"Israel's right to exist" ? What does this actually mean ?

[Guest BlackJesus]

[color="#008000"][b]This rediculous charge and phrase is used over and over ... but most people don't stop and think what it actually means.

- Also why should the Palestinians recognize a country that has no declared borders ? \

- And why shouldn't Israel be asked to recognize Palestines right to exist ? Recognition usually comes in a mutual way.

- Not to mention that you can't ask a group of people to recognize a state .... only a fellow state can recognize another state. There is no state of Palestine ... that would be like asking the people of Texas to recognize the Scientologists right to have their own state in LA ?

[/b][/color]




[size=4][u][quote][b]Why does The Times recognize Israel's 'right to exist'?[/b]
By Saree Makdisi
Los Angeles Times
3/11/07 [/u][/size]



SOON AS certain topics are raised," George Orwell once wrote, "the concrete melts into the abstract and no one seems able to think of turns of speech that are not hackneyed: Prose consists less and less of words chosen for the sake of their meaning, and more and more of phrases tacked together like the sections of a prefabricated henhouse." [b]Such a combination of vagueness and sheer incompetence in language, Orwell warned, leads to political conformity.[/b]

No issue better illustrates [b]Orwell's point [/b]than coverage of the [b]Israeli-Palestinian conflict in the United States.[/b] Consider, for example, the editorial in The Times on Feb. 9 [b]demanding that the Palestinians "recognize Israel" and its "right to exist."[/b] This is a common enough sentiment — even a cliche. Yet many observers (most recently the international lawyer John Whitbeck) have pointed out that this [b]proposition, assiduously propagated by Israel's advocates[/b] and uncritically reiterated by American politicians and journalists, [b]is — at best — utterly nonsensical.[/b]

[b]First, the formal diplomatic language of "recognition" is traditionally used by one state with respect to another state. [/b] It is [b]literally meaningless for a non-state to "recognize" a state.[/b] Moreover, in diplomacy, such [b]recognition is supposed to be mutual.[/b] In order to earn its own recognition, [b]Israel would have to simultaneously recognize the state of Palestine.[/b] This it [b]steadfastly refuses to do[/b] (and for some reason, there are [b]no high-minded newspaper editorials demanding that it do so). [/b] [img]http://forum.go-bengals.com/public/style_emoticons//23.gif[/img]

Second, [size=4][b]which Israel, precisely, are the Palestinians being asked to "recognize?"[/b] [b]Israel has stubbornly refused to declare its own borders.[/b] [/size] So, [b]territorially speaking, "Israel" is an open-ended concept.[/b] Are the Palestinians to recognize the Israel that [b]ends at the lines proposed by the 1947 U.N. Partition Plan?[/b] Or the one that extends to the [b]1949 Armistice Line[/b] (the de facto border that resulted from the 1948 war)? Or [b]does Israel include the West Bank and East Jerusalem[/b], [b]which it has occupied in violation of international law for 40 years[/b] [img]http://forum.go-bengals.com/public/style_emoticons//39.gif[/img] — and [b]which maps in its school textbooks show as part of "Israel"? [/b]

For that matter, [b]why should the Palestinians recognize an Israel that refuses to accept international law,[/b] submit to U.N. resolutions or readmit the Palestinians wrongfully expelled from their homes in 1948 and barred from returning ever since?

If none of these questions are easy to answer, [b]why are such demands being made of the Palestinians[/b]? And [b]why is nothing demanded of Israel in turn? [/b]

[b]Orwell was right. It is much easier to recycle meaningless phrases than to ask — let alone to answer — difficult questions.[/b] [b]But recycling these empty phrases serves a purpose.[/b] [size=4][b]Endlessly repeating the mantra that the Palestinians don't recognize Israel helps paint Israel as an innocent victim, politely asking to be recognized but being rebuffed by its cruel enemies.[/b] [/size]

Actually, it asks even more. [b]Israel wants the Palestinians[/b], [b]half of whom were driven from their homeland[/b] so that a Jewish state could be created in 1948, to [b]recognize not merely that it exists [/b](which is undeniable) but [size=4][b]that it is "right" that it exists [/b]— [/size] [size=4][b]that it was right for them to have been dispossessed of their homes, their property and their livelihoods[/b] [/size] [b]so that a Jewish state could be created on their land.[/b] The Palestinians are not the world's first dispossessed people, but [size=4][u][b]they are the first to be asked to legitimize what happened to them.[/b][/size][/u]

A just peace will require Israelis and Palestinians to reconcile and recognize each other's rights. It will not require that [b]Palestinians give their moral seal of approval to the catastrophe that befell them.[/b] Meaningless at best, cynical and manipulative at worst, such a demand may suit Israel's purposes, but it does not serve The Times or its readers.

And yet The Times consistently adopts Israel's language and, hence, its point of view. For example, a recent article on Israel's Palestinian minority referred to that minority not as "Palestinian" but as generically "Arab," Israel's official term for a population whose full political and human rights it refuses to recognize. To fail to acknowledge the living Palestinian presence inside Israel (and its enduring continuity with the rest of the Palestinian people) is to elide the history at the heart of the conflict — and to deny the legitimacy of Palestinian claims and rights.

This is exactly what Israel wants. Indeed, its demand that its "right to exist" be recognized reflects its own anxiety, not about its existence but about its failure to successfully eliminate the Palestinians' presence inside their homeland — a failure for which verbal recognition would serve merely a palliative and therapeutic function.

In uncritically adopting Israel's own fraught terminology — a form of verbal erasure designed to extend the physical destruction of Palestine — The Times is taking sides.

If the paper wants its readers to understand the nature of this conflict, however, it should not go on acting as though only one side has a story to tell.[/quote]


[b]emailed [/b]

[Actium]

I've mentioned my thoughts on this matter in the earlier "What is a Zionist?" thread.

The right to exist comes thorugh the strength to exist. Anything else is postmodernist nonsense. Israel exists for the moment because it can exist. The Palestinians, the pawns in a proxy war, for the moment are not strong enough to exist as a state.

Perhaps they will someday soon.

[Homer_Rice]

[quote name='Actium' post='455502' date='Mar 12 2007, 11:00 AM']The right to exist comes thorugh the strength to exist. Anything else is postmodernist nonsense.[/quote]

Actually, postmodernist nonsense clouds clear thinking about the age old discussion: what constitutes a "right" and from whence does one arise? That makes it all the more easy to adopt a position similar to Protagoras (and, of course, Thrasymachus, too, in your case.)

Even so, I suspect questions that provoke statements such as "Man the measure of all things" are more or less universal and as such, will be with us for a long time to come. Fortunately for humanity, we'll continue to ponder them, especially when current history is crystal clear that the foundations of our well-being are not found in such doctrines.

Personally, I think the idea needs to be subjected to a deeper notion of durability: While it is true that those who can best exercise blunt force can temporarily get their way, the fact of the matter is that sometimes ambiguous ideas such as justice, lawfulness, virtue, right, wrong, etc... are more eternal, at least in essence. If this is so, then the problem is not with the ideas themselves, but with the ability of individual humans to wrestle with the ideas--especially in enough depth for the culture as a whole to affirm that such wrestling is a positive feature.

We live in such a society, messy as it sometimes seems.

[Actium]

[quote name='Homer_Rice' post='455517' date='Mar 12 2007, 10:35 AM']Actually, postmodernist nonsense clouds clear thinking about the age old discussion: what constitutes a "right" and from whence does one arise? That makes it all the more easy to adopt a position similar to Protagoras (and, of course, Thrasymachus, too, in your case.)

Even so, I suspect questions that provoke statements such as "Man the measure of all things" are more or less universal and as such, will be with us for a long time to come. Fortunately for humanity, we'll continue to ponder them, especially when current history is crystal clear that the foundations of our well-being are not found in such doctrines.

Personally, I think the idea needs to be subjected to a deeper notion of durability: While it is true that those who can best exercise blunt force can temporarily get their way, the fact of the matter is that sometimes ambiguous ideas such as justice, lawfulness, virtue, right, wrong, etc... are more eternal, at least in essence. If this is so, then the problem is not with the ideas themselves, but with the ability of individual humans to wrestle with the ideas--especially in enough depth for the culture as a whole to affirm that such wrestling is a positive feature.

We live in such a society, messy as it sometimes seems.[/quote]

The attempt to use such doctrines that are seen as eternal (such as justice, lawfulness, virtue, right, wrong) are typically used by the weak because they cannot match the real power of those with strength. They hope by these messy and unclear concepts to control the behavior of the stronger party, by instilling doubt and pressure. It's soft power, and it is perfectly understandable why it is used. All the more so because in our times it is very potent, and many people will listen to it.

Israel has decided to play the game, perhaps because Jews historically are the weaker party. In a war of words they won't win, because it is easier for cries of justice to favor the underdog. Especially because Israel has never been popular.

Personally, as someone who sees no need for eternal alliances but only temporary ententes to protect certain and definable interests, I think we should analyze what Israel brings to the table and whether the Arab states could provide a better entente. I think they probably could, especially since Israel is not the dominant regional power it once was.

[Guest BlackJesus]

[quote name='Actium' post='455518' date='Mar 12 2007, 10:45 AM']I think we should analyze what Israel brings to the table and whether the Arab states could provide a better entente. I think they probably could, especially since Israel is not the dominant regional power it once was.[/quote]

[b]It is an interesting question from a Machiavellian standpoint [img]http://forum.go-bengals.com/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/39.gif[/img]. basically you are posing the question .... is Israel and her 5 million Jewish citizens worth the trouble and pissing off the worlds 1.3 billion Muslims ?

Israel has enormous clout financially and in the banking industries .... not to mention that many US Christians see a tie to Israel as a biblical duty ---- then again they think those that don't convert in the end will burn.

However as Oil becomes more scarce = the Arab world becomes very important ... and strategically = we can not afford to be shut out of the region because of our support for Israel.

I think the responsible position is an even handed one (see Jimmy Carter of late) .... one which we don't have right now (we are too pro Israel because of AIPAC). [/b]

[Homer_Rice]

[quote name='Actium' post='455518' date='Mar 12 2007, 11:45 AM']The attempt to use such doctrines that are seen as eternal (such as justice, lawfulness, virtue, right, wrong) are typically used by the weak because they cannot match the real power of those with strength. They hope by these messy and unclear concepts to control the behavior of the stronger party, by instilling doubt and pressure. It's soft power, and it is perfectly understandable why it is used. All the more so because in our times it is very potent, and many people will listen to it.[/quote]

Interesting. Clearly you and I define strength differently. I think it's a weak person (or state) who exercises power in the way you suggest, and admire the strong person who is not afraid of the unknown, and in fact, seeks it out to make it better known. Give me Thomas More over Henry VIII any day of the week. (And More was no wimp even by your standards.)

[quote]Israel has decided to play the game, perhaps because Jews historically are the weaker party. In a war of words they won't win, because it is easier for cries of justice to favor the underdog. Especially because Israel has never been popular.[/quote]

I think you must be young. Certainly not of my generation, during which Israel was venerated in light of the Holocaust. Having grown up among many CCamp survivors, perhaps I was more exposed to that side of things than others, though.

[Homer_Rice]

[quote name='BlackJesus' post='455524' date='Mar 12 2007, 12:07 PM'][b]It is an interesting question from a Machiavellian standpoint [img]http://forum.go-bengals.com/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/39.gif[/img]. basically you are posing the question .... is Israel and her 5 million Jewish citizens worth the trouble and pissing off the worlds 1.3 billion Muslims ?

Israel has enormous clout financially and in the banking industries .... not to mention that many US Christians see a tie to Israel as a biblical duty ---- then again they think those that don't convert in the end will burn.

However as Oil becomes more scarce = the Arab world becomes very important ... and strategically = we can not afford to be shut out of the region because of our support for Israel.

I think the responsible position is an even handed one (see Jimmy Carter of late) .... one which we don't have right now (we are too pro Israel because of AIPAC). [/b][/quote]

Cheney's speech at AIPAC conference over the weekend:

[quote](Cheers, applause.)

VICE PRESIDENT CHENEY: Thank you. Thank you very much. Thank you. If Karl Rove finds out about this, he won't let me out again. (Laughter.)

Well, thank you very much for that warm welcome. And David, let me thank you for the introduction. And let me thank the AIPAC board of directors and the members from all across America for the opportunity to be here today.

I have many friends in the hall, and I especially want to acknowledge Sallai Meridor, Israel's ambassador to the U.S. -- (applause) -- and, of course, Tzipi Livni, Israel's foreign minister. (Applause.)

I also want to recognize the many students who have come from across the country -- even some, I'm told, from Wyoming. (Laughter.) Welcome to Washington. It's great to see you all here. (Applause.)

We're here today as citizens from different parts of the country, diverse backgrounds, many professions and various political affiliations. Yet we find unity and strength in the values of liberty and equality and our belief in democracy and the rule of law and in our devotion to the security of America's friend, the state of Israel. (Applause.)

As members of AIPAC, you play a vital role in making the strategic and moral case for America's friendship with Israel. I commend AIPAC for the fine work you do, not just at this annual event, but every day of the year. It's good to be in your company, and I bring warm regards from the president of the United States, George W. Bush. (Applause.)

As most of you know, the president is traveling in Latin America this week, solidifying our friendships in that region and promoting an agenda of democracy, economic progress and security. He asked me to convey to this gathering his great appreciation for your efforts, his strong support for Israel and his firm commitment to peace in the Holy Land, built on a foundation of security, not surrender. (Applause.)

The president has been clear and forthright about his vision of two democratic states, Israel and Palestine, living side by side in peace. He remains committed to the achievement of that vision, nor has he compromised the basic principles he has stated from the very beginning. Peace requires a Palestinian government that recognizes Israel's right to exist, accepts the validity of past agreements and renounces violence and terrorism totally and completely. (Applause.)

Progress in the cause of security and long-term peace never comes easily, yet the United States and Israel persevere in that cause. We understand, as Ariel Sharon put it, "the right and responsibility of every democracy, if it wishes to survive, to protect itself and its values. Doing so requires moral clarity, the courage of our convictions, a willingness to act when action is necessary and a refusal to submit to any form of intimidation, ever." (Applause.)

These qualities are a credit to the American and the Israeli people, and these qualities are tested every day as we wage the war on terror. Israelis know this because rockets are shot at them, and three Israeli soldiers are now being held hostage, two by Hezbollah, one by Hamas, even as we meet here today. We are the prime targets of a terror movement that is global in nature and, yes, global in its ambitions. The leaders of this movement speak openly and specifically of building a totalitarian empire covering the Middle East, extending into Europe and reaching across to the islands of Indonesia, one that would impose a narrow, radical vision of Islam that rejects tolerance, suppresses dissent, brutalizes women and has one of its foremost objectives the destruction of Israel.

Their creed is extreme and backward-looking, yet their methods are modern and sophisticated. The terrorists use the Internet to spread propaganda, to find new recruits, and they're employing every other tool of communication and finance to carry out their plans. It's odd to think of ideologues out of the Dark Ages having a modern media strategy, but the fact is they do. They take videos of their attacks and put them up on the Internet to get them broadcast on television. They send messages and images by e-mail and tell their followers to spread the word. They wage war by stealth and murder, disregarding the rules of warfare and rejoicing in the death of the innocent. And not even the instinct of self-preservation is a restraint. The terrorists value death the same way you and I value life.

Civilized, decent societies will never fully understand the kind of mind-set that drives men to strap on bombs or fly airplanes into buildings, all for the purpose of killing unsuspecting men, women and children who they have never met and who have done them no wrong, but that is the very kind of blind, prideful hatred we're up against. And their aim ultimately is to acquire the means to match that hatred and to use chemical, biological or nuclear weapons to impose their will by unspeakable violence or blackmail. An enemy that operates in the shadows and views the entire world as a battlefield is not one we can fight with strategies used in other wars.

An enemy with fantasies of martyrdom is not going to sit down at a table for negotiations, nor can we fight to a standoff -- (applause) -- nor can we fight to a standoff, hoping that some form of containment or deterrence will protect our people. The only option for our security and survival is to go on the offensive, facing the threat directly, patiently and systematically, until the enemy is destroyed. (Applause.)

The war on terror is more than a contest of arms and more than a test of will. It is also a battle of ideas. We know now to a certainty that when people across the Middle East are denied freedom, that is a direct strategic concern of all free nations. By taking the side of moderates, reformers and advocates for democracy, by providing an alternative to hateful ideologies, we improve the chances for a lasting peace, and we advance our own security interest.

In the last two years, we have seen hopeful changes as men and women showed their desire to live in freedom, and we have seen the enemy's fierce reaction. In 2005 the people of Lebanon proclaimed the Cedar Revolution and drove out their Syrian occupiers. (Applause.) That same year, the people of Afghanistan elected a parliament. And in Iraq citizens voted in three national elections, turning out in the millions to defy killers and car bombers, and to elect a government that serves under the most progressive constitution in the Arab world.

In 2006 freedom's enemies struck back with new tactics and greater fury. In Lebanon, Hezbollah terrorists, who are supported by Iran and Syria, attacked Israel, killing Israelis and sending rockets into civilian areas, and have since worked to undermine Lebanon's democratically elected government.

Also, in 2006, Taliban and al Qaeda fighters in Afghanistan waged a new offensive against Afghan and NATO forces, and Iraq's Sunni and Shi'a extremists engaged in an escalating sectarian struggle that continues to this day.

Our duty is to face all of these challenges with resolve, and we are doing so. In Afghanistan, where I visited just a few weeks ago, American and NATO forces are preparing a spring offensive against Taliban and al Qaeda fighters. In Iraq, our goal remains a democratic nation that upholds the rule of law, respects the rights of its people, provides them security and is an ally in the war on terror. But for this to happen, the elected government in Iraq needs the space and the time to work on reconciliation goals, and it's hard to do that without basic security in Baghdad.

Our coalition is pursuing a new strategy that brings in reinforcements to help Iraqi forces secure the capital so that nation can move forward in the political process and turn toward reconciliation. A few weeks ago the new coalition commander, General Dave Petraeus, arrived in the Iraq theater. He sent a written message to his soldiers, and with your forbearance, I'd like to quote from it at length.

"The enemies of Iraq," he said, "will shrink at no act, however barbaric. They will do all that they can to shake the confidence of the people and to convince the world that this effort is doomed. We must not underestimate them. Together with our Iraqi partners, we must defeat those who oppose the new Iraq. We cannot allow mass murderers to hold the initiative. We must strike them relentlessly. We and our Iraqi partners must set the terms of struggle -- not our enemies -- and together we must prevail," end quote. (Applause.)

As we meet, ladies and gentlemen, General Petraeus and his troops are in the midst of some extremely tough, intense and dangerous work. The president and I have been briefed on their progress. These American soldiers represent the best that is in our country. They're well-trained and professional. Their morale is high. They're giving this mission everything they've got, and they are doing an absolutely brilliant job. (Applause.)

It's always the case in wartime that the heaviest duties fall on the men and women of the military. The ones doing the fighting never lose their focus on their mission or on what is at stake in this war, and neither should the rest of us. Five-and-a-half years have passed since the attacks of September 11th, 2001 and the loss that morning of nearly 3,000 Americans inside the United States. As we get farther away from 9/11, I believe there is a temptation to forget the urgency of the task that came to us that day, and the comprehensive approach that's required to protect this country against an enemy that moves and acts on multiple fronts.

In fact, five and a half years into the struggle, we find ourselves having to confront a series of myths about the war on terror, myths that are often repeated and deserve to be refuted.

The most common myth is that Iraq has nothing to do with the global war on terror. Opponents of our military action there have called Iraq a diversion from the real conflict, a distraction from the business of fighting and defeating bin Laden and the al Qaeda network. We hear this over and over again, not as an argument but as an assertion meant to close off argument.

Yet the critics conveniently disregard the words of bin Laden himself. The most serious issue today for the whole world, he has said, is this third world war that is raging in Iraq. He called it a war of destiny between infidelity and Islam. He said the whole world is watching this war and that it will end in victory and glory or misery and humiliation. And in words directed at the American people, bin Laden declares, quote, "The war is for you or for us to win. If we win it, it means your defeat and disgrace forever."

This leader of al Qaeda has referred to Baghdad as the capital of the caliphate. He has also said, and I quote, "Success in Baghdad will be success for the United States. Failure in Iraq is the failure of the United States. Their defeat in Iraq will mean defeat in all their wars," end quote.

Obviously, the terrorists have no illusion about the importance of the struggle in Iraq. They have not called it a distraction or a diversion from their war against the United States. They know it is the central front in that war, and it's where they've chosen to make a stand. Our Marines are fighting al Qaeda terrorists today in Anbar province. U.S. and Iraqi forces recently killed al Qaeda terrorists in Baghdad who were responsible for numerous car bomb attacks. Iraq's relevance to the war on terror simply could not be more plain.

Here at home that makes one thing above all clear. If you support the war on terror, then it only makes sense to support it where the terrorists are fighting us. (Applause.)

The second myth is the most transparent, and that is the notion that one can support the troops without giving them the tools and reinforcements needed to carry out their mission. Twisted logic is not exactly a new phenomenon in Washington, but last month it did reach new heights. At a hearing of the Senate Armed Services Committee, Senator John McCain put the following question to General Petraeus: "Suppose we send you over to your new job, only we tell you that you cannot have any additional troops.

Can you get your job done?" General Petraeus replied, "No, sir." Yet within days of his confirmation by a unanimous vote in the Senate -- I repeat, a unanimous vote of confidence in General Petraeus -- a large group of senators tried to pass a resolution opposing the reinforcements he said were necessary. And of course, the House of Representatives did pass such a resolution. As President Bush said, this may be the first time in history that a Congress voted to send a new commander into battle and then voted to oppose the plan he said was necessary in winning that battle. It was not a proud episode in the history of the United States Congress.

The resolution that passed was not binding, only a statement of feelings. Yet other threats have been made that would hamper the war effort and interfere with the operational authority of the president and with our military commanders. These, too, are counterproductive and send exactly the wrong message. When members of Congress pursue an antiwar strategy that's been called "Slow-Bleed," they're not supporting the troops; they are undermining them. And when members of Congress speak not of victory but of time limits -- (applause) -- when members speak not of victory but of time limits, deadlines or other arbitrary measures, they're telling the enemy simply to watch the clock and wait us out. (Applause.)

Congress does of course play a critical role in the defense of the nation and the conduct of a war. That role is defined and limited by the Constitution. After all, the military answers to one commander in chief in the White House, not 535 commanders in chief on Capitol Hill. (Applause.)

Congress does have the purse strings, and very soon both houses will have to vote on a piece of legislation that is binding, a bill to provide emergency funding for the troops. And I sincerely hope the discussion this time will be about winning in Iraq. (Applause.)

Anyone can say they support the troops, and we should take them at their word, but the proof will come when it's time to provide the money. We expect the House and Senate to meet the needs of our military and the generals leading the troops in battle on time and in full measure.

There is a third myth about the war on terror, and this one is also the most dangerous. Some apparently believe that getting out of Iraq before the job is done will actually strengthen America's hand in the fight against terrorists. This myth is dangerous because it represents a full validation of the al Qaeda strategy. The terrorists don't expect to beat us in a stand-up fight. They never have. They're not likely to try. The only way they can win is if we lose our nerve and abandon our mission, and the terrorists do believe that they can force that outcome. Time after time, they have predicted that the American people do not have the stomach for a long-term fight. They cite the cases of Beirut in the 1980s and Somalia in the '90s. These examples, they believe, show that we are weak and decadent, and that if we're hit hard enough, we'll pack it in and retreat.

The result would even greater danger to the United States, because if the terrorists conclude that attacks will change the behavior of a nation, they will attack that nation again and again. (Applause.)

Believing they can break our will, they will become more audacious in their tactics, ever more determined to strike and kill our citizens, ever more bold in their ambitions of conquest and empire.

And that leads me to the fourth and the cruelest myth of all. That is the false hope that we can abandon the effort in Iraq without serious consequences to the broader Middle East.

I stand here today as a strong supporter of Israel, and Israel has never had a better friend in the White House than George Bush. (Cheers, applause.)

Friends owe it to friends to be as candid as possible, so let me say that a precipitous American withdrawal from Iraq would be a disaster for the United States and the entire Middle East. It's not hard to imagine what could occur if our coalition withdrew before Iraqis could defend themselves.

Moderates would be crushed. Shi'ite extremists, backed by Iran, could be in an all-out war with Sunni extremists, led by al Qaeda and remnants of the old Saddam regime. As this battle unfolded, Sunni governments might feel compelled to back Sunni extremists in order to counter growing Iranian influence, widening the conflict into a regional war. If Sunni extremists prevailed, al Qaeda and its allies would recreate the safe haven they lost in Afghanistan, except now with the oil wealth to pursue weapons of mass destruction and underwrite their terrorist designs, including their pledge to destroy Israel. If Iran's allies prevailed, the regime in Tehran's own designs for the Middle East would be advanced and the threat to our friends in the region would only be magnified.

My friends, it is simply not consistent for anyone to demand aggressive action against the menace posed by the Iranian regime while at the same time acquiescing in a retreat from Iraq that would leave our worst enemies dramatically emboldened, and Israel's best friend, the United States, dangerously weakened. (Applause.)

We must consider as well just what a precipitous withdrawal would mean to our other efforts in the war on terror and to our interests in the broader Middle East. Having tasted victory in Iraq, jihadists would look abroad for new missions. Many would head for Afghanistan to fight alongside the Taliban. Others would set out for capitals across the Middle East, spreading more discord as they eliminate dissenters and work to undermine moderate governments.

Still others would find their targets and victims in other countries on other continents.

What would it say to the world if we left high and dry those millions of people who have counted on the United States to keep its commitment? And what would it say to leaders like President Karzai and President Musharraf, who risk their lives every day as fearless allies in the war on terror.

Commentators enjoy pointing out mistakes through the perceptive power of hindsight. But the biggest mistake of all can be seen in advance -- a sudden withdrawal of our coalition would dissipate much of the effort that's gone into fighting the global war on terror and result in chaos and mounting danger. And for the sake of our own security, we will not stand by and let it happen. (Applause.)

Five-and-a-half years ago, the president told the Congress and the country that we had entered a new kind of war, one that would require patience and resolve and that would influence the policies of this government far into the future. The fact that we have succeeded in stopping another attack on our homeland does not mean our country won't be hit in the future, but the record is testimony not to good luck, but to urgent, competent action by a lot of very skilled men and women and to a series of tough decisions by a president who never forgets his first job is to protect the people of this country. (Applause.)

It would be easier no doubt to avoid controversy by following snapshot polls or catering to elite opinion or seeking political refuge and comfortable myths. But President Bush understands, as Ronald Reagan did, that if history teaches anything it teaches self- delusion in the face of unpleasant facts is falling. Either we are serious about fighting the war on terror or we are not. Either we persevere despite difficulty or we turn our backs on our friends, our commitments and our ideals.

I for one have never had more confidence in the outcome, because America is the kind of country that fights for freedom and because at this very hour, our soldiers are engaging the enemy on the field of battle. (Applause.)

One of the great examples of leadership in our world is that of Ariel Sharon, a man of courage and a man of peace who remains in our thoughts. (Applause.) In his last speech at the United Nations, Prime Minister Sharon said his great passion in life was manual labor, sowing and harvesting the pastures, the flock and the cattle. If the circumstances had not demanded it, he said, he would not have become a soldier but rather a farmer, an agriculturalist. But life had other plans for this Israeli patriot, and did his duty until the very ending of his strength.

Ladies and gentlemen, the circumstances that have demanded much of this great nation -- but we are more than equal to the test. America is a good and an honorable country. (Applause.) We serve a cause that is right and a cause that gives hope to the oppressed in every corner of this Earth. We are defended by some of the bravest citizens this nation has ever produced. We're in a war that was begun on the enemy's terms. We're fighting that war on our own terms, and we will prevail. (Applause.)

Thank you all very much. (Applause.)[/quote]

[Guest CincyInDC]

[quote name='Actium' post='455518' date='Mar 12 2007, 11:45 AM']...I think we should analyze what Israel brings to the table and whether the Arab states could provide a better entente. I think they probably could, especially since Israel is not the dominant regional power it once was.[/quote]
[quote name='BlackJesus' post='455524' date='Mar 12 2007, 12:07 PM'][b]It is an interesting question from a Machiavellian standpoint [img]http://forum.go-bengals.com/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/39.gif[/img] . basically you are posing the question .... is Israel and her 5 million Jewish citizens worth the trouble and pissing off the worlds 1.3 billion Muslims ?

Israel has enormous clout financially and in the banking industries .... not to mention that many US Christians see a tie to Israel as a biblical duty ---- then again they think those that don't convert in the end will burn.

However as Oil becomes more scarce = the Arab world becomes very important ... and strategically = we can not afford to be shut out of the region because of our support for Israel. ...[/b][/quote]

I've been wondering for years what Israel brings to the table now that the Arab states don't have the Soviet Union to cozy up to.

[Actium]

[quote name='Homer_Rice' post='455567' date='Mar 12 2007, 12:45 PM']Interesting. Clearly you and I define strength differently. I think it's a weak person (or state) who exercises power in the way you suggest, and admire the strong person who is not afraid of the unknown, and in fact, seeks it out to make it better known. Give me Thomas More over Henry VIII any day of the week. (And More was no wimp even by your standards.)
I think you must be young. Certainly not of my generation, during which Israel was venerated in light of the Holocaust. Having grown up among many CCamp survivors, perhaps I was more exposed to that side of things than others, though.[/quote]

I am semi-young (26) so I can't know the sentiment of the time but through reading records. In my studies of Israel it seems to me they largely stood alone, then as now, save for the US (and in the US really only Truman of the politicos seemed to show a great commitment to the Jews for their struggles at the time of the creation of the state). Many citizens lamented what happened to the Jews, and what had become of them being forced to reside in the death camps as DPs as there was nowhere for them to go, but many were very concerned about the Arab States and their sensitivity to the Zionist issue.

Proto-Israel resorted to some desperate terrorist tactics against Great Britain when it became clear that GB would not support a Jewish state, at that moment at least, and the UN had the Palestine Issue as its second major iniative. That of course failed, and continues to fail (one of the reasons I think the UN is not taken that seriously is because of the momumental failure in this area).

I think it's a shame what happened to the Palestinians, but it is also partly their fault. Now they find themselves displaced as the Jews did after the Holocaust, the major difference being state actors prefer to use them as pawns rather than actually doing things to help them. The Palestinians seem fine with this arrangement. They don't want to compromise, and don't feel that they need to. it is to their advantage to deal with Israel as a non-state entity. It helps their soft power.

[TheBZ]

[quote name='Actium' post='455572' date='Mar 12 2007, 12:54 PM']The Palestinians seem fine with this arrangement. They don't want to compromise, and don't feel that they need to. it is to their advantage to deal with Israel as a non-state entity. It helps their soft power.[/quote]

Living like refugees in your own homeland is 'soft power', indeed.

However, I'm having trouble believing that this is an all-out choice...Considering that the steps were taken to form a government. So...That action is there, at least.

BZ

[|Bunghole|]

Israel and Palestine need to agree to define their borders, to not attack each other, and agree to free passage for both countries for economic purposes. But this is never going to happen when you have a detante like you have now, with BOTH sides being the aggressor, and with the one side that's militarily stronger being perceived rightly or wrongly as being too brutal in their responses to attacks.
It is a self-feeding mechanism for violence that I believe will never end, due to the USA's support of Israel carte blanche and the Arab countries continuing to foment religious unrest that results in violence as well.
Perhaps the Book Of Revelations is referring to this resourceless piece of holy geography when it refers to Armaggeddon.
Rodney King wonders why religions that share the exact same basic tenets and God cannot get along and figure out a solution, without any other country's meddling.

[TheBZ]

[quote name='Actium' post='455518' date='Mar 12 2007, 10:45 AM']The attempt to use such doctrines that are seen as eternal (such as justice, lawfulness, virtue, right, wrong) are typically used by the weak because they cannot match the real power of those with strength. They hope by these messy and unclear concepts to control the behavior of the stronger party, by instilling doubt and pressure. It's soft power, and it is perfectly understandable why it is used. All the more so because in our times it is very potent, and many people will listen to it.

Israel has decided to play the game, perhaps because Jews historically are the weaker party. In a war of words they won't win, because it is easier for cries of justice to favor the underdog. Especially because Israel has never been popular.[/quote]

I'm not coming at you personally on this, Actium...But I was just struck by the notion that if validation of doctrine comes through effectiveness, then perhaps the roles are reversed.

Meaning...Perhaps the eternal doctrines are hard power, and physical strength is soft...As decreed by their own effectiveness.

After all...If notions of justice, lawfulness, virtue must be invoked to convince citizens to physically go to war, then which doctrines are leading the way?

Similarly, on the microcosm of a message board, doesn't a more physical and primal show of strength always show up after the war of ideas has been fought and lost?

Just something that struck me throughout this thread...That attempting to win a war through superior strength is really just the last resort of a party incapable of winning the war of ideas.

And even now, as we look at Iraq and Afghanistan, the physical strength aspect has already been reinforced...But victory has not occurred...Because the ideological battle has not been won.

It seems like the only time that physical strength can finally be decisive is in the case of genocidal activities...A Hiroshima, carpet bombing in Germany, etc.

BZ

[|Bunghole|]

[quote name='TheBZ' post='455765' date='Mar 12 2007, 08:26 PM']I'm not coming at you personally on this, Actium...But I was just struck by the notion that if validation of doctrine comes through effectiveness, then perhaps the roles are reversed.

Meaning...Perhaps the eternal doctrines are hard power, and physical strength is soft...As decreed by their own effectiveness.

After all...If notions of justice, lawfulness, virtue must be invoked to convince citizens to physically go to war, then which doctrines are leading the way?

Similarly, on the microcosm of a message board, doesn't a more physical and primal show of strength always show up after the war of ideas has been fought and lost?

Just something that struck me throughout this thread...That attempting to win a war through superior strength is really just the last resort of a party incapable of winning the war of ideas.

And even now, as we look at Iraq and Afghanistan, the physical strength aspect has already been reinforced...But victory has not occurred...Because the ideological battle has not been won.

It seems like the only time that physical strength can finally be decisive is in the case of genocidal activities...A Hiroshima, carpet bombing in Germany, etc.

BZ[/quote]
You're right to an extent, and I agree with you that we should be more inventive and diplomatic about exporting our interests and ideals across the globe, rather than just declaring war on the latest generation's boogey-man.
Except that I believe that this boogeyman exists, and needs to be eradicated, BUT, it is largely a creature of our own creation in many senses.
And as for the military side of it, we are being shown how a desperate, religiously-driven people fight a war against an obviously superior military opponent.
But we are learning from it, IED wasn't even in our vocabulary four years ago, and I am confident in our armed services.
Achieving stability in Iraq may seem a pipe dream, but until 2008, we are committed to it, and we owe our hard-pressed military the political will, equipment and know-how to achieve at a bare minimum a stabilized situation than we have now.

[Actium]

[quote name='TheBZ' post='455765' date='Mar 12 2007, 09:26 PM']I'm not coming at you personally on this, Actium...But I was just struck by the notion that if validation of doctrine comes through effectiveness, then perhaps the roles are reversed.

Meaning...Perhaps the eternal doctrines are hard power, and physical strength is soft...As decreed by their own effectiveness.

After all...If notions of justice, lawfulness, virtue must be invoked to convince citizens to physically go to war, then which doctrines are leading the way?

Similarly, on the microcosm of a message board, doesn't a more physical and primal show of strength always show up after the war of ideas has been fought and lost?

Just something that struck me throughout this thread...That attempting to win a war through superior strength is really just the last resort of a party incapable of winning the war of ideas.

And even now, as we look at Iraq and Afghanistan, the physical strength aspect has already been reinforced...But victory has not occurred...Because the ideological battle has not been won.

It seems like the only time that physical strength can finally be decisive is in the case of genocidal activities...A Hiroshima, carpet bombing in Germany, etc.

BZ[/quote]

I think a large part of the problem stems from the fact that our culture no longer seems to accept that fact that the strong should rule, and the weak should submit. Now we have the ideas of justice for the low, and we are to blame, etc., etc. When a country no longer accepts as given its superiority, and its citizens think they are but equals with other cultures (or lower), then that society has entered decadence. It is no longer a healthy society--that is, a society that will use its power to expand and indeed conquer so far as it is able. The calls for justice (read: soft power used to balance might) eminate not from weaker countries, but rather from within.

Countries should be able to conquer territory and colonize, to build vacuums and to fill them. The story of human development is the story of conquest. Now that this has seemingly become passe, and countries arbitarily halt their borders at some determined point, the problem arises of failed states (because their borders are too big for the strength of the country), to states that are too powerful relative to their neighbors, which leads to things such as illegal immigration. If they could expand and absorb the weaker countries the problems of economic disparity and infrastructural inequality would be reduced.

There is no such thing as so-and-so's land. There just happen to be people living on it. It is not theirs by rights. All right of possession comes from conquest. So the Palestinians aren't living as refugees on their homeland--it's not their homeland anymore. They lost it. Why should it be theirs--just because they were living on it? That's arbitrary, because they had taken it over from other countries in the past.

The Palestinians could have a state if they wanted one. They would have to recognize the reality of Israel though, and that is anathema to their puppetmasters and to themselves--since they want the whole region. So they prefer to have nothing, and to blame Israel for all their misfortunes, and gain the sympathy of all the decadent Rachel Corries of the world.

The victorious Allies in WWII recognized that they were the preeminent powers in the world because of warfare. They founded the UN in the hopes of controlling the use of warfare, and in so doing maintaining their position in the world. That has failed, and all that has happened is that they inculcated the idea that wars should not be fought for conquest and annexation. This, I think, has a great deal to do with the misery of much of the world.

I know this is not a popular idea. I know that war is an ugly thing. But it is also a natural thing for humanity. Peace is not history--peace is the interlude between history.