Another Man's Honor

[jbg]

This article from the New York Times, excerpted below (link), points out why a "negotiated" approach to Mideast peace, at least the way MSM wants it, is doomed to failure

July 25, 2006

Op-Ed Columnist

Another Man's Honor

By JOHN TIERNEY

To Hezbollah, there is no such thing as “collateral damage” from its missiles. Israel keeps telling the world that its army aims only at military targets, but Hezbollah doesn’t even pretend to. Its soldiers proudly fire away at civilians.

These terrorists consider themselves men of honor, and unfortunately they are — by their own definition. We in the West can call them barbaric, which they also are, but they’re following an ancient social code, even if we can’t recognize it anymore.

*snip*

The problem today, as Bowman sees it, is that the whole concept of defending one’s honor has been devalued in the West — mocked as an archaic bit of male vanity or childish macho chest-thumping. But if you don’t create a civilized honor culture, you risk ending up with the primitive variety.

“The honor system in Arab culture is the default honor system, the one you see in street gangs in America — you dis me, I shoot you,” says Bowman, a scholar at the Ethics and Public Policy Center. “We need a better system that makes it honorable to be protective of those who are weaker instead of lording it over them.”

When you’re confronted with an honor culture like the one in the Middle East, there are two rules to keep in mind. One is that you are not going to placate the enemy with the kind of concessions that appeal to Western diplomats. “Hezbollah is fighting for honor, to humiliate the enemy, not for any particular objective,” Bowman says. “Israel has no choice in what it’s doing. Nothing short of victory by either side will change anything.”

The other rule is that you’re not going to quickly transform an honor culture. The Iraq war was predicated on the assumption that democracy would turn Iraqis into loyal citizens with new civic virtues. But for now the old loyalties to tribes and sects still matter more than any universal concept of justice. The men would rather have honor than peace.

[August1991]

I posted this elsewhere but it seems relevant here.

You can blame it on an "honor culture" if you want but I think the explanation is simpler. There is no negotiation with Hizballah and Hamas because they want to push Israel into the sea.

Perhaps you have heard of Maryam Farhat, who sits in the Palestine Legislature as a member of Hamas. Three of her six children were suicide bombers.

Here is what she said about peace and Israel (in December 2005):

Peace means the liberation of all of Palestine, from the (Jordan) to the (Mediterranean) Sea. When this is accomplished – if they want peace, we will be ready. They may live under the banner of the Islamic state. That is the future of Palestine that we are striving towards.

Dream2, Egyptian TV

Here's what Hassan Nasrallah (head of Hizballah) said about Israel (in 2000, his views have not changed):

I am against any reconciliation with Israel. I do not even recognize the presence of a state that is called "Israel." I consider its presence both unjust and unlawful. That is why if Lebanon concludes a peace agreement with Israel and brings that accord to the Parliament our deputies will reject it; Hezbollah refuses any conciliation with Israel in principle.

Washington Post

There is no negotiation possible with people having such a viewpoint.

[Machinations]

There is no negotiation possible with people having such a viewpoint.

From your link, maybe you missed it:

In truth, the most conspicuous examples of terrorism are the actions undertaken by Israel in occupying Palestine and other Arab territories, its aggression against peaceful civilians and civilian installations, its destruction of villages and water sources, and the tremendous damage which it aggressively inflicts. All of this is done under the full protection of the American administration and with its help in the form of funds, weapons and political support. Truly, this is the terrorism. We are involved in legitimate resistance which is fully justified. This is what all people do when their land is occupied.

This sounds to me as an ultimatum that does not call for the destruction of Israel.

Rather, like the rest of the international community, it is asking Israel to abide by standing UN resolutions and leave the Occupied Territories. Much of Hezbollah is displaced Palestianian nationals, for your information.

Get it?

[August1991]

This sounds to me as an ultimatum that does not call for the destruction of Israel.

Rather, like the rest of the international community, it is asking Israel to abide by standing UN resolutions and leave the Occupied Territories. Much of Hezbollah is displaced Palestianian nationals, for your information.

Get it?

Yes, I do.

Nasrallah is saying that all of Israel is occupied land.

Hizballah support comes primarily from Shia in Lebanon. It is financially supported by Iran. Over the past 50 years, Lebanon's Shia community has grown much larger but the Lebanese political system has never fully accepted this change. Hizballah has exploited this fact.

In 1948, 1957, 1967 and 1973, surrounding Arab countries tried to destroy the State of Israel and each time, Israel successfuly defended itself. In 1979, taking a pragmatic course, Sadat for Egypt and later Hussein for Jordan accepted the existence of Israel and signed peace treaties. Lebanon would have signed a treaty except that Syria objected. Syria has not accepted Israel but doesn't call for its destruction.

There are only two significant remaining groups who refuse the existence of Israel: Hamas and Hizballah.

All things considered, Israel is in a much safer position now than it was in October 1973. Its primary fear is the advance of technology and this partly motivates its decision to deal with Hizballah now.

[Machinations]

Yes, I do.

Nasrallah is saying that all of Israel is occupied land.

Hizballah support comes primarily from Shia in Lebanon. It is financially supported by Iran. Over the past 50 years, Lebanon's Shia community has grown much larger but the Lebanese political system has never fully accepted this change. Hizballah has exploited this fact.

In 1948, 1957, 1967 and 1973, surrounding Arab countries tried to destroy the State of Israel. Then, Sadat for Egypt and Hussein for Jordan accepted the existence of Israel and signed peace treaties. Lebanon would have signed a treaty except that Syria objected. Syria has not accepted Israel but doesn't call for its destruction.

There are only two significant remaining groups who refuse the existence of Israel: Hamas and Hizballah.

All things considered, Israel is in a much safer position now than it was in October 1973. Its primary fear is the advance of technology.

Thats funny - I read that quote to mean the Occupied Territories - since that is what he is clearly talking about. I like how you attribute other meanings to it - when we have a black and white quote. This has been the rallying cry of the sycophants - Israel is defending itself! Hezbollah wants to destroy Israel!

No, Hamas and Hezbollah wants Israel to give up the Occupied Territories, land they have illegally occupied since 1967 - and a fact you conveniently gloss over.

If this destroys the 'greater' Israel - then yes, I guess they are calling for it's destruction. But really they are asking for Israel to abide a standing UN resolution - but this shatters the dream for a 'greater' Israel and has the Zionists all in a tizzy.

Edit: Hezbollah is clearly using this for political gain. I do not support Hezbollah - to make that clear. However there are clearly more effective ways to curtail this kind of activity - one of which would be resolving the long-standing dispute over the Occupied Territories. Hamas and Hezbollah overnight would lose more than half their members.

Israel is choosing to fight rather than give back what it 'won' in 1967.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

With a little luck this will be resolved with the removal of Hezbollah. However that little task will not happen quickly or without great loss of human life.

[August1991]

Thats funny - I read that quote to mean the Occupied Territories - since that is what he is clearly talking about. I like how you attribute other meanings to it - when we have a black and white quote. This has been the rallying cry of the sycophants - Israel is defending itself! Hezbollah wants to destroy Israel!

When Nasrallah says that he doesn't recognize an entity called Israel and then refers to it as an occupier of land, it seems rather obvious to me what he means. I'll find another quote if you want.

Arafat made the pretense of flubbing these lines but Hizballah and Hamas have been clear. They want an Islamic State in which Jews could live in dhimmitude.

However there are clearly more effective ways to curtail this kind of activity - one of which would be resolving the long-standing dispute over the Occupied Territories. Hamas and Hezbollah overnight would lose more than half their members.

I don't think so. Israel has signed agreements with Jordan and Egypt, returning alot of land to Egypt in the process. Israel even came to an agreement with Arafat.

There is nothing to negotiate with Hizballah and Hamas.

[August1991]

Nasrallah said in 2000:

"The only way to achieve just and comprehensive peace is not through the implementation of resolutions 425, 242 and 338 but by restoring all the Arab lands to their sons and owners, without war and conflict. Let us spare bloodshed. Let the Yemenite Jews return to Yemen, the Moroccan Jews to Morocco, the Ethiopian Jews to Ethiopia, the European Jews to Europe, and the American Jews to America. The Palestinian people will get their land back and establish their state...

"Anyone who reads the Koran and the holy writings of the monotheistic religions sees what they did to the prophets, and what acts of madness and slaughter the Jews carried out throughout history... Anyone who reads these texts cannot think of co-existence with them, of peace with them, or about accepting their presence, not only in Palestine of 1948 but even in a small village in Palestine, because they are a cancer which is liable to spread again at any moment..."

Israeli MFA

[jbg]

There is no negotiation possible with people having such a viewpoint.

From your link, maybe you missed it:

In truth, the most conspicuous examples of terrorism are the actions undertaken by Israel in occupying Palestine and other Arab territories, its aggression against peaceful civilians and civilian installations, its destruction of villages and water sources, and the tremendous damage which it aggressively inflicts. All of this is done under the full protection of the American administration and with its help in the form of funds, weapons and political support. Truly, this is the terrorism. We are involved in legitimate resistance which is fully justified. This is what all people do when their land is occupied.

This sounds to me as an ultimatum that does not call for the destruction of Israel.

Rather, like the rest of the international community, it is asking Israel to abide by standing UN resolutions and leave the Occupied Territories. Much of Hezbollah is displaced Palestianian nationals, for your information.

Get it?

I'm going to respond rationally, though I'm tempted to rant.

The Arabs consider even "pre-1967" Israel (the borders, now, for about just over 1/3 of its modern existence) to be "occupied territory.