Say “No” to Peace
Sometimes, to get what you want, you have to come at it sideways
A gentleman going by @b_judah over on Twitter posted the following:
It continues like this:
That’s a clear policy for where you want to be in 1-2 years of putting costs on the occupation. There’s also a clear policy of where you want to be eventually with a two or a “twenty-three” state solution.
What’s lacking is any thinking on credible, viable, interim steps a post-Netanyahu Israeli government or a post-Abbas Palestinian Authority could conceivably carry in a 3-5 year horizon that could radically improve people’s lives.
There is a real intellectual vacuum here, it’s quite striking with Democrats really, which Europeans should be thinking ahead about and to try and fill with serious proposals developed with Egypt and the Gulf. This is where we need peace thinking.
This nonsense about “peace thinking” makes me want to scream. Instead, I replied:
Part of the problem is the focus on “peace”, as if peace itself is a direct goal.
What people fail to understand is that just as cold is not a thing itself, but rather the absence of heat, peace is also not a thing itself. It is the absence of conflict. It is an emergent property, and not the thing itself.
History has seen what happens when we aim for peace without first dealing with the resolution of conflict. It invariably results in a false peace, while the conflict simmers until it explodes again.
It is short sighted. It is very much a part of the “immediate gratification” culture that has arisen in the western world over the past half century.
Look at @b_judah himself. He doesn’t seek to avoid or resolve conflict. He posts his grand declarations here while preventing people from responding to him directly. He fears conflict. It’s part of why he can’t address it.
Once you look at the Arab-Israeli conflict through the lens of conflict resolution, you have to ask yourself whether both sides have people who see the conflict as a bad thing.
It should, by this point, go without saying that the vast majority of Israelis, if not a unanimity of Israels, consider the conflict to be a bad thing. They would end it tomorrow if they could. But the “Palestinians”? They were bred to pursue this conflict to the bitter end. For generations, they have been suckled on it from birth. They see no meaning in life other than that. It is the core and essence of their national identity.
They are very open about it in Arabic. And oddly, even in English, for the most part. Some of them have been counseled by people like @b_judah to speak “around” it when talking to outsiders, but they are a minority. They will sometimes speak of a “two state solution”, but if you pin them down, it always means a Judenrein Arab Palestine and a binational Israel subject to the immigration of 7.2 million “refugees” and their descendants.
But people like @b_judah will jump on the idea of two states and figure, “Eh, we can deal with the details later”, or “First get a peace agreement, at any cost, and we can deal with the conflict later.”
America is at peace with Japan and Germany because they didn’t negotiate with Imperial Japan or Nazi Germany. They forced them to *first* abandon their goal of world conquest, and they sat on them for the next generation to ensure that their children were being raised without that poison. Peace came as a result of this.
President Franklin Delano Roosevelt said, during WWII, “The elimination of German, Japanese and Italian war power means the unconditional surrender by Germany, Italy or Japan. That means a reasonable assurance of future world peace. It does not mean the destruction of the population of Germany, Italy or Japan, but it does mean the destruction of the philosophies in those countries which are based on conquest and the subjugation of other people.”
To give an example of how far we’ve come from that clarity of thought, consider these words from President Barack Hussein Obama: “On the other hand, there may be ways of structuring a final deal that satisfies their pride, their optics, but meet our core practical objectives. And that’s what we’ve got to give the negotiators room to determine.”
Had Roosevelt thought like Obama, there would be no peace between the Allied nations and the Axis powers. And yet it’s the Obama style of thinking that lies behind @b_judah and his short sighted pursuit of peace as a direct goal.
Unconditional surrender is the only acceptable outcome, If only the west has the stomach for it. But with antisemitism at such high levels, more bombs unfortunately , are the only option for the west. The “ humanitarians” have to be ignored in favor of a sustainable future for the Jews.
Western liberals refuse to listen to what the palis themselves say about the conflict, about Jews and Israel. Astonishingly even October 7 didn't alter their thinking. This is what happens when you are governed by ideology instead of realism. Of course, they won't be the ones to pay the price for their dangerous fantasies. Leftists never reap the consequences of the ideas they force on others.