In the intifada that began in 2000, Palestinian terrorism killed more than 1,000 Israelis. As a portion of U.S. population, that would be 42,000, approaching the toll of America’s eight years in Vietnam. During the onslaught, which began 10 Septembers ago, Israeli parents sending two children to a school would put them on separate buses to decrease the chance that neither would return for dinner. Surely most Americans can imagine, even if their tone-deaf leaders cannot, how grating it is when those leaders lecture Israel on the need to take “risks for peace.”
|
|||||
|
We are developing the social individualist meta-context for the future. From the very serious to the extremely frivolous... lets see what is on the mind of the Samizdata people. Samizdata, derived from Samizdat /n. - a system of clandestine publication of banned literature in the USSR [Russ.,= self-publishing house] Authors
Arts, Tech & CultureCivil LibertiesCommentary
EconomicsSamizdatistas |
Samizdata quote of the dayAugust 20th, 2010 |
 27 comments to Samizdata quote of the day |
Who Are We?The Samizdata people are a bunch of sinister and heavily armed globalist illuminati who seek to infect the entire world with the values of personal liberty and several property. Amongst our many crimes is a sense of humour and the intermittent use of British spelling. We are also a varied group made up of social individualists, classical liberals, whigs, libertarians, extropians, futurists, ‘Porcupines’, Karl Popper fetishists, recovering neo-conservatives, crazed Ayn Rand worshipers, over-caffeinated Virginia Postrel devotees, witty Frédéric Bastiat wannabes, cypherpunks, minarchists, kritarchists and wild-eyed anarcho-capitalists from Britain, North America, Australia and Europe. CategoriesArchivesFeed This PageLink Icons   |
|||
All content on this website (including text, photographs, audio files, and any other original works), unless otherwise noted, is licensed under a Creative Commons License. |
|||||
I understand (and largely agree with) Will’s sentiment, but I think he’s conflating two things. I have no doubt that the Israeli people show great courage and treat risk as routine just by living their lives. Hence if they were being lectured to ‘just’ take a risk Will would be absolutely right. But sending kids to school on different buses is not taking a risk *for peace*, it’s taking a risk to avoid the ultimate heartbreak.
So putting aside whether taking ‘risks for peace’ is a good idea, and what such risks might look like, the idea is perhaps that if we’re all swimming to keep our heads above water, let’s at least swim to where the land is. I might be tired of swimming, but that doesn’t mean I should resent you for your swimming advice.
Israel has been taking unworkable, completely unrealistic risks for peace, for years. Especially since the Oslo accords.
The more land it gives away, the greater the demands.
There is no intention of peace among Israel’s enemies, only the destruction of Israel.
This is the avowed policy of any of the supposed “partners for peace” with which Israel is supposed to engage and negotiate.
How do you take a risk for a peace that you know your enemy has no intention of embracing?
How do you disarm and undress when you know your opponent simply wants to kill you?
PaulH, that’s a thoroughly silly comment. George Will wasn’t saying that those parents are taking “risks for peace.” He’s saying that the entire Isreali people are living with what most of us would consider unacceptable risks as a constant in their lives, and to ask that, as a nation, they take even more risks in yet another quixotic quest for peace is irrational. Far from getting “swimming advice”, they are being asked to trust that the person who has been consistently trying to drown them will, this time, actually offer help. In other words, once again to play Charlie Brown to Hamas’ Lucy. Given history, that’s a bad bet.
PaulH, that’s a thoroughly silly comment. George Will wasn’t saying that those parents are taking “risks for peace.” He’s saying that the entire Isreali people are living with what most of us would consider unacceptable risks as a constant removals
PaulH, that’s a thoroughly silly comment. George Will wasn’t saying that those parents are taking “risks for peace.” He’s saying that the entire Isreali people are living with what most of us would consider unacceptable risks as a constant in their lives, and to ask that, as a nation, they take even more risks in yet another quixotic quest for peace is irrational. Far from getting “swimming advice”, they are being asked to trust that the person who has been consistently trying to drown them will, this time, actually offer help. In other words, once again to play Charlie Brown to Hamas’ Lucy. Given history, that’s a bad bet.
in their lives, and to ask that, as a nation, they take even more risks in yet another quixotic quest for peace is irrational. Far from getting “swimming advice”, they are being asked to trust that the person who has been consistently trying to drown them will, this time, actually offer help. In other words, once again to play Charlie Brown to Hamas’ Lucy. Given history, that’s a bad bet.
There is a basic point here that goes beyond the details.
“Details” are important – such as the vast numbers of Jews who were forced out of various nations in the Middle East (all the tears of the “international community” for Muslims supposedly forced out of Israel – yet no tears for Jews forced out of Muslim lands).
Or the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem going on guided tours of the Nazi extermination camps (even Hitler did not want to go on such tours).
Important – but the response can be made “people of all religions, and none, do terrible things” which is true.
But the basic point that must not be avoided is as follows:
The nature of the founder of the Islamic religion.
If the charges of Robert Spencer (and others) against Mohammed are false then I have not seen an effective refutation.
And IF they are true these charges destroy hope of enduring peace.
First remember the charges – wars of aggression personally led by Mohammed, the slaughter of vast numbers of people (for example the Jewish population of Arabia) the selling into slavery of survivers, the rape of women and the rape of children.
Remember not by people “misinterpreting” the religion – but by the Founder of the religion himself. And an endless record of lies, deceptions, and broken pledges of peace.
Then remember that the vast majority of “Palestinians” passionatly claim to be followers of Mohammed (Muhammed, Mahomet).
Then one can see why the “Christians have done terrible things – yet Jews have made peace with them” argument will not work in the Islamic case.
Nor will the “Jews often lived in peace under Muslim rule” argument.
Sorry but the basic record (the beliefs) of the Founder of the religion matter – both for Jews and for all nonMuslims (and for decent Muslims, I would hope, also).
A lasting enduring peace can not be based on LIES (the sort of “tolerance” that Timothy Garton Ash and the rest of the Oxbridge “liberal” elite teach). Only when Muslims denounce the crimes of Mohammed (really denouce – not pretend to denounce) can there be a lasting and enduring peace.
“But Paul that means Islam would no longer exist” – perhaps not, for Muslims do NOT believe that Mohammed was God.
Paul, there would also need to be a denouncing of the passages in the Qu’ran that call for the destruction of unbelievers.
By the way. A milestone today. Iran has gone nuclear.
Paul,
You are right, although I would express it as ‘Muslims do not claim Mohammed was God’.
Muslims do, nonetheless treat Mohammed as if he was divine.
To a Muslim Mo could commit no sin. Everything he did was to be admired and emulated. Christians, on the other hand, acknowledge that The Christ, The Son of God, sinned. Even if it was the sin of despair while dying on the Cross, it was still a sin and not to be admired.
The Islamic claim that thet regard Mo as just a man is confounded by the extent of their
venerationworship of him.Sorry, CC.
The whole basis of Christianity is that Jesus was (and is) without sin.
It is because He was without sin that He is able to bridge the gap between perfection and imperfection.
Without that, the whole work He did is pointless.
Jesus is God who became man, died without sin, and was thus able to rise from the dead.
“My God, my God, why have you forsaken me”, was a statement of simple truth, as Jesus endured man’s separation from God and bridged the gap.
John B,
The whole basis of Christianity is that Jesus was (and is) without sin
No, I have never come across that claim at all. Ever.
The whole basis of Christianity was that Jesus took on the sins of all mankind and died for our salvation.
I have never heard that his personal sinlessness was of any importance within Xian theology.
And the cry was a cry of despair, and could not be regarded as a statement of truth, because God never forsakes any of his children. The cry itself, and the fact of the sin of despair, is interpreted as evidence that Jesus was truly a man, regardless of whether he was also God.
It seems my understanding is completely different to yours.
Countingcats, there are many, many interpretations of the basics of Christianity to be sure but I have to say that in my own experience, I have more often encountered the one John B describes than any other. That is that Jesus was both man and God (the son) and sinless. I write as an atheist with interest in religion only.
Sheesh,
I accept that most zoologists I know don’t understand Darwinism, but I’m always surprised to encounter Christians who don’t understand Christianity’s core doctrine.
Form that superlative (/snigger) source, Wikipedia:
The core Christian belief(Link) is that through belief in and acceptance of the death and resurrection of Jesus, sinful humans can be reconciled to God and thereby are offered salvation and the promise of eternal life.[35]
The death and resurrection(Link) of Jesus are usually considered the most important events in Christian Theology, partly because they demonstrate that Jesus has power over life and death and therefore has the authority and power to give people eternal life.
According to both Catholic and Protestant doctrine(Link), salvation comes by Jesus’ substitutionary death and resurrection.
BTW, I write as an atheist too, but one with a fascination for theology.
14Seeing then that we have a great high priest, that is passed into the heavens, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold fast our profession.
15For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin.
16Let us therefore come boldly unto the throne of grace, that we may obtain mercy, and find grace to help in time of need.
Hebrews 4
In vs 15: “Yet without sin”.
The whole point of the New Testament is that Jesus is God become man. It would be a bit silly if God also “sinned” because sin is separation from God. He would be separate from Himself. It would have been an aborted mission, to say the least.
“God never forsakes any of His children” – yes, okay. He certainly knows where we all are.
God did not abandon His Son, Jesus. Jesus stepped into the separation from God, that is our mortal lot, and built a bridge back to Himself.
There does seem a duality there, to the mortal mind, but we do only see in 3D!
It’s that “seeing through a glass darkly”, but it does make sense.
Sorry, I’m with Cats on this one.
Of course Christ was a sinner. The average British Plod could have done him for Criminal Damage, section 5 of the Public Order Act and probably Hate speech too, for his ejection of the Moneylenders from the Temple for starters.
Then there’s the “Those of you without sin, cast the first stone…” quote. Well if he was without sin, he could have cast the first stone couldn’t he? But he didn’t. Either he was with sin, or he saw stoning as the piece of barbarous savage primitivism it is. In my book probably both.
I was taught, having been brought up a Christian, but am now an atheist, that God the Son was made human to absorb and take on our sins, and by his Crucifixion and Resurrection, God the Father absolves both Christ and the rest of mankind of our Sins.
We then start again with a blank slate, “Go ye and sin no more” etc.
THe point about Israel, however it came into being, and we can also argue that one if you want, is that it is an approximately-functioning pluralist parliamentary democracy, sitting on a mined dunghill, in the middle of a festering cesspit of pre-capitalist barbarians of various hues. It is no more or less perfect as a democracy that functions mechanically, than ours – it probably has fewer rotten and pocket boroughs than we currently do.
But it does not conduct “jihads”, whether overtly or covertly, in other lands which have no interest in its affairs. Judaiism, if that is its faith (and I neither know nor care for I don’t need to for my life) does not enjoin adherents to go about threatening people of other religions if they are found to be displeasing to “deeply respected Jewish Religious “scholars” ” .
For these reasons, Israel cannot be tolerated to exist where it does, or indeed (if we take some of the Hadiths seriously) at all.
We spectators, of a liberal classical persuasion, have to decide on what side of the barbed wire, shortly to be erected, we want to stand.
I’ll stick with my version, RAB.
Guess we are off topic.
Yes, Israel is expected to engage in its own destruction, which is what would happen if the risks being demanded are taken.
The restoration of Israel, by the way, was/is prophesied in the Bible. You should read about what is going to happen next! 🙂
You should read about what is going to happen next!
Anything there about Persia being turned into one vast glass covered car park?
Beat me to it Cats.
John means that wacky fire and brimstone Revelations ending, composed by St Mushroom Muncher…
Enjoy.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Akoukq5DvAE
RAB, I did not say anything about glass covered car parks.
There is some in Revelation, but more in Daniel, Isaiah, (Luke 21:24 is quite interesting as regards the story so far).
Where do you it’s all heading?
No no, after you John, you are the believer in prophesy, after all. I’m a free will, not predestination chap myself. 😉
But if I were to make a depressingly shrewd guess, I’d say that someone will Nuke Israel in the next ten years.
If they are clever they will smuggle in a bomb and stay shtum about where it came from, not possible for long of course, because plutonium has a signiture apparently.
If they are stupid then Iran or a Talibanised Pakistan will just go for it, screaming God is great! and looking forward to their 72 Anne Widdicombes.
Sorry CountingCats, I don’t see anything there that’s contradictory to what I said.
RAB, of course, we’re talking about the Christian interpretation of Jesus, not the factual actualities. WRT turning over the tables in the temple, I don’t think sin is defined by code of law and any sin that might be attributed to the action has been finessed away many years ago.
It’s fairly clear to me though that Jesus was pretty much a Rabi with some progressive (in the good way) ideas whose story was subject to embellishment and exageration but that’s pretty by-the-by
RAB. The vehicle of the ultimate dictator would seem, according to prophecy, be a re-established Roman Empire. That fits in fairly well with something along the lines of the EU.
Whatever wisdom is in play at the moment, it seems to me that “terrorism” has been allowed to get out of hand, completely unnecessarily. I am fairly convinced that had the security forces of the West not had their hands tied by all sorts of considerations and misdirections, they could have dealt with it all fairly simply.
I also note that it seems to be the way of those who seek to control within the conditions of a “free” society, that events and circumstances that promote their agenda such as CCTV or fractional reserve fiat currency economic systems may be pushed and/or established, but more often, things that can be seen to be advancing their agenda (such as terrorism), are simply ignored, or dealt with ineffectively, and allowed to blossom.
So my thinking is that terrorism will continue to occur and that all sorts of measures (such as body scanners, control of the internet, automatic personal monitoring, full finance control) will be brought into being.
Perhaps the perpetrators of terrorism will ultimately be squashed, or they will be allowed to function at a lower level, who knows, probably used in some further manner to confuse the issues.
But one thing that will obviously have to go, of course, is any radical or extremist form of belief. Because that, quite evidently, is what has caused the problem in the first place.
And so a secular time, free of extremist religious nonsense (except the extremism used to suppress “religion”) will perhaps come about.
It may be the powers-that-will-be will go one further, and establish their own universal religion of humanity, human peace, and the divinity of man in order to obtain full harmonisation.
Perhaps it will go even one further than that, with the worship of the Great Leader.
Of course events and circumstances that contravene reality always lead to their collapse. And as the wheels come off people become increasingly desperate.
And so it could all get very ugly until such time as there is intervention.
Why does God not intervene now?
I think it is because we do not want Him to.
The main stumbling block to the existence of Israel is that this would validate the Hebrew/Old Testament scriptures, and the Koran claims to supercede them. If Israel is re-established, then the Koran is either wrong completely, or Allah, whose mind and will cannot be chained even by Himself, has changed His mind, and the Koran has been abrogated.
They would see the stakes as that high.
Christians, on the basis of scripture, long predicted that Israel would be reborn. As an occultist, I think they were subject to the sign of the Age (Pisces), and that the Age of Aquarius really started when Israel was reformed according to aquarian ideals (Democracy).
As for Iran, I have not heard anything about a nuclear bomb, though there was something on the news about claiming to have a drone plane of their own. Any more news?
The problem with the fuel rods being loaded is not so much what Iran’s nuclear reactor can do but what no-one else can now do.
To hit the nuclear installation now would spread radiation over a very large area.
Israel took out the Syrian reactor, which had all sorts of benefits for the region, some years ago.
That sort of option is no longer a realistic alternative.
As things are now its a bit like watching a cruise boat approach the edge of the Victoria Falls while most politicians (etc) seem more interested in dismissing the falls as a fast moving water event while trying to divert the water upstream.
Nuke Gray: But Israel does exist.
Frankly, I don’t understand why the Israelis didn’t take out the Iranian reactor before the fuel rods were loaded. Yes, they would have been subject to world-wide opprobrium, but that hasn’t stopped them before (and rightfully so; a nuclear Iran is clearly an existential threat to Israel, and to the rest of the region). This doesn’t seem like Netanyahu’s style; I can’t believe that he is merely kicking the can down the road for his successor to deal with. Is he really convinced that the nuclear power plant won’t be used to create plutonium, so there’s no real risk? Is he so concerned about world opinion that he wouldn’t act? Does he want to contaminate the whole area with radiation when he eventually does take out the reactor? There must be a very deep game afoot here.
I have to wonder if a nuclear Iran would lead to its people demanding a more sane government for fear that should Iran do anything stupid nuclear-wise, retaliations would be swift and overwhelming.
Not that I’m advocating it, it’s too much of a gamble. But unintended consequences work both ways.
Not only does Israel exist, but Allah has given them Jerusalem as well! Imagine how that sticks in their theological throats!
In fact, I got a muslim pest to stop writing here by asking how good a muslim he was- does he submit to God’s will in the existence of Israel, with Jerusalem as the eternal capital? Allah/God controls the outcome of all battles, something every good muslim is taught, after all.
I think they are still hoping that God will realise his mistake, and reverse his decision- which sounds like blaspheme, but might be all they can hope for.