Yes, it is a fantasy, just as is the proposition that Islam is a religion of peace. And like that fantasy, it has a powerful hold over the minds of all too many, including policymakers.
"Barak says peace deal a 'fantasy,'" from the BBC (thanks to Davida):
Israeli Defence Minister Ehud Barak has been quoted by an Israeli newspaper as saying that a peace deal with the Palestinians anytime soon is "fantasy".Mr Barak also reportedly said Israel would not remove checkpoints from the West Bank for at least several years.
He was quoted by the newspaper Yedioth Ahronoth, which said the remarks had been made in private conversations.
Israel should just shove those breeding fleas over the borders and into Jordan and Egypt.
Muslims removed, terrorists gone.
That is what the Romans did to the Jews after the revolts and no more Jewish revolts.
The Jews were thrown out of their own country so why do they still allow muslims there?
They need to leave.
Palestinians only want a truce at best with Israel. As the above post by Hungarian Crusader makes clear, the Palestinians have a reasonable expectation of victory by demography.
This is the basic problem the West confronts from the population bubble it helped create by its aid policies. Does the West let the bubble take out the West's population? Does Western life have no value?
Its a mathematical theorem that sustained immigration causes genetic replacement.
Wright Island Model
Genetics. 1979 January; 91(1): 163–176.
The Island Model with Stochastic Migration
Thomas Nagylaki
Department of Biophysics and Theoretical Biology, The University of Chicago, 920 East 58th Street, Chicago, Illinois 60637
We investigated various cases of the island model with stochastic migration. If the population is infinite, the immigrants have a fixed gene frequency and the alleles are neutral, the gene frequency on the island converges to that of the immigrants.
The Fermi Paradox is that if advanced civilizations exist in the universe, why aren't they here already. The universe is wasted if we don't preserve and advance civilization. The evidence is that we are the only intelligent civilization in this universe. Civilization is more than a random collection of individuals.
We need a morality that accepts that the survival probability of civilization is a moral good. Based on such a morality, Israel needs to survive as a Jewish state and not just accept demographic defeat and non-existence.
The paragraph that starts "We investsigated" should have quote marks, but not the following ones.
"Mr Barak also reportedly said Israel would not remove checkpoints from the West Bank for at least several year"
...there would be no need for checkpoints if the world had not stopped Israel from taking care of business in 1967...
Isnt this the guy who made a peace deal with Arafat but Arafat rejected it?
Isnt this the guy who made a peace deal with Arafat but Arafat rejected it?
Posted by: Elric66
Barak played along with the "peace" charade so as not to piss off his American handlers. He knew it would come to nothing, but he had to stroke Clinton.
Isnt this the guy who made a peace deal with Arafat but Arafat rejected it?
Posted by: Elric66
That's right, but you can't say the man didn't learn from his mistake. He took off the rose-colored glasses. Not so PM Olmert. He is busy removing Jews from Judaism's holiest sites and allowing rampant illegal Palestinian construction on Jewish-owned land at the same time. He clings to the fantasy.
http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=57084
Yes, it is a fantasy, just as is the proposition that Islam is a religion of peace".
The constant repition "Islam is
a religion of peace" is the "big lie" technique.
"There are many references to the Big Lie in popular culture. Among them are:
George Orwell's novel 1984 refers to the Big Lie theory on several occasions. For example:
“ “The key-word here is blackwhite. Like so many Newspeak words, this word has two mutually contradictory meanings. Applied to an opponent, it means the habit of impudently claiming that black is white, in contradiction of the plain facts.” [4]
“To tell deliberate lies while genuinely believing in them, to forget any fact that has become inconvenient, and then when it becomes necessary again, to draw it back from oblivion for just so long as it is needed…” [5]"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Lie#_note-3
"Israeli Defence Minister Ehud Barak has been quoted by an Israeli newspaper as saying that a peace deal with the Palestinians anytime soon is 'fantasy.'"
-- from the article above
And who was an active promoter of such a fantasy, if not the brave and impressive warrior, and distinctly timid and unimpressive political leader, Ehud Barak? Who wanted to give away the store but was prevented from doing so at the last minute by Yassir Arafat? Who has given no signs, still, of understanding why it is that the surrender of territory, territory to which Israel has the best legal, moral, and historic claim, and territory which it must hold on to if it is to live in a state of difficult, but not utterly intolerable and maximum peril (which is what giving up control of any part of the "West Bank" would mean, control of the invasion routes through the heights of Judea, control of the aquifers -- control, period -- for the Israelis.
Of course "peace" as based on treaties with the Arabs is not merely a "fantasy" for now. It is and always will be a fantasy. You don't believe that? You just can't bring yourself to believe that because it is simply too upsetting? Tough. Go read about the Treaty of Al-Hudaibiyya. And then read what, for 1350 years, Muslims have made of the Treaty of Al-Hudiabiyya, and how deeply truly passionately they take the model of Muhammad, making his temporary bargain with the Meccans (in 628 A.D.) in order to buy time in which he and his followers could gain strength, to their Muslim hearts.
Unless and until the political leaders in Israel do the most obvious thing -- that is, find out about Islam, find out about what the texts -- Qur'an, Hadith, and Sira -- inculcate, what the model of Muhammad, uswa hasana, al-insan al-kamil, offers them now, unless they understand that the reason that every single agreement made between the Israelis and the Muslim Arabs have been, in ways little and big, been breached by the Muslim side, again and again and again, while the Isrealis always scrupulously fulfill their solemn undertakings and then are constantly amazed, surprised, taken aback -- how idiotic can they be? how stupid and uninformed about Islam will they, facing a permanent Jihad that does not disappear no matter what surrenders of territory they make? -- by the Muslim behavior. Were Israeli political figures not so mediocre, they would raise the issue, raise it openly. They would raise it among themselves, they would raise it with the Americans, they would raise it with the goddam "Quartet," they would bring their copies of Majid Khadduri's "War and Peace in Islam," they would quote from Muslim authorities setting out clearly the state of permanent war (though not necessarily open warfare on the battlefield) between Believers and Infidels, they would, in short, get the whole thing out in the open, instead of wilfully refusing to find out about this, confronting it, discussing it, holding it up for public inspection, and above all, forcing their enemies to publicly admit to, or publicly repudiate, the doctrine that Al-Hudabiyya represents.
This cannot be avoided if Israel is to survive. Does its political class have the desire or understanding of what it takes for that tiny, threatened, permanently imperiled country to survive? Peace can be maintained, but only if the doctrine of "Darura" (which google) is relied on: that is, the deterrence that prevents an Arab attack, because the Arabs and other Muslims will understand not only that Israel is more powerful, but that Israel will be overwhelmingly more powerful and will be capable of massively destroying its enemies, and will be willing to do. That will keep the peace. Nothing else will; all the rest is blague presented by those who don't want to, can't be bothered to, are too exhaused or stupid to, find out the truth and make policy accordingly. And so many others -- think Dennis Ross, Aaron Miller, Martin Indyk, Richard Hass -- all those shuttle diplomatists, negotiators, pretend "experts" on something they call the "Arab-Israeli" or perhaps the "Israeli-Palestinian" problem, and wish to perform the impossible task of dealing with, "solving" in fact, this "problem" (it isn't a "problem" to be "solved" but rather a condition to be recognized and dealt with as best one can, and the best way is to recognize and never forget that negotiations and treaties between Infidels and Believers mean nothing to the latter, or rather, are seen only as a tempoary expedient. Too many people have spent their professional lives dedicated to the proposition that they can engage in a soi-disant "Peace Process" involving Muslims, without actually bothering to find out what Muslims believe, what they have acted upon for more than a millennium, when it comes to treaties and treaty-making with Infidels, both those who were too powerlful to oppose, and those who turned out, after a while, not to be.
Hamlet without the Prince -- that's what all these Peace Processors are all about. Uneducated about Islam, and still defiantly, even proudly, a group of Yesterday's Men, they need to be mocked, and if possible, pushed out of all their present sinecures at assorted mighty-morph-rangers think-tanks where they are supported in fabulous style by donors who think, quite incorredctly that these are people devoted to the cause of Israel and of peace. They are neither, and they cannot be, as long as they persist in ignoring the centrality of Islam. They ought to be discharged, and replaced by those who do see the war against Israel, correctly, as a Lesser Jihad without end -- but, if the Israelis and the rest of the West, especially the United States, do not lose their heads and act with sufficient determination and understanding, a conflict that is not hopeless but perfectly manageable, just as is the Greater Jihad against Infidels all over the world, in Dar al-Harb, and within Dar al-Islam.
Israel's great miscalculation began when the 1948 War ended. It should have announced then that it wished to live in peace with its Arab neighbors, but that if the Arabs did not want to live in peace and recognize Israel and started wars against her, then Israel would annex land and expel Arab populations (not including, though, those Arabs who were already Israeli citizens) everytime Israel was victorious in conflict. Particularly after the Six-Day War in 1967 this would have been to the great benefit of Israel. After all, throughout history nations and peoples who have started wars and lost them have ordinarily lost territory and the right to live in that lost land. Just about the best example here is western Poland. It used to be eastern Germany. Never again.
Amazingly and virtually uniquely, the Arab world as a whole thinks it can start wars, lose them, not have to give up territory and still make demands. But then the Arabs have proved to be a burden to themselves and to everyone else as well for a long time now and think that the ordinarily tacitly understood rules of war and peace don't apply to them.
Israel is criticized by much of the world as being too harsh. The bitter irony here is that Israel hasn't been nearly harsh enough. The great mistake of the Israelis has been that they are too compassionate, though almost all the world doesn't see this.
OT
Here's were you can protest the decision by the mayor of Brussels to ban the 9/11 demonstration against the islamisation of Europe:
http://www.petitiononline.com/ulfkotte/petition.html
Now if we could get some of that thinking to rub off on our government. (wistful sigh)
This is a good sign! I hope the realization that civily dealing with these animals is truly a "fantasy" continues to spread and is soon recognized by 'the people in charge' in Israel, US, and UK. The sooner we wake up- the better off we'll be.
Barak played along with the "peace" charade so as not to piss off his American handlers. He knew it would come to nothing, but he had to stroke Clinton.
Posted by: Ynkedoodl2
---------------------------------
Ynkedoodl2,
I disagree. Barak decieved a lot of people, including the Palestinian Christians of the Galil who abandoned Likud to vote for him. But he wasn't smart enough to trick the Muslims.
Barak is directly responsible for a lot the the current problems that Israelis and Palestinian Christians face today. I wouldn't trust this statement as any sign that he's become less of a dhimmi. After all, he is the Labour defence minister in the current coalition government led by arch-dhimmi Ehud Olmert.
Ehud Barak and Ehud Olmert: If Israel were smart, they ban anyone named Ehud from ever holding office again.
exsgtbrown said
there would be no need for checkpoints if the world had not stopped Israel from taking care of business in 1967
Hugh said
If Israel had continued on to Cairo and Damascus in 1967, would that have ended the threat of Islam today? Once the IDF occupied Egypt and their other neighbors, what then?
The military response is not the only response to jihad, nor even the most effective response. This applies to us as well: we shouldn't expect that invading Iran to "save" the Iranians from their "few extremist leaders" will be a solution to jihad any more than it was in Iraq. What is needed is not a military intervention, what is needed is a philosophical change: an acceptance that not all religions teach the same values, that our values are worth protecting, that Islam's values are in direct conflict with our values, and that there are consequences for allowing Islam to flourish unexamined in our nations.
[Of course, there will always be a military component, focused strictly on removing the ability of jihad-supporting governments and groups to carry out jihad against us. But that component must not become subverted into a "nation-building" or "democracy-exporting" exercise as in Iraq and Afghanistan, and it must not be our only or our main response to jihad.]
The quoting above didn't quite work out. My response was directed at what exsgtbrown said.
"Israel's great miscalculation began when the 1948 War ended..."
-- from a posting above
In 1948 600,000 Jews, many of them survivors of the death camps, who had just barely managed to fend off the attacks of five Arab armies, three of them -- those of Egypt, Jordan, and Iraq -- armed by the British (who also vowed, or rather Ernest Bevin vowed, to attack the Jewish Haganah after five planes with British pilots working for the Arabs were shot down over the Negev), were trying merely to stay alive. Ben Gurion called a halt to the fighting, possibly too soon, before the entire area that at that time was certainly not known as the "West Bank," could be taken from the Arab Legion of the Jordanians. It was simply too much to do. But the fact that the Arabs conquered what they then proceeded to carefully re-name as "the West Bank" instead of what nowadays the ill-informed dismiss as the "Biblical" names of "Judea" and "Samaria" (true, they are names that appear in the Bible, and were used by Jesus, but does that mean they lack validity? The toponym "Gaza" is also Biblical, but it continued to be used by Egypt, which seized that area in 1948 -- should "Gaza" also therefore be declared an illegitimate placename because it is "biblical"? ).
No, it was too much to ask, and too much to expect.
But by June, 1967 the Israelis had, fantastically, managed to take in nearly a million refugees from all over North Africa and the Middle East and elsewhere in Asia, managed to help integrate them, to help take people who had sunk, in many cases, to almost the level of their Arab Muslim surroundings, who had been subjected in such places as Yemen to every sort of vocational and social humiliation (cleaning latrines was one of the occupations which Jews in Yemen were forced into), were raised from that level to one that put them far above their previous level in Dar al-Islam.
It was at that point, when the entire Western world, not yet having been subjected to the steady reframing of the conflict as one not of all the Arab (and many of the Muslim) states against tiny Israel, but rather the mighty state, the new Sparta, Israel, depicted not a as fighting for its life against overwhelming odds, but rather ruthlessly suppressing the members of that apparently present-since-time-immemorial "Palestinian people" (born in late 1067, and growing like Topsy ever since), that Israel should have acted.
In June 1967 it should have swiftly, and permanently, incorporated all of the "West Bank" into Israel. It should have said that that was it, period. It should have also said that it would hold onto Gaza, and would discuss with Egypt the repatriation to Egypt of many of the Arabs living in Gaza who, in fact, are a generation or two away from being Egyptians -- one should not forget the massive Arab immigration into Mandatory Palestine, an immigration larger than that of the Jews, for whose National Home the Mandate for Palestine was created. As to the Sinai, a buffer zone, it should have been held onto possibly for ever, or possibly offered to the Americans to build airbases smack in the middle of the Middle East that would have been impregnable (and if Nasser didn't like it, Nasser was in no position to do anything in June 1967 or later, nor was Saint Sadat). Of course, such an Israeli move would be this time have long been accepted by the world. As to the local Arabs, it is hardly a tragedy if somewhere in the world Muslim Arabs are a minority. After all, they everywhere are used to lording it over non-Muslims or non-Arab Muslims. And whether those non-Muslims are Jews (who hardly exist in the Muslim world anymore, having been driven out by pogroms and the constant threat of more pogroms), or Christians (Lebanese Maronites, Egyptian Copts, Orthodox and Protestant and Catholics of various ethnic background), or Hindus or Buddhists or the dwindling number of Zoroastrians or all kinds of others, such as the Bahais, or such non-Arab Muslims as the Berbers in Algeria, and Kurds in Iraq, and black African Muslims in Darfur. Why is it impossible for Arabs in the territories conquered by Israel, in a war prompted by Nasser and his hysterical Cairene crowds, and the war fever that spread all over the Arab countries in May and the first week of June, 1967, who already had a completely independent legal and historic claim to the "West Bank" based on the express terms of the Mandate for Palestine, a claim superior to all others -- why they didn't in June 1967 simply forget about the U.N. and achieving the wording of U.N. Resolution 242, forgotten about the U.N. altogether, and simply said that based on the Mandate's express provisions, based on all the rules of warfare hitherto obtaining (the same reasons that redrew the borders of Europe after World War I -- see the Alto Adige, formerly the Austrian Sudtirol, see the fate of East Prussia, see the boundaries and ethnic makeup of Hungary, Poland, Czechoslovakia, France, and so on), had a perfect right to do so.
That would, for the non-Muslm world, have avoided a lot of unnecesary "negotiating" and "peace processing." Arabs and Muslims know when they can press a point, and when they can't. They will press it whenever they can, and will adopt a different, smoother attitude, one of smiling or unsmiling, but still obvious, acquiescence when they are faced with a fait accompli.
The fait accompli was there, created by the spectacular bravey and intelligence of Israel's armed forces. Its political leaders, however, and its political class as a whole, failed to make clear to the Israelis themselves, much less to the outside world, two things: first, the precise nature of the legal, moral, and historic claim of the Israelis. Who today is indignant over what happened to the Alto Adige, which was 98% ethnic German when handed over by Austria to Italy after World War I? Aside, that is, from Eva Klotz, who today leads the ethnic German party demanding separation from Italy for the Alto Adige and, before her, W. Pfaendler, who as late as 1958 was publishing, from Vienna, books demanding the return of the "Sudtirol" to Austria? And far fewer today remember what the terms of the Mandate for Palestine were, or what the intent of that Mandate was, than were around in 1967, when the Israelis could and should have made their move to incorporate, permanently, at least, as an absolute minimum, the "West Bank."
Then, in June 1967, it could have been done far more easily. After forty decades of Arab propaganda designed to obscure the true nature of the promptings -- in Islam -- of the Arab refusal to accept Israel, and the Arab goal, shared by the Fast Jihadists of Hamas and the cleverer, but possibly, therefore, more menacing Slow Jihadists of Fatah, and by other Arabs, and by those non-Muslims who, perhaps temporarily, such as Turkey when the Kemalists were in power and Iran under the Shah, for Turks and Iranians also had a natural distaste for Arabs, and that distaste, even contempt, could and did make them more amenable to alliances of convenience with Israel. Now the determination to hold on, not for a "few years" (Barak's assumed time frame for when it will be "impossible to make peace" which naturally implies that after those few years, it will be possible to make a durable "peace").
A durable peace can be achieved only through reliance on Darura.
Let the echo be an aide-memoire: Durable Peace Through Darura.
Only thus.
Hugh said
Small but important typo: should be "1967".
Barak, despite some of his political blunders as PM, is also known for not making the same mistake twice.
Put simply...yes, he was the PM trying to do a peace accord with the terrorist arafat, giving him everything he wanted...save ONE: right of return.
Forget the fact that those uprooted in 1948 are almost all dead now, and the vast majority of these *ahem* palestinians-in-question who were NOT born in the original mandate areas anyway...
Barak balked at the scam "right of return", as the intent was crystal clear...live in Israel, outbreed the eeeevil joooooz, become a majority and eliminate the entire nation by the vote without firing a shot.
Barak knew it, the terrorist arafat knew it, and both knew the other knew it for what it was...a long-term trojan horse.
Barak balked at this, and the narcissistic terrorist arafat went berserk screaming "obstructionism" on the part of the "eeeeeevil jooooooz" and the second insurrection they call "intifada" started using bogus and outright fraudulent means, when it fact, the terrorists started it themselves and simply blamed their enemies, those very same eeeeeeevil jooooooozzzz.
Yep, Barak's right...it IS fantasy, but best to let the scenario play out to force the terrorists hand...go through the motions of peacemaking: if the terrorists DO accept it, it changes the whole equation (forget it, not gonna happen anyway), but if they don't accept the generosity and start attacking their enemies that, supposedly, are trying to do a peace deal, then those very same "Oh, durka durka! we're being persecuted by the eeeevil joooozzzzz!" terrorists will be forced to attack without some excuse (which they're notorious for trying to secure before attacks, so they "appear" justified), thus losing any support from the rest of the world, which makes a huge deal to them...and it seems, the world, too.
It's a mental chess match...and Barak's slapping the terrorists egos, right-in-the-face.
lol
"Hugh said
"Palestinian people" (born in late 1067
Small but important typo: should be "1967".
-- from a posting above by "special_guest"
special_guest:
Thank you for the annual update. I will now add 900 years to the original figure, a product of clumsy doigtage reflective no doubt of my dotage: "1067" when I meant to write "1967."
Call it a case of "1067 and All That." I've always wanted to do Yeatman and Sellar one better; now, at long last, I have.
I'm not one to quibble over mipsellings and the like, especially in this case. It's a little like criticising the punctuation on the Ten Commandments tablet. But leaving anyone with the impression that the "Palestinians" are any more ancient than my first car would cause dommage to anyone's dotage. Speaking of which, it's time I had another slice of gateux.
Israel has a mean lean fighting machine if....America and Europe stop tying their hand's! Never turn your back on Israel!!!
And for all you Muslims who read this. Israel is the apple of God's eye....do no harm to them or you answer to a Mighty Powerful God...and you want like His wrath!