|
|||||||||
Posted April 1, 2002
Who Will Stop the Terror?
[Regarding Ran HaCohen's column of March 28, "Against Negotiations":]
How naive and myopic. OK , let's say Israel walks away from the territories it "occupies" as outcome of several Arab invasion attempts to destroy it. Even up to the Pre '67 lines.
What about Hamas, Islamic Jihad, Hizbullah, and millions of additional Moslems who believe Haifa, Netanyahu, and Tel Aviv are "Occupied" land worthy of jihad? How does this dimension fit into your little egalitarian equation? Perhaps you anticipate the Palestinian Authority will assume responsibility for terrorist actions launched from their land. Dream on! For over forty years Arafat has turned deniability into an art form. Please tell me, within the context of your simplistic logic, who will stop the terror if Israel withdraws from the Territories?
Ran HaCohen replies:
The single most important asset of terror is a supportive population. The Islamist organisations you name will lose this asset once occupation ends. (By the way, some of them were cultivated by Israel, to weaken Arafat's secular nationalism.) Criminal and fanatic groups of all kinds will always exist, but most countries have learnt how to deal with them effectively. Their danger and their legitimacy cannot be compared to those of an entire nation fighting for its freedom.
New Approach
On this day, Wednesday, March 27, when all news is bad news, I have been thinking of a new approach to the Palestinian/Israeli situation. At length, I came up with this new strategy for moving from the present hopeless cycle:
Start, not finish, by giving the Palestinian Authority its capital in East Jerusalem, with whatever neighboring areas that are right and proper attached. This in no way threatens Israel by giving it new, "indefensible" borders, gives the Palestinians something of real substance that should engender much hope for their future, and sends an obvious message about the likely fate of the settlements that should promote an honest appraisal of that situation and its inevitable solution.
The second step might be for Israel to get totally, completely, absolutely out of Gaza. Again, this could in no way present an "existential" threat to Israel, and could give a preview of how things could go when the West Bank territory is evacuated and incorporated into a Palestinian state contiguous with the already established capital of East Jerusalem.
Ideas on how to pressure the government of Israel to accept this concept (in no particular order): Cut off all U.S. aid transfers; announce that, henceforth, the United States will abstain from voting on any U.N. measures having to do with the Israeli/Palestinian situation; call the United States ambassador to Israel home for "consultations" of unspecified length and nature.
Perhaps Mr. HaCohen can fill in details and flesh out the concept, as he is vastly more knowledgeable on the subject than I.
Land for Peace
[Regarding Ran HaCohen's column of March 28, "Against Negotiations":]
How old are you? Were you born after 1967? You act like it.
Maps of the middle east before the Six Day War and even after showed the west bank to be Jordan and Gaza to be Egypt. The Arabs had all of the west bank, all of Gaza, and all of east Jerusalem including the wailing wall and the Jewish quarter.
What did they do?
They launched countless Fedayeen raids into Israel. They instituted airplane hijackings, and they also tried to launch an all out war against Israel in which thankfully they were roundly defeated.
Do you even for one moment think that if Israel left the west bank and Gaza and east Jerusalem with the wailing wall and the Jewish quarter that after a few months or years the Fedayeen would be back in operation?
The Palestinians do not deserve a state which would be most certainly a "terrorist state." They do deserve to live in peace, if they are willing to abide by normal rules of civilization. They seem incapable of doing that. They were offered an unbelievable offer in 2000 which they rejected because it allowed Israel to exist.
Land for peace is a big lie. Events before 1967 show that any Jews living in Israel are intolerable to the Arabs. Why? because they think it is Arab land and must be recaptured at any cost. Most Arab states, unwilling to attack Israel directly are only too happy do used the deranged Palestinians as cannon fodder. They have done all they could to prevent Palestinian Arabs from establishing new lives outside of the West Bank and Gaza and insist that that many of them must stay in camps in perpetual suspense waiting for the defeat of Israel.
In short, you don't know history and your knee-jerk attitudes are unrealistic at best and dangerous at worst.
Ran HaCohen replies:
Give Palestinians normal conditions of existence (not urban legends about "generous offers"), and they'll abide by normal rules of civilisation.
Suggestion
In giving consideration to what I can contribute to keep Antiwar.com active, I give thought to what my small contribution will do. Not much, I suggest. However: If I give thought to what similar small contributions would accomplish (I have to presume that there will be many, many small contributions.), I think I can see some light at the end of the tunnel.
You noted that 'hits' on your site were close to one million/month. If most of these were 'regulars', checking in every day, you would have about 35,000 who would like to do something to assure your site remaining.
I suggest you make a request to viewers and let them know that if 1,000 of them could part with $20.00, the site could continue. For some, $20.00 is hard to come by, but for most $20.00 could be managed without any real problems.
Your request for funds is a 'shotgun' approach with the hope that it will generate something. I suggest you aim at the small contributor, publish the amounts contributed on your site and keep a runny 'tab' on how the finances are going.
With this approach, I think the small contributor would feel that they really have accomplished something. When others see what a lot of small contributions can amount to, they may also 'break loose'.
Just a suggestion. Hope you can continue.
Scoff
Justin's
... [column of March 29, "Anthrax
as a Weapon"] states his faith in the intelligence of the common
American. I must scoff. He cannot expect Americans to think anything other
than what the news tells them to think. I hope Justin does not hold his
breath waiting for the American masses to rise up and question their government.
Because to do so would be unpatriotic and un-American – or so we are
told.
~ DD, Dayton