The Arab states are being stupid for the "accept then negotiate" strategy. Indeed, it is as bad as the preconditions Israel requires. So, stupid, meet stupid. Now, let's negotiate! (I'm serious about that.)
But "Arab states do not consider treaties binding in the first place. They are merely pretexts for the temporary cessation of overt violence." Au contraire, mon Islamophobique frere! What about Morocco, one of the first countries to recognize the America's independence? It signed a 50-year peace treaty with the US, which was renewed at the end of the fifty-year period of duration. So what, can you tell me, is wrong with 100 years of peace? Was Morocco all the while planning for a future attack against the US?
I was a bit flippant in my above post -- I should be more clear. I think both Arab states and Israel have set unreasonable preconditions for future negotiations, which I think are vital for the future vitality of both sides. There are thus three options. Each side could accept the unreasonable preconditions. Or, each side could ignore the preconditions it set as well as the preconditions of the other side. This is not a bad idea; but, another strategy, possibly reasonable, would be to set a new set of preconditions that would apply to both sides of the hoped-for negotiation. They could look like:
1) Each side should recognize the other's right to exist as an independent state on some portion of the former British Mandate of Palestine (not, of course, including the Jordanian portion that was separated from the mandate in 1922).
2) Each side should recognize the other's right to defend itself on its territory defined by these (as yet unspecified) borders
3) Each side should agree to live in peace after these mutually agreed upon borders are set
4) Other issues should be decided during negotiations
The advantage of such preconditions is that they wouldn't allow the occasional outbreak of violence to derail the negotiation process. Violence would be recognized as a funtion of unspecified borders -- each side actually recognizes the right to defend itself on what it thinks should be its borders. The problem is that each side has different borders in mind.
Admittedly, I came up with these this morning, so I'm sure my list could be improved upon.
What people have failed to realize for 60 years is the simple truth that the Arab thugocracies cannot survive peace with Israel.
Repressive regimes need an external enemy to justify and obfuscate their internal failures. The current detente is the best we can hope for, short of an Arab Spring.
Give us land. Jeopardize your security posture,we will all sign an agreement.And agreements signed by the collective arab world are etched in stone because,like,we are so unified,and the signatories are,like, guaranteed to remain in power forever,as the governments of the arab world are,like, sooo stable.And don't worry about the bloodlust thing because,you know,it was always about the land,and about the israelies, not Jews.
Jut make sure to never do anything that might be construed as an act of war,because acts of war (on your part, not ours) certainly abrogate 'peace' agreements.But don't worry, we are all pretty rational here in the arab world about what would constitute an act of war on your part.Not like we would get hissy about the repairment of a ramp or anything.
And,of course,don't even worry about the fanatical Zombies on your(G-d) forbid shrinking borders and beyond ,who have armies,are preparing for war,and don't even play lip service to our nonsense,because you know,you are "led" by wierdos who, well,just don't need to worry about things like fanatical zombies on your borders and beyond,who have armies,are preparing for war,and don't even play lipservice to our nonsense.
Did we mention that you need to give us land,and jeopardize your security posture.
Ron, I am glad you are back at Dean's World. I do enjoy a healthy discussion. But why engage in argumentum ad hudnam? (It is hardly different from a taqiyya libel, really.) Do only Muslims make temporary agreements? Ben Gurion himself stated "The acceptance of partition does not commit us to renounce Transjordan; one does not demand from anybody to give up his vision. We shall accept a state in the boundaries fixed today, but the boundaries of Zionist aspirations are the concern of the Jewish people and no external factor will be able to limit them." Should Arabs not trust Jews therefore? This is ridiculous.
Ron, we cross posted. I'm glad you like the list. I think the Arabs are being dumbheaded, and so are the Israelis. Why? I think its human nature to be dumb and arrogant sometimes, especially if you are a politician.
Naftali, I don't know what to say. You hate Arabs; I am married to one. Can we discuss the issue rationally? Likely not. When it comes to religious discussions, I do appreciate your input, though. Humans are funny creatures, aren't we?
Taqiyya is not a purely Muslim concept, it's really no different than what Stalin did in WW II. It's a question of the nature of the governments, not religion.
Morocco is a relatively open society, one of the freest in the Mideast.
As for Ben Gurion... well, ask yourself what Israel's borders would look like today if they were truly militaristic expansionists.
Dave, I have no problem with political realism, e.g. suspecting that governments don't always mean what they say. It is the supposition that Muslim governments somehow operate differently in this respect that I find wrong and offensive.
As for your last statement, I think you are wrong to believe that the only restraints on Israeli expansionism were self-imposed. There was a delicate balance of power maintained by the US and Soviet Union in the Middle East during the Cold War. When the US withdrew its support for Israel, such as in 1956 (and partly in 1973), Israel did not have a free hand to expand.
Ron, truly sorry you consider Robert Spencer dispositive.
I refer you to the op-ed I co-authored with David Perlmutter in Asharq Alawsat last year.
I also call your attention to the desperation for a solution to this problem that is evidenced in Arab media across the region. There's lots of it to be read at my blog.
TallDave: While correct in general, I suggest you talk to a few of the thousands of Moroccans in jail for excessively liberal behavior before you bet the farm on your take of Morocco as progressive. 'Best of the lot', maybe, but not all that good.
I do not hate Arabs.If the Arabs were to declare the end of their war on us tomorrow,I would sweat to do what I could to help them build a society that i could respect.They are,though,now collectively, but not individually,at war with the Jewish people and that fact bears heavily on all my policy related views regarding them.My views on giving back land are entirely based on security posture.I am sure that your wife is a good person.My wife is morrocan and on my trips there I have met many many good Arabs.My wife's family has many many longtime Arab friends.
It is the supposition that Muslim governments somehow operate differently in this respect that I find wrong and offensive.
I agree.
I suggest you talk to a few of the thousands of Moroccans in jail for excessively liberal behavior ... 'Best of the lot', maybe, but not all that good.
Again, I agree. My point is that generally the more liberal a government/society is, the more genuinely interested in peace they are.
If the Arabs were to declare the end of their war on us tomorrow,I would sweat to do what I could to help them build a society that i could respect. They are,though,now collectively, but not individually,at war with the Jewish people and that fact bears heavily on all my policy related views regarding them.
But only 4 out of 22 (or so) Arab nations are at war (at least officially) with Israel; and Israel is (at least officially) at war with them too. And yet these states have signed on to a proposal that includes peace and full relations with Israel. Sounds like something to me.
If you declare that Islam is fundamentally incompatible with peace and fundamentally causes all who touch it to become corrupt and dishonest, then, you have forever foresworn any possibility of any peace for Israel unless you destroy Islam.
Good luck with that. The Evangelical Christians may be down with that agenda, but even the Pope isn't that fucking stupid.
Go on, keep citing Spencer approvingly, Ron. It's like approvingly quoting David Duke. It not only discredits you, it underlines the idea that you believe no peace can be had until the Muslim Hordes are destroyed.
I do not chastise the Arabs for being at war with Jews.I would only hope that the Jews recognize that in a sane world war goes both ways.This is not a moral issue,it is simply a matter of recognizing the reality.Officialness means nothing to mean when it is in sharp contradiction to the reality that is the arab street,the arab media,and the arab curriculum.I will get excited about arab peace initiatives when they do not require that Jews endanger themselves militarily.The Arab coalition cannot vouch for it's own future, let alone that of the entire middle east.My premise is that no one-no one-should ever jeopardize his security posture,in an unpredictable world.I also do not believe that one should commit suicide rather than face the chance of defeat.There is not anything irrational about those premises,though they do mean that there is not much ransom the Jews give the Arabs to get on with their lives.
I firmly believe that the relative interest in peace relations with the Jews is indicative of some Arab realization that they really have bigger problems.But this recognition does not render me a supine blithering idiot who sacrifices his security for pie in the sky fantasies.
The fact is that more or less Jews are doing just fine,despite the Arab war against them.I believe the evil element of the arab and moslem world is on the decline.I am not pessimistic about the future.
(OH wait, Dean just noted, yet again, what a fraud and a con artist and a hate-profiteer Spencer is. Which proves that Dean is "obsessed" with Spencer and is "personally attacking" him--rather than the reverse, as Dean has always seen it. Moral equivalency anyone? My preference would be that the name of this hate-profiteering con artist and paranoid conspiracy nut never be mentioned or linked off of this blog again, in any way or for any reason.)
Ugh. Not again. I really had no intention of dragging Robert Spencer into this. He does just fine without Dean's World and, Dean, you are pretty clear that Dean's World does fine without him. Can we skip the personal attacks regardless of who thinks who is a whatever? As I said in my comments, my focus is not at all on the thesis of Robert's article, that there is something "Islamic" about tactical and dishonest use of treaties. I don't believe it has to be. It is very much a piece of statecraft utilized by palefaces in North America in their numerous treaties with the Indians; certainly by Hitler (and Stalin? that I don't quite follow). But it is absolutely a tactic that is considered unobjectionable in Arab capitals, both Islamist and secular, and was explicitly understood by all of Arafat's people as the only reason you ever pledge anything.
On the "Arab capitals" bit: call me naive, but I think both Sadat and King Hussein were serious men. Hell, Jordan cooperated with Israel long before it officially had a treaty with its neighbor. And many other "Arab capitals" who publicly decry Israeli abuses of Palestinian rights privately cooperate with the "enemy." So yes, I think the idea that there is some concerted, covert Arab "war" against Israel is quite ludicrous.
And I think Arab anti-Semitism is quite awful, both morally (and for the sake of the Arab public image). But realistically, I don't think this will improve all that much until the Palestinian tragedy is solved.
Frankly,Jews are quite used to antisemitism.Healthy Jews do not pine for its eradication.Either the arabs will wake up and get with truth and goodness on their own or they will wallow in their hatred until the need for their oil dries up.Either way, we can't rationally endanger our security posture to solve the tragedy of the arabs who live in the land called by some non-Jews palistine.I would suggest they emigrate to any part of the 99% of the middle
east that is controlled by their "brethren".Their brethren will certainly welcome them with open arms ,given the absolutely fanatical devotion to their well being that they display in deed and rhetoric.
3.29.2007 9:32pm
Commenting on Dean's World is a privilege, not a right. Dean is your host, you are his guest, and you should behave in that fashion. Dean is not your babysitter, nor is he your punching bag. Please remember this. In general, you are free to disagree with anyone on any subject you wish, but abusive behavior will not be tolerated.
Of course we all lose our tempers now and then. Dean freely admits to being imperfect in this regard, which is why regulars to this establishment will generally be cut more slack than people who we don't know very well.
Still: behave like an adult, or go find somewhere else to play. Thanks.
But "Arab states do not consider treaties binding in the first place. They are merely pretexts for the temporary cessation of overt violence." Au contraire, mon Islamophobique frere! What about Morocco, one of the first countries to recognize the America's independence? It signed a 50-year peace treaty with the US, which was renewed at the end of the fifty-year period of duration. So what, can you tell me, is wrong with 100 years of peace? Was Morocco all the while planning for a future attack against the US?
1) Each side should recognize the other's right to exist as an independent state on some portion of the former British Mandate of Palestine (not, of course, including the Jordanian portion that was separated from the mandate in 1922).
2) Each side should recognize the other's right to defend itself on its territory defined by these (as yet unspecified) borders
3) Each side should agree to live in peace after these mutually agreed upon borders are set
4) Other issues should be decided during negotiations
The advantage of such preconditions is that they wouldn't allow the occasional outbreak of violence to derail the negotiation process. Violence would be recognized as a funtion of unspecified borders -- each side actually recognizes the right to defend itself on what it thinks should be its borders. The problem is that each side has different borders in mind.
Admittedly, I came up with these this morning, so I'm sure my list could be improved upon.
What people have failed to realize for 60 years is the simple truth that the Arab thugocracies cannot survive peace with Israel.
Repressive regimes need an external enemy to justify and obfuscate their internal failures. The current detente is the best we can hope for, short of an Arab Spring.
Jut make sure to never do anything that might be construed as an act of war,because acts of war (on your part, not ours) certainly abrogate 'peace' agreements.But don't worry, we are all pretty rational here in the arab world about what would constitute an act of war on your part.Not like we would get hissy about the repairment of a ramp or anything.
This is utterly mad.
Did we mention that you need to give us land,and jeopardize your security posture.
Love, the arabs :-)
Why didn't Morocco require that Israel concede everything at stake in the Arab-Israeli conflict before making peace with Israel, by the way?
I like your list. Why don't the Arabs?
Taqiyya is not a purely Muslim concept, it's really no different than what Stalin did in WW II. It's a question of the nature of the governments, not religion.
Morocco is a relatively open society, one of the freest in the Mideast.
As for Ben Gurion... well, ask yourself what Israel's borders would look like today if they were truly militaristic expansionists.
As for your last statement, I think you are wrong to believe that the only restraints on Israeli expansionism were self-imposed. There was a delicate balance of power maintained by the US and Soviet Union in the Middle East during the Cold War. When the US withdrew its support for Israel, such as in 1956 (and partly in 1973), Israel did not have a free hand to expand.
TallDave: While correct in general, I suggest you talk to a few of the thousands of Moroccans in jail for excessively liberal behavior before you bet the farm on your take of Morocco as progressive. 'Best of the lot', maybe, but not all that good.
I do not hate Arabs.If the Arabs were to declare the end of their war on us tomorrow,I would sweat to do what I could to help them build a society that i could respect.They are,though,now collectively, but not individually,at war with the Jewish people and that fact bears heavily on all my policy related views regarding them.My views on giving back land are entirely based on security posture.I am sure that your wife is a good person.My wife is morrocan and on my trips there I have met many many good Arabs.My wife's family has many many longtime Arab friends.
I agree.
I suggest you talk to a few of the thousands of Moroccans in jail for excessively liberal behavior ... 'Best of the lot', maybe, but not all that good.
Again, I agree. My point is that generally the more liberal a government/society is, the more genuinely interested in peace they are.
But only 4 out of 22 (or so) Arab nations are at war (at least officially) with Israel; and Israel is (at least officially) at war with them too. And yet these states have signed on to a proposal that includes peace and full relations with Israel. Sounds like something to me.
Good luck with that. The Evangelical Christians may be down with that agenda, but even the Pope isn't that fucking stupid.
Go on, keep citing Spencer approvingly, Ron. It's like approvingly quoting David Duke. It not only discredits you, it underlines the idea that you believe no peace can be had until the Muslim Hordes are destroyed.
I firmly believe that the relative interest in peace relations with the Jews is indicative of some Arab realization that they really have bigger problems.But this recognition does not render me a supine blithering idiot who sacrifices his security for pie in the sky fantasies.
The fact is that more or less Jews are doing just fine,despite the Arab war against them.I believe the evil element of the arab and moslem world is on the decline.I am not pessimistic about the future.
Thank G-d.
And I think Arab anti-Semitism is quite awful, both morally (and for the sake of the Arab public image). But realistically, I don't think this will improve all that much until the Palestinian tragedy is solved.
east that is controlled by their "brethren".Their brethren will certainly welcome them with open arms ,given the absolutely fanatical devotion to their well being that they display in deed and rhetoric.
Of course we all lose our tempers now and then. Dean freely admits to being imperfect in this regard, which is why regulars to this establishment will generally be cut more slack than people who we don't know very well.
Still: behave like an adult, or go find somewhere else to play. Thanks.