By Ted Belman
Haaretz surprised me today when it published an article by Israel Harel entitled Peres’ Last Sabotoge.
After attacking Peres for his 100% plan he goes on,
The plan is based on the assumption that the root of the conflict is territorial. And even now that the territorial concessions from Oslo have proved the opposite – that concessions only bring more violence and that Israeli withdrawals strengthen the extremists – the belief in continued concessions has not changed and is a major component of our diplomatic thinking.
and concludes
Peres’ plan will not be implemented because the territorial concessions will not satisfy the Palestinians, and because most Israelis, after the bitter experiences of recent years, have lost faith in the Palestinians; in Peres, the father of Oslo; and in Olmert, the deputy architect of the disengagement.
If that wasn’t enough, it also published the day before Who Governs by Zeev Sternhell who acknowledged,
In Israel today, immense power is concentrated in the hands of a few corporations, controversial billionaires and well-connected lawyers, rather than with the Knesset. And most Knesset members, supposedly “the people’s representatives,” are not elected in any kind of primary, but are appointed by party chiefs and are dependent on them.
These are the two aspects of the convenient lie that underpins political life, endangering Israeli democracy’s legitimacy and future more than is apparent at first glance. Truth and falsehood are not simply “narratives,” nor are they relative concepts.
They are not theoretical questions but rather fundamental components of our daily lives. By every criterion, the Second Lebanon War was a failure in its results and the way it was conducted. Yet – wonder of wonders – according to Prime Minister Ehud Olmert’s rhetoric, relying on his band of marionettes in the Knesset, this disaster has magically transformed into a brilliant victory for which Israel can credit the wisdom of Olmert’s actions.
Olmert is creating a web of lies that is not essentially different from the one aimed at “cutting down to size” the institution of the State Comptroller’s Office and the law enforcement system.
For that purpose, the current regime seeks to control power centers whose existence is based on the independence that they enjoy. [..]
My, my, what isw the world coming to.
Goebbels was Hitler’s master of the Big Lie as a means of managing consent.
Real thinkers know that creating Judenrein is an invitation to decline and disaster. Therefore, creating Judenrein in Samaria and Judea will become a root cause of the failure of any Palestinian entity. The failure will occur because Jews would have represented a plurality that needed to be accommodated in a functioning democracy, thus causing modifications in government policies and procedures. Without opposition there is no need for democratic nuances and tyranny will be the abiding system in Palestine. Such an outcome is easily predicted and avoided by giving up the “principle” of land for peace. The current circumstance is good enough, since it is not easily improved upon.
With regard to Peres and Olmert, it is necessary to think of them as “stateists” who use the people under their control for political goals that may or may not benefit the land’s inhabitants. It is akin to China using prison labor to produce goods for export. The government of Israel’s use of its army in domestic police actions flies in the face of the principle of Posse Comitatus. While it may not be extant in Israeli law, it ought to be. There is no justification for causing citizens of a state to face down their own army, except in the most unusual circumstance. If Olmert and Peres want Jews to leave Judea and Samaria, then let them use incentives other than bludgeons. A nice incentive would include providing proof that sacrifice on the part of the Jews would be reciprocated by the Palestinians. In science, proof of concept is important before investing heavily in a new approach.
The big lie was one of Hitler’s tenets though I don’t suppose it originated with him.
Condi has been a big disappointment.
We have learned that territorial concession only leads to more violence and greater demands. It’s part of Arafat’s plan for victory in stages. The key is to get the Americans to understand it. Land concession is still the central theme in Condoleezza Rice’s view of the region, as it is in Bush’s speechs and certainly in the eyes of the EU. The challenge to those of us in the west is to convince our politicians, particularly those in the middle of the road that Oslo is dead, that the theory of two states for two peoples was never a serious possibility for the Arabs and that the violence since Oslo requires entirely new thinking on plans for the region.
Some autocratic leader once said, “The bigger the lie, the more likely it becomes that it will be taken for the truth!” I can’t remember who and I’m quoting from memory.