It may seem a bit strange for this Bible-thumpin', gun-totin', Arab-hatin', knuckle-draggin' right wing Zionist settler to say, but lately I have been developing a certain respect for JPost's columnist Larry Derfner.
It all started when he penned a column throwing his support behind John McCain for the 2008 US presidential elections. That really wasn't what I had expected from someone who was, I thought, a standard knee-jerk liberal. Turns out Larry really applied his mind to the issues, and had the guts to come out touting a very contrarian position that probably made most of his colleagues at the NY Times and Haaretz choke on their granola bars. It probably cost him an invitation or two to the high society gatherings where support for the Democratic Party goes without saying, and sticking up for the guy from the Godawful Other Party is practically treasonous. So kol hakavod to you, Larry, for having the intellectual honesty to stick up for what you believe is right, against all conventional wisdom.
Well, seeing as Larry started leading the way by challenging the Conventional Wisdom (CW) of the Left, I thought it fair to do the same for the conventional wisdom of the Right. In truth, I've always tried not to take the standard right-wing positions on any issue without further analysis, but being human, I sometimes do get lazy, and without even realizing it, I find myself advocating and opposing things just because it's what everyone else in my "camp" is doing. (This, by the way, is one of the reasons why I'm such a fan of Moshe Feiglin: he has a knack for flipping right-wing CW on its head and arguing with complete clarity for things that you would never expect from a "right-winger".)
Anyway, the fact is that as much as we ridicule the classic knee-jerk liberals, who will always take predictable positions on any issue from international terrorism to abortion to the death penalty to the Middle East to environmentalism - there is also such a thing as a knee-jerk conservative, who will always take the predictably opposite position to his KJL counterpart. You will see all these people on the talkbacks for Derfner's articles on JPost, all spouting the same rhetoric and ad hominem insults, and refusing to relate in an intellectually sincere way to his arguments, which I have to concede, are usually pretty cogent.
Now that's not to say that I agree with the man on all issues - far from it! But I respect his thought process, and often enough I do wind up agreeing with him, against the CW of right-wing circles.
Take for instance his May 14 column, advocating removing the taboo on negotiations with Hamas.
Standard CW: "But they're terrorists dedicated to the destruction of Israel! How can you ever negotiate with them?!"
Larry's response: "But we are already. And everyone knows we are. And yes, they are a bunch of bastards - but they are the power in control of Gaza, and they are the ones who can make the missiles stop and give back Gilad Schalit."
And thinking the issue over, I realize that this is another issue where I've lazily accepted the standard CW. Of course, the first warning sign should have been when I realized I was agreeing with Ehud Olmert on something. Doh! I forgot Rule of Thumb #1: any stand Ehud Olmert takes should be treated with suspicion, even if you've believed it for years. For example, if Olmert visits Sderot and compliments the citizenry on their stoic behavior, taking it on the chin, not complaining and carrying on their lives as normal - you should immediately realize that the best thing for the citizens of Sderot to do would be to stop life as normal, evacuate their children (as the British did during the London Blitz), close down the city, storm the Knesset and throw this band of despots into the street. This is why Olmert doesn't like unruly citizens; if people get too worked up over a mere drizzle of "shmassams", they might do something nasty like breaking up one of his cocktail parties with some international celebrity. So he makes a personal appearance, soothes the nerves of the hapless Sderotniks, lulls them with flattery of their heroism and convinces them that the true Zionist response is to just shut up and get used to life under a constant barrage of Kassams.
Back to Gaza and Hamas. Olmert says we will not negotiate with Hamas. Why not? Because the only people we will negotiate with are Fatah, because they say they will make peace with us, and Hamas won't.
OK, let's flash back to August 1945. After a good, solid 5 years of doing everything he could to kill as many American servicemen as he could, Emperor Hirohito had probably earned himself a very deserved reputation as an enemy of the American people of the worst kind. And he wasn't about to give up fighting, either, even after his Nazi allies had been defeated - he was good to the last drop. Now, let's imagine at this juncture that through forces heretofore unknown by mankind, the spirit of Ehud Olmert suddenly possessed Harry Truman, while James Byrnes (Truman's Secretary of State) started channeling Tzippi Livni. Here's what would happen:
Truman (Olmert): You know, James, there's just no military solution to this Japanese problem.
Byrnes (Livni): That's what I've been saying all along, Mr President. Every day we're losing more and more soldiers. We can't go on like this. Public pressure is just to great to bear. We're going to have to cut some kind of a deal with them.
T: But how? Hirohito is a lunatic, believes he's on a divine mission to wipe us out! How can you cut a deal with him?
B: I have an idea, Mr President, and it's just crazy enough to work... I know a certain Japanese fellow - Wishi Washi is his name - a very good man...
T: What about him?
B: Well, he says that he's in favor of peace with America.
T: That's great! What is he - president, prime minister, what?
B: Umm... well, he's the leader of an alternative movement in Tokyo. I think they're some kind of socialist group; they do stuff like redistributing wealth from the rich to the poor. Sort of like Robin Hood. Only they're obviously very poor themselves, because they keep all the stuff they take from the rich. And they're very organized and efficient - they have a whole co-ordinated network of people all over Japan who are synergizing to achieve their goals. They're very influential and even the Japanese legal establishment is in awe of them.
T: You mean he's the leader of the Japanese mafia.
B: Well, really, I wouldn't put it quite like that. It's true he may have a few personal failings - but he's someone you can talk to, and most importantly, he's indicated that under the right conditions he might well be prepared to enter into positive consideration of American overtures for a cessation of hostilities, and breaking the cycle of violence.
T: Hmm, interesting idea. And what's his track record? Is he a man of his word? Is he pro-peace?
B: Umm... well, he did allow his supporters to wipe out an entire rival family after having just shaken hands on a non-aggression pact with them, but what could you expect? His supporters were angry, and he was really powerless to stop them. I'm sure he meant for the pact to be honored; it just didn't work out so well on the ground. And it's true that in Japanese he gives all sorts of wild speeches about killing Americans and bathing in their blood - but you can't take that kind of stuff seriously. It's all the rage in Japan now, and that's what his supporters expect; this war has really got them angry at us. Besides, listen to his English speeches and you'll see how erudite and cultured he really is. I'm sure that given the right deal he'll make peace with us. And he really hates Hirohito, really hates him.
T: Just hang on a second. What about Hirohito? He's the guy with the guns, the bombs and the Kamikaze pilots. What are we going to do about him?
B: Well, you just can't talk to him, can you? He's crazy! Here's what we'll do: let's supply Washi with a whole bunch of weapons and tanks, train his men for him, and so on, and then he'll fight Hirohito for us and then we can make peace with him!
T: Sounds like a plan. Any idea what his terms for peace are?
B: (blushes) Well, I've actually taken the liberty of putting out feelers to Washi's people. Just exploratory stuff, you know, nothing binding. I said that if he'll make peace with us it'll be worth his while, and we'd be prepared to make very significant concessions for peace, maybe even give them Singapore, a chunk of mainland China and shared sovereignty over Hawaii.
T: WHAT! You offered them Hawaii?!
B: No, no, no! I didn't offer them anything! I just said that these would all be negotiable points, to be finalized under the terms of a formal peace treaty!
T: And what are they asking for?
B: Singapore, a chunk of mainland China and complete sovereignty over Hawaii.
T: Your negotiation skills are a wonder to behold. Good heavens, man, how are we ever going to sell that to the American people?
B: Oh, really, that's easy. Already the media are crying about all the casualties. People are tired of this war; they just want it to end already. And here's a guy who's willing to make it end. The people will recognize the need to compromise. Giving up Hawaii will be painful, but if we want peace, we're going to have to give something in return.
And so it was, that while Emperor Hirohito kept on bombing the US Navy with kamikaze fighters and attacking US targets all over the Pacific with deadly regularity, Ehud Truman and Tzippi Byrnes began negotiating peace terms with Wishi Washi, a Japanese mafia boss with little public support and neither the power nor inclination to deliver that elusive peace. While the US continued to make gestures for peace such as withdrawing its forces and strengthening Washi against Hirohito by providing him with weapons and armor, Hirohito simply moved into the vacated positions and used those as bases to attack the Americans further. Strangely enough, most of the shrapnel found in the destroyed US vessels indicated that the weapons themselves were of US manufacture. When the US forces would counterattack Hirohito's forces, Washi would decry the injustice against the Japanese people, and threaten to call off all peace talks, whereupon the Americans would immediately freeze all military action. Little by little, America withdrew further and further, all the time losing ground and deterrence, while the Japanese, emboldened with each successive American concession, continued relentlessly to demand more and more, without ever delivering anything in return. But it was OK, because peace was just around the corner.
Fortunately it wasn't really that way. Truman didn't go for the "let's pretend" line, nor did he shy away from the ugly necessity of finishing the war off. Whether or not he needed to nuke Hiroshima and Nagasaki in order to achieve that is a different point - but the fact is, he knew who the address was for negotiating with Japan, and when he did, it was with the Big, Bad, Mean and Nasty Emperor Hirohito. And he wasn't suing for peace; he was dictating Hirohito's terms of surrender.
So once again, back to Larry Derfner and Hamas. You're spot on, Larry: refusing to deal with Hamas is a stupid and dangerous exercise in self-deception. But here's where we diverge. You have correctly identified who the power in Gaza is - but your mistake is in wanting to appease them. Hamas is a cruel, relentless enemy, and it is not interested in living in a cold peace next door Israel. Any ceasefire is merely an opportunity for them to regroup, rearm and prepare for the next round of warfare. It's called Jihad, Larry, and your secular mindset has yet to wrap itself around the concept of a religious war. They don't stop when they get tired. They're not fighting for the sake of any political or territorial gain. Fighting is the end in itself. Killing Jews is an end in itself. That is what these people are living for; their greatest desire in life is death as a shahid. Don't believe me - ask them! Why don't you surf over to the Hamas website, or watch a few clips of Palestinian TV? It's an ugly truth, but if you don't recognize it, you are playing a very stupid and dangerous game of "Let's Pretend", just as stupid and dangerous as not dealing with Hamas at all.
Yes, we have to recognize Hamas. They are the ruling power in Gaza, and we have no choice but to deal with them. But that doesn't mean negotiation. When you have an implacable enemy such as this, whose sole reason for living is to kill as many of you as possible, you have no choice but to fight back; you cannot negotiate anything with him other than the terms of his surrender. You fight militarily, with every inch of your resources, spirit and determination. Not pinpoint strikes, but conquest. Driving the enemy, men, women and children, out of every inch of land you conquer, because an implacable foe fighting a religious war will fight you to the last drop of his blood. And when you are done, you don't hand it over to the Good Terrorist Wishi Washi or whoever his current incarnation is. You keep it, you settle it with your own people, and you never, ever even fleetingly consider that you might give it back.
I'm sorry. It's ugly, it's nasty, it hurts the Yiddishe neshoma to think of doing such brutal things. But war is hell, and we have no other choice.
