Something Israel Cannot Do
Nov 19, 2010
David P. Goldman
“Both sides,” wrote my colleague R.R. Reno in “Bad Dreams,” his “On the Square” entry yesterday, “recognize that the future outlines of a Palestinian state will roughly follow the 1967 boundaries, with a few square miles (perhaps fewer) in East Jerusalem as the (admittedly very) wild card.”
He was referring to the Israelis and the Palestinians, and “roughly,” to be sure, is a vague formulation, but it is very different from the position of the present Israeli government, or indeed any Israeli government that might come to power in the foreseeable future. It might be read, however unintentionally, as an endorsement of the Arab position—endorsed by the October Synod of Middle Eastern bishops—which simply demands an Israeli withdrawal to the so-called 1967 boundaries, which were not borders at all, but simply the armistice line at which fighting stopped in 1949.
That is something Israel cannot do, for reasons that should be obvious. No Israeli government would, or could, accept a return to the 1967 line, which would would make Israel indefensible. The Palestinian negotiating position always has been to force Israel to accept a settlement that would undermine its capacity to defend itself. Israel will not and should not accept a putative peace deal that would leave Palestinian territory just eleven miles from the Mediterranean Sea and put Hamas rocketeers atop hilltops a dozen miles from Tel Aviv and even closer to the country’s principal airport.
It has long been American policy to envision significant departures from the 1949 armistice line in any peace settlement. President George W. Bush supported substantive changes to the 1967 boundaries in a 2004 letter to then-Prime Minister Ariel Sharon:
In light of new realities on the ground, including already existing major Israeli populations centers, it is unrealistic to expect that the outcome of final status negotiations will be a full and complete return to the armistice lines of 1949, and all previous efforts to negotiate a two-state solution have reached the same conclusion. It is realistic to expect that any final status agreement will only be achieved on the basis of mutually agreed changes that reflect these realities.
Most American administrations since Lyndon Johnson have understood this. It is a commonly held misperception that U.N. Resolution 242, the basis in international law for any prospective peace negotiations, requires Israel to return to the 1949 armistice line. On the contrary: the United States crafted Resolution 242 with no specific boundaries, precisely because the U.S. recognized that Israel required defensible borders.
It calls for “secure and recognized borders,” the operative word being “secure.” As then-American Ambassador to the United Nations Arthur Goldberg stated at the time, “Historically, there have never been any secure and recognized boundaries in the area. Neither the armistice lines of 1949 nor the cease-fire lines of 1967 have answered this description.” As Meir Rosenne explains, “It is important to stress that Resolution 242 in no way called on Israel to withdraw to the lines of June 4, 1967, before the outbreak of the Six-Day War.”
The Israeli position is that in any final settlement, Israel must absorb a small amount of West Bank land on which several hundred thousands Israeli citizens now reside, and will swap land elsewhere to compensate a new Palestinian state for the lost territory. Former National Security Official Elliot Abrams explained the matter last year: ‘Ten years ago, in the Camp David talks, Prime Minister Ehud Barak offered Yasser Arafat approximately 94 percent of the West Bank, with a land swap to make up half of the 6 percent Israel would keep. . . .”
Prime Minister Ehud Olmert offered 93 percent, with a one-to-one land swap. In the end, under the January 2009 offer, Palestinians would have received an area equal to 98 to 98.5 percent of the West Bank (depending on which press report you read), while 10 years ago they were offered 97 percent. Ten years of settlement activity would have resulted in a larger area for the Palestinian state.
It is naive to assert that the parameters of an eventual settlement are well known to both sides. On the contrary: Arab insistence on the 1967 “boundaries” and refusal of the land swaps offered by two Israeli governments are intended to force Israel into an indefensible position. The global campaign to isolate and de-legitimize the State of Israel centers on the 1967 “boundaries,” claiming that Israel is acting unreasonably by refusing to withdraw unilaterally.
But, as I wrote recently about the October Synod of Middle Eastern bishops, the Jewish people are threatened by a new Holocaust at the hands of Iran, whose president threatens the Jews as brazenly as Hitler.
If Iran acquires nuclear weapons, millions of Jews may burn, again. Iran’s proxies have ringed Israel with missiles on its northern and southern borders, the recompense Israel received for ending its occupation of Gaza and southern Lebanon. And now the Middle Eastern bishops’ Synod demands that Israel end its “occupation” of the West Bank, which as a practical matter means that Iranian proxies would install missiles on hilltops a dozen miles from Tel Aviv.
Israel withdrew from Gaza in 2004 in the context of an understanding with the Bush administration that the United States would back Israel’s requirement for defensible borders in any prospective settlement. That is the nub of the issue between Washington and Jerusalem in the present negotiations.
The Obama administration reportedly has prepared a map leaving Israel with only 4 percent of the West Bank, against the 6.5 percent mentioned in the 2007 offer made by the Israeli government of Ehud Olmert. These seem like small differences, but in the close confines of the West Bank, they affect tens of thousands of Israeli residents and key strategic positions.
There is, of course, an enormous difference between the context of Israel’s negotiations today and previous periods. Under the best of circumstances, the Palestine Authority of Mahmoud Abbas can offer peace only on Israel’s Western border. Hamas controls Gaza in the south and Hezbollah controls the Lebanese border in the north. Even presuming that the PA could contain the Islamist radicals who so easily routed its forces in Gaza, the PA no longer is in a position to offer peace to Israel, only a respite on the least dangerous of the three prospective fronts.
As long as Iran has a free hand to employ Hamas and Hezbollah as proxies against Israel, the content of any peace agreement will be questionable. Reno does not mention Iran, an important omission, and his characterization of the negotiations appears to suggest that if both sides got off their high horses, they could conclude an agreement along well-understood lines:
It seems to me that the current impasse is unsurprising but not insuperable. Negotiations have long been hobbled by the disorder and dysfunction of Palestinian political life, which is perhaps understandable, given their many decades of stateless existence. Their situation has been made miserable by unnecessary provocations, indignities, and ill-considered policies that have characterized Israel’s exercise of power in the occupied territories. Moreover, Israeli political parties have not been shy about spinning the details of negotiations in order to please coalition partners and gain electoral advantage.
It isn’t a matter of getting both sides to split the difference. And it is misleading to represent Israeli demands as domestic political spin. No Israeli majority will defend outlying settlements if a viable peace deal is on offer; no Israeli majority will accept a peace deal that leaves it with indefensible borders.
In sharp contrast to the Bush administration, the Obama administration has appeared to abandon support for defensible borders. This places Israel at risk: if Washington were to force Israel to accept indefensible borders with an ascendant Iran in the background, the existence of the Jewish State would be in jeopardy. The Israelis and Palestinians are not quibbling about the shape of the table, or spinning stories for domestic constituencies: they are discussing whether Israel will exist.
The Palestinian side never has agreed to a defensible Israeli border, and Israel never has agreed to an indefensible border. There is nothing about the border problem that “both sides recognize.” The suggestion itself is prejudicial to Israel.
David P. Goldman is a senior editor of First Things.
RESOURCES
R.R. Reno’s Bad Dreams.
Meir Rosenne’s Understanding UN Security Council Resolution 242 of November 22, 1967, on the Middle East.
Elliot Abrams’ The Settlement Freeze Fallacy.
David P. Goldman’s Disappearing Middle Eastern Christians, Disappointing Bishops.
Comments:
11.19.2010 | 8:12am
Maria V. says:
Hoping that the memory of the 6 million jewish people who lost their lives in the holocaust would be taken into account , in figuring out land rights for Israel ; if they were alive now, it would have been ? 15 million persons !
Since it is not for any one's peace of mind to see enclosed and divided land plots as constant reminders of division , hope too that Israel would get to keep all of West Bank ...
Seems most of the Palestinian youth would be better off in other Moslem states in Middle East where people from other lands have been able to find jobs and survive and for the rest , more resilient ones , that Isreal would be no difft or better than these Moslem states are for the alien workers !
Peace !
Since it is not for any one's peace of mind to see enclosed and divided land plots as constant reminders of division , hope too that Israel would get to keep all of West Bank ...
Seems most of the Palestinian youth would be better off in other Moslem states in Middle East where people from other lands have been able to find jobs and survive and for the rest , more resilient ones , that Isreal would be no difft or better than these Moslem states are for the alien workers !
Peace !
11.19.2010 | 8:26am
Douglas Knight says:
David Goldman is right. Israel must have secure borders. Without them Israel will not survive.
The consequences for the morale of Europe if Israel disappeared would be appalling. It would be the collapse of the rule of law in the face of limitless resentment, tribalism and violence. Israel is the sole Middle Eastern state in which Muslim women have the vote – no votes for women in Gaza.
It is not as though a reckless land-for-peace offer hasn’t been made – and rejected by Arafat and the second Intifada. Still, who doesn't feel sorry for Palestinians? Until you read Victor Sharpe
http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/03/the_two_state_solution_is_87_y.html
or John Derbyshire http://old.nationalreview.com/derbyshire/derbyshire050902.asp
The consequences for the morale of Europe if Israel disappeared would be appalling. It would be the collapse of the rule of law in the face of limitless resentment, tribalism and violence. Israel is the sole Middle Eastern state in which Muslim women have the vote – no votes for women in Gaza.
It is not as though a reckless land-for-peace offer hasn’t been made – and rejected by Arafat and the second Intifada. Still, who doesn't feel sorry for Palestinians? Until you read Victor Sharpe
http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/03/the_two_state_solution_is_87_y.html
or John Derbyshire http://old.nationalreview.com/derbyshire/derbyshire050902.asp
11.19.2010 | 9:42am
Maria V. says:
Correction - may be the lesson learned about better safety by use of high walls around Palestinian sites need to be put into use in Iraq , for the safety of the Christians , atleast for now !
May be the Palestinan youth can be recruited to do same and they thus get to see first hand the ugliness in hatreds and ...may be , can be helped to recognise that idolatry of hatred does no one any good ...other than for the devil itself which is behind the poverty and malaise in places infested by it !
" Mankind will not have peace untill it turns to My mercy " - words of Yeshua ..
hoping that all those who hate Chritians would realise , before it is too late , that blessing them , being merciful to them are means of being spared calamities for their own future generations .....the poverty stricken and arid areas in places like Egypt would have such stories of self cursing that all of the Arab world can learn from !
May be the Palestinan youth can be recruited to do same and they thus get to see first hand the ugliness in hatreds and ...may be , can be helped to recognise that idolatry of hatred does no one any good ...other than for the devil itself which is behind the poverty and malaise in places infested by it !
" Mankind will not have peace untill it turns to My mercy " - words of Yeshua ..
hoping that all those who hate Chritians would realise , before it is too late , that blessing them , being merciful to them are means of being spared calamities for their own future generations .....the poverty stricken and arid areas in places like Egypt would have such stories of self cursing that all of the Arab world can learn from !
11.19.2010 | 10:27am
Stuart Koehl says:
"Still, who doesn't feel sorry for Palestinians? "
Me, teacher!
There is only one impediment to peace between the Palestinians and the Israelis, and that is the Palestinians themselves. If they truly wished to have their own state, they could have had one ages ago. Instead, they have turned down every offer put on the table, including the Oslo Accords, which would have granted them control of 98% of the occupied territories. As someone noted, "They never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity".
Why? Because it is not the occupation of this fly-blown village or that olive orchard that offends them. It is the very existence of the "Zionist entity" itself.
Few people now remember that, after the 1948 truce between Israel and the warring Arab states, Palestinian terrorism began almost immediately. Every year, from 1948 through 1956, several hundred Israelis were murdered every year by Palestinian fellahin, forerunners of the PLO. The PLO, founded in 1964 (when Israel existed entirely within the "pre-1967 borders") in its charter called for the expulsion of the Jews from the "Palestinian homeland" (more specifically it recognized "... the right of the Palestinian Arab people to its sacred homeland Palestine and affirming the inevitability of the battle to liberate the usurped part from it".
In other words, the Charter calls for the destruction of Israel and the expulsion of the Jews from the region (as the other Arab states did in the wake of the War of Independence). This Charter has not been repudiated by any of the PLO successor organizations such as Fatah, Hamas, or the Palestinian Authority.
Supposing tomorrow Israel withdrew to its 1967 borders and recognized the existence of a Palestinian state, the Palestinians (once they settled their necessarily bloody internal power struggles) would simply find some other excuse to continue their war against the Jews. Put another way, killing Jews is much more emotionally satisfying than the hard work of building a nation.
Who knows what would happen if they suddenly got their fondest wish, and Israel did disappear? Most likely, Palestine would be gobbled up by its rapacious Arab neighbors, as happened in the wake of the 1948 War of Independence (funny, but nobody clamored for a Palestinian state when Palestine was occupied by Jordan and Egypt). Serve them right, too.
Suppose, though, that a Palestinian state was established on the basis of the 1948 boundaries. The situation would not be peaceful or stable. Jerusalem would be connected to the rest of Israel by a tenuous corridor, easily interdicted and ideal for terrorism based on vehicular IEDs. Palestine would control the ridgelines overlooking the coastal plain, too, meaning that every major Israeli population center would be within range of Palestinian mortars, rockets and artillery. Given their history, the Palestinians could not be expected either to exercise restraint or the new Palestinian government to exercise control over its more militant factions. Attacks would occur, and Israel would respond.
The fundamental situation, however, would have changed. Palestine would now be a sovereign state, with the duties and responsibilities pertaining to a nation state, including the obligation to prevent hostile acts against contiguous states being launched from its territory. The first Kassem rocket launched from Palestine landing in Israel would be an appropriate casus belli, and Israel would be within its right of self defense to launch an all-out invasion of Palestine, which could have only one ending. Undoubtedly, the world community will get all huffy, but, having deprived Israel of the strategic depth needed to absorb an attack, Israel will have its defense forces on a hair trigger. This time, I think, Israel will not heed the calls of the international community for "restraint", but will crush the Palestinian resistance and perhaps expel large portions of the population (an action which would bring peace to the region, and probably should have happened after 1967). Nobody raised much of a fuss when the Arab states uprooted their Jewish communities in 1948, but I suppose Arabs are held to a different standard than Jews, which is a compliment in a way.
In any case, Israel, and Israel alone should dictate the boundaries of a final status agreement, which, at a minimum should include ALL of Jerusalem (a city which figured little in the Muslim imagination until the Jews began developing it), as well as secure communications with Jerusalem, and the strategic high ground overlooking the coastal plain. Were I Israel, I would simply announce these boundaries, pull all Israelis back behind them, put up security barriers, tell the Palestinians they have a state, and "Mazel Tov!". After which, let the Palestinians stew in their own juices.
Me, teacher!
There is only one impediment to peace between the Palestinians and the Israelis, and that is the Palestinians themselves. If they truly wished to have their own state, they could have had one ages ago. Instead, they have turned down every offer put on the table, including the Oslo Accords, which would have granted them control of 98% of the occupied territories. As someone noted, "They never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity".
Why? Because it is not the occupation of this fly-blown village or that olive orchard that offends them. It is the very existence of the "Zionist entity" itself.
Few people now remember that, after the 1948 truce between Israel and the warring Arab states, Palestinian terrorism began almost immediately. Every year, from 1948 through 1956, several hundred Israelis were murdered every year by Palestinian fellahin, forerunners of the PLO. The PLO, founded in 1964 (when Israel existed entirely within the "pre-1967 borders") in its charter called for the expulsion of the Jews from the "Palestinian homeland" (more specifically it recognized "... the right of the Palestinian Arab people to its sacred homeland Palestine and affirming the inevitability of the battle to liberate the usurped part from it".
In other words, the Charter calls for the destruction of Israel and the expulsion of the Jews from the region (as the other Arab states did in the wake of the War of Independence). This Charter has not been repudiated by any of the PLO successor organizations such as Fatah, Hamas, or the Palestinian Authority.
Supposing tomorrow Israel withdrew to its 1967 borders and recognized the existence of a Palestinian state, the Palestinians (once they settled their necessarily bloody internal power struggles) would simply find some other excuse to continue their war against the Jews. Put another way, killing Jews is much more emotionally satisfying than the hard work of building a nation.
Who knows what would happen if they suddenly got their fondest wish, and Israel did disappear? Most likely, Palestine would be gobbled up by its rapacious Arab neighbors, as happened in the wake of the 1948 War of Independence (funny, but nobody clamored for a Palestinian state when Palestine was occupied by Jordan and Egypt). Serve them right, too.
Suppose, though, that a Palestinian state was established on the basis of the 1948 boundaries. The situation would not be peaceful or stable. Jerusalem would be connected to the rest of Israel by a tenuous corridor, easily interdicted and ideal for terrorism based on vehicular IEDs. Palestine would control the ridgelines overlooking the coastal plain, too, meaning that every major Israeli population center would be within range of Palestinian mortars, rockets and artillery. Given their history, the Palestinians could not be expected either to exercise restraint or the new Palestinian government to exercise control over its more militant factions. Attacks would occur, and Israel would respond.
The fundamental situation, however, would have changed. Palestine would now be a sovereign state, with the duties and responsibilities pertaining to a nation state, including the obligation to prevent hostile acts against contiguous states being launched from its territory. The first Kassem rocket launched from Palestine landing in Israel would be an appropriate casus belli, and Israel would be within its right of self defense to launch an all-out invasion of Palestine, which could have only one ending. Undoubtedly, the world community will get all huffy, but, having deprived Israel of the strategic depth needed to absorb an attack, Israel will have its defense forces on a hair trigger. This time, I think, Israel will not heed the calls of the international community for "restraint", but will crush the Palestinian resistance and perhaps expel large portions of the population (an action which would bring peace to the region, and probably should have happened after 1967). Nobody raised much of a fuss when the Arab states uprooted their Jewish communities in 1948, but I suppose Arabs are held to a different standard than Jews, which is a compliment in a way.
In any case, Israel, and Israel alone should dictate the boundaries of a final status agreement, which, at a minimum should include ALL of Jerusalem (a city which figured little in the Muslim imagination until the Jews began developing it), as well as secure communications with Jerusalem, and the strategic high ground overlooking the coastal plain. Were I Israel, I would simply announce these boundaries, pull all Israelis back behind them, put up security barriers, tell the Palestinians they have a state, and "Mazel Tov!". After which, let the Palestinians stew in their own juices.
11.19.2010 | 10:52am
David Goldman says:
There is a small minority of national-religious Jews that believes it is their obligation to settle every square kilometer of territory promised to Israel. Most Orthodox Jews believe that the modern State of Israel is NOT to be confused with the eventual Messianic kingdom (some prayers call it "the first flowering of our redemption"), and that the principle of "p'kuach nefesh" -- preserving life -- supervenes. Territorial issues, that is, must be viewed from the practical standpoint of protecting Jewish lives, not eschatologically. Whether it is practical for Israel to take the unilateral measures that Mr. Koehl proposes above is hard to judge, given the world environment. If the US were to throw Israel under the bus, e.g., retaliating by withholding spare parts for Israeli fighter planes, Israel could be in real danger. I am hesitant to give Israel specific advice because I am in no position to weigh risks and rewards. Were the Palestinians to unilaterally declare a state, though, Israel well might declare its own borders in response.
11.19.2010 | 11:27am
Stuart Koehl says:
I doubt the Palestinians would unilaterally declare a state because they have too much invested in the status quo. Remember that the Palestinian ruling factions (one can hardly call them a government) are parasitic thugocracies who retain power by distributing the largesse of the international community among their armed retainers. As long as there is conflict, the taps of international aid remain open, the cash keeps flowing, and the bank accounts of Abu Masen and his cronies grow fatter. Hamas is a bit different, as they have within them a hard kernel of true believers who will only be assuaged through continued armed struggle with the Zionist entity. Decades of Hamas indoctrination has ensured that this ideological fervor will continue down through the next generation. Also, Iran, as Hamas' paymaster, will not keep Hamas flush with arms, ammunition and cash unless it maintains a bellicose posture towards Israel.
So, the Palestinian leadership will not settle, because it is not in their interest to settle. Also, they don't know how to govern, and if peace broke out, the Palestinian people would no longer tolerate being ruled by a corrupt and brutal regime incapable of delivering the benefits of peace.
So, the Palestinian leadership will not settle, because it is not in their interest to settle. Also, they don't know how to govern, and if peace broke out, the Palestinian people would no longer tolerate being ruled by a corrupt and brutal regime incapable of delivering the benefits of peace.
11.19.2010 | 1:39pm
Krakow says:
Koehl is so specific that it is difficult not to appreciate his position and easy to adopt it. Well done. Koehl also seems qualified to comment on the Election of Israel debate. Are you willing to give it a shot?
11.19.2010 | 1:42pm
J says:
I have a question about the phrase "defensible borders." Maybe I'm way off in my assumption, but I always thought Israel had a much stronger military than all the other Middle Eastern countries, and in particular had a much better air force. Again I could be wrong, but I thought a year or two ago some kind of facility in Syria got taken out by Israeli jets. If their air force can take out targets in Syria, won't it be able to provide plenty of cover for Israel's own borders? And it seems odd to me that occupying hilltops would be a special advantage. In addition to relying on air superiority, couldn't Israel just set up a bunch of missiles aimed right at the hilltops and wipe out any Hamas rocketeers who tried to set up shop there? (This is not an argument that because its airforce is strong, Israel should just give in to Palestinian demands - it's just a question about whether "defensible borders" is that much of a concern)
11.19.2010 | 1:44pm
Krakow says:
Koehl is so specific that it is difficult not to appreciate his position and easy to adopt it. Well done. Koehl also seems qualified to comment on the Election of Israel debate. Are you willing to give it a shot?
11.19.2010 | 2:04pm
Joel Clarke Gibbons says:
I just hope the neo-cons never figure out that Iran is much more valuable to us than Israel is. Iran is the broad highway into Central Asia. China and Russia are indefensible if we have Iran working for us.
11.19.2010 | 2:19pm
PaulR says:
It is beyond my comprehension as to why any US President would spend their valuable political capital trying to cut an impossible deal with the Palestinians. Everyone from Truman onward has failed, and its only becoming more difficult. As Goldman has pointed out, there is no peace, because the Palestinians, Iranians, Syrians, Hezbollah, Hamas do not want peace.
Why can't US Presidents admit this? Is it arrogance? Is it stupidity caused by ideology? Is it simply bureaucratic momentum of generations of "experts" telling us that the USA must somehow make the peace between Israel and the Palestinians? Whatever the reason, these efforts are all doomed to failure.
Why can't US Presidents admit this? Is it arrogance? Is it stupidity caused by ideology? Is it simply bureaucratic momentum of generations of "experts" telling us that the USA must somehow make the peace between Israel and the Palestinians? Whatever the reason, these efforts are all doomed to failure.
11.19.2010 | 2:40pm
Stuart Koehl says:
"Maybe I'm way off in my assumption, but I always thought Israel had a much stronger military than all the other Middle Eastern countries, and in particular had a much better air force."
It does, and if allowed to do so, could easily defeat all of its contiguous neighbors. But Israel has a very small population, and its defense forces rely almost exclusively on mobilization of reserves in wartime. The standing Israel Defense Force is quite small--a couple of armored and mechanized brigades, a couple of infantry brigades, and only about half of its combat squadrons. It would take about 72 hours to mobilize the full IDF, and once mobilized, almost all civilian activity comes to a halt, because all the men, and a good number of the women, are in uniform and not working their peacetime jobs. Each day that the army remains mobilized, the Israeli economy goes into the tank. Thus, Israel in late September 1973 was loathe to mobilize its forces despite indications of an impending Arab attack, because an earlier mobilization (against an Egyptian feint) had been so. economically disruptive. As a result, the Israelis were caught flat-footed on Yom Kippur, when the Arabs did attack.
This was not too damaging, because Israel had strategic depth in the Sinai, and even on the Golan Heights. On the other hand, in 1967, Israel felt compelled to attack preemptively because its lack of strategic depth meant it could not absorb an Arab first strike.
Those who have not been to Israel do not understand how small the country is. From the Golan Heights, you can see almost all the way to the Mediterranean. From the narrow neck of Israel, you can hit Tel Aviv and Haifa with a cheap barrage rocket. Without strategic depth, without defensible borders, Israel either has to maintain much larger active forces (at considerable economic cost), or it has to place itself on a preemptive footing, ready to attack at the least provocation from its neighbors--including any hypothetical Palestinian state.
It does, and if allowed to do so, could easily defeat all of its contiguous neighbors. But Israel has a very small population, and its defense forces rely almost exclusively on mobilization of reserves in wartime. The standing Israel Defense Force is quite small--a couple of armored and mechanized brigades, a couple of infantry brigades, and only about half of its combat squadrons. It would take about 72 hours to mobilize the full IDF, and once mobilized, almost all civilian activity comes to a halt, because all the men, and a good number of the women, are in uniform and not working their peacetime jobs. Each day that the army remains mobilized, the Israeli economy goes into the tank. Thus, Israel in late September 1973 was loathe to mobilize its forces despite indications of an impending Arab attack, because an earlier mobilization (against an Egyptian feint) had been so. economically disruptive. As a result, the Israelis were caught flat-footed on Yom Kippur, when the Arabs did attack.
This was not too damaging, because Israel had strategic depth in the Sinai, and even on the Golan Heights. On the other hand, in 1967, Israel felt compelled to attack preemptively because its lack of strategic depth meant it could not absorb an Arab first strike.
Those who have not been to Israel do not understand how small the country is. From the Golan Heights, you can see almost all the way to the Mediterranean. From the narrow neck of Israel, you can hit Tel Aviv and Haifa with a cheap barrage rocket. Without strategic depth, without defensible borders, Israel either has to maintain much larger active forces (at considerable economic cost), or it has to place itself on a preemptive footing, ready to attack at the least provocation from its neighbors--including any hypothetical Palestinian state.
11.19.2010 | 3:07pm
Assistant Village Idiot says:
We would all prefer that there be another truth, different from the one Stuart Koehl outlines.
There isn't. Wishing is not a foreign policy.
J - No. Military advantages are not all of a piece, so that a superiority in one area erases vulnerabilities in another. You might have to read up on it and look at a lot of maps - or even go there - to see it, but air superiority is not a solution to enemies on your border.
From the Balkans due East to the Pacific, the entire area is pretty much warlike tribes which periodically erupt in attempts at genocidal elimination of their neighbors. That is, frankly, pretty much the history of mankind. Regarding Israel, the least offender of the lot, as some sort of special problem that makes the whole ME difficult to deal with is simply insane. It is believed, even in places with a free press and access to the real information, because people would prefer it to be true. In the West there is a vision among some that we can all dance around the May Pole together if people would just listen to each other and very earnestly say that they care. In the East, each tribe has a vision of dominance over the others that is only thwarted by the evil, betrayal, and viciousness of their neighbors, which is entire excuse for them to bring evil, betrayal, and viciousness in return. These visions are both fantasy, but they dominate international discussion of the Middle East.
There isn't. Wishing is not a foreign policy.
J - No. Military advantages are not all of a piece, so that a superiority in one area erases vulnerabilities in another. You might have to read up on it and look at a lot of maps - or even go there - to see it, but air superiority is not a solution to enemies on your border.
From the Balkans due East to the Pacific, the entire area is pretty much warlike tribes which periodically erupt in attempts at genocidal elimination of their neighbors. That is, frankly, pretty much the history of mankind. Regarding Israel, the least offender of the lot, as some sort of special problem that makes the whole ME difficult to deal with is simply insane. It is believed, even in places with a free press and access to the real information, because people would prefer it to be true. In the West there is a vision among some that we can all dance around the May Pole together if people would just listen to each other and very earnestly say that they care. In the East, each tribe has a vision of dominance over the others that is only thwarted by the evil, betrayal, and viciousness of their neighbors, which is entire excuse for them to bring evil, betrayal, and viciousness in return. These visions are both fantasy, but they dominate international discussion of the Middle East.
11.19.2010 | 3:30pm
Bob G says:
In the first month of the Great War Britain suffered a major reverse when a German ship the British were pursuing found refuge at Constantinople and turned Turkey into a German ally. Thus TE Lawrence and Britain became entangled with the Arabs to mobilize them against the Germans.
After the war Churchill, who by then had much diplomatic experience, found himself negotiating with the muslims for a "settlement" in Palestine. He discovered, to his dismay, that it was impossible to deal with them rationally. They ducked all rational proposals and insisted on their single-minded obsessions, especially against the Jews. After a while Churchill, realizing he was talking to himself, threw up his hands.
This is not a brief for Churchill, but his experience turned out to be prophetic. There is no chance of dealing in what we consider a “reasonable” way with muslims. They have one rigid point of view that probably will never change. They want the Jews out—period and no matter what. What will become of themselves when the Jews are gone they could care less. (As Chesteron, also prophetically, understood, the muslim faith produces only a cultural desert.) So no one is going to negotiate a real settlement with the Palestinians. The only settlement they are interested in is total victory. And the Jews are only first. We will be next.
On the Jewish side there’s a similar problem, although less intense. In the back of the Jewish mind is the thought that God promised this land to Israel and their presence there is providential. This thought will make them less accommodating than perhaps they otherwise might be.
Chances of “peace” in Palestine as long as muslims are there or Israel ceases to be an armed camp: zero. Obama views Islam as a religion of peace with which he can negotiate. He will be proved wrong. We seem to be entering an apocalyptic period in which the basic underlying realities will emerge. I say back and defend Israel, whatever its serious flaws, at almost any cost. If we let it go, we may not be far behind.
After the war Churchill, who by then had much diplomatic experience, found himself negotiating with the muslims for a "settlement" in Palestine. He discovered, to his dismay, that it was impossible to deal with them rationally. They ducked all rational proposals and insisted on their single-minded obsessions, especially against the Jews. After a while Churchill, realizing he was talking to himself, threw up his hands.
This is not a brief for Churchill, but his experience turned out to be prophetic. There is no chance of dealing in what we consider a “reasonable” way with muslims. They have one rigid point of view that probably will never change. They want the Jews out—period and no matter what. What will become of themselves when the Jews are gone they could care less. (As Chesteron, also prophetically, understood, the muslim faith produces only a cultural desert.) So no one is going to negotiate a real settlement with the Palestinians. The only settlement they are interested in is total victory. And the Jews are only first. We will be next.
On the Jewish side there’s a similar problem, although less intense. In the back of the Jewish mind is the thought that God promised this land to Israel and their presence there is providential. This thought will make them less accommodating than perhaps they otherwise might be.
Chances of “peace” in Palestine as long as muslims are there or Israel ceases to be an armed camp: zero. Obama views Islam as a religion of peace with which he can negotiate. He will be proved wrong. We seem to be entering an apocalyptic period in which the basic underlying realities will emerge. I say back and defend Israel, whatever its serious flaws, at almost any cost. If we let it go, we may not be far behind.
11.19.2010 | 5:02pm
roger says:
In the context of the location of Israel in the ME "defensible borders" doesn't have much meaning. The problem is that Israel's neighbors wish to see Israel destroyed, until that attitude is changed no conceivable borders will be secure. Rational argument and appeals to compromise are not going to work with the people Israel is attempting to negotiate with. Until they learn (really learn) that their attitude is self destructive there will be no real progress, therefore Israel has to make Arab attitudes very expensive, in terms of life and prosperity. in other words pound the crap out of them for every infraction, never mind any nonsense about "proportional response". Germany and Japan were reduced from truculent fascism to passive; "when is this ever going to end" fatalism by total war, the same will work for the Arabs.
11.19.2010 | 7:44pm
John Cummins says:
This is exactly the attitude you're trying to foster, isn't it, David Goldman?
"Rational argument and appeals to compromise are not going to work with the people Israel is attempting to negotiate with. Until they learn (really learn) that their attitude is self destructive there will be no real progress, therefore Israel has to make Arab attitudes very expensive, in terms of life and prosperity. in other words pound the crap out of them for every infraction"
"Rational argument and appeals to compromise are not going to work with the people Israel is attempting to negotiate with. Until they learn (really learn) that their attitude is self destructive there will be no real progress, therefore Israel has to make Arab attitudes very expensive, in terms of life and prosperity. in other words pound the crap out of them for every infraction"
11.19.2010 | 10:38pm
roger says:
John Cummins:
Do you have something to say?
Are you trying to insinuate that Mr Goldman is some of kind of manipulator?
Are Arabs negoiating in good faith?
Are they determined to destroy Israel or not?
Do Arabs enjoy benefits in Israel that they could only dream of in Arab states?
Please respond.
Do you have something to say?
Are you trying to insinuate that Mr Goldman is some of kind of manipulator?
Are Arabs negoiating in good faith?
Are they determined to destroy Israel or not?
Do Arabs enjoy benefits in Israel that they could only dream of in Arab states?
Please respond.
11.19.2010 | 11:18pm
Stuart Koehl says:
it is an unfortunate fact that the Arab states generally, and the Palestinians in particular, have never been forced to suffer the full consequences of their foolish aggression against Israel, due mainly to the intervention of the Great Powers to prevent their total defeat.
One could argue that all the present problems in the Middle East trace back not to the foundation of the Jewish State, or to the Six Day War, but rather to the Suez War of 1956, and the moment when President Eisenhower intervened to keep the French, British and Israeli forces from totally defeating the Egyptian army and re-opening the Suez Canal. A total defeat would have led to the speedy demise of Gamal Abdul Nasser, and would have been an affirmation of the inviolability of international agreements (i.e., the treaty governing the operation of the Suez Canal).
Instead, out of a total misappreciation of the situation, Eisenhower made Nasser a hero to the Arab world (always more interested in perception than reality), without gaining any favor for the United States. Egypt, Syria and Iraq all became enmeshed in the Soviet sphere of influence, which thereafter made the Arab-Israeli conflict an extension of the Cold War.
That, in turn, ensured that the U.S. would intervene to bring the 1967, 1973 and 1982 wars to a premature conclusion, for fear of triggering a direct Soviet intervention in the region. The Cold War is over, but the U.S. and the world community still insist on protecting the Arabs from the consequences of their folly.
To quote Edward N. Luttwak, "Give war a chance". It's a terrible thing, but it does have one saving virtue--it can put a definitive end to long-festering conflicts if allowed to run out to their conclusion. On the other hand, Western intervention merely prolongs the duration of the conflict, because it never allows the Israelis to deliver the knock-out blow that finally breaks the Arab will to continue fighting.
With that in mind, perhaps the best U.S. policy towards the Arab-Israeli conflict would be a total hands-off approach, with no attempt to mediate one way or the other. Understanding they are being left to their own devices, the Palestinians will either come to their senses, or to a very sticky end, in fairly short order, too.
One could argue that all the present problems in the Middle East trace back not to the foundation of the Jewish State, or to the Six Day War, but rather to the Suez War of 1956, and the moment when President Eisenhower intervened to keep the French, British and Israeli forces from totally defeating the Egyptian army and re-opening the Suez Canal. A total defeat would have led to the speedy demise of Gamal Abdul Nasser, and would have been an affirmation of the inviolability of international agreements (i.e., the treaty governing the operation of the Suez Canal).
Instead, out of a total misappreciation of the situation, Eisenhower made Nasser a hero to the Arab world (always more interested in perception than reality), without gaining any favor for the United States. Egypt, Syria and Iraq all became enmeshed in the Soviet sphere of influence, which thereafter made the Arab-Israeli conflict an extension of the Cold War.
That, in turn, ensured that the U.S. would intervene to bring the 1967, 1973 and 1982 wars to a premature conclusion, for fear of triggering a direct Soviet intervention in the region. The Cold War is over, but the U.S. and the world community still insist on protecting the Arabs from the consequences of their folly.
To quote Edward N. Luttwak, "Give war a chance". It's a terrible thing, but it does have one saving virtue--it can put a definitive end to long-festering conflicts if allowed to run out to their conclusion. On the other hand, Western intervention merely prolongs the duration of the conflict, because it never allows the Israelis to deliver the knock-out blow that finally breaks the Arab will to continue fighting.
With that in mind, perhaps the best U.S. policy towards the Arab-Israeli conflict would be a total hands-off approach, with no attempt to mediate one way or the other. Understanding they are being left to their own devices, the Palestinians will either come to their senses, or to a very sticky end, in fairly short order, too.
11.20.2010 | 1:19am
Assistant Village Idiot says:
Mr. Cummins - show evidence that it is the intransigence of the Israelis or their supporters that has caused the Palestinian attitude. Not counting assuming what you are trying to prove, that is.
In fact, show evidence of any Palestinian action in support of peace. I am not interested in hearing yet another person explain away their negative actions. Make the positive case: what have they done?
In fact, show evidence of any Palestinian action in support of peace. I am not interested in hearing yet another person explain away their negative actions. Make the positive case: what have they done?
11.20.2010 | 8:42am
Maria V. says:
'Unless The Lord builds the house , its builders labor in vain ; unless The Lord watches over the city , in vain does its guardmen' ..familiar words from Psalm127 .
Having read the good hearted words of Cardinal Koch at the Spengler column that describes the 'mystery ' that jewish faith is to Christians and vice versa , one major theme in that mystery that is prevailing in our times could be the theme of mercy ...
Our Jewish brethren , even while not acknowledging The Lord of Mercy Incarnate and the power of forgiveness that flows from same , into hearts of many - through The Church that pleads for mercy on behalf of all ..yet , they have been blessed to be a people of mercy - this , esp. in the context of the holocaust ...and this may be part of the mystery that the Cardinal was hinting at ..
The Christian West also has been blessed to overcome much and to work in union with former enemies ...and struggling to walk the narrow road of this right judgement , in many areas ...
Thus , looking back at past incidents merely as failures in military strategy - unsure if that would give us a full picture ..
We can hope that the Arab world would watch and learn how Israel has been blessed , may be for this great attitude of mercy related to the holcaust events especially ...and that The West , in turn , now try to reciprocate that mercy , by making it possible for them to have peace , which is a fruit of mercy ...and that they are even owed the same , from any and all who might even indirectly be a cause of those events ...
Even the recommendation of the Middle Eastern Bishop's Synod need not be resented when one recognises that they too are trying to be a people of mercy to all involved parties ...
and one day soon , may be the Palestinians would wake up to recognise that using the famous theme of Middle Eatsern hospitality , depicted in the life of Patriarch Abraham and Sara , when they graciously accept the Three guests ..that that is the way to go ..
that , even while our our faiths may be mystery to each other , as we live the tenets of that faith , esp. the one of mercy , we can be like guests to each other ...untill then , good old fashioned discipline to be meted out when needed , with enough deliberation , which too is mercy ..
May thus the motto of Israel be of a land of peace from mercy ..it is good to be reminded how she has often lived that mission ..and thus chosen to help nations and persons to take note of same !
Having read the good hearted words of Cardinal Koch at the Spengler column that describes the 'mystery ' that jewish faith is to Christians and vice versa , one major theme in that mystery that is prevailing in our times could be the theme of mercy ...
Our Jewish brethren , even while not acknowledging The Lord of Mercy Incarnate and the power of forgiveness that flows from same , into hearts of many - through The Church that pleads for mercy on behalf of all ..yet , they have been blessed to be a people of mercy - this , esp. in the context of the holocaust ...and this may be part of the mystery that the Cardinal was hinting at ..
The Christian West also has been blessed to overcome much and to work in union with former enemies ...and struggling to walk the narrow road of this right judgement , in many areas ...
Thus , looking back at past incidents merely as failures in military strategy - unsure if that would give us a full picture ..
We can hope that the Arab world would watch and learn how Israel has been blessed , may be for this great attitude of mercy related to the holcaust events especially ...and that The West , in turn , now try to reciprocate that mercy , by making it possible for them to have peace , which is a fruit of mercy ...and that they are even owed the same , from any and all who might even indirectly be a cause of those events ...
Even the recommendation of the Middle Eastern Bishop's Synod need not be resented when one recognises that they too are trying to be a people of mercy to all involved parties ...
and one day soon , may be the Palestinians would wake up to recognise that using the famous theme of Middle Eatsern hospitality , depicted in the life of Patriarch Abraham and Sara , when they graciously accept the Three guests ..that that is the way to go ..
that , even while our our faiths may be mystery to each other , as we live the tenets of that faith , esp. the one of mercy , we can be like guests to each other ...untill then , good old fashioned discipline to be meted out when needed , with enough deliberation , which too is mercy ..
May thus the motto of Israel be of a land of peace from mercy ..it is good to be reminded how she has often lived that mission ..and thus chosen to help nations and persons to take note of same !
11.20.2010 | 7:21pm
Gary says:
At the risk of alienating virtually everyone who has already commented...
Israel is the ONLY military superpower in the Middle East and has been for at least a quarter century. The CIA thought so even before the 1967 war, and the IDF has become many times more capable since. No combination of Arab/Muslim military force can seriously challenge Israel, other than a pre-emptive nuclear strike by Iran. This threat is still several years away and would result in diplomatic and strategic suicide for the current Iranian regime. Israel has a well-established nuclear (and neutron) weapons capability and an offensive missile capability that can reach far beyond the region. It has the most capable air force between NATO and India.
Israel, with or without the occupied territories, is a tiny country. Its defense lies in its control of airspace, not in a few more square miles of land. The age of the jet engine has made the "strategic value" of a feature such as the Golan Heights virtually obsolete.
Israel is the largest cumulative recipient of U.S. foreign assistance since World War II. Since 1985, the United States has provided nearly $3 billion in grants annually to Israel. Currently, the US provides more military aid to Israel in annual appropriations than to the rest of the world combined, with the exception of Afghanistan which is separately funded. This does not count numerous other benefits unique to Israel, such as a hugely favorable Free Trade Agreement with the U.S., special provisions to spend military grants within its own defense industry, etc. With the enactment of the Naval Vessel Transfer Act of 2008, the US Congress, which continues to increase military aid to Israel annually, requires the President to confirm that Israel maintains a "qualitative military edge" over all possible enemies.
Despite 60 years of weapons procurement, thousands of raids on Palestinian and Arab neighbors, illegal occupation of territory, a pathetic human rights record, and the kneejerk support of its superpower patron, Israel has not found peace. Could God be telling His chosen people that their security is not to be found in military might? If so, Zionism has not learned this lesson. Indeed, it is standard Zionist rhetoric to talk about "redeeming" the land by placing settlers on it, normally at the expense of Palestinians or other peoples who have lived there for many generations. The Old Testament (Genesis 15) speaks of God making a covenenant with Abraham, giving him all the land between the Nile and the Euphrates. If, as some Jews and (sadly) many American Christians assert, this covenant is still in force, then the United States should be endorsing and subsidizing Israeli aggression against Egypt, Jordan, Iraq, and others to help make this divine promise a reality. This is part of the insanity that dominates U.S. Middle East policy. If, on the other hand, the Old Testament has been fulfilled by the New, perhaps we should consider the words of Christ to the Samaritan woman at the well (John 4) -- "the hour is coming, and is now here, when neither on this mountain nor in Jerusalem will you worship the Father..." In other words, land (and certainly not military power) is not relevant in the world that God wants for all His children.
If there is one thing that Israel can do -- and must do for its own security -- is recognize that it does not have a right to whatever land it can conquer by force of arms. The Saudis have had a peace plan on the table since 2002 which has the full support of the entire Arab League and which has been steadfastly ignored by the United States and Israel. Of course, that would require a compromise on land.
Israel is the ONLY military superpower in the Middle East and has been for at least a quarter century. The CIA thought so even before the 1967 war, and the IDF has become many times more capable since. No combination of Arab/Muslim military force can seriously challenge Israel, other than a pre-emptive nuclear strike by Iran. This threat is still several years away and would result in diplomatic and strategic suicide for the current Iranian regime. Israel has a well-established nuclear (and neutron) weapons capability and an offensive missile capability that can reach far beyond the region. It has the most capable air force between NATO and India.
Israel, with or without the occupied territories, is a tiny country. Its defense lies in its control of airspace, not in a few more square miles of land. The age of the jet engine has made the "strategic value" of a feature such as the Golan Heights virtually obsolete.
Israel is the largest cumulative recipient of U.S. foreign assistance since World War II. Since 1985, the United States has provided nearly $3 billion in grants annually to Israel. Currently, the US provides more military aid to Israel in annual appropriations than to the rest of the world combined, with the exception of Afghanistan which is separately funded. This does not count numerous other benefits unique to Israel, such as a hugely favorable Free Trade Agreement with the U.S., special provisions to spend military grants within its own defense industry, etc. With the enactment of the Naval Vessel Transfer Act of 2008, the US Congress, which continues to increase military aid to Israel annually, requires the President to confirm that Israel maintains a "qualitative military edge" over all possible enemies.
Despite 60 years of weapons procurement, thousands of raids on Palestinian and Arab neighbors, illegal occupation of territory, a pathetic human rights record, and the kneejerk support of its superpower patron, Israel has not found peace. Could God be telling His chosen people that their security is not to be found in military might? If so, Zionism has not learned this lesson. Indeed, it is standard Zionist rhetoric to talk about "redeeming" the land by placing settlers on it, normally at the expense of Palestinians or other peoples who have lived there for many generations. The Old Testament (Genesis 15) speaks of God making a covenenant with Abraham, giving him all the land between the Nile and the Euphrates. If, as some Jews and (sadly) many American Christians assert, this covenant is still in force, then the United States should be endorsing and subsidizing Israeli aggression against Egypt, Jordan, Iraq, and others to help make this divine promise a reality. This is part of the insanity that dominates U.S. Middle East policy. If, on the other hand, the Old Testament has been fulfilled by the New, perhaps we should consider the words of Christ to the Samaritan woman at the well (John 4) -- "the hour is coming, and is now here, when neither on this mountain nor in Jerusalem will you worship the Father..." In other words, land (and certainly not military power) is not relevant in the world that God wants for all His children.
If there is one thing that Israel can do -- and must do for its own security -- is recognize that it does not have a right to whatever land it can conquer by force of arms. The Saudis have had a peace plan on the table since 2002 which has the full support of the entire Arab League and which has been steadfastly ignored by the United States and Israel. Of course, that would require a compromise on land.
11.21.2010 | 5:33am
Joshua Lore says:
This article, along with the biggotrous self-congratulation that follows, is a nauseating example of the ignorant and virile ideology that continues to emanate from the Christian community on the issue of Isreal and Palestine. My inclination is to stop reading the journal entirely, but I know that this is a merely a reaction. The future words of Mr. Goldman, however, have lost all dignity, and I assure you I will offer little trust in their validity from this point forward. My hope increases daily in the conservative response to our failed experiment with liberalism, but there are moments such as this in which it continues to fail miserably. Shame on you, First Things.
11.21.2010 | 8:44am
Alan says:
If the Palestinians are as unwilling to negotiate as many of the readers claim, it is not clear why negotiations are going on at the present time. Certainly the contributors to colloquy suggest they should not be taken seriously--and, given the fact that the negotiating party on the other side will always be the Palestinians, negotiations will never work. The fact of the matter is that Israel finds itself in a position that cannot be sustained indefinitely. This is tragic. I hold no brief for the Palestinians or for other countries in the region, but a negotiated solution is the only solution.
11.21.2010 | 8:50am
Stuart Koehl says:
"On the Jewish side there’s a similar problem, although less intense. In the back of the Jewish mind is the thought that God promised this land to Israel and their presence there is providential. This thought will make them less accommodating than perhaps they otherwise might be."
The evidence tends to discredit this view. While there may be a few zealots who press for the retention of the entire West Bank (and there are a very few who want to expand Israel to its Solomonic boundaries), Israel has, if anything, been far too ready to cede territory in exchange for promises of "peace". Israel voluntarily surrendered the entire Sinai to Egypt, and in return got a very chilly peace indeed (maintained at this point mainly by Egyptian fear of Palestinian radicalism). Israel pulled back from its 1973 gains in the Golan, retaining only the crest of the heights, from which, for a decade, Syrian tanks and artillery had bombarded Israeli towns and farms. Israel gave up the Gaza Strip, leaving intact the infrastructure it had carefully developed since 1967. The Palestinians promptly destroyed all the Israeli-built facilities and then proceeded to bombard Israel with artillery rockets. And finally, Israel has already ceded something like 90% of the West Bank to the Palestinian Authority, but has not received anything approaching peace in return.
The truth is, trading land for peace has been a losing policy for Israel, which gives up something tangible in exchange for empty promises. At this point, there really isn't much for Israel to give up, and even if it did, there still would be no peace. For the Palestinians, the entire concept of Israel is illegitimate: the reject the settlement of 1948, not the occupation of 1967, and will settle for nothing less than the destruction of the Jewish state, which, to their minds, is an abomination and an affront to Allah.
The evidence tends to discredit this view. While there may be a few zealots who press for the retention of the entire West Bank (and there are a very few who want to expand Israel to its Solomonic boundaries), Israel has, if anything, been far too ready to cede territory in exchange for promises of "peace". Israel voluntarily surrendered the entire Sinai to Egypt, and in return got a very chilly peace indeed (maintained at this point mainly by Egyptian fear of Palestinian radicalism). Israel pulled back from its 1973 gains in the Golan, retaining only the crest of the heights, from which, for a decade, Syrian tanks and artillery had bombarded Israeli towns and farms. Israel gave up the Gaza Strip, leaving intact the infrastructure it had carefully developed since 1967. The Palestinians promptly destroyed all the Israeli-built facilities and then proceeded to bombard Israel with artillery rockets. And finally, Israel has already ceded something like 90% of the West Bank to the Palestinian Authority, but has not received anything approaching peace in return.
The truth is, trading land for peace has been a losing policy for Israel, which gives up something tangible in exchange for empty promises. At this point, there really isn't much for Israel to give up, and even if it did, there still would be no peace. For the Palestinians, the entire concept of Israel is illegitimate: the reject the settlement of 1948, not the occupation of 1967, and will settle for nothing less than the destruction of the Jewish state, which, to their minds, is an abomination and an affront to Allah.
11.21.2010 | 12:44pm
Michael PS says:
Given that four-fifths of the territory of the Palestinian Mandate was given to the arabs, in the ofrm of Trans-Jordan (now the Kingdom of Jordan) it is difficult to see why Israel should be expected to cede any omre of its territory.
Would not a resettlement of the Palestinian population in the disputed territories be a better solution? No one is suggesting a "right of return" for Germans to their former territories East of the Oder-Neisse line, or of Poles to the territories in East Poland annexed by the then Soviet Union.
Would not a resettlement of the Palestinian population in the disputed territories be a better solution? No one is suggesting a "right of return" for Germans to their former territories East of the Oder-Neisse line, or of Poles to the territories in East Poland annexed by the then Soviet Union.
11.21.2010 | 1:11pm
roger says:
I would like to second Stuart Koehl's comments and add:
Air power is vulnerable to SA misiles and to radar guided AA guns, as Israel found out to it's great surprise in the Yom Kippur war. The unbelievably stupid and reckless decision of the Obama administration to not provide Israel with the F22 fighter will come back to bite us.
The fact is that with goodwill on both sides a settlement could be reached that would ultimately make any agreed border a mere formality. Such a situation did exist for years as Arabs routinely entered Israel daily to work, run businesses and to shop. Then the gunmen took over, such as the loathsome and despicable Yasser arafat, and proceeded to make any peaceful settlement impossible.
As for any plan put forward by Saudi Arabia, you can be sure that any such plan is only designed to weaken Israel sufficiently enough to make the final kill inevitable.
Air power is vulnerable to SA misiles and to radar guided AA guns, as Israel found out to it's great surprise in the Yom Kippur war. The unbelievably stupid and reckless decision of the Obama administration to not provide Israel with the F22 fighter will come back to bite us.
The fact is that with goodwill on both sides a settlement could be reached that would ultimately make any agreed border a mere formality. Such a situation did exist for years as Arabs routinely entered Israel daily to work, run businesses and to shop. Then the gunmen took over, such as the loathsome and despicable Yasser arafat, and proceeded to make any peaceful settlement impossible.
As for any plan put forward by Saudi Arabia, you can be sure that any such plan is only designed to weaken Israel sufficiently enough to make the final kill inevitable.
11.21.2010 | 2:14pm
Stuart Koehl says:
Roger is correct. After 1967, during the period that Israel was administering the occupied territories, the Palestinian standard of living went from the lowest in the Arab world to the second highest. The Israelis built roads, schools, hospitals, water, electrical and sewer lines. Israel provided jobs for Palestinians, both in Israel and in the territories. For the first time in their lives, Palestinians were subject to good governance and something approaching rule of law. So comfortable had they become with the occupation that, when Egypt and Syria attacked Israel in 1973, the Israelis did not even have increase the number of troops garrisoning the West Bank and Gaza: the Palestinians did not rise up, did not root for their Arab brethren, did not even protest against the war.
On the other hand, once control of the territories was ceded to the Palestinian Authority, violence and corruption increased dramatically, the economy tanked and the Palestinian standard of living plummeted. There can be little doubt that the Palestinians are the authors of their own misery.
There is a slight glimmer of hope in the West Bank, where the peace enforced by the erection of the much maligned security barrier has allowed the reestablishment of free commerce between the West Bank and Israel, with a concomitant improvement in the standard of living there. West Bank Palestinians want nothing to do with Hamas, and only tolerate Abbas' Fatah faction as long as it does nothing to upset the status quo. They might not be ready to recognize Israel's right to exist, or to make a permanent peace, but they are very happy to continue benefiting from their economic relationship with the Jewish state.
On the other hand, once control of the territories was ceded to the Palestinian Authority, violence and corruption increased dramatically, the economy tanked and the Palestinian standard of living plummeted. There can be little doubt that the Palestinians are the authors of their own misery.
There is a slight glimmer of hope in the West Bank, where the peace enforced by the erection of the much maligned security barrier has allowed the reestablishment of free commerce between the West Bank and Israel, with a concomitant improvement in the standard of living there. West Bank Palestinians want nothing to do with Hamas, and only tolerate Abbas' Fatah faction as long as it does nothing to upset the status quo. They might not be ready to recognize Israel's right to exist, or to make a permanent peace, but they are very happy to continue benefiting from their economic relationship with the Jewish state.
11.21.2010 | 3:44pm
Stuart Rose says:
The least one should expect from the Netanyahu government is that is it doesn't, enshrine Obama's notion that Israel should imperil its security in exchange for the material and diplomatic support the U.S., out of political and moral imperatives, has always given Israel. Netanyahu's acceptance of Obama/Clinton's obnoxious settlement freeze just sets Israel up to be imposed on again and blamed again by Obama.
Stuart Koehl(and Caroline Glick, among others) offers bold solutions but Israel's current leader- head of the Likud though he is- can't even reject plainly dangerous "solutions" put forth by the U.S. I'd like to hear Koehl's and other posters' reaction to what seems to be a crippling fear on the part of Israel's leaders to accept that acrimonious relations with a US president is better than giving away the store. Glick has argued that given that Obama's weakened position and the support for Israel in Congress ought to make Netanyahu bolder.
Stuart Koehl(and Caroline Glick, among others) offers bold solutions but Israel's current leader- head of the Likud though he is- can't even reject plainly dangerous "solutions" put forth by the U.S. I'd like to hear Koehl's and other posters' reaction to what seems to be a crippling fear on the part of Israel's leaders to accept that acrimonious relations with a US president is better than giving away the store. Glick has argued that given that Obama's weakened position and the support for Israel in Congress ought to make Netanyahu bolder.
11.21.2010 | 8:50pm
Paul Freedman says:
The Palestinian two-faced "negotiating" strategy to fulcrum negotiations to compel Israel to accept the pre-67 war demarcation lines while disseminating swinish lies about Israeli fabrication of Jewish history and lies about the mythical nature of Israel and Jewish holy and national historial sites (as if Jewish resettlement of Jerusalem was a polluting lie of "Judaization"--in the Nazi term now trumpeted daily by so-called Palestinian "moderates") even as Palestinian operatives pursue a parallel BSD track of boycott, sanctions, and delegitimatize, long ago wore out its welcome. The time has come for Israel to offer a take it or leave it deal Israel can live with. If the Palestinians can't take it, Israel should walk away from negotiations until the Palestinians stop these noxious, Judeophobic gambits and are prepared to actually negotiate a permanent end to the conflict.
11.21.2010 | 11:58pm
Michael says:
Koehl and several other commenters make it clear that we really must “give war a chance.” Israel must allow itself to kill as many men as it takes for Palestinians to submit and find a way to forgive itself for any dead women or children it also kills, knowing that Muslims in Palestine, Syria, Lebanon, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and especially Iran will always be inspired by their warrior religion to wipe Israel off the face of the earth. Israel’s God-given right and Islam’s absolute enmity toward God means that sooner or later scruples must give way to realism and war.
Unless, of course, you believe in the gospel. Unless you think that the essence of Christianity requires that you support any peace group in Israel and Palestine that has even a prayer bringing people together. Because prayer, grace, and commitment to unlikely and unrealistic opportunities for peace is what Christ demanded. Remember?
Unless, of course, you believe in the gospel. Unless you think that the essence of Christianity requires that you support any peace group in Israel and Palestine that has even a prayer bringing people together. Because prayer, grace, and commitment to unlikely and unrealistic opportunities for peace is what Christ demanded. Remember?
11.22.2010 | 6:22am
Stuart Koehl says:
Michael is very good at putting words in other people's mouths, as well as for ignoring inconvenient facts. Golda Meir summed up the Israeli position well: "It would be good to have peace in the Middle East. It would be better if we were around to enjoy it".
11.22.2010 | 2:13pm
Michael says:
You’re right, Stuart, that my sarcasm was not nuanced, but it remains accurate in spirit. You believe that Israel seeks peace but must pursue security through arms. You suspect that war would “clarify” the situation and force Palestinians and the nations that support them, such as Iran, to learn that Israel is here to stay.
My point is that war is often rationalized in this way. War is always forced on reluctant liberal democracies like Israel. Or so we say.
But the gospel makes it clear that the way of Jesus is not the way of war, and for at least three hundred years Christians knew that. During the many Roman persecutions, Christians suffered martyrdom rather than take up arms. As St. Justin Martyr put it in the second century, “We who formerly used to murder one another do not only now refrain from making war upon our enemies, but also, that we may not lie nor deceive our examiners, willingly die confessing Christ.”
2000 years ago, Jews looked for a messiah, someone to lead them to armed victory over the Romans as the Maccabees had led them to victory over the Seleucids, and they got Christ instead. Not taking no for an answer, they revolted twice in 70 and in 135 and lost twice, watching the Temple get destroyed again.
Christians refused to join either revolt, having learned from Christ that violence brought neither security nor peace. As St. Hippolytus put it in the third century, “If a catechumen or a believer seeks to become a soldier they must be rejected, for they have despised God.”
Everyday Christians and theologians alike have repressed and tried to forget the early Christian way of nonviolence even though “ecclesial communities” like the Quakers and the Mennonites have served for nearly 500 years as visible reminders to the “true Church” and to all humans that Christ called us to peace and to the cross.
It’s true that the Catholic Church and most Christian churches have preferred instead to put their faith in arms. We would have done better to remain true to the early Fathers, such as Arnobius, who wrote in the fourth century that “We have learned from His teaching and His laws that evil ought not to be requited with evil, that it is better to suffer wrong than to inflict it, that we should rather shed our own blood than stain our hands and our conscience with that of another.”
My point is that war is often rationalized in this way. War is always forced on reluctant liberal democracies like Israel. Or so we say.
But the gospel makes it clear that the way of Jesus is not the way of war, and for at least three hundred years Christians knew that. During the many Roman persecutions, Christians suffered martyrdom rather than take up arms. As St. Justin Martyr put it in the second century, “We who formerly used to murder one another do not only now refrain from making war upon our enemies, but also, that we may not lie nor deceive our examiners, willingly die confessing Christ.”
2000 years ago, Jews looked for a messiah, someone to lead them to armed victory over the Romans as the Maccabees had led them to victory over the Seleucids, and they got Christ instead. Not taking no for an answer, they revolted twice in 70 and in 135 and lost twice, watching the Temple get destroyed again.
Christians refused to join either revolt, having learned from Christ that violence brought neither security nor peace. As St. Hippolytus put it in the third century, “If a catechumen or a believer seeks to become a soldier they must be rejected, for they have despised God.”
Everyday Christians and theologians alike have repressed and tried to forget the early Christian way of nonviolence even though “ecclesial communities” like the Quakers and the Mennonites have served for nearly 500 years as visible reminders to the “true Church” and to all humans that Christ called us to peace and to the cross.
It’s true that the Catholic Church and most Christian churches have preferred instead to put their faith in arms. We would have done better to remain true to the early Fathers, such as Arnobius, who wrote in the fourth century that “We have learned from His teaching and His laws that evil ought not to be requited with evil, that it is better to suffer wrong than to inflict it, that we should rather shed our own blood than stain our hands and our conscience with that of another.”
11.22.2010 | 3:14pm
Stuart Koehl says:
"But the gospel makes it clear that the way of Jesus is not the way of war, and for at least three hundred years Christians knew that. "
Good thing most Israelis are Jewish, then.
Please note that pacifism is a personal vocation, not one that can be imposed on other people against their will. Secular leaders, who have been put over us because of the fallen state of the world, have a duty to protect their people from aggression, and are remiss in that duty if they allow their own moral scrupulosity to override their obligation. If they can't do that, they should not be in positions of leadership. This, of course, puts them in situations that could and probably do endanger their immortal souls, which is why we in the Eastern Churches pray in every liturgy for our leaders, the secular authorities, the armed forces and all in the service of our country.
Finally, you seem absolutely incapable of understanding that evil exists in the world, and that it is our duty to resist evil, even through force of arms. The trivial slogan "What if they gave a war and nobody came?", has a very simple answer: "They"--the people who gave the war--would win, because they would face no resistance. And those who are so inclined to start wars of aggression only do so because they think they can get away with it.
In my mind, people like the Mennonites and Quakers--admirable though they may be in some respects--are free riders who take advantage of the protection and security they derive from being in a society whose armed forces and police defend them from aggressors and criminals, but are unwilling to bear that burden either directly or indirectly.
Jesus, by the way, did not tell the Centurion to walk away from the army. Neither did Peter tell Cornelius to abandon his post. What do you make of that?
Good thing most Israelis are Jewish, then.
Please note that pacifism is a personal vocation, not one that can be imposed on other people against their will. Secular leaders, who have been put over us because of the fallen state of the world, have a duty to protect their people from aggression, and are remiss in that duty if they allow their own moral scrupulosity to override their obligation. If they can't do that, they should not be in positions of leadership. This, of course, puts them in situations that could and probably do endanger their immortal souls, which is why we in the Eastern Churches pray in every liturgy for our leaders, the secular authorities, the armed forces and all in the service of our country.
Finally, you seem absolutely incapable of understanding that evil exists in the world, and that it is our duty to resist evil, even through force of arms. The trivial slogan "What if they gave a war and nobody came?", has a very simple answer: "They"--the people who gave the war--would win, because they would face no resistance. And those who are so inclined to start wars of aggression only do so because they think they can get away with it.
In my mind, people like the Mennonites and Quakers--admirable though they may be in some respects--are free riders who take advantage of the protection and security they derive from being in a society whose armed forces and police defend them from aggressors and criminals, but are unwilling to bear that burden either directly or indirectly.
Jesus, by the way, did not tell the Centurion to walk away from the army. Neither did Peter tell Cornelius to abandon his post. What do you make of that?
11.22.2010 | 4:46pm
roger says:
Michael;
There are none on this site who relish war, war is an abomination, an insanity and a terrible waste of people and capital. No one abhors war more than the Israelis, Jews are nothing if not rational beings, but unfortunately their very rationality is what is most likely to ultimately destroy them.
Stuart Koehl is right; pacifism is a moral pose, only made possible by others who are prepared to take up arms and defend what is clearly right against that which is clearly wrong. The islamists who have taken up the call of their insane death cult to kill all jews are very real and very serious. A pacifist Jewish nation would soon cease to exist, that is they would all be joyously killed by the cultists who attack them. Your intellectual posing is not righteous, in fact it is the epitomy of moral cowardice.
There are none on this site who relish war, war is an abomination, an insanity and a terrible waste of people and capital. No one abhors war more than the Israelis, Jews are nothing if not rational beings, but unfortunately their very rationality is what is most likely to ultimately destroy them.
Stuart Koehl is right; pacifism is a moral pose, only made possible by others who are prepared to take up arms and defend what is clearly right against that which is clearly wrong. The islamists who have taken up the call of their insane death cult to kill all jews are very real and very serious. A pacifist Jewish nation would soon cease to exist, that is they would all be joyously killed by the cultists who attack them. Your intellectual posing is not righteous, in fact it is the epitomy of moral cowardice.
11.22.2010 | 7:41pm
Michael says:
“Pacifism is a personal vocation.”
Well, it is now. It wasn’t for the early church, and it isn’t for the Quakers and Mennonites now.
“Secular leaders … have a duty to protect their people their people from aggression.”
Yes, they do, but Christian leaders didn’t. St. Justin Martyr is recognized by the Eastern Churches as well as the Roman, and he’s quite clear that Christians “refrain from making war upon our enemies … and willingly die confessing Christ.” I understand your desire to follow those fourth-century Christians who decided to use state power once Christians gained possession of it, but those decisions took Christianity away from the moral clarity that Christ had given it.
“Finally, you seem absolutely incapable of understanding that evil exists in the world.”
Perhaps so, but it might be the case that St. Justin Martyr understood evil better than you. After all, he martyred himself to it. He lived in an era in which Christians raised no armies and suffered from Rome’s “war of aggression,” and yet he celebrated Christian nonviolence. He didn’t instruct Christians to arm themselves.
As for “wars of aggression,” everybody claims those. No one ever says that he was the aggressor. We were just minding our own business.
The first three hundred years of Christians lived with the faith that God would not abandon those who followed the path Jesus had laid out, and He didn’t. Similarly, the Quakers and Mennonites have survived almost five hundred years under the watchful eyes of God.
You may think they are “free riders,” but read their history and follow their trail of persecution. They’ve stayed steadfast in their faith.
“Jesus, by the way, did not tell the Centurion to walk away from the army. Neither did Peter tell Cornelius to abandon his post. What do you make of that?”
Jesus is not recorded as telling prostitutes or johns to stop their sins, but I feel pretty safe in thinking that He did so. Jesus doesn’t mention abortion or homosexuality, but the early Church is quite clear in its opposition to both. Although you prefer to deny it, the early Church is also quite clear in its opposition to war. The martyr St. Hippolytus is unambiguous when he declares that soldiers can’t be accepted as catechumens because “they have despised God.” What do you make of the witness of the Apostolic Fathers?
(By the way, some gay interpreters claim that the centurion story illustrates Jesus’s acceptance of homosexuality. I find the claim dubious, but I thought it might entertain you.)
“There are none on this site who relish war, war is an abomination, an insanity and a terrible waste of people and capital.”
This is the standard line. We fight only because we have to. Name the Apostolic Father who called Christians to arms in order to fight Roman persecution. I’ll save you time. There is none.
“Pacifism is a moral pose.”
Would you call the attitude of the Apostolic Fathers a “moral pose” when they faced death or exile? Did the Russian Mennonites strike a “moral pose” when the Bolsheviks murdered and raped them? Have you read about how they struggled when some members of their community did take up arms?
“Others who are prepared to take up arms and defend what is clearly right against that which is clearly wrong.”
Ah, but that’s the rub, isn’t it? What if right and wrong aren’t clear? Koehl quotes Luttwak’s idea that we must “give war a chance.” Luttwak believes that the West has been too quick in intervening in wars, that we should let wars run their course so that the conflicts don’t continue to fester. Thus, if the West really wants to be humane, it should let Israelis deliver what Koehl calls a “knock-out blow” so that Arabs lose their will to keep fighting.
(I still don’t quite understand why Koehl thought I had put words in his mouth when I described this theory as meaning that “Israel must allow itself to kill as many men as it takes for Palestinians to submit and find a way to forgive itself for any dead women or children it also kills.” I think I’m spelling out the implications of Luttwak’s theory.)
Of course, American history is little but wars of intervention. Since the Indian wars, which 1were hardly justifiable, the United States hasn’t waged a single war in which we defended American soil from some aggressor. And yet every war we’ve waged has been justified as being an example of the “clearly right” against the “clearly wrong.”
“A pacifist Jewish nation would soon cease to exist, that is they would all be joyously killed by the cultists who attack them.”
Israel might not exist, but Jews certainly would. What people have proven themselves hardier or more resourceful? But there’s no need to jump to this hasty conclusion. Israel exists now, and there are Jews and Palestinians working together for peace now. These are the people who deserve our support, not the politicians and war gamers.
“Your intellectual posing is not righteous, in fact it is the epitomy of moral cowardice.”
Thank you for reading.
Well, it is now. It wasn’t for the early church, and it isn’t for the Quakers and Mennonites now.
“Secular leaders … have a duty to protect their people their people from aggression.”
Yes, they do, but Christian leaders didn’t. St. Justin Martyr is recognized by the Eastern Churches as well as the Roman, and he’s quite clear that Christians “refrain from making war upon our enemies … and willingly die confessing Christ.” I understand your desire to follow those fourth-century Christians who decided to use state power once Christians gained possession of it, but those decisions took Christianity away from the moral clarity that Christ had given it.
“Finally, you seem absolutely incapable of understanding that evil exists in the world.”
Perhaps so, but it might be the case that St. Justin Martyr understood evil better than you. After all, he martyred himself to it. He lived in an era in which Christians raised no armies and suffered from Rome’s “war of aggression,” and yet he celebrated Christian nonviolence. He didn’t instruct Christians to arm themselves.
As for “wars of aggression,” everybody claims those. No one ever says that he was the aggressor. We were just minding our own business.
The first three hundred years of Christians lived with the faith that God would not abandon those who followed the path Jesus had laid out, and He didn’t. Similarly, the Quakers and Mennonites have survived almost five hundred years under the watchful eyes of God.
You may think they are “free riders,” but read their history and follow their trail of persecution. They’ve stayed steadfast in their faith.
“Jesus, by the way, did not tell the Centurion to walk away from the army. Neither did Peter tell Cornelius to abandon his post. What do you make of that?”
Jesus is not recorded as telling prostitutes or johns to stop their sins, but I feel pretty safe in thinking that He did so. Jesus doesn’t mention abortion or homosexuality, but the early Church is quite clear in its opposition to both. Although you prefer to deny it, the early Church is also quite clear in its opposition to war. The martyr St. Hippolytus is unambiguous when he declares that soldiers can’t be accepted as catechumens because “they have despised God.” What do you make of the witness of the Apostolic Fathers?
(By the way, some gay interpreters claim that the centurion story illustrates Jesus’s acceptance of homosexuality. I find the claim dubious, but I thought it might entertain you.)
“There are none on this site who relish war, war is an abomination, an insanity and a terrible waste of people and capital.”
This is the standard line. We fight only because we have to. Name the Apostolic Father who called Christians to arms in order to fight Roman persecution. I’ll save you time. There is none.
“Pacifism is a moral pose.”
Would you call the attitude of the Apostolic Fathers a “moral pose” when they faced death or exile? Did the Russian Mennonites strike a “moral pose” when the Bolsheviks murdered and raped them? Have you read about how they struggled when some members of their community did take up arms?
“Others who are prepared to take up arms and defend what is clearly right against that which is clearly wrong.”
Ah, but that’s the rub, isn’t it? What if right and wrong aren’t clear? Koehl quotes Luttwak’s idea that we must “give war a chance.” Luttwak believes that the West has been too quick in intervening in wars, that we should let wars run their course so that the conflicts don’t continue to fester. Thus, if the West really wants to be humane, it should let Israelis deliver what Koehl calls a “knock-out blow” so that Arabs lose their will to keep fighting.
(I still don’t quite understand why Koehl thought I had put words in his mouth when I described this theory as meaning that “Israel must allow itself to kill as many men as it takes for Palestinians to submit and find a way to forgive itself for any dead women or children it also kills.” I think I’m spelling out the implications of Luttwak’s theory.)
Of course, American history is little but wars of intervention. Since the Indian wars, which 1were hardly justifiable, the United States hasn’t waged a single war in which we defended American soil from some aggressor. And yet every war we’ve waged has been justified as being an example of the “clearly right” against the “clearly wrong.”
“A pacifist Jewish nation would soon cease to exist, that is they would all be joyously killed by the cultists who attack them.”
Israel might not exist, but Jews certainly would. What people have proven themselves hardier or more resourceful? But there’s no need to jump to this hasty conclusion. Israel exists now, and there are Jews and Palestinians working together for peace now. These are the people who deserve our support, not the politicians and war gamers.
“Your intellectual posing is not righteous, in fact it is the epitomy of moral cowardice.”
Thank you for reading.
11.23.2010 | 6:04am
Stuart Koehl says:
Michael,
You are awfully quick to offer up other people's necks to the sword. One wonders if you would practice what you preach by going, say, to Gaza or Ramallah, in order to stand on a street corner and exhort the Palestinians to give up violence, recognize the Jewish state and work constructively towards peace. Ever wonder where the real Palestinian moderates are (aside from inside Israel, that is)? The answer is, pushing up daisies--and not at the hands of Israelis, either.
Also, if you are truly sincere, I imagine you do not pay any Federal taxes, as these are used to fund the military. Also, if attacked by a mugger, I'm sure you don't call for the police, since these might do violence to your attacker. If you don't, then you, too, are a free rider.
You are awfully quick to offer up other people's necks to the sword. One wonders if you would practice what you preach by going, say, to Gaza or Ramallah, in order to stand on a street corner and exhort the Palestinians to give up violence, recognize the Jewish state and work constructively towards peace. Ever wonder where the real Palestinian moderates are (aside from inside Israel, that is)? The answer is, pushing up daisies--and not at the hands of Israelis, either.
Also, if you are truly sincere, I imagine you do not pay any Federal taxes, as these are used to fund the military. Also, if attacked by a mugger, I'm sure you don't call for the police, since these might do violence to your attacker. If you don't, then you, too, are a free rider.
11.23.2010 | 6:07am
Stuart Koehl says:
By the way, Michael, just why did Jesus instruct his followers to sell their cloaks and buy swords? Because he thought they looked cool? Because he was trying to create jobs for Galilean armorers? Inquiring minds want to know.
11.23.2010 | 2:01pm
Michael says:
“You are awfully quick to offer up other people's necks to the sword.”
Look, I didn’t invent the gospel. Jesus did. I grant you it’s counterintuitive. And it’s far more convenient to turn the command to carry the cross into an allegory for ordinary human suffering. But the fact is that the promise of resurrection is first and foremost for those who have laid down their lives as Jesus did, and early Church history is replete with martyrs whose example awed the world and convinced it that Christians were serious about the meaning of faith. Every culture celebrates the bravery of its warriors, but Christianity is odd in celebrating what looks to all the rest as failure and as a recipe for failure.
Sometime in the fourth century, however, Christians fell in love with the conveniences of state power. St. Augustine himself encouraged imperial armed forces to compel the Donatists back into the “true Church.” I think his arguments against the Donatists were sound, but his appeal to force of arms accelerated a change that made the Church a creature of worldly political calculations in a way it had never been before.
For example, Pope Pius XII and Patriarch Gavrilo V are both rightly praised for their efforts in helping Jews escape Nazi persecution, but Gavrilo seems more fit to sit where St. Peter once did, for he announced explicitly his and his church’s resistance to Nazism and sat out the rest of the war in Dachau. Imagine how the course of the war might have changed had Pius shown a similar faith. How many German and Italian Catholics would have tolerated such a sight? What is leadership for if not to set an example?
“One wonders if you would practice what you preach by going, say, to Gaza or Ramallah, in order to stand on a street corner and exhort the Palestinians to give up violence.”
No, of course not. I’m a coward. How well are you living out your faith? What kinds of challenges does it pose to you?
“Ever wonder where the real Palestinian moderates are (aside from inside Israel, that is)? The answer is, pushing up daisies--and not at the hands of Israelis, either.”
Look, look. Those guys over there are really, really bad.
But I take your point that Israel is better than Palestine. Who said they weren’t? The point is that instead of wishing that we could just give “war a chance,” we can support groups such as TANDI, Neled, and the like.
“Also, if you are truly sincere, I imagine you do not pay any Federal taxes, as these are used to fund the military.”
My taxes pay for a lot of things I don’t like. There are many ways of expressing sincerity.
“Also, if attacked by a mugger, I'm sure you don't call for the police, since these might do violence to your attacker.”
Happily, I’ve never been attacked. A couple in my congregation was recently, however, while their baby was in the car. At the thief’s trial, they testified on his behalf. They became friends with his family. The couple is of questionable morality, however, given that they are lesbian. They have all kinds of “intrinsically disordered” desires including one for peace.
“Just why did Jesus instruct his followers to sell their cloaks and buy swords?”
I love proof-texts! They can mean anything you like!
But seriously, as you know, scholars have read lots of things into this puzzling passage. The idea that Jesus thought two swords would be “sufficient” to defend eleven people is just one of the puzzles. Are the swords intended to protect him in the garden? Are they for the disciples in the future as they evangelize? Are the swords for conquering or for self-defense against animals and brigands?
Instead of searching for proof texts, a more intelligent way to proceed is to see what the Church Fathers made of the gospel. What did those who knew Jesus tell those who didn’t? If we are to believe the written testimony of the first three centuries of Christian witness—Sts. Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Hippolytus, Cyprian, and Athanasius as well as Tertullian, Origen, Arnobius, and Lacantius—then the gospel message is one of nonviolence. St. Ambrose is the first to suggest that Christians should accept violence as a means, but he’s by no means the last.
I prefer St. Athanasius who said in the mid-fourth century, “When they have come over to the school of Christ, then, strangely enough, as men truly pricked in conscience, they have laid aside the savagery of their murders and no longer mind the things of war: but all is at peace with them, and from henceforth what makes for friendship is to their liking.”
I encourage you to read a history of the Russian Mennonites and the writings of the former member of First Things Stanley Hauerwas. In the meantime, pray devoutly, but carry a big stick.
Look, I didn’t invent the gospel. Jesus did. I grant you it’s counterintuitive. And it’s far more convenient to turn the command to carry the cross into an allegory for ordinary human suffering. But the fact is that the promise of resurrection is first and foremost for those who have laid down their lives as Jesus did, and early Church history is replete with martyrs whose example awed the world and convinced it that Christians were serious about the meaning of faith. Every culture celebrates the bravery of its warriors, but Christianity is odd in celebrating what looks to all the rest as failure and as a recipe for failure.
Sometime in the fourth century, however, Christians fell in love with the conveniences of state power. St. Augustine himself encouraged imperial armed forces to compel the Donatists back into the “true Church.” I think his arguments against the Donatists were sound, but his appeal to force of arms accelerated a change that made the Church a creature of worldly political calculations in a way it had never been before.
For example, Pope Pius XII and Patriarch Gavrilo V are both rightly praised for their efforts in helping Jews escape Nazi persecution, but Gavrilo seems more fit to sit where St. Peter once did, for he announced explicitly his and his church’s resistance to Nazism and sat out the rest of the war in Dachau. Imagine how the course of the war might have changed had Pius shown a similar faith. How many German and Italian Catholics would have tolerated such a sight? What is leadership for if not to set an example?
“One wonders if you would practice what you preach by going, say, to Gaza or Ramallah, in order to stand on a street corner and exhort the Palestinians to give up violence.”
No, of course not. I’m a coward. How well are you living out your faith? What kinds of challenges does it pose to you?
“Ever wonder where the real Palestinian moderates are (aside from inside Israel, that is)? The answer is, pushing up daisies--and not at the hands of Israelis, either.”
Look, look. Those guys over there are really, really bad.
But I take your point that Israel is better than Palestine. Who said they weren’t? The point is that instead of wishing that we could just give “war a chance,” we can support groups such as TANDI, Neled, and the like.
“Also, if you are truly sincere, I imagine you do not pay any Federal taxes, as these are used to fund the military.”
My taxes pay for a lot of things I don’t like. There are many ways of expressing sincerity.
“Also, if attacked by a mugger, I'm sure you don't call for the police, since these might do violence to your attacker.”
Happily, I’ve never been attacked. A couple in my congregation was recently, however, while their baby was in the car. At the thief’s trial, they testified on his behalf. They became friends with his family. The couple is of questionable morality, however, given that they are lesbian. They have all kinds of “intrinsically disordered” desires including one for peace.
“Just why did Jesus instruct his followers to sell their cloaks and buy swords?”
I love proof-texts! They can mean anything you like!
But seriously, as you know, scholars have read lots of things into this puzzling passage. The idea that Jesus thought two swords would be “sufficient” to defend eleven people is just one of the puzzles. Are the swords intended to protect him in the garden? Are they for the disciples in the future as they evangelize? Are the swords for conquering or for self-defense against animals and brigands?
Instead of searching for proof texts, a more intelligent way to proceed is to see what the Church Fathers made of the gospel. What did those who knew Jesus tell those who didn’t? If we are to believe the written testimony of the first three centuries of Christian witness—Sts. Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Hippolytus, Cyprian, and Athanasius as well as Tertullian, Origen, Arnobius, and Lacantius—then the gospel message is one of nonviolence. St. Ambrose is the first to suggest that Christians should accept violence as a means, but he’s by no means the last.
I prefer St. Athanasius who said in the mid-fourth century, “When they have come over to the school of Christ, then, strangely enough, as men truly pricked in conscience, they have laid aside the savagery of their murders and no longer mind the things of war: but all is at peace with them, and from henceforth what makes for friendship is to their liking.”
I encourage you to read a history of the Russian Mennonites and the writings of the former member of First Things Stanley Hauerwas. In the meantime, pray devoutly, but carry a big stick.
11.24.2010 | 9:52am
Maria V. says:
My feeble attempt , to see peace between the two divergent points mentioned in above posts , as well as an effort at gratitude for the persons in the military ...for The Church that is ever tended by the Holy Spirit ..
The take on the scene of our Lord telling the disciples to buy the sword and later , after the miracle when the enemies fell at His word , telling Peter to put it back in its sheath - can these words be taken as an exhortation , to never take the sword .. after all He tells them to 'put it back ' , not to throw it away ...and is there thus the implication that The Church has been led astray ..
( lot can be read about Church teachings in wisdom, on 'just war' , at good sites like Catholic Answers )
Our Lord did use the occasion to warn them that if they were to
resort to the sword , to be ready to also have it turned on them ..not as a means of one sided victory at total cost to the enemy ..
That scene , thus sets a powerful image of the basic way in The Kingdom ..in contrast to what Israel had to deal with ..yet , as we read from theologians, that scene is also closer to the original plan when , Israel as a Kingdom would have been able to take on her enemies peacefully , if they themselves were not under its power through sin, idolatry ..we have glimpses of such , in the many miraculous ( for us humans yet what would be ordinary for The Almighty !) deliverances in Old Testament ..as well as the New ( in Acts of Apostles .)
And such continuing miracles even now ..for , is there not something more mysterious than pure fear that keeps the enemy at bay from our sacred places ..persons ...the recent trip of our Holy Father , to England can serve as a
reminder ..
The Holy Spirit that is pleaded down , to take dominion , to bring The Kingdom , in hearts ...
Bl.Mother warned in Fatima - "war is punishment for sins " ..when sin abounds , esp. through the power of division which ignore the one remedy against faith and its powerful effects in all hearts , then the need to check enemy power can only be seen as a God given ..
Returning to that scene in The Garden , our Lord possibly foresaw a need for the show of those weapons even if not its use ...or may be it was more out of mercy for the disciples who , He foresaw , had a need to have those with them , until they were ready to lay down their lives for the sake of His Name and faith in Him ..
Could not the early prohibitions against serving in the Roman army have been related to emperor worship that came with it .
The Church ,as She gets tended on , by the Providential and dramatic events in life of Constantine ( who was gives the sign of The Cross , for victory ) , there was to be some diffrence in Her role and mission in the world ..recovery of the Holy Sites in Jerusalem being one that came immediatly afterwards ..
True, the 'believers ' in The Church , with their varying degress of holiness may have been blatantly unfaithful to the primacy of the call to not resort to arms but to Divine Power .... if so, that would be an indirect admission of the Church as one that is made of sinners and saints , with Her mission to seek out same ..
Protecting what God has blessed one with , whether nations or houses or persons , whether by prudently hiding it or building houses or armies seems an act of mercy even , to not let the greed of the enemy take the better of him ..just like women are to dress modestly etc :
Even the recent words of mercy from the Holy Father on the controversial topic seems connected to what is being discussed - in a world with dangerous agents let loose , the 'secondary morality ' to keep the enemy from being unduly provoked ...that too is mercy ..
Yet , true , the call to abbhor any type of killing also need to be heard loud and clear ...the call from the Holy Father , to observe this Saturday , as a day of prayer to resepct unborn life - the best in call for peace where it should matter the most in our world !
Peace !
The take on the scene of our Lord telling the disciples to buy the sword and later , after the miracle when the enemies fell at His word , telling Peter to put it back in its sheath - can these words be taken as an exhortation , to never take the sword .. after all He tells them to 'put it back ' , not to throw it away ...and is there thus the implication that The Church has been led astray ..
( lot can be read about Church teachings in wisdom, on 'just war' , at good sites like Catholic Answers )
Our Lord did use the occasion to warn them that if they were to
resort to the sword , to be ready to also have it turned on them ..not as a means of one sided victory at total cost to the enemy ..
That scene , thus sets a powerful image of the basic way in The Kingdom ..in contrast to what Israel had to deal with ..yet , as we read from theologians, that scene is also closer to the original plan when , Israel as a Kingdom would have been able to take on her enemies peacefully , if they themselves were not under its power through sin, idolatry ..we have glimpses of such , in the many miraculous ( for us humans yet what would be ordinary for The Almighty !) deliverances in Old Testament ..as well as the New ( in Acts of Apostles .)
And such continuing miracles even now ..for , is there not something more mysterious than pure fear that keeps the enemy at bay from our sacred places ..persons ...the recent trip of our Holy Father , to England can serve as a
reminder ..
The Holy Spirit that is pleaded down , to take dominion , to bring The Kingdom , in hearts ...
Bl.Mother warned in Fatima - "war is punishment for sins " ..when sin abounds , esp. through the power of division which ignore the one remedy against faith and its powerful effects in all hearts , then the need to check enemy power can only be seen as a God given ..
Returning to that scene in The Garden , our Lord possibly foresaw a need for the show of those weapons even if not its use ...or may be it was more out of mercy for the disciples who , He foresaw , had a need to have those with them , until they were ready to lay down their lives for the sake of His Name and faith in Him ..
Could not the early prohibitions against serving in the Roman army have been related to emperor worship that came with it .
The Church ,as She gets tended on , by the Providential and dramatic events in life of Constantine ( who was gives the sign of The Cross , for victory ) , there was to be some diffrence in Her role and mission in the world ..recovery of the Holy Sites in Jerusalem being one that came immediatly afterwards ..
True, the 'believers ' in The Church , with their varying degress of holiness may have been blatantly unfaithful to the primacy of the call to not resort to arms but to Divine Power .... if so, that would be an indirect admission of the Church as one that is made of sinners and saints , with Her mission to seek out same ..
Protecting what God has blessed one with , whether nations or houses or persons , whether by prudently hiding it or building houses or armies seems an act of mercy even , to not let the greed of the enemy take the better of him ..just like women are to dress modestly etc :
Even the recent words of mercy from the Holy Father on the controversial topic seems connected to what is being discussed - in a world with dangerous agents let loose , the 'secondary morality ' to keep the enemy from being unduly provoked ...that too is mercy ..
Yet , true , the call to abbhor any type of killing also need to be heard loud and clear ...the call from the Holy Father , to observe this Saturday , as a day of prayer to resepct unborn life - the best in call for peace where it should matter the most in our world !
Peace !
11.24.2010 | 11:52am
Michael says:
“Could not the early prohibitions against serving in the Roman army have been related to emperor worship that came with it .”
Yes, that was one reason Christians were encouraged not to serve in the army, but it was not the primary one. The Apostolic Fathers believed that Christ taught his disciples to follow the path of nonviolence.
Reread the above words from Sts. Justin Martyr, Hippolytus, and Athanasius and from Arnobius. Then add these words:
St. Irenaeus (died 202), “The word of God, preached by the apostles (who went forth from Jerusalem) throughout all the earth, caused such a change in the state of things, that these [nations] did form the swords and war-lances into ploughshares, and changed them into pruning-hooks for reaping the corn, [that is], into instruments used for peaceful purposes, and that they are now unaccustomed to fighting, but when smitten, offer also the other cheek.”
Origen (died 254), “For we no longer take up sword against nation, nor do we learn war any more, having become children of peace, for the sake of Jesus, who is our leader, instead of those who our fathers followed, among whom we were strangers to the covenant.”
St. Cyprian (died 258), “Consider the roads blocked up by robbers, the seas beset with pirates, wars scattered all over the earth with the bloody horror of camps. The whole world is wet with mutual blood; and murder, which in the case of an individual is admitted to be a crime, is called a virtue when it is committed wholesale. Impunity is claimed for the wicked deeds, not on the plea that they are guiltless, but because the cruelty is perpetrated on a grand scale.”
Lactantius (died 320), “Thus it will be neither lawful for a just man to engage in warfare, since his warfare is justice itself, not to accuse any one of a capital charge, because it makes no difference whether you put a man to death by word, or rather by the sword, since it is the act of putting to death itself which is prohibited.”
Even after the Apostolic era, many Christians continued to understand the gospel message of nonviolence. St. Martin of Tours (died 397) was a soldier and the son of a soldier in the Roman army, which was now Christianized after the conversion of Constantine. Still, once St. Martin converted to Christianity, he immediately quit the army saying, “I am a soldier of Christ. I cannot fight.” St. Martin was imprisoned for cowardice and offered to go to the front unarmed. Peace came before he could be taken to the front, and he was released from jail.
The story of St. Victrius (died 407) is similar. He, too, served in the Roman army but quit after he converted. He was whipped and sentenced to execution. He later became Bishop of Rouen.
St. Paulinus of Nola was a friend of both St. Martin and St. Victrius. He was a Roman governor who converted and established a monastery, becoming famous for his tender care of the poor. He was also a friend of St. Augustine. When the Roman soldier Crispinianus wrote and told him of his desire to convert, St. Paulinus encouraged him to quit the army, saying, “Therefore, no longer love this world or its military service, for Scripture’s authority declares that ‘whoever is a friend of this world is an enemy of God.’ Whoever serves as a soldier with the sword is the servant of death, and whenever he sheds his own blood or that of another, this will be his reward: he will be regarded as guilty either because he caused his own death or because of his sin.”
Yes, that was one reason Christians were encouraged not to serve in the army, but it was not the primary one. The Apostolic Fathers believed that Christ taught his disciples to follow the path of nonviolence.
Reread the above words from Sts. Justin Martyr, Hippolytus, and Athanasius and from Arnobius. Then add these words:
St. Irenaeus (died 202), “The word of God, preached by the apostles (who went forth from Jerusalem) throughout all the earth, caused such a change in the state of things, that these [nations] did form the swords and war-lances into ploughshares, and changed them into pruning-hooks for reaping the corn, [that is], into instruments used for peaceful purposes, and that they are now unaccustomed to fighting, but when smitten, offer also the other cheek.”
Origen (died 254), “For we no longer take up sword against nation, nor do we learn war any more, having become children of peace, for the sake of Jesus, who is our leader, instead of those who our fathers followed, among whom we were strangers to the covenant.”
St. Cyprian (died 258), “Consider the roads blocked up by robbers, the seas beset with pirates, wars scattered all over the earth with the bloody horror of camps. The whole world is wet with mutual blood; and murder, which in the case of an individual is admitted to be a crime, is called a virtue when it is committed wholesale. Impunity is claimed for the wicked deeds, not on the plea that they are guiltless, but because the cruelty is perpetrated on a grand scale.”
Lactantius (died 320), “Thus it will be neither lawful for a just man to engage in warfare, since his warfare is justice itself, not to accuse any one of a capital charge, because it makes no difference whether you put a man to death by word, or rather by the sword, since it is the act of putting to death itself which is prohibited.”
Even after the Apostolic era, many Christians continued to understand the gospel message of nonviolence. St. Martin of Tours (died 397) was a soldier and the son of a soldier in the Roman army, which was now Christianized after the conversion of Constantine. Still, once St. Martin converted to Christianity, he immediately quit the army saying, “I am a soldier of Christ. I cannot fight.” St. Martin was imprisoned for cowardice and offered to go to the front unarmed. Peace came before he could be taken to the front, and he was released from jail.
The story of St. Victrius (died 407) is similar. He, too, served in the Roman army but quit after he converted. He was whipped and sentenced to execution. He later became Bishop of Rouen.
St. Paulinus of Nola was a friend of both St. Martin and St. Victrius. He was a Roman governor who converted and established a monastery, becoming famous for his tender care of the poor. He was also a friend of St. Augustine. When the Roman soldier Crispinianus wrote and told him of his desire to convert, St. Paulinus encouraged him to quit the army, saying, “Therefore, no longer love this world or its military service, for Scripture’s authority declares that ‘whoever is a friend of this world is an enemy of God.’ Whoever serves as a soldier with the sword is the servant of death, and whenever he sheds his own blood or that of another, this will be his reward: he will be regarded as guilty either because he caused his own death or because of his sin.”
12.21.2010 | 3:12am
Hermoni Josh says:
I’m not sure if israel will do a preemptive strike or not, although if they did I believe it would be fully justified seeing as how iran and many other middle eastern countries would love nothing more than to see israel blown off of the face of the earth. It is probable that a preemptive strike would cause a backlash that would likely affect American operations in the Middle East, however such a backlash would surely be preferable to a nuclear armed Iran. Either way there is no possibility of Israel sitting back and doing nothing. If they do not attack preemptively they must have some other plan in mind for dealing with the threat.. Whatever the result I’m pretty certain that Israel will not fall to military force by any number of opponents, including a cooperative attack from both Iran and Russia if such an event were to occur (which is definitely possible). I don’t know about you guys, but it seems to me like our world is about to change drastically Business Solutions and I’m scared as hell of what the face of that world is going to be.
Everything else is a temporary accommodation.