Posted by: Fred ||
02/10/2005 00:00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[11130 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Lol! Ah, Arab Times logic. Unidentified "US experts" say it's hard and bad and, um, did we mention bad? How about hard? And now Blair has been ensnared just like the evil Bush by the nefarious Jooo neocons in his administration and the reasonable Iranian Mullahs are stymied by the intransigent US Terrorists and the sky is falling and life as we know it - a stable Middle East (lol!) - is imperiled!
PAUL LOCKYER: One of America's most outspoken critics of past Middle East peace deals is pessimistic about the ability of the Palestinian Authority to control violence in the wake of the proclaimed ceasefire. no! no! this time it's different because, um, I'll have to get back to you on that.
Dr Daniel Pipes is the director of the think tank the Middle East Forum and was nominated by President George W. Bush to the United States Institute of Peace in 2003.
Dr Pipes says the Palestinian Authority under Mahmoud Abbas is playing for time by agreeing to the ceasefire because it hasn't given up the idea of destroying Israel.
Daniel Pipes is speaking to Hamish Fitzsimmons.
DANIEL PIPES: The new leadership on the Palestinian side is saying violence hasn't worked, terrorism has been counterproductive, we are going backwards rather than forwards as a result of it, so it's time to stop it. and yet he STILL needs to convince the palis of that
In other words it's a tactical decision, and it's a correct tactical decision, but it's merely a tactical decision, it's not saying that we accept Israel and we're going to live in harmony with Israel. It's saying violence at this time is counterproductive.
HAMISH FITZSIMMONS: But given the rapidity that this deal was reached after Mr Abbas gaining control over the Palestinian Authority, do you think that signals that he is serious about peace?
DANIEL PIPES: He is serious. He has been talking for two-and-a-half years about the need to end the violence, and so it's not surprising that he's made this his first priority. Whether he can actually clamp down on violence is one question, and then what his purposes are is another question. actually, there's no question about it. he CAN'T clamp down on violence
I believe his purpose is in order to get more benefits from the Israelis in order to be stronger to fight them later on. I mean, it's purely tactical. I've heard this argument before. But I'm not sure how they would ever expect to "fight the Israelis later on." With their own pali state, Israel would no longer be fighting terrorism - it would be fighting another nation, with the rules of war more clearly articulated. Bombing cities would be acceptable. And palis would never be able to build a fighting force like Israel has. Am I missing something?
HAMISH FITZSIMMONS: Is your sense of pessimism shared by many in the US, and particularly in the Bush administration?
DANIEL PIPES: No, there is a widespread feeling of elation that the logjam has broken, Arafat is out of the way, there's real progress.
In other words, the consensus approach is that the Palestinians have accepted Israel, and now it's just a matter of getting the circumstances correct, getting the mood right, getting the deals in place, and everything will follow.
And my conclusion from the Oslo round of diplomacy between 1993 and 2000 is that it's a more profound problem. In other words, the general view is that Oslo didn't work. Everyone agrees it didn't work. But the reasons are rather superficial — Arafat's personality, not paying enough attention to public opinion, Israelis increasing their presence on the West Bank.
But I don't see those as so important. I see what really is important is a reluctance on the Palestinian side to give up the long-held dream of destroying Israel. THAT is true, no matter what happens
PAUL LOCKYER: Middle East commentator Daniel Pipes speaking to Hamish Fitzsimmons.
#2
The Paleo government has to crackdown on and disarm the militants and I see no sign of that occuring. Unless and until that happens, this is going nowhere. Its just wishful thinking.
#3
PlanetDan, Abbas has long believed that the Palestinians can peacefully destroy Israel using two weapons:
1. Population: Palestinian wives used to produce 7-9 children each. The number has now dropped to about 2.5, or about the same as Israeli wives, but the Palestinians haven't acknowledged the drop. But with the previous high population growth, Abbas planned to simply crowd the Jews off the map.
2. International pressure: Much of the world automatically supports the Palestinians over Israel. Every time. Regardless of the issue. Abbas is counting on this world pressure to overcome U.S. support of Israel, and to force the Israelis to sign on to increasingly deleterious Accords and Processes and... until slice by slice like a salami (Arafat's image, actually) they allow themselves to be negotiated out of existence.
#5
Pipes sounds awfully pessimistic here, but I see where he's coming from. If Abbas is being as half-assed as Pipes thinks he is regarding a long-term peace with Israel, he might have a reason for it other than hoping to lay low until they can push Israel into the sea. It is also possible that Abbas didn't want to go too far in proposing long-term peace in order to save face within the larger Arab world.
That being said, my money is on Pipes anyway.
Posted by: Chris W. ||
02/10/2005 22:01 Comments ||
Top||
#6
Am I missing something?
With their own state, the Palestinians also control their own trade, import/export, embassies, seat at the UN, etc.. Everything any other terrorist-state can do with little interference.
#1
I dunno. For evangelicals to take an interest in this sort of theology demands that that take more interest in theology in general. This runs contrary to recent trends. See this about Wolfe's book or the Internet Monk.
Posted by: James ||
02/10/2005 15:34 Comments ||
Top||
#2
The thrust of his argument strengthens my often-stated view that the United States represents a radical discontinuity with Western civilization - that is, with the blend of Greek philosophy and Hebrew ethics created by the Catholic Church - but rather represents a Hebraic throwback. (Which Spengler for some reason refers to as the Judaizing heresy.)snip
Conclusion: No one is more astonished at the mass of political analysis devoted to them than US evangelicals themselves, who busy themselves with school board elections, recovery from substance abuse, supporting troubled families, and other worthy ventures. Evangelical Christianity is not a political movement, quite unlike the 17th-century Protestant Separatism that set out to found a New Israel. The present "Great Awakening" cares about pornographic fare on cable television, not elections in Afghanistan.
Not since Abraham Lincoln has the United States felt itself to be a "nearly chosen" people, with a religious mission like that of ancient Israel. The US may stand at the threshold of a religious self-awareness in Lincoln's mold. I have read Wyschogrod's new book with astonishment, and espy a chance that the US might return to the world view of its founders: that of a Chosen People in a Promised Land. If that occurs, the world will be a different place.
I think the U.S. is the first Western country to incorporate its morality, as opposed to its religion, consistently as a motivator in national policy. Theology is not the issue, right v. wrong is. Other than that, Spengler often gets America very wrong, in very annoying ways. This might be one of those stopped clock/twice a day things...
#1
But Hanna saved his most extreme rhetoric for his sermon of January 19, 2003 -- the Orthodox Epiphany:
"Palestine is from the (Mediterranean) sea to the (Jordan) river. We emphatically refuse any concession on (even) a grain of the land of our precious homeland. Just as Ramallah, Gaza, Nablus, and Jenin are Palestinian cities, so are Haifa, Nazareth, Jaffa, Ramle, Lod, Beersheba, Safed, and others Palestinian cities.
"The Zionist Jews are foreigners in this land. They have no right to live or settle in it. They should go somewhere else in the world to establish their state and their false entity."
These citations only enforce my suspicion that literal religionists are dangerous to this world. These folks are so obsessed with maps of centuries ago, that if their theory were carried out, few countries today would have recognizable borders--bringing anarchy to the world. A call for anarchy is a call for murder and untimely death-this, from a man of God. And with this numbskull's statements, we can see it's not just the Islamicists doing it. Hanna wants to punish the grandchildren of people 80 generations back for Jesus' death. This "sins of the father shall be visited upon the sons..." crap has got to end in our time.
Can't people be religious and live in the now at the same time?
#2
the greek orthodox in Palestine have traditionally been friendly to secular arab nationalism, as those in Syria and Lebanon have been friendly to Greater Syrian nationalism, and hostile to Maronite aspirations to an independent Lebanon. This has something to do with the way the Greek Orthodox are spread geographically, if I remember my Daniel Pipes (Greater Syria, The History of an Ambition) rightly. Probably has very little to do with the substance of Orthodox Christianity.
#3
There's the conspiracist theory I've heard, which says that some are intentionally pushing forward an alliance between Arabs and Orthodox against all Western elements.
Then there's *my* theory, which says that the Greek Orthodox Church and most of its bishops are simply corrupt and villainous to the bone and would ally themselves with any fascist, any racist, any tyrant as long as it gives them the tiniest of advantages. There's never been a dictator they've not liked.
#5
Aris, are there any examples that you are aware of regarding your theory? Don't get me wrong, I agree with you, just ... it would be nice to have some data. (GOC behavior in WWII may provide some background, perhaps).
#7
I figured that you had different points of view in at least one regard (religion in general), but I was thanking you both mostly because your background in the history of the area is far better than mine, I think.
#8
Aris, are there any examples that you are aware of regarding your theory? Don't get me wrong, I agree with you, just ... it would be nice to have some data. (GOC behavior in WWII may provide some background, perhaps).
I'm not familiar with what the Greek Orthodox Church did back then. Moreover the situation then is not so clear-cut, because the Greek government of the time (even if fighting on the side of the Allies) was also ruled by a dictator, Metaxas.
But as just a hint of the stench of corruption that exists atleast now, here's some (relatively recent) accusations for assasination plots in the Jerusalem Patriarchate:
http://www.ekathimerini.com/4dcgi/_w_articles_politics_100010_06/05/2003_29291/
Whether this is assassination, or merely slander of assassination, you can see what atleast one of two top bishops there is willing to do to the other.
Even more recently, this past weeks, the scandals of corruption enfolding the church: http://www.ekathimerini.com/4dcgi/_w_articles_politics_100004_05/02/2005_52630
I had made a brief reference to the situation recently in my livejournal.
For my claims regarding their support of dictators, I'd have to dig back far further and pick you phrases of bishops exonerating various tyrants' supposedly patriotic virtues, and the more general support for all sort of nationalistic/imperialistic causes. That'd be a rather more time-consuming task and I don't have the time now.
#9
Aris:
I am certain you know a lot more about this sort of thing than I do, but aren't you painting the Greek Orthodox church with a rather wide brush? Surely there are "good" and "bad" high ranking church officials.
#10
Aris, thanks. No rush on the "phrases of bishops exonerating various tyrants' supposedly patriotic virtues" and such. Just when you stumble across it, I am sure it may be an interestng theme for a post here.
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
