November 29th, 2008

Terrorism: the “I’s” have it

Rule of thumb in fighting terrorist attacks: if the Israelis offer advice, take it.

Israeli spokesmen say that in Mumbai, Indian troops stormed the hotels too soon, without gathering enough intelligence first. There is no country on earth with the expertise of the Israelis in this regard, and it’s surprising that (if the article is correct) India may have refused Israel’s assistance when it was initially offered in dealing with the Mumbai attacks.

This is not just because the Israelis wrote the book on this sort of thing. It’s also because India and Israel are countries that have more in common than their initial letter “I.” Although exceedingly different in size and population, they share a fact of history: both were partitioned and separated from their predominantly Muslim segments around the same time (late 1940s), when each ceased being part of the British Empire. In both cases bloodshed followed, and continues to this very day.

But that special history is not all they share. The two countries are increasingly cooperative economically and defensively as well. India is also the most prosperous country in its area, the one most closely allied with the West. And that’s even more true of Israel than it is of India. Islamic terrorists want both of them to pay the price, in blood.

And that’s not all. Both Judaism and Hinduism are the oldest of the world’s major religions still being practiced today. They are not only similar in their antiquity, but are also especially tolerant of the existence of other religions (see this about Judaism). Both have become targets of later, less tolerant religions—in recent years, Islam.

The news today is that the terrorist seige has ended in Mumbai. We can all be grateful for that, most especially the people of Mumbai and of India as a whole. But, as in Israel, it is clear that this is just a momentary lull in a storm that will be disrupting the country for a very long time.

43 Responses to “Terrorism: the “I’s” have it”

  1. jon baker Says:

    While I would much rather have a sizeable Hindu population living nearby than a sizeable Muslim one, the Hindu’s are not always peaceful. I have not the inclination at the time to search out the source, but I read a while back about persecution being faced by Christian groups who are bringing massive numbers of the “untouchable class” to Christianity in India.

  2. Tim P Says:

    …the terrorist seige has ended in Mumbai.

    This too may be a lull in the storm for India. If the Pakistani intelligence services are found to be behind this attack or any way involved, it might be the start of a major war. Let’s hope that the prediction of war is wrong regardless of whether Pakistan has a traceable involvement or not.

    However, imagine how we might respond if we could trace operational elements, logistical support and training to a specific country? Especially a country that was hostile to us and with whom we have been at war or near the brink of war with throughout our entire existence.

  3. njcommuter Says:

    The terrorists had things well planned and they knew where the hotel’s surveillence systems and strongpoints were. Apparently the police didn’t. (I suspect that by new the NYPD has the drawings for every large hotel in the city.) Under those circumstances, the terrorists hold advantages. Against that you have to weigh their eagerness to kill their ‘hostages’. It seems to me that where they knew the hostages were Jewish, rapid action might be justified; where the hostages were American or European, they might have had more time.

    But that’s just my take.

  4. Truth Says:

    According to the Jerusalem Post, the two countries have already discussed an agreement for Israel’s Defence Force to send its own highly trained commandos to help India in Kashmir, the Moslem majority region claimed by both India and Pakistan.

    Wounder UN with most free world support East Timor independence, for Kashmiri Israelis offered their expertise to crush them!

  5. Truth Says:

    were partitioned and separated

    I think that the Palestinians have to a certain extent, a legitimate claim. There are people and I know some of them personally, who were forced out of their homes in the 1940s. But, the full truth of this is rarely publicized.

    Robert Spencer

    How can be a democtratic state when built on a Single religion as we see Jwish State.

  6. vanderleun Says:

    Well, truth, “in Israel, it is clear that this is just a momentary lull in a storm that will be disrupting the country for a very long time.”

    Or until such time as Hama Rules come into play and we end this dumbshow in a day.

  7. Noga Says:

    “The two countries are increasingly cooperative economically and defensively as well. ”

    For all the factors you itemize here neoneocon, India always sides with the Arab Muslim block in the UN when the umpteenth condemnation of Israel resolution is tabled.

    Some colleagues who immigrated from the subcontinent have expressed their wish that Israel (tiny, resourceless, beleaguered Israel) should come to India’s aid asap. Well then, isn’t it time India came out of the closet and declared itself Israel’s friend and ally, or at least become mute and neutral when Israel is routinely defamed and persecuted in the UNGA?

  8. Perfected democrat Says:

    “For all the factors you itemize here neoneocon, India always sides with the Arab Muslim block in the UN when the umpteenth condemnation of Israel resolution is tabled.”

    Really? I must confess I wasn’t aware of that record, and wouldn’t have guessed. No wonder the world is so screwed up. I’ve often thought that a little solidarity (in the free world) would go a long way, this is definitely a case in point…

  9. Interesting posts we read today… - I Call BS! Says:

    [...] Terrorism: the “I’s” have it [...]

  10. Gray Says:

    Truth,If Islam respects “people of the Book”….

    The Book I read as a Christian says “By their fruits ye shall know them”

    These are the fruits of Islam:

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1090373/First-pictures-burned-rooms-inside-Mumbai-terror-siege-hotel.html

    You guys must do better. We’re all sick of this. Sick to death of it.

    “Bad” Christians like me drink too much and use foul language. “Good” muslims kill children and women.

    This is going to get (more) ugly before it’s over.

  11. Truth Says:

    “Good” muslims kill children and women.

    What about “Good” Israelies they do kill children and women?

  12. csimon Says:

    Truth — I realize that the information you probably receive — that is, the “journalism” you have access to, might publish information so that you will believe this and formulate your opinions re: Israel based on such. Fact is, Israels rarely attack, and policy is strictly to do so in retaliation for attack on its people. When they do effect retaliatory measures, it is by official soldiers of the military who carefully aim their attacks at those who first attacked them: soldiers…… However, a huge difference lies in the philosophy of Israel and those who would destroy them: those brave Palestinian souls who get out in front of Israeli tanks and pus their children in front, urging them to throw stones; sending their young children upon suicide missions if they can get into Israeli territory. They kill themselves, hoping to kill as many others — regardless of age, station in life, or participation in the military — with the belief that this will make them martyrs. Palestinians — and those other Arab participants who would use them against Israel by training them to hate and destroy, from the youngest age – before they are capable of processing what and why they are taught to do such things, never learn of the possibilities life can bring — or what they can bring to their lives, and the lives of their families and neighbors. The thought process works wholly in one direction:

  13. csimon Says:

    oops…continued…

    murder and destruction.

    Long ago, Golda Meir once said that until the Arabs learn to love their children more than they hate Israel and the Jews, there will never be peace.

    She said more in those few words, than any statesmen in any of the Middle Eastern countries. Israel was happy to accept the tiny, arid sliver of desert they were given, if it meant a place where Jews, persecuted all around the world for tens of thousands of years; Jews who have suvived slavery, Inquisitions, horrors such as Krystalncht, the Holocaustm et ak,might come to find a home, a safe haven. They did not throw out all Arabs living in Israel. Many still live there today and many have representation in Parliament. In fact, Israel forced Jewish settlers OUT of homes they had built which encroached on other territory. The fact that the largest proportion of citizens is Jewish is no different than the surrounding countries whose populations are overwhelmingly Arab and Muslim. Oh, correction: in most of those Arab countries, worship of any other religion is strictly forbidden — whether it be Judaism, Christianity, or other.

    The problem is all about acceptance of people for who they are, tolerance of their religious beliefs which may differ. There is no argument that is is extremely difficult to “undo” the teaching and training of a lifetime of fueled hatred — but peace depends on this.

    For those of us (and I speak to Truth, here) who grew up in America — which was founded by settlers who came here to be free to live as they wished and worship as they wished — it is most difficult as we have watched the people of Iraq struggle — just among themselves because of tribal differences — when those who really want to destroy the advances made, and the opportunities Democracy would bring to this country, are other Arabs! Other Muslims. The largest part of civilian death and destruction in Iraq has been wrought by fellow Muslims! Why? And why the everlasting inbred hatred of Jews who have set an example of how a successful Democracy can work; who have set an example of how a tiny sliver of desert can be turned into productive farmland with determined minds and hearts; of how a tiny country can create wealth — without the natural resources of the surrounding countries who have immense resources — by determined development of free enterprise…….

    In short, all of the above can be asked in a brief question: who are they hurting and why do you (a collective Arab “you”) continue to blame “the Jews” for all misfortune. Israel is not perfect — no group of people are. But they have developed expertise in DEFENSE (note I said Defense; not Offense) out of necessity.

    The actions in Mumbai once again exhibit a callous disregard for human life, and especially the lives of Jews (the one ethnic-related target was a Jewish center). Why would such aggressors merit respect when they they have none — not just for targeted group, but for other innocents as well? Visitors, tourists, those on business, residents — so many killed and so many injured — for what? To strike ever more terror into the psyches of people around the world?

    How in the world can anyone find that defensible? (Especially anyone who is of reasonable intelligence, basic education, and an interest in discussion of facts — which I would hope means also research of facts and realities, versus rumor and sensationalized reportage)?

    How, why and to what end? Those are the key questions. There are those who would explain such actions are calls for all foreigners (Westerners) to stay out of Middle Eastern lands and “leave all of “you” alone to live in peace. But you don’t live in peace — you fight with one another for tribal domination, as well as the destruction of Israel.

    Finally, if all Arabs have so much empathy with their Arab Palestinian brethren, why have none of the wealthiest countries in the world in the Middle East, with vast land masses laying empty and unused, not offered land — more land than Israel could ever hope to have.

    The persistent claims ring hollow, when time and again the answer is obvious in actions: that of cultivating continued hatred and necessity to destroy (supposedly force into submission to the laws of Allah — but none targeted are ever given choice — they are simply killed — joyously.

  14. waltj Says:

    “How can be a democtratic state when built on a Single religion as we see Jwish State”.

    Truth, please allow this Gentile to present you a few facts about Israel. Although the vast majority of Israeli citizens are indeed Jewish, the Druze who live in Israel are also full citizens (i.e., subject to the draft and subsequent military service), as are the small numbers of Muslim Circassians. Israeli Arabs, whether Muslim or Christian, from settled areas also enjoy the rights of citizenship such as voting, being able to serve in the Knesset, property ownership, and travel on an Israeli passport, but are not subject to military service. Bedouin Arabs, who are entirely Muslim and generally live in the Negev, may serve in the Israeli military if they so choose, and are often employed as trackers.

    So it’s of course true that Israel has a very distinctive Jewish character. But the “Jewish State” also allows some (not all) of its minority citizen to bear arms in its defense. How many Muslim-majority states allow their Jews the same privilege?

  15. waltj Says:

    One other thing about Israeli military operations. It’s true that they sometimes kill and injure noncombatants. High explosives don’t discriminate. Or sometimes the intelligence isn’t accurate or current, and what was thought to be a legitimate target turns out not to have been. The first law of war is Murphy’s and the Israelis are not immune. But they deliberately plan and conduct their operations so as to minimize collateral damage. For their opponents, collateral damage is the point. Ma’alot, Lod Airport, the Buenos Aires attacks, and the numerous bus and pizza parlor/nightclub attacks were all deliberately planned to kill and injure noncombatants. And don’t give me this nonsense about “all Israelis are part-time soldiers”. That’s just a lame attempt to justify mass murder, and is the same B.S. that OBL said about American taxpayers.

  16. Bogey Man Says:

    If the tables were turned and most or all of Israel was occupied by a U.S.-backed Muslim state with total military supremacy does anyone doubt for a nanosecond that Jewish militants would at this very moment be using exactly the same tactics that Palestinian militants use?

    Or would they just lay down and die?

  17. waltj Says:

    Bogey, I’ll take a shot at your straw man. While nobody could predict the Israelis’ actions with 100% certainty in your hypothetical case, my guess is that they would do what they did during the British Mandate: attack the headquarters of the occupying forces, police stations, military garrisons, military convoys, and the like. In other words, legitimate targets. They wouldn’t attack schools, hospitals, or other civilian facilities. It wasn’t pretty back then, as the post-attack photos of the King David hotel show, but it wasn’t indiscriminate slaughter, a la PLO, PFLP, Abu Nidal, Hamas, Islamic Jihad, or Hizballah either. Remember this, with a few exceptions, it wasn’t the Jews who ran the Arabs out during the War of Independence. It was the Arab governments of Egypt, Syria, and Transjordan that told them to leave so their armies could take care of business. That worked out well for them, didn’t it?

  18. cubanbob Says:

    ” # Bogey Man Says:
    November 30th, 2008 at 6:49 am

    If the tables were turned and most or all of Israel was occupied by a U.S.-backed Muslim state with total military supremacy does anyone doubt for a nanosecond that Jewish militants would at this very moment be using exactly the same tactics that Palestinian militants use?

    Or would they just lay down and die?”

    Bogey Man you seem to have overlooked one small detail; the Arabs are in this position because they lost wars they started. And no, it is not likely that Israeli’s would use the same tactics as the Arabs. When the Israeli’s were in analogous situation they bombed British military and related targets. Not willfully targeting civilian solely as civilians. The British hanged captured Jewish militants who were then classified as Palestinians and the Arabs were simply called Arabs. Perhaps the Israeli’s should emulate the British in this respect and hang captured terrorist. So should we with scum captured on the battlefield.

    Truth, there ain’t no truth in the crap you write. And by the way, try a spell checker so at least someone can attempt to follow your your nonsense. Arabs should count their blessings in that Israeli’s do not treat Arabs as Arabs treat each other. Perhaps the Syrian town of Hama should be an exemplary lesson to all on how Arabs rule over Arabs.

    As for India, the Muslims are going to find themselves in the not to distant future as a luxury the world can no longer afford or tolerate if they keep supporting the terrorists. At some point the Muslims are going to provoke one outrage too many and the reaction will be cataclysmic for them. India can utterly annihilate Pakistan without resorting to nuclear weapons if sufficiently aroused. The west can simply starve the Arab world to death a lot quicker than their “oil weapon” can severely damage western economies.

    And once the tipping point has been reached, no one can stop either the west or the Indians when the point of no return has been reached.

  19. marymcl Says:

    http://belmontclub.blogspot.com/2003/09/three-conjectures-pew-poll-finds-40-of.html

  20. Bogey Man Says:

    The question isn’t the textbook moral superiority of Israel’s military tactics relative to Palestine’s. The question is what that superiority entitles Israel to do and what it does not.

    Nor can we escape the reverse question: what rights can be denied Palestinians because of the moral inferiority of their military tactics. Do Palestinians have the right of self-defense? When their innocent civilian sons or fathers or mothers are killed, through what course can they seek justice? Pacifism?

    As a liberal critic of the war in Iraq, I’m often accused by right-wingers of advocating pacifism. But of course I have never advocated pacifism and don’t know anyone on the mainstream left who does. But I do find that a wide swath of American conservatives advocate exactly that, but they only advocate for whoever would oppose America and/or its global agenda.

    We all know, for example, that the number of Palestinian civilians killed by Israelis substantially exceeds the number of Israeli civilians killed by Palestinians. Setting aside the moral calculus, as a practical matter, this means the number of sons, daughters, husbands and wives who have unassailable grievances and legitimate motives to seek justice by any means necessary is far greater on the Palestinian side.

    Again, this is not to suggest Palestinian aggression at large is justified, but just to point out that there are many thousands, perhaps tens of thousands, of Palestinians for whom discussion of Israel’s moral superiority is obscene. That’s because their direct experience of the conflict is not as a losing combatant, but as the surviving victim of an Israeli attack that killed their totally innocent mother or father or son or daughter simply because they were in Israel’s way.

    “the Arabs are in this position because they lost wars they started.”

    Indeed this is one reason the parallel with Israeli resistance during the British Mandate is so weak. Also, it’s a dumb, dangerous oversimplification to say Arabs alone are to blame for all the wars with Israel.

    We have seen cases where individual Israeli’s, such as Baruch Goldstein and Shamir’s assassin, adopt terrorist tactics in response to perceived threats to their survival. These are generally the actions of paranoid loners or very small groups.

    I don’t think it’s a stretch to expect that the number of these attacks would increase in direct proportion to the hopelessness of survival for Israel as a nation.

    Palestine’s survival has been totally denied by Israel, which has the backing of the world’s most powerful military. How can anyone be surprised that the same kind of paranoia that drove Baruch Goldstein to massacre Palestinian Muslims in a mosque would, under the reality of daily, incremental annihilation, metastasize into something more widespread and, even, mainstream, in a society.

    Do not misunderstand this to suggest an apology for terrorism. As a tactic, terrorism is simply wrong under any circumstances and always will be. But if we are going to prevent terrorism, we’d better have a deep, broad, nuanced understanding of its specific historical origins.

    It just isn’t enough to suggest that simple moral inferiority, or religious inferiority, is the cause.

    The Palestinians have many real grievances, regardless of whether they exaggerate them (a tactic Israelis match)
    and/or brought them on themselves. The fact is, the grievances exist and have a degree of legitimacy.

    Mitigating those grievances would not be difficult, relative to the present course, for any party interested primarily in peaceful co-existence.

  21. Bogey Man Says:

    And Waltj: If it’s a straw man, why are you shooting at it?

  22. Gringo Says:

    @Bogey Man:
    We all know, for example, that the number of Palestinian civilians killed by Israelis substantially exceeds the number of Israeli civilians killed by Palestinians.

    We also know that Palestinian public celebrations of the killings of Israeli civilians substantially exceed Israeli public celebrations of the killing of Palestinian civilians. What does that say ?

    You also might look at the track record in Gaza the last three years since the Israelis pulled out. Since the Israeli pullout, who has killed more civilians in Gaza, Israeli armed forces or the Gazans themselves- or Hamas?

    If you have access to it, go to Oriana Fallaci’s Interview With History. IIRC, in her interview with Arafat, Arafat admits that fellow Arabs have killed more Palestinians than have the Israelis.

    Neo had an interesting article about a 1961 Atlantic Monthly article on Gaza.

    http://neoneocon.com/2005/09/15/palestinians-more-things-change-more/

    Sorry, no more sympathy from my side. I’ve heard the jive for too long,

  23. Bogey Man Says:

    No one is arguing that the level of paranoia and/or bloodlust is similar in Israel and Palestine.

    The debate is over the solution and, secondarily, the root causes.

    There is no point is endlessly condemning Palestinian aggression and rationalizing Israeli aggression. It leads nowhere.

    My sense is that the moral superiority of Israel’s tactics conveys additional legitimacy Palestinians don’t have. It also conveys additional responsibilities.

  24. Barry Meislin Says:

    Here’s some moral equivalence (but heck, let’s ignore it, or deny it, or qualify it so that’s it’s rendered entirely meaningless):

    On the one hand, Israel would like to see a Palestinian state established, one that would agree to accept the existence Jewish State and would not pose a military threat to Israel’s existence.

    On the other hand, the Palestinians, demanding that Israel return to the May 1967 borders, return East Jerusalem, and allow Palestinian refugees to return to within pre-1967 Israel, intend to see the Jewish State disappear entirely. And the Palestinians are prepared to wait until this happens. And wait. And wait. (Though not just passively.) And suffer until it happens. And continue to suffer. And continue to be supported financially, and continually subsidized, because they haven’t quite managed to achieve what they have been waiting so long to achieve, and so, continue to suffer.

    But why even discuss moral equivalence? After all, if you were a Palestinian, wouldn’t you want to see Israel destroyed? Wouldn’t that be the moral thing? The most moral thing? Especially since you believe that Israel is a criminal entity that has no right to exist?

    So who’s talking about moral equivalence, if in fact, the morality here is to see Israel destroyed?

    But, as I said, let’s ignore that, let’s deny it, let’s qualify it.

    Even better, let’s promote it and encourage it!! In the name of morality…..

  25. waltj Says:

    “If it’s a straw man, why are you shooting at it?”

    Because I like target practice:-)

    “…We all know, for example, that the number of Palestinian civilians killed by Israelis substantially exceeds the number of Israeli civilians killed by Palestinians…”

    No, I don’t think we really do know this. Show me the data, from an unbiased source. Baruch Goldstein stands out because he was unique: the one example of an Israeli Jew running amok and killing a large number of innocent Palestinians. How many times has the scenario been reversed, with a single Palestinian killing a large number of Jews? And Rabin’s assassin (not Shamir’s) doesn’t count, because he was a Jew killing a fellow Jew.

    When Palestinians complain that their mother or little brother was killed by the Israelis, do they ever mention what occurred that the Israelis were prompted to fire in their direction? Perhaps the older brother taking pot shots out the window at Israeli troops, or the two “shabab” taking shelter in their home after launching a rocket or two were noticed by an Israeli patrol. Not always, and the Israelis make mistakes, too, but there are two sides to every story, and this “rest of the story” often doesn’t see the light of day.

  26. Gringo Says:

    @ Bogey Man:
    There is no point is endlessly condemning Palestinian aggression and rationalizing Israeli aggression. It leads nowhere.
    You previously repeated a Palestinian talking point.

    We all know, for example, that the number of Palestinian civilians killed by Israelis substantially exceeds the number of Israeli civilians killed by Palestinians.

    Sounds as if you might be “condemning Israeli aggression and rationalizing Palestinian aggression” by that statement. THAT is evenhandedness? (Check out the proportions of Palestinian versus Israeli women and children among civilians killed by their respective enemies, which shows who targets civilians. Recall the outcry six years ago about “genocide” in Jenin, which further investigation showed that nearly all killed were combatants.)

    The debate is over the solution and, secondarily, the root causes.
    Israel’s withdrawal from Gaza three years ago, and the smuggling and firing of rockets from Gaza since then, would appear to put paid to the long proposed “land for peace” solution.

    The issue is that while the Israelis have expressed their willingness to live with a Palestinian state, both by statements and by their act of withdrawing from Gaza, the Palestinians see the creation of a Palestinian state as an interim solution, until the borders of Palestine go from “the river to the sea.” Such as: the Palestine map in Abbas’s office and Hamas.

    Until the Palestinians are prepared to live in peace with the Israelis, which among other things means the abandoning of “river to the sea” and the “right of return,” there will be no peace. Period.

  27. Bogey Man Says:

    Why do the Palestinians need to abandon the right of their people to return to land that belongs to them?

    Why would you expect anyone to negotiate under those terms?

  28. Gringo Says:

    @ Bogey Man
    Why do the Palestinians need to abandon the right of their people to return to land that belongs to them? Why would you expect anyone to negotiate under those terms?
    My answer has two parts. 1) Historical precedent. 2) the hostile/unpacific/dysfunctional behavior of the Palestinians shows that they would be untrustworthy neighbors.

    Your questions can also be applied to:
    1) 15 million German nationals and ethnic Germans expelled from Central and Eastern Europe after World War II, most from former German territory, deprived of property rights and right of return.
    2) Jews from Arab countries who left all their property behind when they went to Israel, and whose numbers are approximately equal to those Palestinians who left during the 1948 war.
    3) 2 million ethnic Greeks and Turks expelled from their homes after the Treaty of Lausanne, similarly deprived of property rights and right of return ( though the Treaty spoke of compensation, none was ever delivered by the governments of the countries they left.)
    4) An estimated 15 million who left their homes to migrate to the new states of India and Pakistan, many of whom abandoned their property without compensation.
    5) Jews and Muslims expelled from Spain (point: how far back do we go?)
    When you also apply your questions to the above, I will take your point about the Palestinians seriously.
    In addition, most of the Arabs who left Palestine in 1948 did so at the behest of their leaders, who said they could come back after the war was won. Guess what: they didn’t win.
    Regarding having Palestinians as neighbors, listen to Yasir Arafat

    “Zionism is an embodiment of neo-Nazism…The end of Israel is the goal of our struggle, and it allows for neither compromise nor mediation… We don’t want peace. We want war, victory.”

    Only a fool dressed in Israeli clothing would want to have such a neighbor. The more the Palestinians talk in this manner, the more they show they would be untrustworthy neighbors, and the Israelis are correct in denying “right of return.”

    In YOUR OWN WORDS:

    “No one is arguing that the level of paranoia and/or bloodlust is similar in Israel and Palestine.”

    Since, as you state, “the level of paranoia and/or bloodlust” is greater in Palestine than it is in Israel, would not the Israelis be fools to grant the “right of return” to a those whose “level of paranoia and/or bloodlust” is greater than theirs, most likely substantially greater than theirs? Also note that “the level of paranoia and/or bloodlust” in Palestine has not appreciably diminished since Israel withdrew from Gaza three years ago. It is definitely not a case of “give them what they want, and they will behave,” unless you understand that what they want is the elimination of the State of Israel.

  29. Bogey Man Says:

    “Give them what they want, and they will behave.”

    Isn’t that exactly what you’re asking the Palestinians to do for Israel?

    Or maybe it’s more like:

    “Let them keep what they’ve taken, and then they will behave.”

    I do appreciate that at least you’re willing to be somewhat honest about your perceptions of the conflict, which match those of many Palestinians.

    Like you, many Palestinians believe Israel has no intention of returning what they’ve taken. They, like you, know that the limited, unilateral, civilian withdrawal from Gaza was merely a sideshow to make it easier for Israel to enforce it’s expanding confiscations of land in the West Bank, where, as you suggest, it has no intention whatsoever of ending the occupation or formally annexing the territory, as that would entail human rights for the Palestinian majority.

    You note that Israelis do not care to have Palestinians as neighbors. Does it even occur to you that Palestinians probably don’t like and don’t trust Israelis as neighbors?

    You embrace Israeli distrust of Palestinians as a positive motive, then condemn the exact same sentiment on the part of Palestinians as prima facia evidence that their goals are unacceptable.

    Yet again we arrive at the question of what you would have the Palestinians do? Embrace pacifism?

    You admit that you believe that because they have lost the war, they should simply surrender and allow Israel to dictate which parts of their land they can have back, if any.

    When confronted with your stated goals of imposing a military victory that displaces Palestinians from their land, how in the world can you expect them to embrace negotiation over violence?

    You don’t want negotiations, you want surrender.

  30. Lee Says:

    Bogey Man,
    I’m going to assume you’re an American. If the Palestineans have a “legitimate” claim to the land, then don’t the Native Americans have a “legitimate” claim to the land you call your own? Should the descendants of Sitting bull and Tecumsah have a “legitimate” right to kill you and your own? Or, is their situation “different” because it involves you?
    Palestineans continue to kill because they have not learned that they are beaten, yet. Chief Joseph of the Nez Perce saw his tribe, his people’s womenfolk and children starve and die while he resisited the occupation of his land, until he saw that path would only lead to the total destruction of his people. Then he said “I will fight no more, forever.” The Nez Perce thrive today in the land of their “genocidal enemies”.
    The Japanese resisted with suicidal fury during WWII, until the Emperor said “I must ask you to endure the unendurable”, and surrendered. The Japanese Nation thrives. When the Palestineans give up their bloodlust, the Israelis will let them live in peace. But, while they continue to fight, they will continue to be killed.

  31. Merkava_ratha Says:

    A well written and trenchant analysis of the Indo-Israeli situation neo. However, I would be very careful in using wikipedia to cite India-related topics. The article you cited was aggressively edited by anti-Israel/antisemitic elements (who largely go unchecked in South Asia related articles due to the dominance of the Pakistan cabal) in order to make it look like as though India was historically anti-Israel.

    See history going back 500 edits, in particular the deletionism of far-left editor named “Lihaas”:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Indo-Israeli_relations&limit=500&action=history

    The reality is much more nuanced in the multi-partisan landscape of Indian politics. the left-wing Congress party has always stayed in power primarily by appeasing the 150-lillion strong Muslim votebank of India. Since Muslims are anti-Semitic, the opposed the creation of Israel, and so did the Congress, at least publicly. PRIVATELY, however, Jawaharlal Nehru supported Jewish behaviour in Israel and supported it’s creation, as did many Hindu leaders in the country. The less politically correct Hindus, led by the Hindu Mahasabha, openly supported Israel on the grounds of the fact that they espoused for Hindus the same ideas of National self-determination that Jews were striving for in the Levantine region
    Some diverse sources for all this are:

    Article from the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs:
    (archivel link)

    http://web.archive.org/web/20061002180249/http://www.jinsa.org/articles/articles.html/function/view/categoryid/105/documentid/367/history/3,2359,947,653,105,367

    http://web.archive.org/web/20061107084915/http://www.jinsa.org/articles/articles.html/function/view/categoryid/1948/documentid/1971/history/3,2360,1947,1948,1971

    Article by an Indian analyst from the South Asia Analysis group

    http://www.southasiaanalysis.org/papers2/paper131.html

    The BJP, a conservative party, openly supported Israel after they came to power in 1992, and started diplomatic relations with the Jewish state.

    The Congress-Communist combine in India is ferociously anti-Israel and antisemitic (deriving anti-Jewish inspirations from Islamic antisemitism and Soviet-era “Zionology” style opposition to Israel; presumably you know enough about this that I don’t have to cite sources…).

    However, they do not reflect popular sentiment in India regarding Israel (well at least among those Indians interested in foreign policy matters), despite the sickening and near-complete control over the media and academia in India by the far-left/militant Islam combine.

    http://www.indiaabroad.com/news/2003/sep/10sharon11.htm

    So there is definitely the possibility that India and Israel may shack up closer. Israeli leaders are smart people and they know that whatever Indian media says does not reflect the ground reality.

    Here is another writeup about the views of a famous Jewish Indian man named Jacob Rafael (who was one of the tactical masterminds behind India’s 1971 victory in liberating Bangladesh) about India-Israel relations. These things are hard to find because leftist media suppresses them, but you can find them if you look hard enough.

    http://www.despardes.com/newsmakers/gen-jacob-sep8.htm

  32. Merkava_ratha Says:

    Oh, and some more sources regarding Indian views on Zionism in general

    Gandhi’s opposition to Israel is well known, but other Indian leaders supported it:

    http://www.nhsf.org.uk/images/stories/HinduDharma/Interfaith/hinduzion.pdf

  33. Gringo Says:

    @ Bogey Man:
    You note that Israelis do not care to have Palestinians as neighbors. Does it even occur to you that Palestinians probably don’t like and don’t trust Israelis as neighbors?
    As you have previously pointed out, the “paranoia and/or bloodlust” (your words) of the Palestinians towards the Israelis is rather strong, or at least stronger than that of the Israelis towards the Palestinians. I have indicated that I agree with your statement. It is self evident that if A exhibits “paranoia and/or bloodlust” towards B, that A neither likes nor trusts B, neighbor or not. As such, I have no idea at all why you are asking me the above question.

    Like you, many Palestinians believe Israel has no intention of returning what they’ve taken.
    “Returning what they’ve taken.” What a hoot! Had King Hussein refrained from attacking during the Six Day War, the West Bank would have remained in his hands. I suggest that you read up on the Six Day War.

    “Returning what they’ve taken.” I might also add that Israel has returned the Sinai, and also withdrawn from Gaza. Had Arafat actually been interested in a peace solution back in 2000, we would not be having this conversation. You remember Arafat, the one who called Israelis Nazis and wanted the elimination of the State of Israel, and who in 2002 was caught trying to ship Iranian arms to Gaza?

    “Returning what they’ve taken.” Have we returned to Germany the land it lost in the last two World Wars? Has the PRC returned control of the mainland to Taiwan?

    As I have previously stated:

    Until the Palestinians are prepared to live in peace with the Israelis, which among other things means the abandoning of “river to the sea” and the “right of return,” there will be no peace. Period.

    There is no point in compromise with those who seek your destruction, a point which you repeatedly ignore. As you ignored my point about other migrations as a consequence of war and political change in this century and beyond. When Palestinians are prepared to act as responsible adults instead as dysfunctional children whom one must accommodate, Israel will be most willing to compromise. See Sinai, circa 1979.

    I might add that a Palestinian Christian lived in my household for my final two years of high school, so I have not been exposed to only the Israeli point of view. His father told his children before the Six Day War to leave the West Bank, as in his experience as a civil servant in the Jordanian administration, Muslims would not allow Christians to rise, but would always promote Muslims over Christians.

  34. Merkava_ratha Says:

    Sorry for so many posts, but regarding the softtcore antisemitism of wikipedia’s India-article editors, check out the edits of wp editor Lihaas (who blackwashed the Indo-Israeli relations article) to the article describing organized antisemitic incidents on US college campuses:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Israeli_Apartheid_Week&limit=500&action=history

  35. Bogey Man Says:

    “There is no point in compromise with those who seek your destruction, a point which you repeatedly ignore.”

    Sorry Gringo, I haven’t ignored that. In fact, it’s my main point.

    According to you Israel not only seeks the destruction of Palestine, it has already achieved it and the Palestinians are to blame merely for trying to prevent the forgone conclusion.

    Again, I applaud your unwitting honesty, but not your logic.

    You assert that there can be no compromise with the Palestinians, because they seek Israel’s destruction. Yet at the same time, you rationalize Israel’s pursuit of Palestine’s annihilation (and even claim they’ve already achieved it!), while at the same time arguing that compromise is the ONLY course for Palestinians. Why are you unable to see the contradiction?

  36. Bogey Man Says:

    If you want argue that Palestinians must compromise shouldn’t you ease off the claims that Israel has every right to annihilate them?

    Why do you expect Palestinians to embrace pacifism?

  37. Gringo Says:

    @Bogey Man:
    According to you Israel not only seeks the destruction of Palestine, it has already achieved it and the Palestinians are to blame merely for trying to prevent the forgone conclusion.

    You have misrepresented what I have stated. Here is what I previously stated.

    “The issue is that while the Israelis have expressed their willingness to live with a Palestinian state, both by statements and by their act of withdrawing from Gaza, the Palestinians see the creation of a Palestinian state as an interim solution, until the borders of Palestine go from ‘the river to the sea.’ Such as: the Palestine map in Abbas’s office and Hamas.”

    (Such as the mission statement of Hamas.)

    If you want argue that Palestinians must compromise shouldn’t you ease off the claims that Israel has every right to annihilate them?

    Again, you have misrepresented what I have stated. Nowhere did I state “that Israel has every right to annihilate them,” nor anything close to that.

    I see no further point in “dialogue” with someone who misrepresents what I say. I am reminded of the integrity of Arafat, who to US and European audiences would say that a Palestinian state would respect the existence of the State of Israel and live in peace with it, and to Arab/Muslim audiences would say that the creation of a Palestinian state was the precursor to the destruction of the State of Israel.

  38. Bogey Man Says:

    What then Gringo, did you mean by this:

    Have we returned to Germany the land it lost in the last two World Wars? Has the PRC returned control of the mainland to Taiwan?
    Are you not saying Israel shouldn’t return Palestinian land it has occupied? And if they don’t return the land, how can not represent the destruction of Palestine as a nation?

    And this:
    What, then, did you mean by this:

    Only a fool dressed in Israeli clothing would want to have such a neighbor. …the Israelis are correct in denying “right of return.”

    If your view is that Israel has a right to prevent Palestinians from being their neighbors, how do they possibly achieve that without destroying the Palestinian state? Moreover, for the Palestinian refugees in Lebanon, Egypt and elsewhere, waiting to return to their homes, the denial of that right amounts to the destruction of their homeland.

    It’s really a simple question I keep coming back to and you keep ignoring. What would you have Palestinians do? Surrender unconditionally? Embrace pacifism? Passive resistance? Or keep fighting, but just without suicide bombers?

    You say that the dialogue is pointless. I say there never was a dialog, as you repeatedly ignored a very simple, direct, relevant question I asked.

  39. Bogey Man Says:

    Apologies for all caps.

  40. Lee Says:

    Bogey Man,
    Were you crying this much when Palestine was occupied for 20 years by the Jordanians and the Egyptians? Where was Palestine’s right to exist then? Why, when Arab states “protected” them did they not have a state of their own? Apparently they were happy enough as a stateless people when provided with tanks and artillery and airplanes to kill Israelis. Now, suddenly they are “repressed” now that Israel has taken away or destroyed their conventional ability to kill Israelis, and occupy the land to make sure they continue to be so berift while they continue to desire the deaths of Israelis. If you cede your land to an ally for a staging area for their army, don’t be surprised if your enemy wins and takes it themselves, to prevent your land from becoming a staging area.
    Not to mention you seem to be avoiding my question to you why it is ok for you to live on occupied land not your people’s to begin with, American.

  41. Bogey Man Says:

    Lee,

    Europeans annihilated native Americans and very nearly completed genocide against them. It’s arguable that the genocide was completed, in that native Americans no longer exist in anywhere near numbers large enough to form a competing ethnic group, let alone a nation.

    It is telling, and rather obviously unwitting, that you chose to cast the Palestinians in that same role for comparison, knowing surely that Palestinians do exist in numbers large enough to form a competing nation . In fact, they are the MAJORITY in Palestine.

    If native Americans were a majority, America would “belong” to them in exactly the same sense it now belongs to the caucasian majority.

    If I were around in the 17th and 18th centuries, when the genocide was getting going, I would hope that I would have opposed it, for exactly the same reasons I now oppose Israeli steps aimed at annihilating Palestine.

    How about you, Lee? Were you around back then, would you have opposed the genocide, or have counseled pacifism as the only acceptable response from Native Americans.

  42. Lee Says:

    Bogey Man,
    So, let me get this straight…If the Israelis kill so many Palestineans there aren’t many left in comparison to the Israelis, then they will have earned “legitimacy” for the land, as your ancestors have against mine. Will you just shut up, then? Or, will you say since there are survivors, they still have a claim?
    Warfare nearly led to my people’s destruction. Peaceful coexistence has preserved them to this day. If I had lived back then, I probably would have fought(with your “moral” support”. Thanks for nothing.). I would hope that I would have seen eventually that continuing against insurmountable odds would lead to noghtng but death for my people.
    How about you Bogey? If I demand a rent check for your use of my land, will you shoot me, or just ignore me since I don’t make a “competing ethnic group”?
    Actually, you probably wouldn’t shoot me…you’d tell the military or law enforcement to “clear me off”, while you sat on my land and decried their methods. The best of both worlds….a righteous thief.

  43. Lee Says:

    And Bogey,
    You never addressed what you thought about the Arab states occupying Palestine, rather than setting up a Palestinean state where the U.N. declared one, in the West Bank and Gaza.

Leave a Reply

XHTML: You can use these tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>



About Me

Previously a lifelong Democrat, born in New York and living in New England, surrounded by liberals on all sides, I've found myself slowly but surely leaving the fold and becoming that dread thing: a neocon.
Read More >>








Blogroll

Ace (bold)
AmericanDigest (writer’s digest)
AmericanThinker (thought full)
Anchoress (first things first)
AnnAlthouse (more than law)
AtlasShrugs (fearless)
AugeanStables (historian’s task)
Baldilocks (outspoken)
Barcepundit (theBrainInSpain)
Beldar (Texas lawman)
BelmontClub (deep thoughts)
Betsy’sPage (teach)
Bookworm (writingReader)
Breitbart (big)
ChicagoBoyz (boyz will be)
Contentions (CommentaryBlog)
DanielInVenezuela (against tyranny)
DeanEsmay (conservative liberal)
Donklephant (political chimera)
Dr.Helen (rights of man)
Dr.Sanity (thinking shrink)
DreamsToLightening (Asher)
EdDriscoll (market liberal)
Fausta’sBlog (opinionated)
GayPatriot (self-explanatory)
HadEnoughTherapy? (yep)
HotAir (a roomful)
InFromTheCold (once a spook)
InstaPundit (the hub)
JawaReport (the doctor is Rusty)
LegalInsurrection (law prof)
RedState (conservative)
Maggie’sFarm (centrist commune)
MelaniePhillips (formidable)
MerylYourish (centrist)
MichaelTotten (globetrotter)
MichaelYon (War Zones)
Michelle Malkin (clarion pen)
Michelle Obama's Mirror (reflections)
MudvilleGazette (milblog central)
NoPasaran! (behind French facade)
NormanGeras (principled leftist)
OneCosmos (Gagdad Bob’s blog)
PJMedia (comprehensive)
PointOfNoReturn (Jewish refugees)
Powerline (foursight)
ProteinWisdom (wiseguy)
QandO (neolibertarian)
RachelLucas (in Italy)
RogerL.Simon (PJ guy)
SecondDraft (be the judge)
SeekerBlog (inquiring minds)
SisterToldjah (she said)
Sisu (commentary plus cats)
Spengler (Goldman)
TheDoctorIsIn (indeed)
Tigerhawk (eclectic talk)
VictorDavisHanson (prof)
Vodkapundit (drinker-thinker)
Volokh (lawblog)
Zombie (alive)

Regent Badge