Are My Pro-Israeli Commenters the Only Ones Who Draw Rhetoric from Mein Kampf?

In Mein Kampf, Hitler wrote that lies are more valuable than the truth because it takes less time to tell a lie than to refute it. It’s certainly true in the case of justifications for the Israeli occupation of Palestine. It takes 30 seconds to digest a sentence from the pro-occupation group closest to your location; even when I wrote a refutation elsewhere, it takes me a few minutes to find it and quote the appropriate result from it.

So, please, if you feel like you have something to say about the I/P conflict, note that it’s very likely you’re saying bullshit I’ve refuted elsewhere. I’ll deal with pro-Palestinian crap when I get clueless pro-Palestinian commenters; now let me just point a few things out that pro-Israelis consistently get wrong. You can read most of it here, but if you don’t want to click the link, here it goes:

1. Most Palestinians support the two-state solution arrived at via negotiations.

[Link] Findings show that the majority of the respondents (62%) supports and 34% oppose peace negotiations between a Hamas-led government and Israel. A majority of 58% supports and 40% oppose a permanent settlement that would resolve all issues of the conflict in which Palestinians would recognize Israel as the state for the Jewish people and Israelis would recognize Palestine as the state for the Palestinian people.

2. Palestinians support the Gaza ceasefire nearly unanimously, and are increasingly viewing negotiations rather than terrorism as the key to achieving independence. The same link above says,

Findings show that the overwhelming majority of respondents (85%) supports the ceasefire agreement currently observed in the Gaza Strip while only 14% oppose it. Similarly, 85% support and 14% oppose extending the agreement to cover the West Bank as well. The widespread support for the ceasefire might reflect a decrease in the positive evaluation of the role of violence in achieving national rights. Findings show that the public is split into two equal halves on this matter with 49% believing that armed confrontations have so far helped achieve national rights in ways that negotiations could not. This percentage stood at 54% six months ago and at 68% one year ago.

3. Even those who support terrorism often view it as a way of securing independence, rather than a way of destroying Israel.

[Link] Respondents were asked whether the final goal of the Intifada should be the improvement of Palestinian negotiating conditions, ending the occupation and forming a Palestinian state based on UN resolution 242, or the total liberation of Palestine (area under British mandate before 1948).

Forty-six percent of respondents believed that the final goal of the Intifada should be ending the occupation and forming a Palestinian state based on UN resolution 242, 47% believed that it should be the total liberation of Palestine, 4% believed that it should be improving the Palestinian negotiation conditions, and 3% did not provide an answer/ did not know.

4. Of the Palestinians who don’t support a two-state solution, a majority wants a binational state with equal rights for Israelis and Palestinians.

[Link] Fifty-seven percent of Palestinians supported the two-state solution, 24% supported a bi-national state, 9% supported a Palestinian state, 3% supported an Islamic state, 5% did not think there was a solution, and 3% did not know or did not provide an answer.

5. Most Palestinians who support a peace agreement want Israel to give refugees the right of return, although most are also willing to postpone negotiations on that and accept an interim agreement first, provided that negotiations for a final agreement proceed. However,

[Link] PSR surveys, conducted in 2003 among 4,500 refugee families in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, Jordan, and Lebanon, found that only 10 percent of all refugees wanted to return to Israel and only 1 percent wanted Israeli citizenship. As figure 5 shows, the rest of the refugees preferred to exercise the right of return in the Palestinian state (31 percent) or in “swapped” areas, that is, areas now in Israel that would be transferred to Palestinian sovereignty in a permanent settlement (23 percent), for a total of 54 percent of refugees preferring to live in a Palestinian state. Only 17 percent of all refugees preferred to remain in a host country, almost all of them in Jordan, and 2 percent preferred to go to a third country such as Canada, a European country, the United States, or Australia. The surveys found that 13 percent of the refugees in all three locations polled refused any of these choices. Most of those wanted to go back to their homes but refused to do so as long as it meant having to live in Israel.

6. Iran is five to ten years away from developing a nuclear weapon.

[Link] Iran is at least five to 10 years away from developing nuclear weapons, and any military attack on the country would only speed up its program, the head of the United Nations’ nuclear watchdog organization said today.

7. The Iranian population opposes the regime, approving of Ahmadinejad by about the same rate the American population approves of Bush.

[Link] Ahmadinejad’s approval rating, as calculated by the official state television station, had dipped to 35 percent in October.

(…)

For a Western traveler in Iran these days, it is hard to avoid a feeling of cognitive dissonance. From a distance, the Islamic republic appears to be at its zenith. But from the street level, Iran’s grand revolutionary experiment is beset with fragility. The state is in a sense defined by its contradictions, both constitutional and economic. It cannot be truly stable until it resolves them, and yet if it tries to do so, it may not survive.

7. Muslims have produced a few democratic states, like Turkey, Indonesia, and intermittently Lebanon. That’s not a lot, but considering that the first Catholic democracy that didn’t succumb to fascism under its own weight was Czechoslovakia, formed in 1918 (France was anti-Catholic and fought on the Protestant side in the Thirty Years’ War), saying that Islam is inherently anti-democratic is like saying Catholicism is. After all, inherent religious features don’t change in 100 years.

Islamism is simply a political response to the failures of previous movements, chiefly Ba’athism. At the time, Islamism seemed like a fresh change when Ba’athism, monarchy, communism, and liberalism were all crumbling. Tellingly, in the one country where Islamism is plainly practiced, Iran, the people are ready to move on toward liberal democracy.

19 Responses to Are My Pro-Israeli Commenters the Only Ones Who Draw Rhetoric from Mein Kampf?

  1. SLC says:

    Re Levy

    1. Mr. Levy is somewhat deficient in his knowledge of the 30 years war. France did not overtly support the Protestant side to the extent of providing troops and certainly was not anti-Catholic. The major player in the French stance stance was Catholic Cardinal Richelieu, who was first and formost a French nationalist. His support, particularly for the Swedish King, Gustavus Adolphus, was based on reducing the influence of the Vatican, Spain, and Austria in French internal affairs.

    2. The statement that Iran is 5 to 10 years away from developing a nuclear capability is Mr. ElBaradeis’ opinion. Other assessments range as low as 6 months. However, since Mr. Levy thinks that an Iranian nuclear capability is no big deal, I don’t quite understand why he makes a big deal of the time element.

    3. Mr. Levy states that there is widespread opposition to Amadinejad in Iran. If the opposition actually begins to pose a threat to the rule of the mullahs, they will happily throw Amadinejad to the wolves.

    4. Mr. Levys’ reliance on polls showing only 10% of Palestinian refugees want to return to Israel is completely irrelevent. If Israel ever agreed to such a proposal, the pressure that would be brought on those living in refugee camps by the PA and the Arab states would be so overwhelming that they would have no choice but to agree to return whether they wanted to or not.

    5. What cease fire? The Palestinians have been firing Kassems into Israel every day since the so-called cease fire began, in addition to planning homicide bombings (see attached link).

    http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3363205,00.html

    Fortunately, the IDF and border guards are able to prevent most of the attempted homicide bombings because of good intelligence and the presence of the much maligned fence.

    6. Mr. Levys’ attempt to raise the Hitler zombie in criticising commentators who have the temarity to have an unLevy like thought in their heads is rather interesting. He has certainly been critical of those commentators who have compared Amadinejad to Hitler.

  2. Alon Levy says:

    It’s understandable why I trust the IAEA’s assessment more than I do these of arms of the US government, which, beyond honesty issues, are just incompetent.

    Syria might exercise that pressure on refugees, but Jordan has no reason to, and neither does the PA, whose population has no problem recognizing Israel as a Jewish state. Unlike the situation in Korea, where parties on both sides pressured North Korean prisoners of war to choose to either stay or be repatriated, here the refugees don’t have to make the choice before crossing the border. Even if they’re dragooned to move to Israel, 90% of those who want to live there don’t even want citizenship, so they’ll likely become Palestinian citizens instead.

  3. SLC says:

    Re Levy

    Mr. Levy continues to dwell in fantasy land. Of course the PA will pressure the Palestinians currently in refugee camps to return to Israel as a part of their overall plan to take over all of Palestine. This is the only way they can accomplish this desire and they have no chance of accomplishing it militarily.

  4. Ran Halprin says:

    I’m glad to hear that some polls show that the Palestinian people are pro a solution, but if that’s true, it’s obscure that they elected a terrorist group whose charter calls for the destruction of Israel as their leaders.

    Re 7, “Muslims have produced a few democratic states, like Turkey, Indonesia, and intermittently Lebanon.”

    Nobody ever said that Muslims cannot live in democracies – the claim goes for _Arab_ Muslims. In Turkey and Indonesia, the Muslims aren’t Arab, and in Lebanon, the major stable part is the Christian Arabs, while the Muslim Arabs mostly support Hizbullah, a terrorist organization. Iran’s population is also, btw, not exactly Arab, so maybe there’s hope there. In fact, that might explain why Iran was once a democracy.

    It’s rather strange that Christian Arabs manage to live peacefully, as well as Muslim who aren’t Arabs – but the combination Muslim-Arab somehow brings about dictatorships.

  5. SLC says:

    Re Halprin

    The reason that most Arab countries are dictatorships is that Arab culture requires a strong hand at the helm.

  6. Alon Levy says:

    It’s rather strange that you dwell on this point when you could say the same about Hispanics 35 years ago.

    And yes, the Palestinians elected Hamas. Nobody ever elects governments based on foreign policy. Parties win elections when they are perceived as competent, clean, forward-thinking, and in touch with the people. A year ago, that was Hamas. Today, that’s Fatah. The Palestinians will reject a party based solely on its support for terrorism the same day the US will vote for a Presidential candidate whose platform centers around strengthening anti-Americanism. You can rant all day long about the Hamas victory and I can rant all day long about Likud and Kadima and Israel Beitenu, but those rants won’t change the basic facts of realist domestic politics.

    SLC, the PA is elected by the Palestinian people.

  7. Ran Halprin says:

    “It’s rather strange that you dwell on this point when you could say the same about Hispanics 35 years ago.”

    It’s rather strange that you dwell on anti-Israelism when you could be busy fighting to return sobriety to one of the other dozens of oppressed peoples in the world. My guess is the only reason you choose this conflict is the fact that there is anti Israeli terrorism involved. If the Chechens or Darfurians would also start murdering people in name of stopping their oppression, you would probably start blogging about how poor they are as well.

    Re Kadima, they ran with a foreign policy very similar to what I understand your desired solution is – complete withdrawal of Israel from all Palestinian territory, including destroying Israeli civilian homes there. That’s more outreaching then any Israeli political party before, and it became the largest party, meaning Israelis support this idea (In Israel, the Palestinian issue is the biggest issue at hand on elections).

    Re Likud, Israel Beitenu – they are just riding on the terrorism, simple Machiavellian strategies. Was there a halt of terrorism, they would dissipate into the night, never to be remembered. It’s Palestinian leader’s insisting on terror that feeds the ideas of stronger retaliation.

  8. Alon Levy says:

    My guess is the only reason you choose this conflict is the fact that there is anti Israeli terrorism involved.

    You’re right. Having grown up in Darfur, I know all there is to know about the subtleties of the conflict, but nonetheless chose to make an effort to educate myself about Israel because of latent anti-Semitism.

    Re Kadima, they ran with a foreign policy very similar to what I understand your desired solution is – complete withdrawal of Israel from all Palestinian territory, including destroying Israeli civilian homes there.

    Yeah, eventually. It’s the US civil rights movement all over again: the left is saying “Now,” the center is saying, “later,” and the right is saying “never.”

    In Israel, the Palestinian issue is the biggest issue at hand on elections

    To some extent. It’s influenced by the same trends that influence all other foreign policy-oriented elections: successes, setbacks, political competence, domestic issues. Barak won in 1999 not because Israelis were eager to negotiate with Syria, but because he ran good ads about unemployment and corruption. Olmert lost public support because he lost a shooting war. The Kadima/Likud split was mostly about Sharon needing to get rid of the Likud core, which he pissed when he dismantled settlements in Gaza, which he withdrew from because he needed to get his corruption scandals off the news.

  9. Bruce says:

    Alon, could you have meant the inverse of what you wrote in your first sentence, or have I misread? B

  10. Alon Levy says:

    If you mean the “Having grown up in Darfur” part, it’s supposed to be sarcastic. I talk about Israel more than about Darfur for the same reason that in the 1970s, South African refugees talked more about apartheid than about the Khmer Rouge.

  11. SLC says:

    Re Levy

    Does Mr. Levy consider himself a refugee from Israel? That’s the implication of his last comment.

  12. Alon Levy says:

    Not any more than you understand the extended analogy fallacy.

  13. ali eteraz says:

    This is a very concise and well done post. I would be honored if you’d link to it. You should also consider submitting it to the Carnival of Brass (see my sidebar), which is a real time carnival of good posts in the Islamsphere, and the instructions here

    http://cityofbrass.blogspot.com/2006/08/carnival-of-brass.html

  14. Bruce says:

    Sorry, was referring to the first sentence of your first paragraph at the very top of the main text of the entire post (“In Mein Kampf“). A lie takes longer to utter than refute, QED from the rest of that paragraph.

  15. SLC says:

    Re ali eteraz

    1. In investigating the cityofbrass website, I notice that an article from the Guardian was cited which reports on a new organization in the UK calling itself theIndependent Jewish Voices (IJV). This sounds like an organization in the US called the American Council for Judaism which is an organization of self-hating Jews who reject the legitimacy of the State of Israel. The fact that the article appeared in the second worst Israel bashing newpaper in the UK (second only to the BBC) does not inspire confidence in the goals and objectives of this organization. Be that as it may, this website certainly appears appropriate for an Israel basher such as Mr. Levy.

    2. On Mr. Eterazs’ website, I notice a comment from him concerning a quote from Daniel Pipes. This quote certainly sounds pretty ominous, unless the entire context is considered. As I recall, this quote is taken from an article in which Dr. Pipes points out that the total defeat and unconditional surrender of Germany and Japan turned out to be quite salubrious for those countries as both of them have prospered since WW 2. I believe that Dr. Pipes’ position is that the same outcome might be equally salubrious for the Palestinians.

  16. Alon Levy says:

    Oh, I see it now, Bruce. Sorry for the gaffe. Fortunately, I’m not a woman running in the French Presidential election.

  17. This piece of writing provides clear idea in support of the new viewers of blogging,
    that genuinely how to do running a blog.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: