Skip to comments.How The Israeli-Palestinian Peace Process Became The World's Greatest Bore
Posted on 04/16/2013 2:07:58 PM PDT by Eleutheria5
Israel turns 65 today, old enough to know better; and if life begins at conception, the state and I are exactly the same age. So forgive me for going all meta. I can imagine pretty much what I'll be, if at all, in 20 years. But Israel?
I ask because the conflict with the Palestinians seems headed to something bad, yet the peace process has become a great bore. Presumably, everybody knows the arguments and grievances and indignations. They know that two states have been preempted by Tel Aviv's complacency, or settler momentum, or Ramallah's nostalgia, or Gaza's missiles; that we're too afraid and they're too angry; that you can care about "Jewish," or about refugees, but not both; that the occupation has created one state anyway...but never mind.
But wait: isn't John Kerry serious and hasn't President Obama inspired? Won't a renewal of Palestinian insurgency, with Syria in chaos and the Egyptian economy collapsing, lead to regional violence? Even if Israel has the power to win any war, don't Palestinians have the power to make them despise any victory? Boring. Everybody also knows that in restarting negotiations over restarting negotiations, Kerry's in denial about how far apart the sides are, or the limited power of American diplomacy to force them closer, or (the same thing) the limited power of the president to defy the Israel lobby.
....Either way, Kerry Shmerry.
So Israelis are entering the state's 65th year in a kind of Après moi, le déluge frame of mind: Lapid's people can sit with Bennett's people, and both can sit with Bibi's people, not because they agree on a future, but because they can't really envision one. And they blush for people who try to....
(Excerpt) Read more at thedailybeast.com ...
What he doesn’t want to face is this: This is what peace in the middle east looks like. A civilized outpost surrounded by chaos, outnumbered 200 to 1.
There is no peace in the middle east outside Israel’s well guarded borders. If they succeed in pushing Israel into the sea, then even that oasis of relative peace disappears and all that remains is a hell of endless violence.
What a total load of crap from and Israeli lefty. Usual garbage. Very clever and includes all the usual lies. blah blah blah.
Typical lefty/anti-Israel blather...
the limited power of the president to defy the Israel lobbyIsnt the Daily Therion just grand, imitating the neo-Nazi rhetoric of Stormfront and others. I can hear them polishing their jackboots from here.
I don’t even know if he’s a lefty. He’s dribbling the ball all over the court, and hard to say which team he’s on. But he makes one very good essential point: All of these so-called “peace” plans can never ever work, because they’re based on assumptions that are no longer valid, that we’re in a sparsely populated land and are primarily agricultural. What might work, he says, is high-tech economic integration that transcends arbitrarily drawn borders, but it’s not even on Kerry’s agenda, or anyone else’s, but according to him it is inevitable. Don’t know if I agree with the inevitability part. Do definitely agree with him that OSLO and the UN Partition Plan of 1948, or the armistice lines of 1949 are completely irrelevant to the present, and Kerry and his internationalist pals are clueless as to this fact. I got tired before I could read the final 1/4 of the piece and get to his conclusions, though.
It’s called a parody. Confusing, because he’s parodying everyone and not coming up for air.
IS it just me or should it be boor rather than bore?
They know that two states have been preempted by Tel Aviv's complacency
-refers to the Israeli capital as 'Tel Aviv' So Israelis are entering the state's 65th year in a kind of Après moi, le déluge frame of mind: Lapid's people can sit with Bennett's people, and both can sit with Bibi's people, not because they agree on a future, but because they can't really envision one.
Very clever, but it very distinctly says that neither left nor right can agree on a "future". Reference to a "future" is most often a leftist terminology included in propaganda and sloganeering. Why use it? The author sounds like he embraces it.
The thing is, two states in a globalized, networked, densely populated land cannot be the same as two states in a land full of sparse agricultural villages and rivalries over hilltops.
He clearly makes the issue an economic one. Only a socialist or a communist boils life's conflicts to economics. Very 'lefty' to me. Also makes reference to economics in Obama's speech in Jerusalem. Very lefty again.
I could go on, but it is so 'boring' to constantly deal with the narrative of the left, be it Israeli Jewish or otherwise.
It is clear that the left knows it's arguments of negotiations are weak and so out come the snippy diatribes, repleat with all the talking points.
The saddest part is that most people have no idea what the whole issue is about.
It’s about two half-brothers who are fighting over the same inheritance - which includes prime pieces of real estate.
You have to go back to Abraham’s time to find the beginning of the story. Abraham and Sarah were married (in the Jewish tradition - it was a marriage covenant). However, Sarah could not have children; so, she gave her slave handmaiden, Hagar, to Abraham - in order to have a child. What most people don’t realize is that Jewish people take “covenants” seriously. Therefore, even when Hagar became pregnant, Sarah considered the child hers. Hagar would have none of it .. and she taunted and bullied Sarah, because Sarah could not get pregnant and Hagar could.
However, after Ishmael was born (Hagar’s child), Sarah became pregnant and delivered a son, Isaac (a child of the marriage covenant). This fact, the marriage covenant, meant that Isaac was the rightful heir to his father’s fortune. All the property, persons and lands that had been promised to Abraham by GOD.
Hagar and her son, Ishmael, continued to harass and abuse, and bully Sarah and Isaac, trying to claim that Ishmael was the true heir.
Finally, Sarah had enough of it and demanded that Abraham put Hagar and Ishmael out of the camp. He did.
So, look at this from Ismael’s viewpoint. He was betrayed by his mother - because she would not stand up to Abraham and demand to receive (what Ishmael believed) was his inheritance. Sarah, had forced Ishmael and his mother to be thrown out of the camp. Two strong women who controlled his destiny .. it must have made him very, very angry.
I have a theory; Middle-eastern women are still being punished today for the presumed misdeeds of Hagar and Sarah .. being forced to wear a veil over their faces.
The original war on women began with Hagar (her jealousy and envy - because her son did not qualify for the inheritance), and the mistreatment of most all middle-eastern women has been continued to this day.
The war on Israel is nothing more than two half-brothers (via their extended families) fighting for posession of the land GOD promised to Abraham, Isaac, et al. This is why they continue to say they’re going to push Israel into the sea (so they can take the land from Israel.
You’re not required to agree. If you don’t, that’s fine with me, but I will not argue about it.
If youd like to be on or off, please FR mail me.
Presumably, everybody knows the arguments and grievances and indignations. They know that two states have been preempted by Tel Aviv’s complacency, or settler momentum, or Ramallah’s nostalgia, or Gaza’s missiles...but never mind.
This is parody of left and right. Beware of trip wire shiboleths in this piece. “They” meaning whoever is talking, whether they irrationally believe that Tel Aviv is the Capitol, or some other bunch. Bottom line is, “two states” is over.
“Lapid’s people can sit with Bennett’s people, and both can sit with Bibi’s people, not because they agree on a future, but because they can’t really envision one.”
“Very clever, but it very distinctly says that neither left nor right can agree on a “future”.”
No, it very distinctly says that Bibi, Lapid and Bennett cannot envision a future, so they agree to muddle through a while longer. I had had great hopes for Bennett, no hopes for Bibi, and fear and loathing of Lapid. But they’re all such chums now because they’re all visionless phonies, not the “right,” nor the “left” made flesh, but three politicians. Spot on.
He clearly makes the issue an economic one. Only a socialist or a communist boils life’s conflicts to economics.
So economics are completely irrelevant, and anyone who factors it in at all is a leftist? I’m afraid you’ve just pronounced half of Freepia leftist, maybe all. It doesn’t boil down to economics, but economics is very definitely a very big ingredient in the stew, ignored at one’s peril. That’s part of the reason why the formula “land for piece” is so stupid, as he points out.
The other reason is that one side is the practitioners of the religion of piece, but he misses that point entirely in his superciliousness.
The piece process isn’t boring, it’s deadly. But the debate over what approach to take to the piece process and exactly why it has no hope, now that’s boring.
“....Either way, Kerry Shmerry.”
If he were leftist, he’d be demanding his solutions, not dismissing both as “Kerry Shmerry”. Get it? Either way.
But let’s go beyond this particular piece and look to the author’s record and see if we can piece together his ideology.
In follow up to my closing comment in my last post:
Hagel And The Neo-McCarthyites
OK. In this piece it’s unmistakable. He’s a dyed-in-the-wool leftist. Mea culpa.