|
|||||||||
Posted September 10, 2001
The Terms of Peace
[Regarding Ran HaCohen's column of September 4, "The Ideology of Occupation":]
...A war was fought in 1967. The Arabs lost. Israel won.
In wars, generally the winner gets to decide the terms of peace. I know you don't like wars, but they will always happen because people will have disputes and resort to force to solve them (famous remark about war being diplomacy by other means). One way to stop wars is to ensure that the loser actually suffers some tangible setback.
If every time someone attacks you and loses the war, you don't impose any penalty (lost land, reparations, etc.), then why should the person hesitate to attack you in the future? They have nothing to lose.
That said, you are right – occupation is cruel. That is why the Palestinians, who continue to reject their status as the defeated party in a very long ago war and who refuse to logically negotiate terms of peace with the victor, should be expelled from their land. This could be done slowly, with the acknowledgment that any time they were willing to seriously negotiate peace, the expulsions would stop.
Ran HaCohen replies:
I doubt whether, as Mr. Dalton claims, “one way to stop war is to ensure that the loser actually suffers some tangible setback,” but I am convinced that the best way to perpetuate war is to ensure that the winner enjoys some tangible benefits. Mr. Dalton’s suggestion to expel the Palestinians from their land (already tested by Israel in 1948) provides more evidence of the dangerous genocidal desires of some of Israel's supporters; it is an incitement against civilians and fully contradicts the Geneva Convention.
Macedonia & FYROM
...Macedonia is not this little country of 2,000,000 people (including the Albanians) who have nothing to do with the real Macedonians since they came to the region some 500 years after Alexander the Great. But now an ambitious man or who ever is behind him (Nato or the US) is trying to persuade everybody that the real Macedonia is there. ...It is a small part of the once great Macedonian-Hellenique state, as there is a small part in Bulgaria. The heart of Macedonia is the northern part of Greece. That's where the tombs and the birthplace of all Macedonian leaders is.
...It is an insult to call this troublemaker country "Macedonia." They are the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia.
...The Macedonians ... want ... to take half of Greece with the excuse that it is their territory...
Macedonians for over 2500 year have had the same language and culture – and this is Greek.
Yugoslavians
inhabited this area and took its geographical name for their country.
That action ... was a great historical abuse, and people who ...
abuse history for their own interests are doomed....
I see that you use the term "Macedonian" to describe the Slavomacedonians of the FYROM. The Greek word, "Macedonian" for the Greeks describes the ancient Greek tribe of the Macedonians [and] the modern Greeks that live in the Macedonian part of Greece.
For the Bulgarians it describes a Bulgarian from Macedonia.
And of course it can be used to describe an Albanian from the FYROM.
There is not such a thing (in my opinion always) as a Macedonian ethnicity. It would be like saying an Athenian or a Spartan. The Slavs of FYROM speak a Bulgarian dialect written with the Serbian alphabet. Most of their names were changed in the '50s to include a -ski ending to differentiate them from the Bulgarians.
Christopher Deliso replies:
The problem of the name – Macedonia vs. FYROM – is very complex because it is not only a name, but has cultural and historical resonances that do not lend themselves easily to logical, analytical debate. We feel that it is neither wise nor productive to fan the flames of controversy surrounding this issue. There are compelling arguments that support various assertions of both the Greek Macedonians and the Slavic Macedonians; it is not necessarily a black-and-white issue, whereby one side would be the "winner" over the other. That is the view of extremists, motivated by an irrational fear of loss.
This does not mean that the issue doesn't deserve to be researched thoroughly; indeed, only the most comprehensive, objective, and above all, dispassionate study will bring a result that does justice to both sides. While friendship between the two countries has always been warranted by historical, cultural and religious kinship, mutual support and cooperation are crucial especially now that the NLA is spreading widespread havoc across the Southern Balkans.
If there is one criticism I feel to be justified, it would be that the Greek government has not done enough to support its northern neighbor, wishing perhaps that the problem would just go away; hopefully, this caution won't come back to haunt them, in the form of an Albanian rebellion in Epiros.
The point is, there will be plenty of time to resolve the "name issue" in a friendly way in the future – so long as Greece and the Republic of Macedonia work together now to halt Albanian terrorism. Otherwise, the "name issue" will just disappear – and with it, all those regions of the Balkans (Northern Greece, Western Macedonia, Southern Serbia and Montenegro) which will be absorbed into that much-dreaded monstrosity, "Greater Albania."
MLK & Zionism
[Regarding Ran HaCohen's column of September 4, "The Ideology of Occupation":]
Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. wrote:
"You declare, my friend, that you do not hate the Jews, you are merely 'anti-Zionist'. And I say, let the truth ring forth from the high mountaintops. Let it echo through the valleys of God's green earth: When people criticize Zionism they mean Jews... Zionism is nothing less than the dream and ideal of the Jewish people returning to live in their own land... And what is anti-Zionism? It is the denial to the Jew of the fundamental right that we justly claim for the people of Africa and freely accord to all other nations of the globe. It is discrimination against Jews because they are Jews. In short it is anti-Semitism."
Any comment?
Ran HaCohen replies:
I never declared, my friend, that I am "anti-Zionist." I am merely anti-discrimination, anti-oppression, anti-occupation and antiwar. I believe Dr. Martin Luther King was all that too.
Goal of Regional Domination
I
just finished reading your article entitled 'The
Ideology of Occupation" and find myself basically openmouthed,
but certainly not surprised.
I fully believe that Israel should never have built settlements
within Palestine. I also fully support the Palestinian peoples'
right to a state and autonomy. Therefore I hold their government
responsible for the deplorable conditions in which they live,
for it is the PA that makes it impossible to realize the dream
of a proud Palestinian state. Proud people don't need to hate
and have bloodlust for any other group.
Certain documented, indisputable facts have been completely omitted here. They are as follows:
-
Israel occupied those lands, incrementally during 3 wars of independence, where its four Arab neighbors simultaneously invaded. In a war, things like land are at stake. Israel captured land from which its neighbor's invaded. Such a move is completely acceptable under conditions of war and invasion.
-
The UN has fully recognized Israel's policy of holding these territories as bargaining chips to exchange for peace. The previous holders of said land had instantly and completely forfeited the luxury of righteous indignation against occupation the very moment they attempted an invasion. Israel never annexed the land and immediately began peace negotiations to try and work out an arrangement a la the Sinai peace accord
-
The "ideology of occupation" while sounding so good, is nothing more than propaganda. After having captured the Sinai from Egypt, Israel promptly gave it back in exchange for a good, lasting peace with Egypt.... The same happened with Jordan.... Israel has given the majority of the occupied territories to be controlled by the PA.
-
When the IDF closes down the West Bank, it is not out of some perverted amusement at watching the Palestinian economy crumble. Israel has no choice but to close down these areas to prevent suicide bombers from turning Israel's streets into butcheries for the unarmed.
Why, under the mentality of occupation, did Barak offer 91% of the territories with the promise of discussing Jerusalem next? Obviously a tactic, a provocation, an escalation designed to get Israel closer to its goal of regional domination, it's clear!
Ran HaCohen replies:
Since this message is an excellent example of the ideology of occupation, we will meet some of its arguments in the next part of my article.
Meanwhile, note how easy it is to open a letter with the blessed conviction that “Israel should never have built settlements within Palestine,” and immediately move on to defend each and every Israeli measure aimed just at building and expanding these very settlements: from invading the Territories in the first place, through tempting the Palestinians into the Oslo trap, and up to bloody assassinations.
“...Did Barak offer 91% of the territories with the promise of discussing Jerusalem next?”
No, he definitely did not. Read what he himself says [here], or Robert Fisk’s revealing analysis.