank or even with it, and do not have in the south without at least half of the sinai.
And israel has hundreds of thousands of people living in the west bank near the border -- for space.
Nice use of Nazi imagery by the way though to suggest Israel is just as bad as the Nazis.
I'm not considering the morality of it, just that they are in somewhat similar situations. Tess explained that the nazis were in many ways in a better tactical situation. But they didn't have nukes or american allies.
"These were the grievances and attitudes that led to Hitler."
So harsh sanctions led to the systematic murder of 6 million Jews and millions of others. I guess the west is responsible for the murders the Nazis are victims.
We are all of us victims and the victims of victims.
"Palestinians can't hit israel harder due to strategic israeli settlements -- they can only hit less hard."
The settlements have no effect on rockets which can fly over them.
And aren't the settlements on the high ground? They sit on the natural rocket launching sites, and interdict palestinian mobility. These benefits would be achieved just as well and maybe better with israeli army outputs at those spots, though.
" ...threatening in israeli newspapers to use them. "
But Israel has never even hinted that they would start a war with nuclear weapons.
There were unattributed claims in israeli newspapers that nukes might be needed to take out hardened iranian nuclear sites. This is not the same as israel making a public threat to use the nukes they have not officially admitted they have.
They didn't even threaten to use them when they were being routed early in the Yom Kippur war.
They did not make that threat public. Sadat said they did threaten to nuke egypt. Was he lying? When the US records get declassified we'll find out what our government heard.
"If israel is like nazi germany there is no chance for peace."
It's really disgusting that you keep making this comparison.
Try to look at it more dispassionately. There is enough of a parallel to make the comparison useful. You may think it's disgusting that this parallel exists, but it could be useful to you.
"The bitterness may already run too deep."
The Hamas charter explicity rejects any peace with Israel.
As I said, the bitterness may already run too deep. Still, organisations often act against their charters. The CIA was supposed to do no operations inside the USA or do anything to influence US public opinion, no disinformations on US soil. How has that turned out? Compare the USSR constitution with USSR actions. Or for that matter the US constitution.
The Hamas charter isn't definitive to say what they'll do. Unfortunately, while it isn't definitive it is the way to bet.
"But the more that israelis are convinced that peace is impossible, the more like nazis they will become."
Again your comparison to the Nazis is disgusting.
Hey, don't blame me. It's israelis who think they're in a permanent state of war because the rest of the world hates them and no one will lift a finger to support their rights and needs. You might prefer to think that the nazis were unique snowflakes who did evil because of their unique intrinsic evil. But it can happen to anybody, and the sense that you can't depend on goodwill or agreements or allies but must survive based on your own strength and ruthlessness is the first big step.The rest develops in small easy steps as desperation grows.
If Israel abandoned all settlements, and pulled out the IDF,If, as has been done successfully in Lebanon, they allowed mostly Arab UN peace keepers to fill the void and keep BOTH sides honest, there would indeed be a chance for peace.
"Successful", if you mean Hezbollah still attacking Israel. "Successful" if you mean Israel and Lebanon agreeing and then Hezbollah chaning the terms of the agreement and asking for more land.
Periodically occupying and utterly needlessly bombing the entire nation of Lebanon into the ground is the sort of thing that inspires people to line on the border to keep Israel out and to threaten to destroy it.
Every single one of these has been in response to either Palestinians or Hezbollah attacking Israel.
The settlements are an ongoing act of war that ANY people would actively resist.
Clearly misguided and perhaps morally wrong, but under no definition can they be described as an act of war.
If every settlement was razed tomorrow and the IDF was replaced with Arab UN peace keepers, the lives of the VAST majority of Israelis would remain exactly as it is.
Like the residents of Sderot and Ashkelon?
Dave123
Did you post the right link? As I had not heard of an Iranian threat to "nuke Israel as soon as they got the bomb." I thought I had better read the article but that is not what it says. It is not even close to
Peres quoted Hashemi-Rafsanjani as saying that "when the Islamic world acquires atomic weapons, the strategy of the West will hit a dead-end -- since the use of a single atomic bomb has the power to destroy Israel completely, while it will only cause partial damage to the Islamic world."
I would take this to mean that Israel is a geographically small country and a bomb detonated over it would not leave much of use. The rest of the article basically asks 'why would we nuke Israel as it would destroy the Holy sites and kill the Palestinians too'.
http://www.iran-press-service.com/articles_2001/dec_2001/israel_iran_nule_threat_301201.htm
Israel's nuclear weapons, fused with its dynamic 21st century economy, ensure that it will survive. All nations deal with terrorism - India has a number of terrorist threats, some foreign-based, others domestic. The UK had to deal with a severe terrorist threat in Northern Ireland, and air raids on Belfast were not an option. In the 1980's, a number of American airliners were hijacked by Palestinian gunmen, and there were also the massacres at the Rome and Vienna airports. In none of these cases, did the target nations in question decide, "The solution to our terrorist problem is to seize land that is not our's, while denying political rights to the people already on the land."
Blacks in the U.S. have had to deal with official Jim Crow style discrimination up until the 1960's, yet they are regularly told to "Get over it." Pakistan was torn in two by the Indian Army in 1971, and the Pakistanis are told to "Get over it." India has been subject to far more terrorism than any other democratic nation, but it is told to "Get over it." Why should the Israelis believe that they should not be given the same advice?
David Rothkopf is a visiting scholar at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace and President and CEO of Garten Rothkopf.
Read More
January/February 2010
-
Cover Story
-
Dispatch
-
Feature
(18)
HIDE COMMENTS LOGIN OR REGISTER REPORT ABUSE