Salomon Benzimra, at Israpundit, asks "Why not give Truth a Chance?"
Hardly a left-wing demonstration goes by without brandishing the ubiquitous Give Peace a Chance sign. If all they are saying is “give peace a chance”, their voice has been most ineffective, let alone selective, biased and, frankly, irrational.The Left views peace as the ultimate goal. By “peace”, they mean cessation of violence and a hope, however remote, of establishing normal relations between the conflicting parties. This desire seldom takes into account the root causes of the conflict and the deeply entrenched animosity that may exist between the parties. It is peace at all costs, in spite of reality.
"It is peace at all costs, in spite of reality." Well said!
Pacifism nowadays is as bankrupt a movement against Islamic terrorism as it was against Nazism. Peace is not the objective to be pursued. Justice is. Peace is the natural result after justice has been served. But the pursuit of justice requires a clear distinction between right and wrong, something today’s pacifists are reluctant to accept, incapable to comprehend, or even eager to distort. Worse, they brand those who uphold this distinction as warmongers.
It's a problem with today's liberals, not just the pacifists.
This phenomenon is most apparent in the Israeli-Arab conflict. Many “peace processes” have proliferated since the early 1990s: the Oslo Accords, the Saudi Peace Plan, the Road Map, the Geneva Initiative, the Ayalon-Nusseibeh Plan, etc. One failure after the other. A telltale: the word “justice” is nowhere to be found in any of these documents. As Saul Bellow would have said about these plans, "a great deal of intelligence can be invested in ignorance when the need for illusion is deep."
That line from Bellow is priceless! I had to put it in the header for this week.
We need to challenge the current vision of “peace” in the Middle East. Justice should be placed at the forefront. It requires a solid foundation of truth to have any chance to prevail. We should not harbor any illusion in trying to convince the extremists (Islamists; right wing fascists; extreme left firebrands; and their usual cohorts of anti-Semites recast as anti-Zionists). But we can and should target the European “intellectuals” who pride themselves in their tradition of rational thought and enlightenment, university students and campus organizations, as well as the moderate Left in general, the Israeli Left included. A shift of the Left, based on principles they cannot refute, may be all it takes to see a slightly brighter light.
I have found that such a tack is very rewarding, and does tend to shut lefties up. Attacking them at the moral level by challenging the propriety of their moral sensibilities and capabilities always throws them off guard. Be prepared for a violent reaction.
But as for changing them? *shakes head* I wouldn't bet on it.
An effective peace agreement should include a preamble that sets forth some self-evident truths:a) Terror, defined as the indiscriminate and deliberate attack on civilians for political purposes, is an assault on justice and should never be rewarded in any form. It should be eradicated and their instigators punished.
No argument here. From the left's point of view, the Israelis and Jews must demonized, for only that can justify the use of terrorism.
b) Neither should wars of aggression be rewarded by returning territory lost. The Israeli-Egyptian pace (sic) treaty (Camp David I) should be viewed as an aberration with no parallel in history.
c) Historical facts, fully documented, shall be the natural basis for understanding cause to effect relations. This should give a proper perspective to the perennial mantras advanced by the Palestinians: Israeli “brutal” occupation, “illegal” Jewish settlements and the “inalienable” right of return of Arab refugees should be viewed against the reality of Arab aggression, the Khartoum conference, and Jewish refugees from Arab countries.d) Factual truths shall not be “mingled, obscured or discolored by passion and interest”, as Jonathan Swift so aptly said.
THIS may be asking a bit much of leftists and liberals, who believe that facts must yield in favor of their superior moral principles. I'd still go with attacking their moral standing, showing that their position is neither superior, moral, nor founded upon principles of any sort.
Excellent article, Salomon Benzimra! And thanks to Ted Belman for posting it at Israpundit.
Posted by ptah at January 20, 2004 10:55 AM