“Thus, according to Buchanan, the Oslo “peace process” was derailed, not by Arafat and his endless parade of suicide bombers, but by Israel and her American Jewish supporters.”

The death-knell was officially signaled for the Oslo Accords on September 28, 2000 by Ariel Sharon when he casually strolled by the al-Haram al-Sharif, Jerusalem’s holiest Islamic shrine. This event provoked outrage among Palestinians and occurred several months after Arafat had rejected the Camp David offer, which would have placed Jerusalem (and the holy Islamic sites contained therein) under the sovereignty of Israel. This, as well as the expansion of illegal Israeli settlements under Netanyahu, contributed to the derailment of the Oslo Accords.

Yes, Telos, it was the stroll that launched a thousand suicide bombers.
For me, likable and often right that Buchanan is, Siding with scum like Arafat and co. shows his true, anti-Semitic colors, for Arafat is inimical to anything like American, or Western, or even just plain humane values. In any civilized world, Arafat would have been squashed like the cockroach he is ages ago. And Israel would have been given the green light to deal with the threat to their existence which the Pals are.

“Yes, Telos, it was the stroll that launched a thousand suicide bombers.”

Most Palestinians viewed Sharon’s stroll as a desecration of the al-Haram al-Sharif. Things had reached a boiling point by the end of the subsequent day when Palestinians, who had been prevented from praying at that sacred site, were massacred, thus triggering the second Intifada. I thought this was common knowledge.

Thanks to Telos for letting us know where he’s really coming from. Telos ought to read the detailed account that U.S. negotiator Dennis Ross gave on Fox News Sunday, April 21, 2002,
http://www.counterrevolution.net/vfr/archives/001269.html
about what happened at the Israel-Palestinian summit in the White House in January 2001, months AFTER the terror intifada had begun. Barak, strongly backed by Clinton, offered Arafat 97 percent of the West Bank which would have been a contiguous area not divided by Israel-controlled roads; Barak offered, incredibly, that Israeli forces would pull back from the Jordan Valley; Barak offered, incredibly, to build an elevated highway going over the center of Israel connecting Gaza with the West Bank so that Palestinians wouldn’t have to drive through Israeli check points. Arafat turned it down cold and continued the terror. After that, even Clinton turned against Arafat. Then Sharon the supposed war-monger was elected, but instead of taking strong actions he let a whole year pass while the suicide bombings continued and escalated. He didn’t take strong action against the West Bank to uproot the terrorst networks until the end of March, 2002, which, by the way, was the very moment that Buchanan chose to attack the coalition government of Israel as the “mirror image of Hamas and Hezbolah.”

Anyone who says, after all these well-known events have occurred, that it was Israel that destroyed the Oslo process, is either indefeasably ignorant or an unregenerate hater of Israel. I see no other logical possibilities.

All of the land west of the Jordan river belongs to the Jewish people until the end of time. There is no such thing as a “palestinian” people or nation, this idea is a con created by the surrounding Muslim states to justify warmongering against God’s people. Israel should anexx the “West Bank” and “Gaza”, and destroy the heathen blasphemy that has been built on the site of the Holy Temple.

Telos says:

“The death-knell was officially signaled for the Oslo Accords on September 28, 2000 by Ariel Sharon when he casually strolled by the al-Haram al-Sharif, Jerusalem’s holiest Islamic shrine. This event provoked outrage among Palestinians and occurred several months after Arafat had rejected the Camp David offer, which would have placed Jerusalem (and the holy Islamic sites contained therein) under the sovereignty of Israel. This, as well as the expansion of illegal Israeli settlements under Netanyahu, contributed to the derailment of the Oslo Accords.”

1) Sharon’s “stroll” was not a provocation. Palestinian Arabs later admitted that, knowing of his visit in advance, they used it as a pretext for the ensuing demonstrations.
2)When Jordan occupied Jerusalem and Judea and Samaria (called The West Bank) after it and other Arab countries invaded Israel the day after it declared its independence, it proceeded to desecrate all synagogues and churches. When Israel recaptured those sites, it immediately gave Christians and Muslims the right to build and rebuild their houses of worship. Israel is the only country in the Middle East with freedom of religion. The idea that Arafat rejected the offer because it would have placed holy Muslim sites under Israeli control is imaginative and original; of course, truth is another matter.
3) Israeli towns in Judea and Samaria aren’t illegal. What nation does Telos believe exercises sovereignty over Judea and Samaria by international law?
3) As for derailment of the Oslo Accords, the PA has violated every promise it made in them. Israel has abided by all its commitments.

The above statements are verifiable by publicly available news and official government documents; half an hour of googling can call them up.

Correction to my 12:15 post: I said Israel is the only country in the Middle East with freedom of religion: Turkey also has freedom of religion.

Actually, Frieda, I think your first assertion was more accurate. While Turkey officially has freedom of religion, the Turkish regime has systematically expelled, murdered, and destroyed the small remnant of Christians living there - though this could have an ethnic basis, as the Christians tended be come from the Greek and Armenian minorities.

In fairness, Robert Novak zings (preempts?) Frum in the same issue. And I believe Novak is a Jewish convert to Catholicism. That’s what I seem to recall. In an article titled the Axis of Ego he writes:

http://www.amconmag.com/03_24_03/review.html

For much of this book, Frum seems disengaged from Bush’s policies. He refers to the president’s “energy plan fiasco,” calling it “an incoherent mess” and a “pseudoscandal.” He contends Bush “could never quite bring himself to deny that climate change was very likely real and man-made.” He says of Bush’s faith-based initiative, “instead of drawing new people to the Republican Party, it had repelled them.” Prior to Sept. 11, 2001, writes Frum,

I began avoiding parties where I expected the questions [of Bush’s capacity for the presidency] to be posed too persistently by conservative friends, for I was not sure I would know how to answer.

But after the terrorist attack on America, Frum sees Bush in a new light —as “the right man” to lead the nation. The sophisticated, detached journalist becomes the ardent advocate of carrying the war to Iraq and supporting Israel’s position. The wisecracking outsider who belittles his White House colleagues becomes a fervent supporter of Israel’s Prime Minister Ariel Sharon.

While Frum calls himself “a not especially observant Jew,” he repeatedly refers to his Jewishness. It is hard to recall any previous presidential aide so engrossed with his own ethnic roots. Frum is more uncompromising in support of Israel that any other issue, raising the inescapable question of whether this was the real reason he entered the White House.

Frum is objectionable in numerous ways, from his neoconservative ideology to his personal opportunism, and if the anonymous poster does a search at VFR he will find several articles in which I criticize Frum. But nothing that the poster has pointed to is relevant to Frum’s “J’accuse” against Buchanan and the anti-war right, which I happen to think is spot on. While the link to the Frum piece is in my article above, I’ll reproduce the text of his “J’accuse” here:

“We charge that a cabal of writers who misuse the title of ‘conservatives’ are rallying to defend an Iraqi dictator who has waged war on American allies, attempted to assassinate an American president, fired on American aircraft, and who is now arming to threaten Americans with mass murder.

“We charge them with making common cause with left-wing radicals and radical Islamists, former communists and other people who hate the United States—all in order to prematurely halt the war on terror and preserve the Iraqi dictator’s rule.

“We charge them with forgetting George Washington’s warning in his Farewell Address against ‘habitual hatred’ for any nation—and instead allowing their unreasoning loathing of the Jewish state to lead them into what Washington condemned as a ‘passionate attachment’ to Baathist Iraq.

“We charge them with disregarding their wartime duty to lay aside their prejudices and resentments for the sake of the common good. We charge them with attempting to undermine a conservative Republican president in a moment of national emergency. We charge them with acting as excuse-makers for America’s enemies. We charge them with failing to put America first.”

To get back to Buchanan (remember him?): there is a passage in his essay that deserves comment: “We charge them [a cabal of polemicists and public officials] with deliberately damaging U. S. relations with every state in the Arab world that defies Israel or supports the Palestinian people’s right to a homeland of their own.”

1) He’s said many times over the years that the Palestinian people have become or are becoming a nation, clearly implying that he’s prepared to concede that their nationality is a recent acquisition. And a good thing, too, since the vast majority of Arabs in Judea, Samaria, and the east bank of the Jordan are descendants of Egyptian, Syrian, Iraqi, and Jordanian immigrants into what became Israel in 1948. In her indispensable book FROM TIME IMMEMORIAL, Joan Peters proves with copious documentation that the whole area was largely empty until Jewish pioneers joined the indigenous Jewish population to develop agriculture, fruit-growing, and industry. These Jews created an economy that attracted Arabs from the surrounding countries. Therefore the claim that the Arabs had been there “from time immemorial” is false.

2) Whether or not Buchanan will admit the above facts, he says that right now the Palestinian Arabs are a nation. Again, that’s not true. Arabs boast that they’re one nation wherever they live, defined primarily by their religion and history going back to Muhammad in Arabia. Arafat, the leader of this supposed nation, is an Egyptian. The Arabs now have (I think) 22 nations. It’s supremely important to Buchanan that they get #23. Someone recently said that, if you visualize the Arab Middle East as a football field, then look at one edge near the fifty-yard line and you’ll see a matchbook; that’s Israel.

3) What is this right to “a homeland of their own”? When did Buchanan convert to Woodrow Wilson’s doctrine of self-determination? He should have given us some notice, to reduce the shock. And where is it written that that homeland must be where Arafat & Co. say, and not in, say, Jordan, which is walking distance from the east bank and is mostly “Palestinian” anyhow?

4) The rage, anger, fury discernible in every line of Buchanan’s essay raise another question: when’s the last time we observed those emotions in his writings? Was it when Islamists rampaged through Algerian villages butchering men, women, and children with axes? Was it when Ivorian rebels, some not yet in their teens, invaded villages and murdered every inhabitant? Was it when hundreds of people jumped from the World Trade Center to their deaths to escape being burned alive? Alas, the list can be extended, but the point has been made.

Laurence Auster asks:
“I ask you, what sort of person would claim that Israel destroyed the “peace process,” unless he were a total ignoramus, or an ideological leftist, or a Muslim/Arab, or (if he fits none of the above three categories) a crazed hater of Israel and of Jews?”

“A crazed hater of Israel and of Jews”? Or A crazed hater of …Jews? No one, in all honesty, could possibly think Pat Buchanan fits this discription or any of the others listed. So the choice must be ‘other’.

And my answer for ‘other’ is: someone, like Pat, who approaches the issue of Israel honestly, and without letting emotions get in the way.

Minor correction to my previous post: Where I said “east bank” of the Jordan, I erred; it should be “west bank.” Sorry.

BTW, I can’t believe that anyone could contend that Buchanan “approaches the issue of Israel honestly, and without letting emotions get in the way.” Oh, I just noticed it’s F. Salzer; I now believe it. The only sort of person who sees no raging emotion in Buchanan’s screed is someone who shares it.

frieda,

“Raging emotion”?? I always write with a smile and never let my emotions get in the way.

I just happen to think that BOTH the Palestinians and Israel are culpable for the horific situation over there. I find the lack of charity on both sides very distasteful, and neither side appears to be the least bit willing to act in a civilized and prudent manner.

Do you find either side civil? or prudent? or not culpable?

And why should I, or anyone, impute good motives into the mass murdering Sharone or Arafat. They are no different that then the suicide bombers.

If you want to know whats wrong over there, just look at who both side elected to represent them, Cold blooded Killers.

Buchanan and his defenders always claim that it isn’t about the Jews; it’s about Israel. Well, here’s a thought to chew on: Suppose the majority of the population of that tiny country were…hmmm, oh, Southern Baptists. Would Buchanan ever write one sentence about its conflicts with local Arabs? Oh, do I hear you say, “But if they were Southern Baptists they wouldn’t be having that conflict with the local Arabs”? But wait; do you really want to say that?

Answering frieda’s questions:
It makes no difference to me whether it is Southern Baptists or Jews, it is the State of Israel which is acting reprehensibly.

But it does appear to make a great deal of difference to the defenders of Israel that it is Jews and not Southern Baptists. They’re the ones who can’t get past the Jewish aspect.

I suspect Pat Buchanan sees it the same way.

“J’Accuse, Sort Of
You never know where you’re going to find anti-Semitic propaganda.”
By Michael Kinsley

“you shouldn’t brag about how influential you are if you want to get hysterically indignant when someone suggests that government policy is affected by your influence.”

http://slate.msn.com/id/2080027/

Is quoting Michael Kinsley on VFR a right-wing version of the unprincipled exception? :-)

Matt,
What is an “unprincipled exception”

“Is quoting Michael Kinsley on VFR a right-wing version of the unprincipled exception? :-)”

Because liberalism is fundamentally self-contradictory, in order to get by in actual reality liberals are forced to make unprincipled exceptions to their own world view. Mr. Auster first formalized the expression here:

http://www.counterrevolution.net/vfr/archives/000619.html

My comment was essentially a wisecrack to the effect that when invoked by a trad Michael Kinsley is a walking unprincipled exception (to the trad), thus the smiley :-) (though as always it loses something in the explaining).

“Buchanan and his defenders always claim that it isn’t about the Jews; it’s about Israel. Well, here’s a thought to chew on: Suppose the majority of the population of that tiny country were … hmmm, oh, Southern Baptists. Would Buchanan ever write one sentence about its conflicts with local Arabs? Oh, do I hear you say, ‘But if they were Southern Baptists they wouldn’t be having that conflict with the local Arabs’? But wait; do you really want to say that?”

Frieda, that was an extremely deep, insightful, and instructive “thought-experiment” you outlined there. I recognized that the instant I laid eyes on it yesterday and I’m still digesting its implications and its educational value. I hope to sort those out in my mind enough to post a comment on it soon.

Here are some things to ask yourselves:

Did Buchanan write anything that is factually incorrect . Did the Israelis not attack the Liberty repeatedly? Did they not recruit Pollard? Did Perle not do work for Netanyahu? Did the PNAC not call for war against Iraq long before 9/11? Where is Pat lying?

Surely these things are easily checkable. We are not talking Protocols stuff here. We are talking publicly available information.

Therefore it is not the facts that so upset some people at this forum, it is the way Buchanan puts them together. Now, I could possibly agree that Pat puts too much emphasis on the Israeli angle. Some neocon imperialists are just plain for war anywhere. (See Max Boot’s works , or Rober Kagan’s.) Many of the neocons he mentions are “Catholic”, like Bill Bennett. Nevertheless, it would be silly to deny that some very influential members of the punditry and the administration do have long term and close ties with Israel. These ties undoubtedly influence their world views.

Personally I would like to see Pat write another piece about the goy warmongers in the admin. After all, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rove all seem motivated by sheer power or the desire to stay in office by keeping America in permanent war fever. Compared to these guys, the Likudniks’ motivations seem almost honorable.

Mr. Young writes: “Personally I would like to see Pat write another piece about the goy warmongers in the admin. After all, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rove all seem motivated by sheer power or the desire to stay in office by keeping America in permanent war fever. Compared to these guys, the Likudniks’ motivations seem almost honorable.”

Well, I guess we’ve just heard from the “moderate” anti-war right. To the “extreme” anti-war right, like Buchanan, the war is driven by Israel and Jews. To the “moderate” anti-war right, like Mr. Young, it’s driven not by Jews and Israel but by “goy warmongers” motivated by “sheer power or the desire to stay in office by keeping America in permanent war fever.” The one element common to the “moderate” and “extreme” anti-war right is the refusal or inability to engage in this vital national debate other than on the level of ad hominem attacks.

Frieda’s question of how Buchanan would react if the population of Israel were Baptists instead of Jews is very apt. I’d like to vary the thought experiment slightly. Let’s say there was a small, majority Christian, European country, “A,” that was threatened with utter extinction by a combination of a terrorist minority Muslim population and a group of powerful Muslim-controlled neighbors (not an impossible scenario in the not-distant future). Let’s say that Buchanan, for reasons of America’s national interest, declared that we must not involve ourselves with this European conflict. One could imagine him making this argument: “We have nothing against the people of ‘A,’ but this is a European conflict that we cannot resolve and that will only bring great harm on ourselves. If ‘A’ is destroyed, that is very regrettable, but it’s just not our business.” While one might disagree very strongly with that argument, it would still be a rational and honest argument. Buchanan would just be saying “hands off, period.”

However, what would be impossible to imagine would be Buchanan demonizing “A,” continually using language designed to create hostility and loathing against “A,” attacking “A” whenever it strikes back against unendurable terrorist attacks, and describing “A” and its American sympathizers as a sinister cabal seeking to spill American blood solely for the benefit of “A.” It would be hard to imagine Buchanan’s face growing bloated and reddened with rage when he discussed “A” on television talk shows. Yet this is the way he talks about the Jewish state and her American Jewish supporters.

In short, as I’ve said before, I see no rational explanation for Buchanan’s attitudes and statements about Israel, other than a profound animus against Jews.

This doesn’t mean he dislikes all Jews as individuals. It means a hostility to Jews as a people, and the need to find opportunities to express that hostility.

“Buchanan and his defenders always claim that it isn’t about the Jews; it’s about Israel. Well, here’s a thought to chew on: Suppose the majority of the population of that tiny country were … hmmm, oh, Southern Baptists. Would Buchanan ever write one sentence about its conflicts with local Arabs? Oh, do I hear you say, ‘But if they were Southern Baptists they wouldn’t be having that conflict with the local Arabs’? But wait; do you really want to say that?”

Frieda, this is irrelevant but I’m willing to play. I only ask you follow your own line of reasoning and ask: If that scenario were true, then would any of the neocons write about Israel either, particularly the Jewish ones?

As for Frum’s “j’accuse”: it’s pure hubris and, as such, deserves no response which would give it any credence. Out of morbid curiosity, in Frum’s piece I counted:

4 Mistakes of fact
4 Rather obvious strawmen
3 Instances of hypocrasy
2 False appeals
and 2 lies by omission

It would profit traditionalists if Pat (and traditionalists) would succumb to a prolonged, co-moderated, written or oral, no-spin cross-examination about the objections many have to Pat’s statements about the Israeli/Arab conflict or about other traditionalist issues. FrontPage Magazine does something slightly similar but uses too many parties and no interrogator/cross-examiner. The problem with most debates is the debaters are usually allowed to speak irrelevancies at length, to mislead, to lie, or most frequently, to change the subject. The cross-examiner and the co-moderators (also intellectuals, with at least one a skilled cross-examiner) would provide a formidable intellectual challenge to any gifted intellectual. Of course, Pat could have his own representative to help Pat rehabilitate any stupid comments. Clearly this would be a trial or sorts, but it could have a friendly, academic tone.

For example, one issue must be, “Why did Pat use the word cabal when talking about a conspiracy between the Jews of Israel and others?”

A high probability is this word was used to hurt, to strike back. It is a word that has been used historically to justify persecution of Jews. Here is a recently televised example of an ugly strike on Pat. Probably the attack was before Pat’s questionable article was printed. James Rosen (a Fox national news television reporter) crudely attacked Pat before Pat’s peers. (Hopefully all traditionalists have Fox as their main source of television news and know of Mr. Rosen.) The attack was televised on C-span within the last few weeks. The attack was at a gathering that could have been months earlier or live. It was some kind of media gathering, and Mr. Rosen was trying and failing to act as a stand-up comedian. He identified himself as a Jew and said he passes Pat several times a day in the lobby of a building several television networks share. He thought it amusing that if one day when passing Pat, he would say, “Nazi see you” (instead of nice to see you). Then again, maybe Pat and Mr. Rosen are friendly and Pat thought this was hilarious.

Pat might have a rational, academic justification (possibly based on history or on the original meaning of the word or both) for using cabal. Pat is very knowledgeable about history and seems heavily influenced by the empirical evidence of history. (For example, see http://www.theamericancause.org/patwhythefrenchbehave.htm, Pat’s interesting hypothesis about why the usually tiresome French nation is acting the way it is acting.) Moreover, Pat does not call for the abolition of Israel or the death of Israelis or of Jews. Pat many times has said he supports a Jewish state. He was a strong advocate of Nixon’s use of the huge C-5 Galaxies to transport heavy tanks to Israel at a critical moment in the Yom Kippur War. So writing Pat off as a Nazi or other nonhuman is unjustified (not that the editors here have done so).

Perhaps Pat is a courageous intellectual, a being that could be enormously helpful in but mostly absent from the major media, ergo this wonderful Website. Instead of creatively restating the liberal or neoconservative line, Pat (like a naïve child or a scientist) thinks out loud, which everyone knows often leads to embarrassment. The pseudonyms this author and many of the commentators here use are used to avoid such embarrassment. But Pat chugs along nevertheless and, to his detriment, can’t resist his pugnacious temperament.

This is not an endorsement of Pat’s views on the Israeli-Arab conflict or as a comprehensive thumbs-down on his views. This author would need much more study of the conflict before an endorsement or a greater criticism could be attempted.

Mr Auster wrote:

“Telos ought to read the detailed account that U.S. negotiator Dennis Ross gave on Fox News Sunday, April 21, 2002”

The second Intifada occurred several months prior to this peace offer — which, by the way, contained no guarantee that Israel would dismantle illegal Jewish settlements in the West Bank, no guarantee that the al-Haram al-Sharif would be removed from Israeli administrative control, and no guarantee that would give the Palestinians ALL of the west bank and Gaza, not 90-whatever percent — which you readily concede. The second Intifada, and not Arafat’s rejection of this offer, effectively ended what remained of the Oslo Accords. So Buchanan was correct.

Also, the “right of return” contained in the offer was a raw deal, since the land the Palestinians were originally displaced from was not the land offered in the deal.

“Anyone who says, after all these well-known events have occurred, that it was Israel that destroyed the Oslo process, is either indefeasably ignorant or an unregenerate hater of Israel. I see no other logical possibilities.”

In another thread, a poster linked Catholicism with the Nazi genocide of the Jews, yet you refrained from using such emotionally charged language towards this individual as this. In other words, thank you for letting me know where YOU’RE coming from.

Frieda:

“1) Sharon’s ‘stroll’ was not a provocation.”

If the presence of someone who symbolizes Israeli state terror spanning several decades and who claimed his purpose for visiting that site was to demonstrate “Jewish sovereignty,” was not to incite violence, then pray tell, what was it for?

“Palestinian Arabs later admitted that, knowing of his visit in advance, they used it as a pretext for the ensuing demonstrations.”

You don’t think Sharon knew his visit would incense Palestinians but went ahead with it anyway?

“When Jordan occupied Jerusalem and Judea and Samaria (called The West Bank) after it and other Arab countries invaded Israel the day after it declared its independence, it proceeded to desecrate all synagogues and churches. When Israel recaptured those sites, it immediately gave Christians and Muslims the right to build and rebuild their houses of worship. Israel is the only country in the Middle East with freedom of religion. The idea that Arafat rejected the offer because it would have placed holy Muslim sites under Israeli control is imaginative and original; of course, truth is another matter.”

This is not an argument.

“Israeli towns in Judea and Samaria aren’t illegal. What nation does Telos believe exercises sovereignty over Judea and Samaria by international law?”

The settlements are constructed on land illegally seized by Israel after the 1967 war. They are a direct violation of U.N. Security Council Resolution 446, which states the settlements “have no legal validity and constitute a serious obstruction to achieving a comprehensive, just and lasting peace.”

“As for derailment of the Oslo Accords, the PA has violated every promise it made in them. Israel has abided by all its commitments.”

Bald assertion.

Frieda:

“Buchanan and his defenders always claim that it isn’t about the Jews; it’s about Israel. Well, here’s a thought to chew on: Suppose the majority of the population of that tiny country were…hmmm, oh, Southern Baptists. Would Buchanan ever write one sentence about its conflicts with local Arabs? Oh, do I hear you say, “But if they were Southern Baptists they wouldn’t be having that conflict with the local Arabs”? But wait; do you really want to say that?”

All this might prove is that Buchanan is a hypocrite, not that he’s wrong about Israel. Thus, your argument is fallacious.

When Telos started posting at VFR not long ago, he gave the impression of being a little more reasonable than some other paleo-whatevers, and I tried replying reasonably to some of his questions. Now he reveals himself as being on the level of a Palestinian seeking the destruction of Israel. He writes:

“Also, the ‘right of return’ contained in the offer was a raw deal, since the land the Palestinians were originally displaced from was not the land offered in the deal.”

In other words, Telos is insisting on a “right of return” of all the several million Palestinian descendants, not just to the West Bank, but to the pre-‘67 land of Israel, i.e., he seeks the destruction of the Jewish state, and, furthermore, he regards Israel’s failure to provide for its own destruction as a “raw deal” justifying the terror intifada!

The Oslo process, of course, assumed a Jewish state and a Palestinian state side by side. But Telos—like Hamas and most of the Palestinians—wants two Palestinian states and no Jewish state; and he indignantly describes Israel’s refusal to allow itself to be destroyed in this way as a rejection of “peace.” One wonders how Telos thought he could make such a transparent confession of his true intentions in this forum and get away with it. The answer, probably, is that he is so consumed with his desire to “get” Israel that he lacks sufficient self-awareness to realize what he’s saying or how lame it is.

In any case, Telos is exposed as a sneaky Palestinian partisan who dresses up as a “peace process” his non-negotiable demand for the elimination of Israel. I have nothing more to say to him.

Auster wrote:

“When Telos started posting at VFR not long ago, he gave the impression of being a little more reasonable … Now he reveals himself as being on the level of a Palestinian seeking the destruction of Israel.

This is a strawman. To equate Telos’ citing of a UN resolution to the tenets of Hamas is to sink into a blatant and malicious misrepresentation of an argument.

Auster quoted Telos:

“Also, the ‘right of return’ contained in the offer was a raw deal, since the land the Palestinians were originally displaced from was not the land offered in the deal.”

Auster replied:

“In other words, Telos is insisting on a ‘right of return’ of all the several million Palestinian descendants, not just to the West Bank, but to the pre-’67 land of Israel, i.e., he seeks the destruction of the Jewish state, and, furthermore, he regards Israel’s failure to provide for its own destruction as a ‘raw deal’ justifying the terror intifada!”

Telos has neither supported the intifada nor called for the destruction of Israel. These are simply further misrepresentations of an argument in order to engage in shadow boxing.

Auster wrote:

“The answer, probably, is that he is so consumed with his desire to ‘get’ Israel that he lacks sufficient self-awareness to realize what he’s saying or how lame it is.”

You are now questioning Telos’ motives, which further demonstrates a puerile tendency to attack the person and not the argument.

Auster wrote:

“In any case, Telos is exposed as a sneaky Palestinian partisan who dresses up as a ‘peace process’ his non-negotiable demand for the elimination of Israel. I have nothing more to say to him.”

It seems you never did directly address him anyway; instead you deduced things from Telos’ comments that did not follow implicitly or explicitly from his statements, in order to make his position seem weaker than it was. However, this implies a shortcoming on your part, not his.

What the poster with the unpronouncible name doesn’t like is that I didn’t keep “dialoging” with Telos (like the Israelis and the Americans dialoging with Arafat for nine years), but drew a decisive negative conclusion about Telos and his intentions, as undeniably demonstrated by what Telos himself had said. When it’s been clearly demonstrated by a person’s statements that he’s up to no good, and discussion has come to an end, then it becomes appropriate to characterize the person and not just the argument.

Mr. Auster accuses me and the entire antiwar right of the inability to engage in anything but ad hominem attacks. Given that this thread has been motivated by a purely ad hominem attack by a neocon on Pat Buchanan, his charge seems to be a bit misplaced. Maybe Mr. Auster rejects my somewhat tongue-in-cheek use of the term goy. If so, substitute gentile, WASP, whatever fits.

What neither Mr. Auster nor David Frum have done is engage Buchanan on his facts or his logic. It would be difficult to do so, in as much as Pat stuck to the facts and fairly obvious conclusions from those facts. If his argument is weak, it is because he ignores the role of Rumsfeld, Cheney, and Bush himself. And Pat being Pat, uses the most devastating language, sometimes carelessly given the history of Israel and the Jews.

I think for Mr. Auster, we would only be engaging in the “vital national debate” if we agreed that this war was in the national interest, or just, or necessary or some combination. For dozens of reasons outlined elsewhere, we don’t. But in the spirit of engaging in the vital national debate, I will outline a few.

1) There is *no* link between Iraq and 9/11. However, major media outlets and the President himself have tried to imply there is such a link, and are selling the war to the public on such a basis. This is morally reprehensible.

2) There is *no* link between Saddam and Al Qaeda. The Al Qaeda splinter group operating in Iraq, showcased by Powell, where operating in the territory control by our Kurdish “allies”.

3) Saddam is no threat to his neighbors, including Israel. He has been subject to two fairly intense air operations, Northern and Southern Watch, for the last decade. He has no freedom of movement to launch any sort of attack or even buildup for an attack.

4) There is no evidence that Saddam has ever passed WMD’s (itself a newly coined term designed to conflate three very different dangers) to anyone, let alone terrorists.

The list could go on and on. No mobile labs, faked evidence about uranium purchases, plagiarized “intelligence” reports from the Brits. Can’t anyone here see a pattern? Our elected officials are betraying their trust to be honest with the people in pursuit of an objective they committed to far too hastily.

Now, the downside of war.

1) We will be stuck with an even more massive military presence in a region hostile to use for the foreseeable future.
2) We will, despite neocon dreams of the flowering of Arab democracy, arose the ire of Muslims in the region. Nobody like to be ruled by foreigners, especially those of another religion.
3) Following from 2, we will be more, not less, the target of attacks. In we, I include our servicemen and women. We have already seen attacks in Kuwait, and Afghanistan is not quite.
4) We have seen a gradual diminution of traditional liberties in America under this state of permanent war. For God’s sake, Ashcroft has violated Habeus Corpus in the Padilla case. I know people here like order, but HC is central to Anglo-Saxon tradition of law.

This post is already too long. But I have to say something about Shawn and Freida’s (whose name ironically means peace in German) denial of the existence of Palestinians. They are simply wrong. In 1800, one could say there were no Italians, in the sense that there was no Italy and no Italian national identity. Yet there were people sharing common traits, speaking related dialects, sharing the similar folkways. They became Italians. Just so, there were ‘only’ Arabs in Palestine before, say, 1920. They spoke the same language, shared folkways, (but not religion, many were and are Christian), etc. Under the pressure of Ottoman breakup, they became Palestinians, but their national development was halted by the creation of Israel. These are facts. I have no desire to undo Israel, but one must recognize that their were a people with homes, villages, olive trees, flocks, and a way of life their before the creation of the Jewish state. We have come to the same realization regarding the struggle with the Indians. Israelis — or more so her American supporters — must realize that the land of Israel was not a tabula rasa.

In an earlier post (please, Mr. Kalb, could you give numbers to the posts, to make it easy to refer to them?), Mr. Young reminded us that Israel repeatedly attacked The Liberty. Well, ex-Navy Captain A. Jay Cristol refuted that libel in his book THE LIBERTY INCIDENT (Brassey’s, 2001), which contains an hour-by-hour account of what happened. Cristol’s book isn’t the only refutation of the accusation; it’s the longest. So much for several posters’ respect for facts.

Several posters insist that they and Buchanan have never called for the annihilation of Israel. But they do call for the return to the original borders, which a panel of American military men declared years ago were indefensible. From the high points on the West Bank you can see the Mediterranean, the sea into which Arafat & Co have repeatedly said they intended to drive the Jews, at the end of their salami-tactics process (one slice at a time). So Buchanan and his defenders don’t want Israel to go out of existence; they merely want it to accept conditions that doom it. Well, he who says A must say B.

Finally, I want to thank Unadorned for his most generous post of 4:42 yesterday.

If Mr. Young doesn’t like being criticized for relying exclusively on ad hominem arguments, he should’t write posts that consist exclusively of ad hominem arguments.

Now, in response to my criticism, he attempts to come up with a substantive argument. This is, by the way, the standard operating procedure of the anti-war right, which we’ve seen over and over at VFR. Their default behavior is simply to convey their loathing against Israel and/or the neocons, and only when attacked for that obnoxious conduct do they attempt to make substantive arguments.

Mr. Young’s substantive arguments pertain both to the supposed lack of reasons for a war on Iraq, and the negative consequences of such a war. His main point is say that because Hussein is encircled and hemmed in, he poses no threat to his neighbors. Mr. Young leaves aside the fact that Hussein is only hemmed in because of a whole series of acts by the U.S. that the antiwar right opposes, from the Gulf War to the subsequent santions regimes and the no-fly zones, to the recent inspections regime, which in turn only happened because of the massive U.S. military build-up aimed at toppling Hussein combined with President Bush’s threat of doing exactly that. If America followed the anti-war right’s promptings, all these factors would dissolve and Hussein would be freed of any further restraints. Mr. Young’s other main substantive point is that Hussein (to our knowledge) has never passed WMDs to other parties.

The bottom line is that, despite everything we know about Saddam Hussein, including his record of setting an entire country on fire and his willingness to do the same again, Mr. Young has no problem with the prospect of Hussein’s possessing nuclear weapons; while, as I see it, for America to allow that to occur would be nothing less than an act of suicidal irresponsibility. The difference between us comes down to a difference in our fundamental apprehension of reality. If Mr. Young cannot see the manifest threat that we are facing from Hussein, nothing I say is going to be able to persuade him otherwise.

[The risks we face are well described in the following excerpt from Michael Novak’s National Review article on how just war theory applies to fighting terrorism. I repeat that it is beyond me how, in the wake of 9/11, anyone could just sit here and say that it’s ok to let Hussein continue in power.]

Michael Novak writes:

How does Iraq fit into that picture? From the point of view of public authorities who must calculate the risks of action or inaction vis-à-vis the regime of Saddam Hussein, two points are salient. Saddam Hussein has the means to wreak devastating destruction upon Paris, London, or Chicago, or any cities of his choosing, if only he can find clandestine undetectable “foot soldiers” to deliver small amounts of the sarin gas, botulins, anthrax, and other lethal elements to predetermined targets. Secondly, independent terrorist assault cells have already been highly trained for precisely such tasks, and have trumpeted far and wide their intentions to carry out such destruction willingly, with joy. All that is lacking between these two incendiary elements is a spark of contact.

Given Saddam’s proven record in the use of such weapons, and given his recognized contempt for international law, only an imprudent or even foolhardy statesman could trust that these two forces will stay apart forever. At any time they could combine, in secret, to murder tens of thousands of innocent and unsuspecting citizens.

Please note: Were such an attack to come, it would come without imminent threat, without having been signaled by movements of conventional arms, without advance warning of any kind.

Somewhere between 0 and 10, in other words, there already is a probability of Saddam’s deadly weapons falling into al Qaeda’s willing hands. (There are also other branches of the international terror network). Reasonable observers can disagree about whether that risk is at 2 or 4 or 8. But this much is clear: Those who judge that the risk is low, and therefore allow Saddam to remain in power, will bear a horrific responsibility if they guessed wrong, and acts of destruction do occur.

… It is not the burden of the international community to prove Iraq’s noncompliance. That fact was publicly and internationally well established years ago. It is Hussein’s obligation, as a condition for continuing in his presidency, to present evidence that he has disarmed. This he has so far disdained to do. Hussein has judged that the international community lacks the will to enforce its decrees.

For some years, it seemed reasonable (if shameful) not to force Saddam Hussein to comply, but just to wait him out. However, the maturation of al Qaeda and other highly trained international terrorist groups adds to Hussein’s violation of U.N. decrees a new peril. On the record, Saddam is capable of ordering a tremendous loss of life, through a secretive, sudden attack upon major western cities with small amounts of biological or chemical agents.

With less than a teaspoon of anthrax distributed in letters, for instance, thousands of government workers in Washington were obliged to be screened and preventively treated for anthrax poisoning, one Senate office building was closed for many weeks for decontamination, two post-office workers died, and many others fell ill for some time.

Saddam Hussein has failed to account for more than 5,000 liters — five million teaspoons — of anthrax which he is known to have possessed just a few years ago.

This does not include the thousands of liters of botulin and other forms of biological weapons, including nerve gas and sarin gas, reported by U.N. inspectors to have been present in his arsenals. Nor does it include the stockpiles of mustard gas the U.N. reported in his possession. “Mustard gas is not like marmalade,” Hans Blix famously announced in January. “Governments must know exactly where it is, and what is done with every container of it.” It is a deadly gas.

In recent weeks, newspapers have carried reports from European intelligence agencies of serious efforts by highly trained Chechen and other Islamic jihadists preparing for terrorist attacks in European cities, in case there is war in Iraq. Whether or not there is war in Iraq, these hidden cells are active now, and will be active years from now. Probabilities are high that one or more of these cells will get their hands on biological or chemical agents. Nowhere will it be easier for them than in Iraq.

http://nationalreview.com/novak/novak021003.asp

“In recent weeks, newspapers have carried reports from European intelligence agencies of serious efforts by highly trained Chechen and other Islamic jihadists preparing for terrorist attacks in European cities, in case there is war in Iraq. Whether or not there is war in Iraq, THESE HIDDEN CELLS ARE ACTIVE NOW, AND WILL BE ACTIVE YEARS FROM NOW. PROBABILITIES ARE HIGH THAT ONE OR MORE OF THESE CELLS WILL GET THEIR HANDS ON BIOLOGICAL OR CHEMICAL AGENTS. [emphasis added]” — Michael Novak

This is a good and persuasive excerpt by Mr. Novak. As a neocon, he may not have intended a particular one of the persuasive implications of this text — the implication that excessive incompatible immigration is not, contrary to neocon belief, an unalloyed blessing but poses, by offering camouflage to Chechen and other Islamic Jihad terrorists of the future (and surely in other ways too) a mortal danger to any Western country where it is allowed to continue.

Mr. Novak, may we see another article by you in which you apologize for neocon support of excessive incompatible immigration and call on them to withdraw support therefrom?

The only ad hominem attacks in my initial post to this thread were in paragraph 3. Paragraph 2 simply pointed out that it is possible that people who have worked for Israeli officials and who share the faith of that nation might let this affect their view of the world. I don’t know how it could be otherwise.

Paragraph 1 contained a serious of questions, the main being “Is Pat lying?”. The answer is no, of course.

Freida claims that the attack on the Liberty is a libel. Notice, I did not say a deliberate attack, only a repeated attack. Nobody disputes this. Now, was the attack deliberate? The weight of evidence, in my opinion, says yes. The survivors say yes. An admiral says yes, and there was a cover-up.

http://members.aol.com/w4mh/navytime.txt

I think Freida’s mindset is an example what drives Pat to distraction. It is a mindset that is incapable of seeing that Israel pursues her national interest, and that that national interest is not necessarily US national interest.

Contra Mr. Auster,

Jose Alfredo Peris Cancio, professor of law at Valencia’s John Paul II Institute, The Wanderer, “Offers Moral Criteria In War On Terrorism” March 13, 2003:

“the Catechism reduces the legitimacy of a just war to assumptions of legitimate defense with very strict conditions.

“In the first place the damage inflicted by the aggressor on the nation or community of nations must be lasting, grave, and certain; in the second place, absence of all other means of putting an end to it must have been shown to be impractical or ineffective, in the third place, there must be serious prospects of success; in the fourth place, the use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated.

“The power of modern means of destruction weighs very heavily in evaluating this condition.

“I don’t think the Iraqi case has the four requirements ( criteria for just warfare ), because rather than certain, the aggression is imputed — there are allegations that Iraq is connected to international terrorism that are far from guarantees of a criminal charge of responsibilities; because diplomatic means can still be used to avoid aggression; because with it the neutralization of international terrorism is not guaranteed — rather, one could expect its revival within the Islam that up to now has been manifestly more moderate; because the blood of the innocent who might die in Iraq — which would probably be justified as the effect of “collateral damages” — would cry out to Heaven like the blood cries out from the victims of international terrorism.

If a war is not just, it is unjust; and there is no difference between legitimate force in illegitimate violence. When this occurs, terrorists have succeeded, paradoxically, in their greatest objective: vitiate the moral legitimacy of their critics. This must be avoided at all costs.”

________________________________________________________

More of Jose Cancio’s thought can be found here:

http://216.239.33.100/search?q=cache:
oef2cC2JxxEC:www.stlouisreview.com/archive/editorials
.php+moral+criteria+%22jose+alfredo+peris+cancio%22&hl
=en&ie=UTF-8

In the same issue of the Wanderer it is also stated “The Pope is very insistent about this one.” With the ‘One’ being: “Pope John Paul II’s insistence that there is no justification for an American attack on Iraq”

This is in response to Unadorned’s comment where Unadorned wrote, “I very strongly doubt the Pope is calling the shots”, in response to Oriana Fallaci’s article with the very crude description of our Holy Father.

Mr. Young’s initial comment dealt with a couple of issues including Buchanan’s one-sided charges against Israel and so I slightly overstated when I said his initial post consisted exclusively of ad hominem arguments. But only slightly. The key point in his comment was that he regretted Buchanan’s continual attacks on the Jewish neoconservatives, and wished instead that “Pat would write another piece about the goy warmongers in the admin. After all, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rove all seem motivated by sheer power or the desire to stay in office by keeping America in permanent war fever. Compared to these guys, the Likudniks’ motivations seem almost honorable.”

I then pointed out that the only alternative Mr. Young had offered to Buchanan’s attacks on the sinister intentions of Jewish warmongers was an attack on the sinister intentions of gentile war mongers. I continued that the one element common to both approaches “is the refusal or inability to engage in this vital national debate other than on the level of ad hominem attacks.”

Now, does that statement characterize 100 percent of everything the anti-war right says? Of course not, but it does characterize a good two-thirds of what they say. Moreover, as I said previously, the ad hominem attack is their default mode, which (as I’ve seen over and over), they only give up when called to task for it.

As for Buchanan’s article, it is an almost luridly one-sided account largely aimed at creating suspicion and loathing of Jewish neoconservatives and of Israel. The fact that Buchanan—who in the late 80s and early 90s I thought the top conservative in America, whom I defended from numerous attacks, to whom I gave my money and my vote—is now lowering the tone of American politics to this level, makes me heartsick.

José Cancio’s ideas of just war doctrine are a liberal-pacifist distortion of traditional Catholic just war doctrine, very similar to what Jimmy Carter published recently in the New York Times. These ideas would make almost any war impossible and leave countries virtually helpless to defend themselves, especially from a terrorist attack.

Oh dear! Was it necessary for me to say that the Israeli attack on The Liberty in 1967 was a case of friendly fire? I assumed that that went without saying; the rest of my remarks makes it clear. That the firing was a ghastly mistake is what the Cristol book proves. So, what’s Mr. Young’s point? It must be either that Israel fired on an American ship knowing it was American, or that it fired on it thinking it was an enemy ship. Those two alternatives exhaust the possibilities. If, as Cristol’s book proves, it was a case of friendly fire, then why do Mr. Young and others keep bringing it up as an indictment of Israel? Do they keep reminding us of cases where Americans or Britons or others mistakenly fired on allies? Americans recently mistakenly fired on Canadians; have Mr. Young and others repeated that news and used it as an indictment of the United States? Will people of Mr. Young’s “mindset” be reminding us of it 36 years from now? No? Why not?

At Google I found this account at the Jewish Virtual Library which explains the incident as friendly fire, which was the official conclusion of both countries. The article also mentions the groups, including some members of the Liberty’s crew, who blame Israel. Here’s the website of the Liberty’s survivors who insist the attack was deliberate:

http://www.ussliberty.org/

However, according to the account accepted by both countries, the ship through a mistake disregarded orders and came much too close to the Israeli coast, there was a bombardment, the Israelis thought it came from that ship, and had it attacked with torpedo boats and planes. The article concludes:

“None of Israel’s accusers has been able to explain adequately why Israel would have deliberately attacked an American ship at a time when the United States was Israel’s only friend and supporter in the world.”

http://www.us-israel.org/jsource/History/liberty.html

As Frieda said, why do people like Mr. Young and Pat Buchanan, who mentions the Liberty in his current article, keep bringing up this incident 36 years later? Do they really believe that Israel, in the midst of a war for its existence against the Arabs, deliberately attacked a U.S. Navy ship and killed 34 men? How many awful mistakes have there been during war time that have cost how many lives? Why does this particular incident never go away?

Mr. Auster please explain how Jose Cancio is a “liberal-pacifist” distorting “traditional Catholic” thought.

BTW, it’s not often the Wanderer is described as publishing “liberal-pacifist distortions of traditional Cathoilic” thought. You might as well say Latin Mass Magazine (one of my favorites) publishes liberal-pacifist distortions. As far as I know Mr. Auster’s is the first to make such a comment.

Other than the Catholic neocons and their publications, like “Crisis” and “First Things”, I don’t know of any who disagree with Jose Cancio’s understanding of Catholic teaching.

Cardinal Ratzinger says a unilateral attack on Iraq is not justified. Is Cardinal Ratzinger also committing “distortions of traditional Catholic” thought? In all honesty, is there a single Ordinary who does not agree with, Jose Cancio?

Here is a good article by Ramesh Ponnuru at NRO critiquing the Carter op-ed, which focuses in particular on Carter’s point, also made by Cancio, that force must be the last resort. However, in one respect at least Carter is worse than Cancio. Carter said the damage caused by the force to be used must be proportional to the damage that has been received by one’s own side. As Ponnuru points out, this formula is Carter’s invention. The correct idea, rather, is that the harm to be caused must be proportion to the harm that one seeks to prevent. Of course, the antiwar right will deny that there is any harm that we’re seeking to prevent. Saddam is a bad guy, they acknowledge, but not dangerous. But for those of us living in the world of reality, the damage caused by overthrowing Hussein will certainly not be disproportional to the destruction of an American city or the deaths of tens of thousands of Americans. Of course, for libertarian Nazis who believe that any citizen of a large state has forfeited the right of self-defense, these considerations will hold no water. In fact, for libertarian Nazis even to bring up just war doctrine would seem to be an opportunistic gesture. Since the state is instrinsically evil in their view, how can it wage a just war in any circumstances?

http://www.nationalreview.com/ponnuru/ponnuru031003.asp

Mr. Auster,

I started to read the article you linked to, read Carter’s gross blunder, which you and the article point out, and quit. Carter turns himself into a strawman and thus the only thing the article proves is that Jimmy Carter can’t think and is ignorant of philosophy; which is unfortunately what we’ve been subjected to since Teddy Roosevelt. Who although he could think, helped ruin this country with his nationalism.

So on to people who can think.

Your argument appears to be either with Vitoria and Suarez who developed from St. Augustine and St. Thomas much of our modern understanding of just war doctrine, and who Jose Cancio repeats along with Pacem In Terris as spelled out in the Catechism. In other words Jose Cancio is neither distorting traditional Catholic teaching nor is he a liberal-pacifist, since the Church is not per se liberal or pacifist. And the “traditional Catholic” goes without say, but I’ll say it anyway.

Or with Jose Cancio’s assessment and prudential judgement of the situation.

Of course, I can hardly imagine anyone considering Vitoria, Surez or Pacem In Terris to be liberal, pacifist, distorting, or distortions, of traditional Catholic thought.

So since I can hardly imagine your argument, knowingly, is with Surez etc, it must be with Jose Cancio’s assessment and prudential judgements. Do I assess your argument correctly, and if so, please explain how Jose Cancio’s assessment and prudential judgement of the situation is a “liberal-pacifist distortions of traditional Catholic thought”

BTW, if your “libertarian nazi” comment was directed at me. Let me clarify my position. I would prefer the US to go back to acting like what it was designed to be, i.e. a federation of States, it has a right to self defense in even its corrupt form. My complaint with its corrupt form is that it engenders further corruption, not intrinsically, but almost invariably. Much the same as Matt’s problem with rights, and for much of the same reasons. The leviathan State is simply too large and diverse to function properly given fallen nature.

I would prefer what we originally had, small sovereign States which approached, although larger, Aristotle’s polis, and for the reason Aristotle gives.

Because it was so long, I posted my reply to Cansio’s just war doctrine as a separate article.

http://www.counterrevolution.net/vfr/archives/001272.html

Auster wrote:

“What the poster with the unpronouncible name doesn’t like is that I didn’t keep ‘dialoging’ with Telos (like the Israelis and the Americans dialoging with Arafat for nine years), but drew a decisive negative conclusion about Telos and his intentions, as undeniably demonstrated by what Telos himself had said.”

First, it’s irrelevant what I like or dislike regarding your feelings for another poster.

Second, focusing on one’s motives is entirely irrelevant in a debate.

Auster wrote:

“When it’s been clearly demonstrated by a person’s statements that he’s up to no good, and discussion has come to an end, then it becomes appropriate to characterize the person and not just the argument.”

This is an example of the fallacy of “begging the question.” You did not prove Telos is up to no good; you merely asserted it from his support of a UN resolution. You made what appears to be a faulty conclusion into a premise and decided not to debate Telos based on this faulty conclusion — which you erroneously made into a kind of premise.

Furthermore, if a person is “up to no good” and advances a certain position, it may still be the case that a person who genuinely believes he is up to good holds the same position, especially in citing a UN resolution such as 194. It may not be a popular opinion, and in your view there may be negative consequences, but it’s up to you to explain why, in the form of logic and evidence, such a person is wrong.

It’s clear you don’t really care to debate Telos, and that is within your right. But you never did refute him: all you did was discuss his supposed motives and why he is such a bad person.

This is childish.

Mr Auster: the emotional investment you have in this subject makes it almost impossible for anyone to carry on a rational discussion about it with you, unless they embrace your views.

Firstly, in your all mouth-frothing zealousness, you read things in my post that weren’t there (e.g., calling for Israel’s destruction and justifying the intifada). I was simply highlighting the fact that you, like most Zionists, act like every peace offer Israel presents to the Palestinians is amazingly generous and fair — as evidenced by the adverb “incredibly” you use to describe the guarantees contained in the Barak-Clinton offer — and therefore any reluctance on the part of the Palestinians to accept them can only be explained as blind, irrational contempt for Israel.

In fact, you implicitly concede that the guarantees contained in these offers are not so “incredible” (given what the Palestinians desire) in your reply by conflating my alleged views with that of “most of the Palestinians.” Given this admission, it is dishonest of you to act like the Janurary 2001 Barak-Clinton offer was “incredibly” generous.

Secondly, I would only give the Palestinians the West Bank, Gaza and East Jerusalam, where the al-Haram al-Sharif is located. Beyond that, I would not give them any further territory.

And finally, I noticed the emotionally charged language you used towards me was absent from your exchange with Shawn, who linked Catholicism with nazi genocide. Why?

“Secondly, I would only give the Palestinians the West Bank, Gaza and East Jerusalam, … ” — Telos

Isn’t there a size threshold below which a country simply cannot be sure of thriving into the future? Isn’t Israel too small without the territories named? Personally, I think she’s too small even with them.

Look — either we can have an Israel or we can’t. Do we want one? Carving her up to be any smaller than she is will set her on the road to oblivion (which she might be on anyway, unless she actually grows in size).

First, here is my earlier comment to the poster with the extraordinary (and difficult to type) name, Eratosthenean:

“What the poster with the unpronouncible name doesn’t like is that I didn’t keep ‘dialoging’ with Telos (like the Israelis and the Americans dialoging with Arafat for nine years), but drew a decisive negative conclusion about Telos and his intentions, as undeniably demonstrated by what Telos himself had said. When it’s been clearly demonstrated by a person’s statements that he’s up to no good, and discussion has come to an end, then it becomes appropriate to characterize the person and not just the argument.”

Eratosthenean writes:

“First, it’s irrelevant what I like or dislike regarding your feelings for another poster.

“Second, focusing on one’s motives is entirely irrelevant in a debate.”

In fact, I wasn’t supposing anything about Eratosthenean but characterizing the issue between us, which was that he thought it was wrong of me to reach a definite, negative conclusion about where Telos was coming from and to cut Telos off.

E. continues:

“This is an example of the fallacy of ‘begging the question.’ You did not prove Telos is up to no good; you merely asserted it from his support of a UN resolution. You made what appears to be a faulty conclusion into a premise and decided not to debate Telos based on this faulty conclusion—which you erroneously made into a kind of premise.”

In fact, I focussed on one thing: Telos’s complaint that Israel would not allow the right of return of all Palestinians into Israel proper. This position—which was also the position Arafat took at the July 2000 Camp David Summit to the utter astonishment of Barak and Clinton because it meant that Arafat was not on board on the basic premise of the peace process—places Telos outside any rational discussion of the Israel-Palestinian problem.

E. continues:

“It’s clear you don’t really care to debate Telos, and that is within your right. But you never did refute him: all you did was discuss his supposed motives and why he is such a bad person.”

Telos’s position is to demand the right of return of all Palestinians to Israel proper, meaning the destruction of Israel. I did not “refute” him so much as simply identify the nature of what he was saying. It took Israel eight years to realize that Arafat was not a partner in the peace process; it took me much less time than that to realize the same about Telos. That’s all that happened here. Eratosthenean would like me to continue to “refute” Telos’s demand for the destruction of Israel, and he calls my refusal to do so an attack on Telos’s motives.

“Telos’s position is to demand the right of return of all Palestinians to Israel proper, meaning the destruction of Israel.”

That is not my position.

“Isn’t there a size threshold below which a country simply cannot be sure of thriving into the future?”

Luxembourg seems to be doing fine.

“her up to be any smaller than she is will set her on the road to oblivion”

Given US support for Israel and Israel’s nuclear capabilities, that is very presumptuous.

Telos now denies that he was demanding the right of return of the Palestinians to Israel proper. Yet here is what he actually said, in the context of supposedly proving why the terror intifada was justified:

“Also, the ‘right of return’ contained in the offer was a raw deal, since the land the Palestinians were originally displaced from was not the land offered in the deal.”

I discussed this all at length above.

I did not bring up the Liberty incident gratuitously. I believe it is part of a pattern that shows that Israel will pursue her national interest up to an including spying on the United States (proven) and attacking a US vessel deliberately (debatable but in many knowledgeable people’s opinion true).

I am an adult, I realize nations do things like this — heck, we are tapping US security council members’ communications — but I don’t like these facts excused by US citizens. The point is that US and Israeli national interest are different, and Israel will damage our national interests in pursuit of hers if need be.

In fact, I have brought up the attacks on the Canadians when discussing the war. I believe they show the over -eager mentality of some of our pilots. Then again, the pilots were issued speed by their units. How do we know that? They are being court martialed. No such open process took place in the Liberty incident.

Finally, friendly fire is the wrong term to apply to an attack on a third party, non belligerent object of an attack.

I am sure any interested readers can find all the pro and con info on the Liberty incident they can handle. I suggest giving most weight to the eye witness survivors.

Mr. Auster’s feelings about Pat Buchanan are mirrored by Scott McConnell’s feelings about Norman Podhoretz.

http://www.antiwar.com/mcconnell/pf/p-mc040202.html

It is too bad this Israeli-Palestinian issue has driven such a split among conservatives.

Mitchell Young wrote:

“The point is that US and Israeli national interest are different, and Israel will damage our national interests in pursuit of hers if need be.”

This is true.

STRANGE BEDFELLOWS: CHINA AND ISRAEL
By
Eric S. Margolis 16 April 2000

http://www.foreigncorrespondent.com/archive/strange.html

“Luxembourg seems to be doing fine [as a tiny country, so why can’t Israel do just as well after giving back the West Bank and East Jerusalem and renouncing claims on Gaza?]. — Telos

Luxemburg was set up as a separate, independent Grand Duchy for the sole purpose of serving as a buffer state (one of two, the other being the Kingdom of Belgium) between Germany and France along the English Channel. It is in fact a province of Germany, though the Luxemburgers (whose national language is a dialect of German and who are themselves Germans) ridiculously and sometimes a bit comically try to deny this (because of the bad reputation Germans got from the World Wars, and also for fear of being swallowed up by Germany if they admit they’re Germans). Serving as an internationally agreed-upon buffer state is not the same as having to go it entirely alone in a part of the planet which is seething with sworn deadly enemies who are out for your blood and will never leave you in peace until you are dead. Different situations entirely. If you want a European analogy, read up on the history of Prussia from the middle ages to Bismarck. It was a tiny state originally, in the middle ages, which had the good fortune to be led by serious, intelligent rulers who saw that it had either to expand or perish. We all know the rest of the story (it didn’t perish).

Belgium is made up of Germans in the East, Walloons ( = French, though they, like the Grand Ducals, claim otherwise) in the South, and Flemings ( = Dutch, though they, like the Grand Ducals and the Walloons, claim otherwise) in the north. If there were a humungous Israel in the Near East or Middle East, with, say a population of 40, 50, or 60 million or so Jews, having the physical size of Germany or France, and then the currently existing Israel, tiny sliver of a Jewish state, were created by regional agreement to serve as a buffer state between the humungous Israel and, say, Iraq, Syria, Egypt, or Iran, then your comparison with Luxemburg might be largely valid.

” … US and Israeli national interests are different … ” — Mitchell Young

Yes, lots of them are different, but isn’t one sense in which they coincide (one of many) the sense of common culture and heritage? Someone on the local school board here proposed scrapping the teaching of French, German, Spanish, and Latin (yes, they still teach Latin in high school here) in favor of Chinese, arguing that China was the up-and-coming industrial power in the world, and therefore to leave high-school graduates without at least an introduction to that language was foolish in the extreme. I agreed with many who were shocked at that idea on “common-cultural” grounds. (The idea was not adopted.)

I agree with Telos that what Israel is reported to have done in that article is outrageous and of course totally unacceptible, and any U.S. administration which discovers backstabbing behavior like that on the part of any Israeli government should come down extremely hard on them indeed. But I don’t think we should throw them to the wolves for it — just tighten the screws on them in other ways, REALLY TIGHT, and make them pee in their pants with fear that we actually WILL throw them to the wolves — and let them stew in that self-created juice a good long while until they learn their lesson and until whatever government dared to pull that crap is thoroughly out of power and disgraced. Supporters of Israel in the U.S. Jewish Community should NEVER, EVER support crap like that on Israel’s part, first because it’s wrong, second because the U.S. is their country, and third because of obvious practical considerations such as we see here on VFR today — it is extremely embarrassing to Israel’s well-wishers and supporters in this country, both Jewish and especially gentile.

Finally, about Israel getting only “a slap on the wrist” for doing that: since the “administration” of impeached former “president” Clinton was itself doing far worse (that article is dated 2000, during the Clinton “administration”), how could the U.S. “administration” in place at the time do anything more than give it a slap on the wrist without implicating itself in high treason? It is to the Bush administration’s everlasting shame that Clinton wasn’t aggressively prosecuted for the crime of capital treason against the United States for selling its top military secrets to the Red Chinese in return for campaign cash.

Bill Clinton should have gotten what the Rosenbergs got.

VFR participants are requested not to post entire articles from other web sites in these discussions. A link to the article is enough.

“In the same issue of ‘The Wanderer’ it is also stated, ‘The Pope is very insistent about this one.’ With the ‘One’ being: ‘Pope John Paul II’s insistence that there is no justification for an American attack on Iraq.’ This is in response to Unadorned’s comment where Unadorned wrote, I very strongly doubt the Pope is calling the shots,’ in response to Oriana Fallaci’s article with the very crude description of our Holy Father.” — F. Salzer

I apologize for not explaining my use of “demented” in that post, which did, I see now, sound “very crude.” I meant no disrespect to the Holy Father, but was using that word purely clinically, in the sense in which patients suffering from advanced Parkinson’s disease often are recognized to suffer from a greater or lesser degree of concomitant dementia. Dementia means impairment of cognitive function, and in the world of medicine patients suffering from conditions which have robbed them of a portion of their cognition are said to be demented, whether to a greater or a lesser degree.

My work is in the medical field. Judging by the combination of the Holy Father’s advanced age, advanced Parkinson’s disease, and doubtless high doses of Parkinson’s medications which he surely takes in combinations of at least two different ones, or perhaps three (or possibly more than three), all at “generous” or frankly high doses, and judging by his appearance and speech which I’ve had occasion to see on TV: judging by all these taken together, I would say there is zero chance he is calling the shots in the Vatican, or that he still retains the cognitive wherewithal to make the subtle judgements his office requires.

While I certainly meant no disrespect, disrespect is nevertheless being heaped upon him — by those who are currently using him for their own Tranzi purposes.

In my comment to Telos about Bill Clinton deserving to get “what the Rosenbergs got,” I point out that while Julius Rosenberg apparently *was* guilty of what at the time were capital espionage crimes, Ethel was not, but was put to death in an unbelievable abomination of a miscarriage of justice set in motion by the feds who, in trying to get at her husband, falsely ensnared her too. She certainly never should have gone to the gas chamber.

That being said, my comment that Clinton should have gotten what the Rosenbergs got still stands.

Auster wrote:

“In fact, I wasn’t supposing anything about Eratosthenean but characterizing the issue between us, which was that he thought it was wrong of me to reach a definite, negative conclusion about where Telos was coming from and to cut Telos off.”

I don’t think it wrong of you to reach a “definite, negative conclusion” on Telos if you can back it with facts. Your responses simply have struck me as fallacious, as I explained.

E. continues:

“This is an example of the fallacy of ‘begging the question.’ You did not prove Telos is up to no good; you merely asserted it from his support of a UN resolution. You made what appears to be a faulty conclusion into a premise and decided not to debate Telos based on this faulty conclusion—which you erroneously made into a kind of premise.”

Auster responded:

“In fact, I focused on one thing: Telos’s complaint that Israel would not allow the right of return of all Palestinians into Israel proper. This position—which was also the position Arafat took at the July 2000 Camp David Summit to the utter astonishment of Barak and Clinton because it meant that Arafat was not on board on the basic premise of the peace process—places Telos outside any rational discussion of the Israel-Palestinian problem.”

And if Telos is beyond rational discussion, a reason should be given for that, otherwise one has committed the fallacy of circular argument. The question is: what makes him so? If you feel this to be the case, you have failed to explain why. Telos has in fact stated that he does not support the destruction of Israel, and so this is a strawman on your part.

E. continues:

“It’s clear you don’t really care to debate Telos, and that is within your right. But you never did refute him: all you did was discuss his supposed motives and why he is such a bad person.”

Auster wrote:

“Telos’s position is to demand the right of return of all Palestinians to Israel proper, meaning the destruction of Israel.”

You need to explain why the return of all Palestinian refugees means the destruction of Israel. Rather than simply jumping to conclusions, you need to explain the reasoning behind the conclusions. You assume the truth of your beliefs without explaining why. Sure, you may be correct, but you need to show your reasoning: this is, after all, what debating is all about.

Auster wrote:

“I did not ‘refute’ him so much as simply identify the nature of what he was saying.”

So you admit to not refuting him. Instead you jumped to a conclusion about his character without refuting him. This is very amateurish, to say the least.

Secondly, identifying the nature of what one says sounds kind of, well, unclear. It’s best to quote people directly and to expose the truth or falsity of their claims, rather than reading into things and speculating about their character.

Auster wrote:

“Eratosthenean would like me to continue to ‘refute’ Telos’s demand for the destruction of Israel, and he calls my refusal to do so an attack on Telos’s motives.”

This is a strawman — in two cases. First, it would reflect better on you as a debater to refute arguments and to quote others on their claims, rather than speculating on something so esoteric and unclear as the “nature” of what they are saying.

Secondly, I never claimed your refusal to debate Telos was an attack on his motives. This is what I identified as a clear-cut case of an attack on his motives:

“One wonders how Telos thought he could make such a transparent confession of his true intentions in this forum and get away with it. The answer, probably, is that he is so consumed with his desire to ‘get’ Israel that he lacks sufficient self-awareness to realize what he’s saying or how lame it is.”

So it seems you have a predilection for distorting arguments, which is not surprising since you have declared one of your goals here to not refute your opponents.

Telos, I haven’t time just now to type a longer comment — must rush off somewhere. But I wanted to quickly squeeze this in here — CLEARLY we can agree, can’t we, that allowing sort of a “Law of Return” for all Palestinians would spell the complete and utter destruction of Israel as a Jewish nation-state in about five minutes? I mean, let’s not quibble about THE OBVIOUS, man! If we are to quibble about whether or not Israel SHOULD exist as a Jewish nation-state, OK — let’s do that (I happen to think it SHOULD — very much so). But to attempt to deny the obvious is really and truly an “non-starter” — don’t you think?

SORRY! In my rush just now, I addressed my comment, above, to Telos — it was of course meant for Eratosthenean (who, if he keeps it up, will have to be addressed as “Erratum-sthenean”) (…. JUST JOKING — calm down, everyone ….)

Eratosthenean expends a great number of words complaining about … about what? About the fact that I have not “proved” that a right of return of all several million Palestinians to Israel proper would mean the destruction of the Jewish state. But that assertion is, of course, self-evident. For Eratosthenean to profess that he doesn’t understand that simple fact, and to insist on further argument from me in order to prove it, indicates that he cannot be taken seriously as a participant in this discussion.

If Eratosthenean were black, he’d say that O.J. Simpsons’s guilt had not yet been proved.

Auster wrote:

“Eratosthenean expends a great number of words complaining about … about what? About the fact that I have not ‘proved’ that a right of return of all several million Palestinians to Israel proper would mean the destruction of the Jewish state. But that assertion is, of course, self-evident.”

And this is a perfectly valid opinion. There is in fact reason to conclude that allowing millions of Palestinian refugees into Israel will change the nation-state of Israel completely. However, you said it was Telos’ position that Israel should be destroyed, when in fact Telos might genuinely believe that a pluralistic Israeli society, with millions of these refugees, can thrive.

Rather than expounding on your points above and relating them to the discussion, you imputed certain motives on Telos, which is inexcusable in a political debate. In fact you admitted to not seeking out to refute him. This would lead one to believe that you are here to preach to the choir.

Auster wrote:

“For Eratosthenean to profess that he doesn’t understand that simple fact, and to insist on further argument from me in order to prove it, indicates that he cannot be taken seriously as a participant in this discussion.”

I understand that Israel will experience significant socio-cultural change should millions of Palestinians be allowed to move into the state; but a position in support of this policy is not tantamount to wanting to see the destruction of Israel, at least from the viewpoint of a proponent of such a plan. Further, while one might deduce as to what would happen based on historical and contemporary examples, it would still all be conjecture.

Even so, the larger point remains: when you disagree with someone, refute his arguments, and try as much as possible to stray from attacking motives. Otherwise, this undermines the integrity of a forum and one’s credibility in debate.

Auster wrote:

“If Eratosthenean were black, he’d say that O.J. Simpsons’s guilt had not yet been proved.”

This is a strawman argument. One thing Mr. Auster and the Black jury have in common is that both assume conclusions without really thinking them through and explaining why.

On a sidenote, your writing from the third-person sounds very awkward, especially in a political forum such as this. It would perhaps reflect better on yo to speak to people directly, otherwise you give the impression of being an android.

Unadorned wrote:

“But I wanted to quickly squeeze this in here — CLEARLY we can agree, can’t we, that allowing sort of a ‘Law of Return’ for all Palestinians would spell the complete and utter destruction of Israel as a Jewish nation-state in about five minutes?”

This is a very different assertion from saying that such a thing amounts to wanting the “destruction” of Israel. You assert that many believe Israel should not be a Jewish state but should be more pluralistic, but that you believe Israel should remain Jewish. So you acknowledge there are differences in beliefs, and that this calls for some level-headed negations in arguments, as opposed to fallacious reasoning.

Unadorned wrote:

“I mean, let’s not quibble about THE OBVIOUS, man!”

I think it’s important to stress something here. You assert that allowing millions of Palestinian refugees amounts to the destruction of Israel as a “Jewish nation-state,” yet Mr. Auster asserts that supporting such a position amounts to simply wanting to see the destruction of Israel completely. This is a subtle distinction.

At the very least, issues so “obvious” to resolve deserve easy refutations, not the imputation of motives on those who peddle such supposely inferior ideas.

This should be “obvious.”

VFR is for people who are attempting to engage in rational discussion. Since Eratosthenean in his comments about Israel insists on being frivolous and absurd in the extreme, it is clear that his participation here can add nothing of value, except to provide us with jaw-dropping examples of irrationality, or rather (since he insists that he is being logical and that I am squelching true discussion) of his parody of rationality. Perhaps he would be happier participating at some website where the loonies like himself hang out.

As for the use of the third person (which I and Jim Kalb and many of our participants use, though not always, and it’s not required), this initially occurred without anyone’s thinking about it, but just instinctively in response to the kind of forum this is. Nevertheless, there are several reasons for it. First, it is more respectful and makes the discussion less personal. People in political debates tend to get heated and abusive with each other, and the use of the third person puts a damper on that, though (as we can see) it does not eliminate it. A person speaking in the third person might still be abusive if he chooses to be, but he is necessarily more restrained and civilized than if he were saying “You so and so.” It could even be said that the use of the third person gives us the freedom to be critical of each other without getting into fights, and thus to express criticisms more freely than we otherwise would. Second, when there is a discussion with many participants, especially when they cannot see each other, referring to the others by name eliminates confusion as to who is being addressed. Third, people reading the discussion will be able to follow it more easily. Fourth, it elevates the tone of our discussions, and gives people a spur to frame their arguments more effectively than they otherwise would. Fifth, the reality is that we are not just addressing the person we are agreeing or disagreeing with, but everyone participating in the discussion. For example, if I write, “I agree completely with Frank,” that has a very different tone from saying “I agree completely with you.” The point is (and this is hard for people living in our personalistic culture to grasp), I’m not having a one-on-one, personal discussion with Frank. Both Frank and I are addressing our ideas to the group as a whole. Sixth, the third person is the traditional method of address used in public discussion in Anglo-American society, ranging from debating clubs to the British House of Commons to the U.S. Congress, and this is, after all, a traditionalist website. Seventh, by the very fact of addressing each other somewhat formally and impersonally, we are creating a little island away from the ultra-casual, ultra-disrespectful culture that surrounds us.

Once again, no one is required to use the third person, though, for the reasons I stated, I think it works best and I prefer it.

As for the poster’s final swipe at me, am I to understand that somebody who calls himself “Eratosthenean” is calling ME an android?

Erato wrote, “[Unadorned asserts] that many believe Israel should not be a Jewish state but should be more pluralistic, but that [he believes] Israel should remain Jewish. So, [he acknowledges] there are differences in beliefs, … “

I didn’t say many believe Israel should be pluralistic instead of Jewish (though I’m aware many do). I wrote:

” … let’s not quibble about THE OBVIOUS … ! If we are to quibble about whether or not Israel SHOULD exist as a Jewish nation-state, OK — let’s do that (I happen to think it SHOULD — very much so).”

I meant that, since those who wished the return of all Palestinians could only want an end to the Jewish nation-state, we might as well just discuss that question directly, instead of beating around the bush.

Does anyone want to discuss that question? It’s a legitimate question. But be warned that there is no more an objective answer to it than there is an objective answer to whether or not any nation-state ought ever to have existed, or ought now to exist, or ought to exist in the future, or an objective answer to who should get Constantinople — the Muslims? or us? Who should get North America? The Red Indians? or us? Who should get Northern Ireland? the “Prods”? or the Catholics? Who should get South Africa — the Boers, who were there long before the Bantus? or the Bantus, who have it now?

Is Erato in favor of any country being a nation-state? His own, perhaps? If he favors his own being one, can he see how others might favor THEIRS being one? Is what’s legitimate for Erato’s country illegitimate for other countries? Are hopes and dreams that are permitted to Erato forbidden to other individuals?

Unadorned,

You are making profound points to Eratoman. The points are well worth making in themselves. But I can’t help but wonder, why engage with this guy at all? Once we’ve realized where he’s coming from, why treat him with respect that grants him legitimacy?

Let’s say we lived in an area prone to earthquakes and were looking to share knowledge and opinions with people on how to protect our houses. If someone began to talk to us, and he then revealed that he didn’t think people should live in houses, but should live in tents and ditches, would we still admit him as a participant in the discussion on how to save our houses?

The “peace process,” which is our current context, was premised on the idea of a Palestinian state and Jewish state existing side by side. Telos expressed his outrage that Israel would not allow all Palestinians the right of return into Israel proper. This placed him outside the framework of the discussion, which assumes the continued existence of the Jewish state. Then Eratoman came along and defended Telos’s position, insisting that we “prove” that allowing several million Palestinians into Israel would mean the end of the Jewish state. So he also is not a participant in the discussion. If you nevertheless continue debating with him, you have allowed the ground of the debate to shift in his direction. Now you find yourself arguing for the necessity of national existence itself, whether Israel’s existence or the existence of any country. But this is to throw into question what had previously been established as a given, the right of Israel to exist as a Jewish state.

This is why I say, Unadorned, that at a certain point, when you realize that people are not in a good faith discussion with you on the established premises of the discussion, that the discussion should be cut off.

That, by the way, is what President Bush did last spring (about seven years too late in my opinion) vis a vis the Palestinians, when he realized they were not participants in the “peace process” and acted accordingly.

(I dropped my usual third-person style for once because I wanted to address Unadorned personally.)

Mr. Auster includes two crucial points in the above comment, points which are central to any discussion of this issue, and which are most “clarifying” for those endeavoring to see the fundamental positions. He writes:

“The ‘peace process,’ which is our current context, was premised on the idea of a Palestinian state AND A JEWISH STATE existing side by side. … [T]he framework of the discussion … ASSUMES THE CONTINUED EXISTENCE OF THE JEWISH STATE. … [W]hat had previously been established as a given [was] THE RIGHT OF ISRAEL TO EXIST AS A JEWISH STATE [emphasis added].”

In these few sentences, Mr. Auster makes crystal-clear why opening Israel to the return of all Palestinians who want to go there is as much a non-starter as, let’s say, opening Lebanon would be, to immigration by all Israelis and all Jews who want to go THERE.

The other point he clarifies is that, in fact, to question the existence of the Jewish state in Palestine is to renege on all that was assumed as “given” in the past, and to give the Jews NOTHING in the Near East, while giving the Arabs EVERYTHING. That is not “negotiation,” but “total unconditional capitulation.” Why should anyone even consider that?

Auster,

You have explained why you prefer writing in the third person, and given that you have your reasons for it, and do it in an attempt to bring more civility and respect in the forum, you are entitled to it. It’s just not something I have witnessed before as anything remotely as the “norm” in years of discussing on the Internet — in all kinds of forums, even personalized ones. In fact, I have encountered some who consider it rude. Nonetheless, you have your reasons and I think it’s important that the subject not be shifted so quickly, so I will continue by addressing Unadorned, and should I feel as though something has not yet been clarified I will respond to you (whether or not you respond back is irrelevant; it’s your choice ultimately).

Auster wrote:

“Then Eratoman came along and defended Telos’s position, insisting that we ‘prove’ that allowing several million Palestinians into Israel would mean the end of the Jewish state.”

I just read your exchange with Unadorned and realized there is yet another strawman. It’s clear that a greater number of Palestinians in Israel will diminish the “Jewish” character of the state; but whether Israel as a nation can thrive, with both ethnic groups together, is a question worth discussing, at the very least since there is a significant contingent out there that believes that the future for Israel lies in multiculturalism (this is not necessarily my position, but one pressed by others without necessarily malicious motives).

Because this is a widespread view, it is my belief that at the very least its opponents should attempt to negate it, as opposed to shunning debate outright.

Unadorned wrote:

“I didn’t say many believe Israel should be pluralistic instead of Jewish (though I’m aware many do). I wrote:

” … let’s not quibble about THE OBVIOUS … ! If we are to quibble about whether or not Israel SHOULD exist as a Jewish nation-state, OK — let’s do that (I happen to think it SHOULD — very much so).”

Unadorned went on:

“I meant that, since those who wished the return of all Palestinians could only want an end to the Jewish nation-state, we might as well just discuss that question directly, instead of beating around the bush.”

This is a fair statement. And in fact I agree that allowing millions of Palestinians into Israel would diminish Israel’s Jewishness. What I do object to, however, was the ascribing of diabolical motives onto Telos, for merely having a somewhat unconventional view by American standards (and conventional by Arab standards). There is room for disagreement, but not for an attack on the person.

Unadorned wrote:

“Does anyone want to discuss that question? It’s a legitimate question. But be warned that there is no more an objective answer to it than there is an objective answer to whether or not any nation-state ought ever to have existed, or ought now to exist, or ought to exist in the future, or an objective answer to who should get Constantinople — the Muslims? or us? Who should get North America? The Red Indians? or us? Who should get Northern Ireland? the ‘Prods?’ or the Catholics? Who should get South Africa — the Boers, who were there long before the Bantus? or the Bantus, who have it now?”

These are all valid questions. When it comes right down to it, it seems there is some truth to the slogan that “might makes right” — not that there is no such thing as goodness or morals, but in many cases these terms are framed in terms of how the powerful define them and restrict their usage.

This, however, is a whole different topic. I just think Telos and those who share his beliefs deserve to have their say, and should they be wrong, let it be proved. There is, after all, nothing to fear if one has the most reasonable argument, in the context of a debate.

Unadorned wrote:

“Is Erato in favor of any country being a nation-state? His own, perhaps? If he favors his own being one, can he see how others might favor THEIRS being one? Is what’s legitimate for Erato’s country illegitimate for other countries? Are hopes and dreams that are permitted to Erato forbidden to other individuals?”

To be frank, I can’t say I am the most sympathetic person to Israel, especially given the recent cold-blooded murder of a 23-year-old female activist hailing from the U.S. by Israeli military thugs. Regardless, I feel it’s best to debate others without engaging in transparently fallacious tactics, as Mr. Auster is prone to do.

Let me just go back to a post I feel I have not satisfactorily addressed.

Unadorned wrote:

“Is Erato in favor of any country being a nation-state? His own, perhaps? If he favors his own being one, can he see how others might favor THEIRS being one? Is what’s legitimate for Erato’s country illegitimate for other countries? Are hopes and dreams that are permitted to Erato forbidden to other individuals?”

I do believe all nations are entitled to live in peace and with self-determination, including Israel. However, this peace presupposes that one behaves in the manner of upholding justice with its neighbors. In principle, the Jews, like all other ethnic groups, I believe, should have their own nation-state.

Getting back to Telos’ arguments, he stated that he believes Israel should exist and opposes its destruction.