Tuesday, May 22, 2007
The "Then Maybe They Will" Doctrine (fwd)
The "THEN MAYBE THEY WILL" Doctrine
By Steven Plaut
For the past 30 years the Israeli political establishment has been a
prisoner of the "THEN MAYBE THEY WILL" doctrine. Each and every major
policy decision made by Israel's political establishment has reflected the
power of wishful thinking and faith in the make-pretend.
If Israel gives Sinai back to the Egyptians THEN MAYBE THEY WILL stop the
Nazi-like anti-Semitic propaganda in state-run media.
If Israel gives Sinai back to the Egyptians THEN MAYBE THEY WILL stop the
smuggling of explosives and weapons from Egypt to Palestinian terrorists.
If Israel "recognizes" the "Palestinian people," THEN MAYBE THEY WILL
If Israel agrees to limited autonomy for "Palestinian" Arabs at Camp David,
THEN MAYBE THEY WILL stop seeking Israel's destruction and the world will
not try to set up an independent Palestinian Arab terror state.
If Israel recognizes the right of the "Palestinian people" to
self-determination, THEN MAYBE THE ARABS WILL recognize the right of Jews to
If Israel grants its Arab citizens affirmative action preferences, THEN
MAYBE THEY WILL stop cheering terrorists and stop seeking the annihilation
of Israel and of its Jewish population.
If Israel turns the other cheek after Kassam rocket attacks from Gaza, THEN
MAYBE THEY WILL stop being fired.
If Israel ignores Hezbollah border violations, THEN MAYBE THEY WILL stop
If Israel provides the "Palestinian Authority" with arms and funds, THEN
MAYBE THEY WILL not be used for terror atrocities against Israel.
If Israel conducts a unilateral withdrawal from all of southern Lebanon and
allows the Hizbollah to station rockets on the border, THEN MAYBE THEY WILL
not shoot any.
If Israel officially agrees to let the "Palestinians" have a state, THEN
MAYBE THEY WILL abandon their agenda of annihilating Israel.
If Israel turns the Gaza Strip over to the Palestinians, THEN MAYBE THEY
WILL not use it as a base for terror attacks against Israel.
If Israel grants all religions unlimited freedom in Jerusalem, including
Moslem control of the Temple Mount, THEN MAYBE THE WORLD WILL acknowledge
the legitimacy of Israeli control of the city.
If Israeli politicians pay for 75% of the costs of Israeli universities,
THEN MAYBE THEY WILL not become centers for anti-Israel leftist sedition.
If Israel expels all the Jewish settlers from Gaza as a gesture of
friendship towards the Palestinians, THEN MAYBE THEY WILL reciprocate with
friendship towards the Jews.
If Israel refrains from retaliating against the Hizbollah terrorists after
they murder captive Israeli soldiers in cold blood, THEN MAYBE THEY WILL not
seek to kidnap any more soldiers.
If Israel allows the Palestinians to hold "elections", THEN MAYBE THEY WILL
not elect the Hamas.
If the Palestinians elect the Hamas, THEN MAYBE IT WILL not pursue a program
of aggression and terrorism against Israel.
If Israel refrains from retaliation after dozens of Kassam rockets turn
Sderot into the Israeli Guernica, THEN MAYBE THEY WILL stop all by
If Israel sets free thousands of jailed Palestinian terrorists, THEN MAYBE
THEY WILL renounce violence and not murder any more Jews.
If Israel allows bands of far-leftist traitors to seize control of many
departments in its universities, THEN MAYBE THEY WILL not collaborate with
If Israel allows dozens of foreign "solidarity" protesters to enter Israel
for purposes of helping terrorism, THEN MAYBE THEY WILL not attack Israeli
soldiers and police violently nor collaborate with terrorists.
If Israel sits back while the Syrians exert their hegemony over Lebanon,
THEN MAYBE THEY WILL rein in the Hizbollah and stop border attacks on
If Israel agrees to hold talks with representatives of the PLO, THEN MAYBE
THEY WILL put a stop to Palestinian terrorism.
If Israel agrees to hold talks with representatives of the PLO, THEN MAYBE
THEY WILL suppress the Hamas and Jihad terrorists and prevent the Hamas from
taking power within the "Palestinian Authority."
If Israel holds talks with terrorists, THEN MAYBE THEY WILL renounce their
genocidal ambitions and seek peace.
If the Israeli courts and Attorney General suppress freedom of speech for
anti-Oslo dissidents, THEN MAYBE THE ARABS WILL stop anti-Semitic
If Israeli politicians raise the minimum wage, THEN MAYBE THEY WILL not thus
cause unemployment to skyrocket.
If Israel agrees to one ceasefire after another with the Arabs, THEN MAYBE
THEY WILL eventually comply with one.
If Israel criminalizes and bans "radical" Jewish dissident organizations,
THEN MAYBE THE ARABS WILL do the same with Arab terrorist groups.
If Israel sets up street signs in Arabic and otherwise demonstrates its
goodwill towards Arabs with endless gestures, THEN MAYBE THEY WILL
reciprocate with renunciation of hatred and violence against Israel.
If Israel agrees to the stationing of UN troops in Lebanon, THEN MAYBE THEY
WILL actually do something to stop terror attacks on Israel.
If Israel allows Arabs in Israel to build illegally, including on public
lands, turning a blind eye to violations, THEN MAYBE THEY WILL become
pro-Israel and loyal.
If Israel agrees to let the Moslems control the Temple Mount in Jerusalem,
THEN MAYBE THEY WILL respond with friendship and moderation.
If Israel overfunds Arab municipalities, covering their fiscal deficits run
up intentionally, THEN MAYBE THEY WILL become pro-Israel and loyal.
If the Israeli media and chattering classes demonize the settlers, THEN
MAYBE THE ARABS WILL want to make peace with Israel.
If Israel returns the Golan Heights to Syria THEN MAYBE SYRIA WILL seek
peace and reject the idea of using the Heights again to attack Israel.
If Israel allows the "Palestinian Authority" to control parts of the West
Bank, THEN MAYBE THEY WILL not fire rockets at the Jews the same way they do
If Israel agrees not to build weapons of mass destruction, THEN MAYBE THE
ARABS AND IRANIANS WILL not seek to build any either.
If Israel agrees to evacuate the Jews from the Negev, THEN MAYBE THEY WILL
stop firing Kassam rockets at Israel.
If Israel agrees to place its neck in the Oslo noose, THEN MAYBE THE ARABS
WILL not pull the rope.
2. Midstream used to be an important Zionist magazine and still sometimes
runs important Zionist articles. But evidently it is having second thoughts
about its commitment to Israel. In the last it runs a screed by Arthur
Waskow, the anti-Israel anti-Zionist far-Leftist hippy "rabbi"
Waskow is consistently anti-Israel and pro-Arab. He is also anti-American.
His theology is pagan. He promotes "Eco-Judaism"
paganism and vedic tree worship and polygamy. What is such a buffoon doing
Its people can be contacted at:
633 Third Avenue, 21st Floor
New York, NY 10017
Phone: (212) 339-6020
Fax: (212) 318-6176
Leo Haber, Editor
Cecile Bittkower, Editorial Assistant
Fraidy Burstein, Production Manager
Sam E. Bloch, Business Manager
2. Israel's Post-Zionist Pseudo-Scholars promote blood libels:
3. From Tom Gross:
DAVID IRVING AND HIS JEWISH COUNTERPART, NORMAN FINKELSTEIN
Convicted Holocaust denier David Irving was ejected from the Warsaw book
fair on Saturday. He had planned to display his books there.
Polish organizers said there was no room at the book fair for a man who
denied that the Nazis murdered six million Jews, half of whom were Polish
citizens. "We asked him to leave," said Grzegorz Guzowski, the book fair
organizer. "Our employees helped him pack up his things, and our car drove
him to the address he specified." (For more, see the first article below.)
Among previous dispatches on Irving, see "David Irving: Auschwitz 'was a
tourist attraction' (& British Muslims scrap Holocaust Day)" (Jan.
The second article below is by Marty Peretz, who strongly criticizes the
decision by DePaul University, the largest private educational institution
in Chicago, to consider Norman Finkelstein for tenure. Peretz cites "The
wife of the neo-Nazi and Holocaust denier Ernst Zuendel (who) gushed...
Finkelstein is a Jewish David Irving."
For more on Finkelstein and DePaul University, see the twelfth note in the
dispatch, "Auschwitz death toll was higher, UK government archives reveal"
(April 16, 2007),
Among others I quote the respected German newspaper Sueddeutsche Zeitung,
which wrote about Finkelstein: His "assertions are pure invention... No
facts alleged by Finkelstein should be assumed to be really facts, no
quotation in his book should be assumed to be accurate, without taking the
time to carefully compare his claims with the sources he cites."
BUT THE BBC DECIDE TO GIVE HIM MORE AND MORE AIRTIME
Despite (or perhaps because of) Finkelstein's distortions of the Holocaust,
the BBC is increasing the times they invite him on their programs to air his
hateful views. For example, earlier this month BBC World TV carried an
appearance by Finkelstein at the prestigious Oxford Union at Oxford
University where Finkelstein was given plenty of air time to spread
disinformation. (The BBC doesn't usually carry broadcasts from the Oxford
(The BBC's coverage of the ongoing violence in Gaza and southern Israel in
recent days has also been particularly duplicitous, omitting lots of
pertinent facts vital to understanding Israel's viewpoint, facts which were
not omitted by CNN International and France 24, France.s new global 24-hour
TV news network.)
Among other recent comments made by Norman Finkelstein, the man DePaul
University now wants to give tenure to:
"Israel has embarked, in its own words, on a war of annihilation against the
Lebanese people. Not a day passes when the language they use doesn't
escalate... This is pure and simple Nazi language... Right now, and I say it
publicly, right now we are all Hizbullah... And every victory of Hizbullah
over the vandals and the marauders, the invaders and the murderers; every
victory by Hizbullah over Israel is also a victory for liberty and a victory
for freedom... the monsters and freaks in the White House and their
collaborators in Tel Aviv . so far as I'm concerned they can all drop dead."
"FINKELSTEIN IS A JEWISH DAVID IRVING"
By Marty Peretz
The New Republic
May 12, 2007
5. The Left (including the Jewish Asslibs) = ALSO wrong about Iraq:
May 22, 2007
Wall St Journal
The Left's Iraq Muddle
By BOB KERREY
May 22, 2007; Page A15
At this year's graduation celebration at The New School in New York,
Iranian lawyer, human-rights activist and Nobel Laureate Shirin Ebadi
delivered our commencement address. This brave woman, who has been
imprisoned for her criticism of the Iranian government, had many good and
wise things to say to our graduates, which earned their applause.
But one applause line troubled me. Ms. Ebadi said: "democracy cannot be
imposed with military force."
What troubled me about this statement -- a commonly heard criticism of
U.S. involvement in Iraq -- is that those who say such things seem to
forget the good U.S. arms have done in imposing democracy on countries
like Japan and Germany, or Bosnia more recently.
Let me restate the case for this Iraq war from the U.S. point of view. The
U.S. led an invasion to overthrow Saddam Hussein because Iraq was rightly
seen as a threat following Sept. 11, 2001. For two decades we had suffered
attacks by radical Islamic groups but were lulled into a false sense of
complacency because all previous attacks were "over there." It was our
nation and our people who had been identified by Osama bin Laden as the
"head of the snake." But suddenly Middle Eastern radicals had demonstrated
extraordinary capacity to reach our shores.
As for Saddam, he had refused to comply with numerous U.N. Security
Council resolutions outlining specific requirements related to disclosure
of his weapons programs. He could have complied with the Security Council
resolutions with the greatest of ease. He chose not to because he was
stealing and extorting billions of dollars from the U.N. Oil for Food
No matter how incompetent the Bush administration and no matter how poorly
they chose their words to describe themselves and their political
opponents, Iraq was a larger national security risk after Sept. 11 than it
was before. And no matter how much we might want to turn the clock back
and either avoid the invasion itself or the blunders that followed, we
cannot. The war to overthrow Saddam Hussein is over. What remains is a war
to overthrow the government of Iraq.
Some who have been critical of this effort from the beginning have
consistently based their opposition on their preference for a dictator we
can control or contain at a much lower cost. From the start they said the
price tag for creating an environment where democracy could take root in
Iraq would be high. Those critics can go to sleep at night knowing they
The critics who bother me the most are those who ordinarily would not be
on the side of supporting dictatorships, who are arguing today that only
military intervention can prevent the genocide of Darfur, or who argued
yesterday for military intervention in Bosnia, Somalia and Rwanda to ease
the sectarian violence that was tearing those places apart.
Suppose we had not invaded Iraq and Hussein had been overthrown by Shiite
and Kurdish insurgents. Suppose al Qaeda then undermined their new
democracy and inflamed sectarian tensions to the same level of violence we
are seeing today. Wouldn't you expect the same people who are urging a
unilateral and immediate withdrawal to be urging military intervention to
end this carnage? I would.
American liberals need to face these truths: The demand for
self-government was and remains strong in Iraq despite all our mistakes
and the violent efforts of al Qaeda, Sunni insurgents and Shiite militias
to disrupt it. Al Qaeda in particular has targeted for abduction and
murder those who are essential to a functioning democracy: school
teachers, aid workers, private contractors working to rebuild Iraq's
infrastructure, police officers and anyone who cooperates with the Iraqi
government. Much of Iraq's middle class has fled the country in fear.
With these facts on the scales, what does your conscience tell you to do?
If the answer is nothing, that it is not our responsibility or that this
is all about oil, then no wonder today we Democrats are not trusted with
the reins of power. American lawmakers who are watching public opinion
tell them to move away from Iraq as quickly as possible should remember
this: Concessions will not work with either al Qaeda or other foreign
fighters who will not rest until they have killed or driven into exile the
last remaining Iraqi who favors democracy.
The key question for Congress is whether or not Iraq has become the
primary battleground against the same radical Islamists who declared war
on the U.S. in the 1990s and who have carried out a series of terrorist
operations including 9/11. The answer is emphatically, "yes."
This does not mean that Saddam Hussein was responsible for 9/11; he was
not. Nor does it mean that the war to overthrow him was justified --
though I believe it was. It only means that a unilateral withdrawal from
Iraq would hand Osama bin Laden a substantial psychological victory.
Those who argue that radical Islamic terrorism has arrived in Iraq because
of the U.S.-led invasion are right. But they are right because radical
Islam opposes democracy in Iraq. If our purpose had been to substitute a
dictator who was more cooperative and supportive of the West, these groups
wouldn't have lasted a week.
Finally, Jim Webb said something during his campaign for the Senate that
should be emblazoned on the desks of all 535 members of Congress: You do
not have to occupy a country in order to fight the terrorists who are
inside it. Upon that truth I believe it is possible to build what doesn't
exist today in Washington: a bipartisan strategy to deal with the
long-term threat of terrorism.
The American people will need that consensus regardless of when, and under
what circumstances, we withdraw U.S. forces from Iraq. We must not allow
terrorist sanctuaries to develop any place on earth. Whether these
fighters are finding refuge in Syria, Iran, Pakistan or elsewhere, we
cannot afford diplomatic or political excuses to prevent us from using
military force to eliminate them.
Mr. Kerrey, a former Democratic senator from Nebraska and member of the
9/11 Commission, is president of The New School.
URL for this article: