the "peace process"

[boxcar]

Rush Limbaugh has long maintained that the primary element that distinquishes a liberal from a conservative is that the former's thought, philosophy and policies are emotionally driven; whereas the latter's in these areas are intellectually driven.

Liberalism is more feelings-based; conversely Conservatism is rooted more in things like mind, reason and critical analysis. These things being true (which I'll demonstrate shortly), we'll often find that a liberal is the quintessential idealist, with which in and of itself there is nothing wrong. The problem, however, is that this idealism often lacks other highly important philosophical components, such as pragmatism and due consideration for the nature and realities of the world around us. This is why so many liberal-minded political policies and programs fail in this country. But even so, the liberal will usually pat himself on the back for merely having such fine and noble intentions.

What does all this have to do with the Mid-East "peace process"? I believe that with respect to this crisis, we can clearly see the dynamics of liberalism I just described at work with many liberals here in this country _and_ with the socialists in Europe -- and how these two groups in turn have very much in common with the Arab world in terms of this group's impassioned hatred for Jews -- and how this highly charged emotional feeling of hate has severely impaired all three groups' abilty to reason and to engage in rational thought and discussion.

In order to keep posts at a reasonable length, I will elaborate further in my next installment, which will deal with the first of two major obstacles to this peace process (so-called).

Boxcar

[boxcar]

One of the very common pro-Palestinian arguments that runs through all Mid-East crisis debates is that the outwitted and frustrated debater will invariably offer as being the only viable solution to ending the "cycle of violence" is for the "end of the occupation". How debaters reach this illogical end is that they cannot come out and flatly state that terrorism is never justified under any circumstances because to do so would be tantamount to condemning the Palestinian people and their leaders. Their only recourse, therefore, is to implicitly blame the terrorist attacks on the Israeli occupation, which in essence amounts to justifying the attacks. Said differently, the pro-Palestinians are essentially saying that the means and end to violence are one and the same!

Sharon, however, correctly argues that there must be a genuine environment of a cessation of violence _before_ any meaningful peace negotiations can take place. A relatively peaceful situation in that part of the world must exist before the two parties can sit down to seriously and honestly discuss a mutually acceptable long-term solution. To the Israeli mindset, the end of violence on both sides is the only plausible _means_ to the desired end of the so-called occupation.

But one of the very clear and entirely unreasonable and illogical implications to the aforementioned Arab or Palestinian apolgists' argument is that the terrorist attacks will necessarily and justifiably continue through any peace negotiations. To the Arab mindset, a ceasefire and relatively peaceful climate as a precondition to peace negotiations is not necessary -- and perhaps not even desirable! To their mind, terrorism is nothing more than a negotiating strategy or tool -- although they will never come out and state this in such plain terms.

But wait! I thought the whole world was interested in a _fair_ settlement. Yet the world wants to place Israel in a very unenviable and unfair situation by demanding that Sharon negotiate a peace settlement with the Palestinians -- while the Palestinians simultaneously conduct terrorist attacks against Israel -- while they hold a gun to her head! Perhaps some liberal-minded person out there would explain to me how this set of conditions would ever lead to a fair peace settlement?

You think I'm exaggerating in my claims? How often have we heard the United Nitwits, the E.U. , the Arab world and the misguided and ill-informed liberals here in this country condemn Israel every time she responds militarily to a terrorist attack? Just yesterday the Foreign Minister of Egypt condemned Israel's impending incursion into Gaza and said that such action posed a serious threat to the "peace process". Yet, the terrorist attacks to most of the world never seem to pose such a threat to the "peace process". (Never fear, though, for this peace process will never be in jeopardy, since it's a peace process in name only -- but this would make for another topic at another time.) Why is this? Because to the Arabs and liberals of the world, the only real _means_ to peace is for Israel to end the occupation. Because these groups have allowed their emotions to control their thought processes, they cannot see that they're really confusing what should be a desired end result for a means to this end. Surely, one of the logical ends to meaningful peace negotiations is for the Palestinians to realize an end to the occupation. But this will never happen in an atmosphere of ongoing war. And rightfully so, I might add.

I liked the analogy I've been hearing of late by a talk show host and even Alan Keyes last night relative to the pro-Palestinian solution to the cessation of violence. Virtually the entire world wants it both ways. The world fully supports and endorses, as a legitimate and viable negotiating strategy for the Palestinians the "good cop/bad cop" double-minded approach. On the one hand, Arafat walks through the front door to take a seat at the negotiating table, while his thugs simultaneously break into the back door to kill and injure as many Israelis as possible.

We can somewhat understand the Arab view since so many are blinded by their hatred for Israel. But sadly, the socialists and liberals in the rest of the world have succumbed to their feelings and emotions by allowing themselves to be conned by the Arab world and the mainstream media into believing that the poor Palestinians are the only victims in this crisis -- and underdogs to boot! (No wonder at all, Israel has lost the PR war!)

So, the way for the Arabs and liberals to "level the playing field" a bit is to try to impose a serious handicap upon Israel. The world is demanding that Israel negotiate peace while the Palestinian whackos continue to terrorize Israeli civilians. Cute, eh? But as Alan Keyes would rhetorically ask, "Does this make any sense?"

Boxcar

[boxcar]

Very many in the world, including the Bush administration, believe that Arafat is the only Palestinian "peace partner" with whom Israel can negotiate, since Yassserr is the "duly elected" head of the Palestinians. (Talk about an anemic argument!)

Conversely, Sharon sees Arafat as a major stumbling block to any peace efforts and doesn't want anything more to do with him, since Israel believes that the man himself is a terrorist, for which Israel now alleges it is in possession of ample proof thereof. Israel's thinking is: Let the Palestinians, who supposedly "freely elected" this murderous maniac, be stuck with the lowlife they so dearly love and embrace. Just because they elected him doesn't mean anyone else in the world has to accept him or tolerate his behavior. Is Israel being too harsh on the ol' guy? I think not.

What so many seem to be overlooking (or perhaps "avoiding" would be the better term) is a fundamental question that should be raised relative to Arafat and his lack of security performance -- his lack of control over the extremists residing in his territories. Is it not perfectly reasonable and logical for Israel to expect that they would enjoy peace and security made with him only to the degree that Arafat has been able to control the whackos in the West Bank and Gaza up until now? What would possess any straight thinking person to expect that just because Arafat signed some peace treaty with Israel that his signature on that piece of paper would somehow miraculously enable him to control all the extremists which heretofore he has been unable and incapable of bridling, according to all the Palestinian apologists?

Someone may be thinking that if the Palestinians were to achieve statehood status that things would change because now they'd have too much at stake to lose. But my retort to that silly argument is that it's all together too obvious that before any treaty was signed, the Palestinians obviously didn't feel that they had very much at all to gain, which is why they been conducting terrorism against Israel all these years. All these years, the Palestinians have been too obsessed and fixiated with the notion of what they had to lose!

If the Palestinians really believed all these years that they really stood to gain much, would they not have gone to great pains to keeping the peace -- to maintaining a ceasfire, and to spending far more time at the negotiating table in order to achieve a long-term, meaningful peace settlement with Israel? (As a very wise man of the bible once said, "Ye shall know them by their fruits".)

For this reason, I don't buy into this kind of argument. The only thing that would be achieved with Arafat's signature on a peace treaty is that Israel would have helped him create a terrorist state. Instead of having terrorists merely operating in a territory, the world would have officially given birth to another terrorist state. Period. Nothing would change between the Palestinian whackos and Israel.

Sadly, too many liberals cannot see this. Again, they are blinded by their emotions -- by their intense desire for peace -- by their noble intentions. Slick Willy and Sen. Dasshole have both expressed a desire to see a U.S. peacekeeping force in the Mid-East. Amazing what lessons they haven't learned from history in that area.

Jerry Springer (God bless his misguided soul) said yesterday on the Fox News Channel that the U.S. must "IMPOSE" a peace in the area. This poor guy believes that a third party can come along and ram "peace" down warring parties' throats -- and that no one is going to gag on it, and greatly resent being forced to do something that it doesn't want to!

True, genuine, lasting peace can neither be forced upon warring parties nor can be achieved with a man who, historically, has devoted a major portion of his life to the destruction of Israel.
Again, as Alan Keyes would often say, "This is my sense of it."

Boxcar

[Rick]

Here's my take on things:

1. Arafat's main concern is staying in power and enjoying all of the privileges it bestows.

2. He won't stay in power if he doesn't cooperate with Hamas and the other terrorist groups. Saudi leaders have the same problem.

3. Arab leaders (example Egypt) who try to make peace usually wind up losing their lives.



Now, of course Arafat (and the Saudi royalty) could step down and let others with more courage run the country and try to make peace. But how many times have you seen any political leader sacrifice for the good of his people?

[so.cal.fan]

Sadly, I don't think there will ever be peace in the Middle East in our lifetimes.
Israel is a "foreign energy" in this region.
Much of the Islamic world is just not as evolved as most of the rest of the world.
I don't know why, it is just the way it is.

[wes]

Much of the Islamic world is just not as evolved as most of the rest of the world.

When someone says peace their reply is peace on you too.

wes

[BIG HIT]

Hi guy's when you think about it the arabs don't want peace and never did.But when nixion was in office they were quit.Then came jimmy carter mr nice guy and they new he was not as crazy as nixion who would have by now made the middle east a parking lot.So now there biggest weapon is to kill us with are own kindness.What we need is somebody that crazy enough and they will settle just as before because for the most part nobody want's to die.The japan wanted peace only after the bomb right?

[Rick]

I read an editorial a while back the said that nobody ever negotiates for peace until they have no other choice. So, if history is any guide, peace won't occur until one side is defeated. I wouldn't bet on the underdog in this case at any odds.

[Tom]

I think the Russians really feared Ronald Regan (Ray-Gun) because they thought he was crazy enough to really have Star-Wars technology and use it against them. Carter was obviously a nice guy with good intentions, but a clown of the world stage (not meant ot be degratory, just some types of people are not equiped to deal decisively with the assorted scumballs that perform there).
I like the idea of people being afraid of our leaders - fear is the most effective political tool.

bang-bang!

[Rick]

Tom,

I totally agree with the "crazy president" theory. Even Kennedy wouldn't have been taken so seriously if the Russians hadn't thought he was nuts about Cuba. Nixon seems crazier now than he seemed at the time. So who's the next crazy MF president? I don't think W is unpredictable enough. Maybe I should have voted for Perot. He would definitely qualify, but I didn't think Congress would ever pass anything he wanted because he was so fond of pissing them off.

[Rick]

Another useful presidential attribute that Nixon mentioned was having "patience with fools". It's also very useful in the corporate world.

[boxcar]

Oh, what fun! After last night's vote by Sharon's Likud party (same as Netanyahu's!) we can watch the "peace process" kick into very high gear -- complete with afterburners and all that neat stuff.

Israeli elections are only about 18 months away, and the last thing in the world Bushy will want to do is deal with a true conservative -- with a man who makes Sharon look like a bleeding heart, and with an intellect, who in his sleep, could make Bush look like a babbling idiot. After last night's vote, I'd say BB is the odds on favorite right now to beat our Sharon.

Events for the next year and half or so in the Middle East should really be interesting to watch.

Boxcar

[boxcar]

Hey, have y'all heard about the latest Palestinian poll? It turns out that the the _majority_ of Palestinians are maniacal, extremist whackos (why am I not surprised?) -- wanting the utter destruction of Israel over the creation of a Palestinian state. Only 43% want statehood.

Additionally, 78% are for revolting against Israel in some way -- with 68% favoring more suicide bombings.

Hmm...wonder if this news will have a negative impact on the all-important "peace process"?

Boxcar

P.S. I have to think that Egyptian Prez Mubarak spends most of his time with either his head buried in the Sarah sands or in some mummy's tomb. He keeps insisting that the U.S. should "impose" a peace plan on the two warring parties "quickly". Hahahaha -- ROFL!

[boxcar]

Hey, did everyone catch the four video clips of the officially Saudi-sanctioned/sponsored satellite TV show that spews forth its hate-filled rhetoric toward Jews?

The most repugnant of them all involved a little three-year old girl being asked what she thought of Jews. She replied that they were "apes and pigs".

Man...I'm sure glad the Saudis are our friends. Would hate to see what mischief they'd make if they were our enemies.

I'm also happy that this little revelation won't hinder the "peace processs".

Boxcar

[Rick]

Why do we need the Saudis now anyway? I understand why we used to play games with them because of their oil, but now the Russians and others could easily make up for the shortfall. Besides, it probably would save us money on foreign aid if we bought more from the Russians. We can't afford to let a nuclear power go bankrupt anyway. But the ultimate last laugh will come when we've fully developed fuel cell technology and the Saudis and others will have to figure out how to turn oil into food.

[boxcar]

The $64. question, though, is WHEN will we have that technology fully developed at an affordable cost? Maybe we should send some corporate spies over to Japan because I read not too long ago that Japan will be going into production with this type of technology next year.

My take is that we'd already be on the ball with this, but greedy politicians and oil companies are blocking progress. I'm just utterly amazed at the
laissez faire attitude of virtually all politicians. (Hey, Jess, please spare me from one of your Bush tirades. After all, I don't see your hero McCain doing anything either!) Don't get me wrong: For the most part, I believe government should stay out of economic affairs and allow the free enterprise system to work out its own kinks -- but when a such a critically important issue, such our fuel sources is already under threat (recall Iraq's call to OPEC to shut off the oil spigots to the U.S.?, then our national security is likewise under threat. I don't know what our politicians are thinking. They'd rather fear monger about all the deaths that will ensue if a Drug Plan isn't passed soon, or how many eldery will die of lung diseases, etc. due to air pollution. Talk about misplaced priorities!

Boxcar

[Rick]

But fuel cells would help solve the air pollution problem too so everyone should be for it, right? Oops, I forgot about greed and political paybacks.

[PaceAdvantage]

Boxcar,

Good point about the oil companies and politicians that are in their back pocket blocking advancement in fuel cell technology....

The reason why our cars are powered by the same technology as when they were first invented over 100 YEARS AGO is the same reason why cigarettes are still available for sale (even though they kill tons of people every year)....powerful lobbies....



==PA

[andicap]

Cigarettes are still for sale because the government would go broke without them. Look at all the money it collects from taxes. And if they weren't for sale, look at the black market that would develop for them, just like prohibition.

On the fuel cell thread, anyone ever see the movie "Tucker." he developed a car in the '40s that was years ahead of his time but the car companies crushed him.

Then people were shocked when the Japanese invaded our market with better cars? (Still I'm happy with my Saturn!)

[Tom]

While I agree with the comments, I think the word "lobby" is just a way to sanitize the act. It is bribery. Plain and simple. And politicians who deal with them are whores. There is no way on earth lobbies are ethical, moral, or even legal. Yet the whores in DC just can't say to the candy they bring. I think this is treason-elected officals selling their power to the highest bidder should be an offence that is punishable by hanging. The only problem is that there is not enough rope to take care of Washington. And that is bouth sides of the aisle - when it comes to greed, immorality, and slime, we have bi-partisinship all the way.

[boxcar]

Man, o' man. Mexico r-e-a-l-l-y takes its soccer seriously. It's easy to get the sense from today's NY Times story that either the entire nation, after its loss to us, has already slipped into a state of clinical depression or is on the verge of seeking revenge by starting another war with us. (Now that _would be_ depressing -- for Bush to have to get a "peace process" going with El Foxo and his Friends.)

But I hope the next time Mexico and the U.S. meet on the soccer field, one of our players, perhaps, will be able to clue at least the Mexican team in to a fundamental truth about our border problems with them. (Yeah...I did get this right, didn't I? OUR border problems with THEM?)

Small wonder they lost to us when they can get something as simple as our border history with them for the last few decades straight. Some Mex was quoted as saying:

"I'm crushed. There is this intense rivalary with the United States, and what with the problems we have with them on the border, and with migrants, and this loss is going to affect the country a lot."

That's chutzpa. I mean...I'd love to ask this guy when was the last time he saw U.S. migrants trying to cross over to his side of border illegally. Just who is causing the problems for whom!?

An Alejandro Duarte, indulging himself in a little self-pity, said, "I think the United Sates has always seen us as inferior and it has always tried to humiliate us."

There we go again with the ol' "America is what is wrong with the world" nonsense -- but this time Mexico has taken it more personally. I suppose our soccer team was supposed to feel sorry them and not "humiliate" them on the field by throwing the game to them? Is that the deal? It sounds like Duarte has fell victim to an American Malady known as Entitlement Fever.

Maybe Bush should counsel his buddy Fox that if he'd outlaw self-pity parties in his country and come to realize and admit that his nation's inferiorty complex is mostly self-induced, it would be the first and most important step to rediscovering values such as self-esteem, self-worth and self-pride. In fact, maybe his countrymen would be so overwhelmed by these positive emotions and mental attitudes they'd forget about trying to find greener grass on our side of the border and stay home to cultivate their own for a change.

Manwhile, may the Force be with our southern neighbors and help them to lick their wounds.

Boxcar

[boxcar]

I'm sure most of are familar with recent events over in the Middle East, right? Palestinian terrorists have launched two horrific attacks in Israel killing and maiming many innocent women and children, etc.

In response, Israel has sent their armor once again into the West Bank -- but this time Sharon has told the Palestinians that if they continue with their terrorism, Israel will take more and more terrority -- occupy the West Bank more deeply than ever and hold that territory until the cessation of terrorist activities.

The mainstream press has called Sharon's strategy the "reoccupation of the West Bank". Likewise, the Palestians are whining and complaining about Israel's plan to [re]occupy the West Bank.

But wait? Perhaps someone can tell me how Israel can reoccupy terrority that the Palestinians have claimed all along Israel has been occupying? Haven't all Palestinian apologists been saying all along that if Israel wants peace, all they have to do is end the occupation? Hmmm...

Perhaps some Left winger out there would care to tackle this problem. I have to appeal to you Liberals for help because I certainly can't make any sense out of the Left's nonsense.

Boxcar

[Derek2U]

May i suggest you seek out a job. You seem too idle plus
you type too much. TY

[boxcar]

I'm in "retirement", D2U, so try to get over it. I'm in a position to play the ponies when I darn well please. Great country, isn't it?

Boxcar

[Rick]

boxcar,

I'm in the same club and like it just fine.


D2U,

Work your butt off for about 35 years and maybe you can join the club too.

[boxcar]

Hey, has everyone heard the great news? YASsir Ara[b]fat announced publicly today that he's now willing to accept the Camp David Accord's peace plan. What a boon this announcement is to the "peace process" -- even though the thug is a dollar short and nearly two years late in getting around to accepting it.

Boxcar

[Rick]

boxcar,

There's got to be smoke and mirrors there somewhere.

[boxcar]

Rick, of course there are. Ara[b]fat is scared to death that Israel will eventually dimsantle the entire infrstructure of the West Bank in response to the ongoing suicide bombings. And I have to think he isn't too keen on the building of that "electrified wall" that will separate the West Bank from Israel.

But these concerns probably pale in comparison to the ramifications of Israel's next elections, which Netanyahu will probably win. No one in the world, including the U.S., wants to see him as the next prime minister, especially without some "interim" Palestinian state, or some heavy duty peace negotiations being in place by the time he takes office.

I predict that we will see the biggest push ever for Palestinian statehood, by all concerned parties, (except Israel) in the next 18 months or so. I just hope Sharon hangs in there tough and doesn't let Bush bully him.

Boxcar

[boxcar]

One has to wonder just what it was everyone was watching, since it's been well established that a massacre was merely a figment of the Palestinians' overworked imagination. Also gotta wonder if they showed footage of that dead Palestinian when he fell out of his litter and got up and walked? (Of course, the propagandists could have presented that as a miracle of Allah, I suppose.)

Boxcar

http://www.gulf-news.com/Articles/news.asp?ArticleID=59062

[boxcar]

Now if someone would only bring Abu Dhabi TV up to speed and inform them of this bad news...

Boxcar

http://www.nationalpost.com/world/story.html?id={742D1EF8-E10E-4704-9C25-73E5255B8802}