Those Angry Young Men

The laws of primogeniture and the First Crusade

What in the world, you might well ask, could the First Crusade and some rather obscure Medieval "laws of primogeniture" have to do with our current civilizational crises? Perhaps quite a bit. First, what exactly is "primogeniture"?
Primogeniture is the common law right of the firstborn son to inherit the entire estate, to the exclusion of younger siblings. It is the tradition brought by the Normans to England in 1066. According to the Norman tradition, the firstborn son inherited the entirety of a parent's wealth, estate, title or office. In the absence of children, inheritance passed to the collateral relatives, in order of seniority of the collateral line.

The effects of these laws on the noble warrior class -- and on the poor commoners as well -- were enormous. Those sons born second in line were often highly trained and well-equipped combatants instilled with a strong warrior ethos -- but with no appreciable income. A dangerous situation, highly trained warriors with nothing to do. All too often these disenfranchised, less-than-glorious knights resorted to internecine fighting or common brigandage. But what could be done about them?

In March 1095 at the Council of Piacenza, ambassadors sent by Byzantine Emperor Alexius I called for help with defending his empire against the Seljuk Turks. Later that year, at the Council of Clermont, Pope Urban II called upon all Christians to join a war against the Turks, promising those who died in the endeavor would receive immediate remission of their sins.

There has long been conjecture among medieval scholars that a major part of Pope Urban II's calling for the Crusades (just thirty years after the introduction of the primogeniture laws) was that it presented a perfect opportunity to gainfully employ these troublesome errant knights and give Europe a well-deserved respite from the wanton violence.

Perhaps it shouldn't come as too great a shock to realize that this poor old wounded world of ours has all too often been ruled by men just out of their adolescence. More than one teenager ascended to the Imperial Roman throne (among them the notorious Caligula). Here's some interesting statistics.

The world
Population: 6,602,224,175 (July 2007 est.)
Age structure: 0-14 years: 27.4% (male 931,551,498/female 875,646,416)
15-64 years: 65.1% (male 2,174,605,518/female 2,124,494,703)
65 years and over: 7.5% (male 217,451,123/female 278,474,917) (2007 est.)
Median age: total: 28 years
male: 27.4 years female: 28.7 years (2007 est.)

Life expectancy in Imperial Rome:
Tombstones show that the life expectancy of women was 34 years as contrasted with 46 years for men because women often died in childbirth.
Resource: Encarta
Or as low as this:
[Roman] life expectancy at birth [was]in the range of 20–25 or less (Macchiarelli et al., 1998)
CIA World Fact Book
So, somewhere between 20 and 46 years life expectancy.

Angry young men. To see them in action just watch a world cup soccer match in South America or Brussels. Or more to the point, take a closer look at those inflamed Arab streets. What do you see? Angry young men with nothing to do. Angry young men, overflowing with testosterone, just itching for a fight. And of course a notable absence of women. Here's some more interesting statistics.

Gaza Strip
Population:
1,551,859 (July 2009 est.)
Age structure:
0-14 years: 44.4% (male 353,489/female 334,770)
15-64 years: 53% (male 420,618/female 402,297)
65 years and over: 2.6% (male 16,483/female 24,202) (2009 est.)
Median age:
total: 17.4 years
male: 17.2 yearsfemale: 17.5 years (2008 est.)
Resource: CIA World Fact Book

And this --

The median age of the Israeli Arab is 14 and just entering his reproductive years... anxious to make BOTH Love and War! Another way of looking at this is that half of all Israeli-Arabs are under the age of 14!
Resource: Masada 2000

So the angry young men are still with us, and they are still angry. Our world is replete with them. And nowhere is this more evident than in the Arab world. That volatile hyper-masculine, often adolescent, world of generational revenge, brutality and violence, that self-destructive warrior culture which the good pope tried, somewhat successfully, to ameliorate. But this time it's the angry young Muslim men who are on a Crusade, a worldwide jihad against the West. Perhaps we can learn from the lessons of history. Perhaps we can better recognize our foes, and realize that they are predominantly angry adolescents. Unfortunately, the cynical, hate-filled mullahs have, it appears, successfully harnessed all that testosterone. It is aflame on the Arab street. Can we somehow find a way to extinguish this terrible flame before it engulfs our world?

An important postscript: I have been faulted by email by a good friend and compatriot -- perhaps with some justification -- for focusing too much on these angry adolescents filled with testosterone, and not clearly enough identifying the main evil behind it all, which is of course Islam. I should perhaps have made the point that, from birth, these empty vessels have been indoctrinated into that hate-filled cult of violence and revenge, and we are living with the results. For most young men, since childhood, the only education they have received has been the relentless, all-consuming study and memorization of the Koran, augmented by virulent and unwavering anti-Israeli, anti-Western dogma. In this sense, they never had a chance. As I stated in the article, the cynical hate-filled mullahs have successfully harnessed all this rampant testosterone for their own ignoble imperialist ends. And this fact give the conflict much of its adolescent, anarchic, and ultimately self-destructive character. Nonetheless -- and here my friendly critic has a valid point -- We can never forget that the source of this evil force that we are fighting all over this world is Islam itself. And our enemies, whether they be adolescents or even children, regardless of the facts of their having little choice in their molding, are indeed the enemy, an enemy who must be conquered, converted, or destroyed. They are in many ways a modern day Islamic version of the Hitler Youth with whom they share many of the same ideologies, just as thoroughly indoctrinated and just as threatening.

Anyone who has read my writings on this subject knows my adamant position on the horrors of Islam. My somewhat qualified sympathy for these murderous young men, based upon the facts of their radical propagandised upbringing, is totally subsumed by my deep visceral hatred of their evil cause: Islam, bloody Islam. - rg

"Moral Muslims": A Continuation of the Discussion

Below are three comments from Findalis' recent thought-provoking Radarsite article.

Roger W. Gardner said...
Fine, thoughtful article. The subject of reforming Islam remains problematic for me. To abrogate the existential threat of Islam to the non-Islamic world, one would have to expunge so much material from the Koran that it would become utterly unrecognizable -- conquerable to taking Christ out of Christianity. Islam is aggressive political movement founded on religious doctrine. Islam was founded by a criminal and murderer, and this fact cannot be altered by changing or deleting a few violent phrases. I'm afraid I still find it difficult to recognize "moral Muslims" or "moderate Muslims". Unless they are prepared to completely renounce the teachings of their "prophet" and start afresh, they are, in my view, guilty of perpetuating this ghastly cult. Islam is the enemy. Not just the radicals, but the bloodthirsty cult itself. Islam -- regular, "non-radical" Islam is the sworn enemy of freedom and liberty, There can be no other interpretation of its message. It truly is "them or us".
April 23, 2009 4:14 AM
Findalis said...
Actually Roger there is a small minority of Muslims who do reject the violent passages of the Koran as false prophesies. They accept only the early non-violent ones. Nor do they consider Mo the most perfect man but place him as imperfect as many of the other prophets of the bible.It is too bad that the majority of Muslims don't follow this sect. For if they did, none of us would have a problem with Islam.Islam today is where Christianity was in the 15th Century. The violence over the Reformation lasted centuries. Unfortunately, the world cannot afford 200 years of war. Not in an age of WMDs. So either Islam must reform to a gentler form or it will be destroyed. The world cannot accept any other choice!
April 24, 2009 12:43 AM
Ben said...
I dissected the article here:http://snooper.wordpress.com/2009/04/22/flight93-terrorist-memorial/I took issue with seven critical points, which I denoted with superscripts linked to an enumerated list following the article. Roger is right: Islam can not survive the excision of its evil core. Findalis is out of luck, because Islam is irreformable. Perfection can only be defiled, not improved; see 5:3. 6:115. And the Word of your Lord has been fulfilled in truth and in justice. None can change His Words. And He is the All­Hearer, the All­Knower. 18:27. And recite what has been revealed to you (O Muhammad ) of the Book (the Qur'ân) of your Lord (i.e. recite it, understand and follow its teachings and act on its orders and preach it to men). None can change His Words, and none will you find as a refuge other than Him. You can't change the Qur'an!!! Umdat as-Salik, Book O, Chapter 8, paragraph 7 lists 20 acts entailing apostasy, punishable by execution. This is one member of that list:-7- to deny any verse of the Koran or anything which by scholarly consensus (def: b7) belongs to it, or to add a verse that does belong to it;A Muslim who denies 2:216, 8:12, 8:39, 8:60,8:67, 9:29 or 9:123 is an apostate and may be killed with impunity. I believe that Zehudi Jasser and Khalim Massoud are sincere, sufferers of cognitive dissonance. Islam is what it is, not what they wish it were; it will never become what they want it to be.
--------------------------------------
A note from Radarsite: At the very heart of our prosecution of the GWOT lies the persisting quandry of the "moderate" - or as our friend Findalis offered - "moral" Muslim. Isn't it astonishing that, nine years after being viciously attacked by Islamic jihadis, we are still finding it difficult -- if not impossible - to satisfactorily identify our enemy? Who is our enemy and who is not? The more we learn about Islam the more muddled we become. Despite the overwhelming and undeniable evidence -- which we are all well aware of -- that in the last half century the vast majority of attacks against the West and the US were perpetrated by Muslims in the name of Allah, we still look for ways to minimize the extent of the Islamic threat and make ourselves more comfortable. Not all Muslims are bad people, we tell ourselves. Many Muslims are decent law-abiding citizens. We have Muslim friends and acquaintances who are beyond reproach. And, perhaps the biggest objection of all: if Islam itself is our enemy, then will we find ourselves at war with the entire Muslim world? Are we fated to have to fight all x-billion of them?

As you can see from the comments posted above, even the most informed and intelligent among us, such as our good friends and compatriots Findalis and Ben, find themselves at odds over this thorny issue. To Findalis, the existence of these moral Muslims gives reason for hope. To Ben, it is Islam itself, in whatever form, that is our sworn enemy -- and this includes all Muslims who follow the Koran. For Ben, hope is to be replaced by clarity and resolve.

Perhaps now would be a good time to clarify Radarsite's position on this seemingly intractable problem. Below are links to a sampling of the many articles I have written for Radarsite on this subject. There are many, many more. In a nutshell, I am a 'maximalist', I believe that Islam itself is the source of the evil which confronts us. I believe that Islam truly is a manifestation of utter evil. I further accept the premise that Islam, by its very nature, is, has been, and always will be the mortal enemy of the West, and that the two ideologies are inherently incompatible. It is the avowed mission of Islam to conquer the world for Allah, to make the world into a universal caliphate. This has been its unalterable goal since it inception. To ignore or misread this fundamental truth is to make a deadly mistake. And in our courts and universities, and in the hallowed halls of Congress, we are making these deadly mistakes daily.

The bottom line.
If I truly believed that what this country needed at this time in our history was more compassion, more tolerance and more understanding, then I would be calling for that. However, given the irrefutable evidence of the facts of our world, given that the common denominator of all of our Middle Eastern enemies, in Iraq, in Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia, Libya, Syria, et al is Islam, given that this is -- whether we deem to acknowledge it or not -- a global war of Islam against everybody else. Whether it be in Africa or Malaysia or Dearborn, the enemy is openly and unequivocally Islam.

I believe that given the great changes that have occurred in this nation over the last half century, and given the perilous conditions we now find ourselves in, the last thing, the very last thing, we need is to continue trying to find more ways to humanize our Islamic foe. Our good-hearted tolerance of the intolerant has placed us in this untenable position, and if we are to survive we must abandon our present foreign-policy-by-wishful-thinking and confront the enemy head on. Now is the time. Tomorrow will be too late. We must stop trying to find common ground with Islam and, once and for all, recognize it for what it truly is: an aggressive bloodthirsty political movement based on "religious" teachings. If we are to win this virtual Clash of Civilizations we had better cease trying to understand the enemy and concentrate on defeating them. And, yes, I truly do believe that it is Us versus Them. - rg
------------------------------------
For further reading:
http://bestofradarsite.blogspot.com/2009/01/rethinking-gwot-maximalists-versus.html

http://radarsite.blogspot.com/2008/11/golden-key-those-illusive-moderate.html

http://radarsite.blogspot.com/2009/01/blinded-by-hope-abandoned-by-reason.html

http://radarsite.blogspot.com/2009/01/wrestling-with-mohammed-revisited.html

Sderot: Remembering the Holocaust. and Durban II

by Findalis


From the Sderot Media Center

Holocaust Remembrance Day: The Tragedy of Silence

by Anav Silverman

Today Israel marked Holocaust Remembrance Day. Standing on a street in Sderot, I listened quietly to the siren sound, remembering the tragedy of 6 million Jews killed in Nazi Europe, my great grandparents, uncles and aunts from Poland among them.

I’ve become used to sirens sounding in Sderot during my past two years here-the click of the intercom, followed by a female voice that calmly repeats Tzeva Adom, Tzeva Adom, or Color Red. The scenes that unfold usually entail people dashing into shelters-racing for 15 seconds that may mean the difference between life and death.

But now at this moment, the Holocaust siren gives me a moment to reflect. I watch passerby’s stop, Ethiopians, Russians, Uzbekistanis, Moroccans, Persians and the like; Israeli Jews from countries around the world who make up Sderot’s colorful cultural tapestry. We stand together to remember the tragedy of silence that cost the lives of so many innocent people in our nation.

It is this tragedy of silence which probably strikes hardest here in Sderot.

Eight years of Qassam attacks have wounded over 1,000 Israelis, destroyed hundreds of Jewish homes, and have left thousands of children psychologically traumatized. Today close to one million Israelis in southern Israel live under the threat of Palestinian rocket attack thanks to the financial aid and embedment from Iran.

Who will speak up for these Israelis who continue to be the targets of radical Islam in the form of Hamas rocket terror?

Sderot is targeted not because it is a city outside the 1967 green lines, nor because of an army base located in the city. Sderot is part of the UN Partition Plan of 1948 with a civilian population of 19,000, where over 5,000 residents have been forced to flee since Palestinian rocket fire began on the city in 2001.

Sderot is targeted simply because it is a Jewish city on the frontlines of Israel-an easy target for Palestinian terrorists who seek Israel’s destruction.

THE greatest testimony that the world is once again returning to its apathetic state of silence that defined the era of Nazi Germany was revealed no less ironically today at the Durban II conference when Iranian President Ahmadinejad was invited as a guest speaker. Moreover, Hans-Rudolf Merz, the president of Switzerland, a country that declared its “neutrality” during the Holocaust, agreed to meet with Ahmadinejad, who is a fervent Holocaust denier and has repeatedly called for the destruction of Israel.

According to an Associated Press report, the Swiss president defended his meeting with Ahmadinejad and said that the criticism of the meeting was unjustified, stating that “Switzerland is neutral and not part of any alliance.”

Ahmadinejad’s presence at Durban II is symbolic in that there has been no overwhelming international outcry against his views or the fact that he was invited to speak at the UN conference on racism.

Iran is considered the greatest threat to Israel’s survival. Although Iran, an oil-rich country, continues to claim that its nuclear program is meant to produce electricity, it remains clear to Israel that Tehran is intent on building nuclear weapons that could potentially cause massive destruction to the state.

SDEROT residents have been the silent targets of Islamic terror for too long. Last year on the eve of Holocaust Remembrance Day, 13 rockets fell upon Sderot. Although rocket fire has significantly decreased since Operation Cast Lead, close to 200 rockets have still been fired at the western Negev region. If Israel does not effectively stand up for her citizens at home, who will stand up for Israel in the world?

As countries across the world show alarming acceptance of a blatantly anti-Semitic figure like Ahmadinejad, demonstrated in Durban II, the state of Israel and the Jewish people cannot allow silence to become a national policy in the face of anti-Semitic terror, be it rockets or rhetoric, at home or abroad.

In 1938 the world did nothing, said nothing while Hitler and his thugs accelerated Germany's slide into the madness that was the 'Final Solution'. We witnessed on Monday 100 nation rise and applaud Ahmadinejad in Geneva. There is only one nation that speaks for Israel and Jews around the world. It is Israel. It is a shame that the world has decided to turn its back and closed its ears to the cries of pain and anguish from Israelis. It is only Palestinian tears that matter to the world.

But I pray not to you, truth seeker. I once again ask you to remember the people of Sderot, and Israel in your prayers. To sign up for Code Red Alerts. To contact you Congress Representatives, Senators and President Obama. Contact your newspapers, radio, and other media outlits. And if you are able to, donate a few coins to the Sderot Media Center. Just click on the logo at the top or bottom of this post and follow the directions from there. It is time that the people of Sderot and Israel start having a loud voice screaming out their story too.

FDR and the Case of the Captured Enemy Combatants

From World Net Daily
Opinion by Ellis Washington.

FDR and the Nazi saboteur case
"I only wish President Bush and now President Obama would have taken the approach FDR took in the Nazi saboteur case, Ex Parte Quirin (1942), where in the midst of World War II eight Nazi terrorists were captured on the coasts of New York and Florida. After a summary trial in July 1942, six were summarily executed one month later after the Supreme Court upheld the jurisdiction of a U.S. military tribunal. FDR, though a liberal socialist, was decisive in quickly and summarily punishing Nazi spies. Hitler did not try that stunt again".

-------------------------------------------------------------
Here, courtesy of The History Channel are the basic facts of the case.
In June 1942, eight German saboteurs were delivered to the east coast of the United States via U-boats, with the intent to attack, destroy and terrorise. But they were apprehended almost immediately, and six of the eight were executed... From their training to the aftermath of their botched mission... [these]trained saboteurs doomed themselves through mistrust, conflicting allegiances, and betrayal.

The first group of four saboteurs left by submarine in May 1942 from the German base at Lorient, France, and on May 28, the next group of four departed the same base. Each was destined to land at points on the Atlantic Coast of the United States familiar to the leader of that group. Four men, led by George John Dasch, age 39, landed on a beach near Long Island, New York on 13 June, 1942. Accompanying Dasch were Ernest Peter Burger, Heinrich Harm Heinck, and Richard Quirin. On 17 June, 1942, the other group landed at Ponte Vedra Beach, Florida. The leader was Edward John Kerling, with Werner Thiel, Herman Otto Neubauer, and Herbert Hans Haupt. Both groups landed wearing complete or partial German uniforms to ensure treatment as prisoners of war rather than as spies if they were caught.

The Trial
The eight were tried before a Military Commission, appointed by President Roosevelt. They were all found guilty and sentenced to death. Appeals were made to President Roosevelt to commute the sentences of Dasch and Burger. As a result, Dasch received a 30-year sentence, while Burger received a life sentence. The remaining six were executed by electric chair on 8 August, 1942. The eight men had been born in Germany and each had lived in the United States for substantial periods. Burger had become a naturalised American in 1933. Haupt had entered the United States as a child, gaining citizenship when his father was naturalised in 1930. Dasch had joined the Germany army at the age of 14 and served about 11 months as a clerk during the conclusion of World War I. He had enlisted in the U.S. Army in 1927, and received an honourable discharge after a little more than a year of service. Quirin and Heinck had returned to Germany prior to the outbreak of World War II in Europe, and the six others subsequent to September 11, 1939, and before December 7, 1941, apparently feeling their first loyalty was to the country of their birth. In April, 1948, President Truman granted executive clemency to Dasch and Burger on condition of deportation. They were transported to the American Zone of Germany, where they were freed.
-----------------------------------------------------
A note from Radarsite: If ours is a nation founded on laws, and if these laws are founded on precedents, I offer the above article to acknowledge an important precedent in American jurisprudence. The very first objection raised by our pacifist/liberal Dems will most likely be that this was in a different time, under different circumstances. Obviously, this took place in a different -- and some would say, more exemplary -- time in our nation's history. But were the circumstances really all that different? Or, as I suspect, is it America that is different? In both cases we were viciously attacked, without warning, on our own soil by a ruthless alien power determined to defeat us. If anything, today's enemy poses an even greater existential threat to our nation.
How then do we explain the startling contrast between our ambivalent reactions to the horrors of 9/11 and the almost immediate display of visceral anger in response to the Japanese attacks on Pearl Harbor in December of 1941; even though it could be argued that, though admittedly dishonorable and treacherous, the Japanese attacks were in fact a military attack against a military target, that actually resulted in less fatalities (2,403 compared to 2,986) than were incurred on 9/11—while virtually all of the 2,749 victims in New York City were innocent civilians. Where, we implore our leftist friends, is that righteous anger? What has happened to that steely resolve which we so courageously sustained throughout those terrible war years? How did we lose our way? And, most importantly, are we capable of regaining that 'steely resolve'? The travesty of the current trial of the captured Somali pirate in a NYC courtroom -- complete with ambitious defense attorneys, the impending release of enemy combatants from Gitmo, the Congressional investigations into allegations of torture of captured jihadis -- and a thousand more miserable examples answers the question, doesn't it?

Like it or not, we are at war, a war that our inexperienced and morally-conflicted new president and his leftist cabinet refuse to name or acknowledge.

But, today's Friday, and it's a beautiful day, and tomorrow's going to be even more beautiful. And I'm alive and breathing in the cool fresh air, and these days that's a major victory.
God bless America - rg

Do the Palestinians really want a state?

By Findalis



I am positive that the average Palestinian man or woman would take any decent agreement giving them their own nation and working in peaceful cooperation with their Israeli neighbors, create a Paradise on Earth. Most Palestinians work or have worked in Israel, many would be friendly with Israelis if they could (the extremists in Gaza and the West Bank kill such people, calling them traitors and collaborators.). There is a deep desire for peace among them.

The Palestinian Authority on the other hand may have no desire for a settlement to the stalemate that has boxed both sides into positions they cannot retreat from.

This is the premise that Robert D. Kaplan puts forward in this month's Atlantic Monthly.

The statelessness of Palestinian Arabs has been a principal feature of world politics for more than half a century. It is the signature issue of our time. The inability of Israelis and Palestinians to reach an accord of mutual recognition and land-for-peace has helped infect the globe with violence and radicalism—and has long been a bane of American foreign policy. While the problems of the Middle East cannot be substantially blamed on the injustice done to Palestinians, that injustice has nonetheless played a role in weakening America’s position in the region.

Obviously, part of the problem has been Israeli intransigence. Despite seeming to submit to territorial concessions, one Israeli government after another has quietly continued to bolster illegal settlements in the occupied territories.

With Fatah and Hamas facing off against each other, the Palestinians are simply too divided to plausibly meet Israel across the table. And because the Palestinians are unable to cut a deal, a majority of Israelis, as shown by the recent election results, have apparently given up any hope for peace.

But there is a deeper structural and philosophical reason why the Palestinians remain stateless—a reason more profound than the political narrative would indicate. It is best explained by associate Johns Hopkins professor Jakub Grygiel, in his brilliant essay, “The Power of Statelessness: the Withering Appeal of Governing” (Policy Review April/May 2009). In it, Grygiel does not discuss the Palestinians in particular, but rather the attitude of stateless people in general.

Statehood is no longer a goal, he writes. Many stateless groups “do not aspire to have a state,” for they are more capable of achieving their objectives without one. Instead of actively seeking statehood to address their weakness, as Zionist Jews did in an earlier phase of history, groups like the Palestinians now embrace their statelessness as a source of power.

New communication technologies allow people to achieve virtual unity without a state, even as new military technologies give stateless groups a lethal capacity that in former decades could be attained only by states. Grygiel explains that it is now “highly desirable” not to have a state—for a state is a target that can be destroyed or damaged, and hence pressured politically. It was the very quasi-statehood achieved by Hamas in the Gaza Strip that made it easier for Israel to bomb it. A state entails responsibilities that limit a people’s freedom of action. A group like Hezbollah in Lebanon, the author notes, could probably take over the Lebanese state today, but why would it want to? Why would it want responsibility for providing safety and services to all Lebanese? Why would it want to provide the Israelis with so many tempting targets of reprisal? Statelessness offers a level of “impunity” from retaliation.

But the most tempting aspect of statelessness is that it permits a people to savor the pleasures of religious zeal, extremist ideologies, and moral absolutes, without having to make the kinds of messy, mundane compromises that accompany the work of looking after a geographical space.

The closest that Israelis and Palestinians ever came to peace was at the end of the Clinton Administration in 2000, when then-Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak of the center-left Labor Party offered a slew of concessions to the late Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat—only to have Arafat reject them. Arafat’s epitaph was that he remained loyal to the cause of his people, that he never compromised, and that he was steadfast to the bitter end. He may have seen that as a more morally and emotionally satisfying conclusion to a life of statelessness than that of making the unenchanting concessions associated with achieving statehood.

Read the full article here.

If this report is right, then President Obama's effort to ram an agreement down the Israelis throats is doomed to failure. For it will always be in the best interest of the Palestinian leaders to reject any offer to them that doesn't include all the land from the river to the sea. In other words, unless they get it all and Israel is eliminated, then they will not take any deal.

It is in the best interest of the Palestinian leadership to remain stateless and cry victim every time Israel tries to stop the terror that the Palestinian leadership uses to achieve their ends.
For once a nation has been formed, attacks such as the rockets falling into Israel from Gaza, suicide bombers, or the kidnapping of Israeli soldiers would and is considered an Act of War under International Law. Without the 'protection' of being stateless, the Palestinians would have to face Israel's wrath without International support.

Another consequence of the creation of a Palestinian state would be the removal of their special refugee status. Although the Saudi Peace Plan insists on a Law of Return, there is no Israeli government (on the left or the right) that will ever agree to such a demand. But for the sake of this article, let us say that the Palestinians do agree to drop this demand (Yassir Arafat refused a Palestinian nation in 2000 by doing this). Finally the Palestinians living in refugee camps in Gaza and the West Bank would now be living in cities of their new nation, and the remaining refugees living in camps through out the Arab world could be relocated to the new nation, having gained the status of citizen of Palestine and losing the status of refugee.

For the average Palestinian this would be a boon. But for the leadership, this would be a nightmare. No longer would the world support through massive donations of food and monies the Palestinian people. Any agreement reached by both sides would have to include a date for ending refugee status. And thus funds. Such funds which are often diverted into Swiss bank accounts for the private use of the leadership and not the benefit of the people. This international gravy train would dry up, and the leadership would either have to beg more money from within the Muslim community and the US or EU. Eventually these funds would dry up too.

As things stand now, the PA has no reason to agree to anything except the full release to them of the land that is now Israel. Other than that, there will never be a peaceful solution to this problem. And just like Bill Clinton before him, Barack Obama just might come to realize that the PA and Hamas will never agree to anything that will end their free ride.

A great comment from Reaganite Republican Resistance

A note from Radarsite: Occasionally we receive a comment that is worthy of an article. The following from Reaganite Republican Resistance.com is a perfect example. I am posting this as a companion piece to Findalis important article above. The conclusions reached by both authors are so clear, so incontestable, that I find it incredible that virtually half of this country -- and a seeming majority of our EU "allies" -- still refuse to see it. And, what is worse, it is these very people who are presently running our foreign policy.
God help us. - rg
-------------------------------------

Truth is, the Palestinians never miss an opportunity... Truth is, the Palestinians never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity- and Israelis are well aware that the Palestinians are not ready yet for land-for-peace... where's the precedent, Gaza? So they not only settled some accounts with Hamas before the misguided and undependable Obama was sworn-in, but now elected a rightist government, headed by Bibi Netanyahu... who refers to Gaza as "Hamasistan". Does that look like they are looking to follow Obama's lead, to not confront Tehran, and make ill-conceived deals with the Palestinians? Israel is the target of an existential threat from Iran and her proxies Hezbollah and Hamas, plus Syria... and cannot afford a Pollyanna, cafe-debate world view like Barack thinks is so modern and "cool". And Iran has promptly met Obama's futile gestures with contempt. These apocalyptic loons not only have no intention of stopping their nuclear weapons program, but consider his willingness to "talk without preconditions" nothing but a sign of weakness- an indicator of the "failure of the West."Ruthless and aggressive foes have no reason to take seriously a smiley plastic mannequin like Obama... they know he's not going to do anything. US allies such as Israel and Afghanistan will be force to take matters into their own hands. Obama, like Carter, will make the US an impotent, irrelevant bystander as events take their course... and nations like Russia, Venezuela, and China fill the power vacuum. Team Obama would be well-advised to keep an eye on the horizon anytime they're visiting their recalcitrant pals in Tehran... for a formation of Israeli F-16's coming-in at Mach 2. The IDF did us all a huge favor in 1983, taking out Saddam's reactor in the face of world condemnation... and they'll they'll take care of business again, reducing Iran's nuclear program to smoldering little bits.

http://reaganiterepublicanresistance.blogspot.com/2008/1/2telegram-for-iran-and-team-obama.htm

Do the Palestinians Really Want a State?

By Findalis



I am positive that the average Palestinian man or woman would take any decent agreement giving them their own nation and working in peaceful cooperation with their Israeli neighbors, create a Paradise on Earth. Most Palestinians work or have worked in Israel, many would be friendly with Israelis if they could (the extremists in Gaza and the West Bank kill such people, calling them traitors and collaborators.). There is a deep desire for peace among them.

The Palestinian Authority on the other hand may have no desire for a settlement to the stalemate that has boxed both sides into positions they cannot retreat from.

This is the premise that Robert D. Kaplan puts forward in this month's Atlantic Monthly.

The statelessness of Palestinian Arabs has been a principal feature of world politics for more than half a century. It is the signature issue of our time. The inability of Israelis and Palestinians to reach an accord of mutual recognition and land-for-peace has helped infect the globe with violence and radicalism—and has long been a bane of American foreign policy. While the problems of the Middle East cannot be substantially blamed on the injustice done to Palestinians, that injustice has nonetheless played a role in weakening America’s position in the region.

Obviously, part of the problem has been Israeli intransigence. Despite seeming to submit to territorial concessions, one Israeli government after another has quietly continued to bolster illegal settlements in the occupied territories.

With Fatah and Hamas facing off against each other, the Palestinians are simply too divided to plausibly meet Israel across the table. And because the Palestinians are unable to cut a deal, a majority of Israelis, as shown by the recent election results, have apparently given up any hope for peace.

But there is a deeper structural and philosophical reason why the Palestinians remain stateless—a reason more profound than the political narrative would indicate. It is best explained by associate Johns Hopkins professor Jakub Grygiel, in his brilliant essay, “The Power of Statelessness: the Withering Appeal of Governing” (Policy Review April/May 2009). In it, Grygiel does not discuss the Palestinians in particular, but rather the attitude of stateless people in general.

Statehood is no longer a goal, he writes. Many stateless groups “do not aspire to have a state,” for they are more capable of achieving their objectives without one. Instead of actively seeking statehood to address their weakness, as Zionist Jews did in an earlier phase of history, groups like the Palestinians now embrace their statelessness as a source of power.

New communication technologies allow people to achieve virtual unity without a state, even as new military technologies give stateless groups a lethal capacity that in former decades could be attained only by states. Grygiel explains that it is now “highly desirable” not to have a state—for a state is a target that can be destroyed or damaged, and hence pressured politically. It was the very quasi-statehood achieved by Hamas in the Gaza Strip that made it easier for Israel to bomb it. A state entails responsibilities that limit a people’s freedom of action. A group like Hezbollah in Lebanon, the author notes, could probably take over the Lebanese state today, but why would it want to? Why would it want responsibility for providing safety and services to all Lebanese? Why would it want to provide the Israelis with so many tempting targets of reprisal? Statelessness offers a level of “impunity” from retaliation.

But the most tempting aspect of statelessness is that it permits a people to savor the pleasures of religious zeal, extremist ideologies, and moral absolutes, without having to make the kinds of messy, mundane compromises that accompany the work of looking after a geographical space.

The closest that Israelis and Palestinians ever came to peace was at the end of the Clinton Administration in 2000, when then-Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak of the center-left Labor Party offered a slew of concessions to the late Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat—only to have Arafat reject them. Arafat’s epitaph was that he remained loyal to the cause of his people, that he never compromised, and that he was steadfast to the bitter end. He may have seen that as a more morally and emotionally satisfying conclusion to a life of statelessness than that of making the unenchanting concessions associated with achieving statehood.

Read the full article here.

If this report is right, then President Obama's effort to ram an agreement down the Israelis throats is doomed to failure. For it will always be in the best interest of the Palestinian leaders to reject any offer to them that doesn't include all the land from the river to the sea. In other words, unless they get it all and Israel is eliminated, then they will not take any deal.

It is in the best interest of the Palestinian leadership to remain stateless and cry victim every time Israel tries to stop the terror that the Palestinian leadership uses to achieve their ends.
For once a nation has been formed, attacks such as the rockets falling into Israel from Gaza, suicide bombers, or the kidnapping of Israeli soldiers would and is considered an Act of War under International Law. Without the 'protection' of being stateless, the Palestinians would have to face Israel's wrath without International support.

Another consequence of the creation of a Palestinian state would be the removal of their special refugee status. Although the Saudi Peace Plan insists on a Law of Return, there is no Israeli government (on the left or the right) that will ever agree to such a demand. But for the sake of this article, let us say that the Palestinians do agree to drop this demand (Yassir Arafat refused a Palestinian nation in 2000 by doing this). Finally the Palestinians living in refugee camps in Gaza and the West Bank would now be living in cities of their new nation, and the remaining refugees living in camps through out the Arab world could be relocated to the new nation, having gained the status of citizen of Palestine and losing the status of refugee.

For the average Palestinian this would be a boon. But for the leadership, this would be a nightmare. No longer would the world support through massive donations of food and monies the Palestinian people. Any agreement reached by both sides would have to include a date for ending refugee status. And thus funds. Such funds which are often diverted into Swiss bank accounts for the private use of the leadership and not the benefit of the people. This international gravy train would dry up, and the leadership would either have to beg more money from within the Muslim community and the US or EU. Eventually these funds would dry up too.

As things stand now, the PA has no reason to agree to anything except the full release to them of the land that is now Israel. Other than that, there will never be a peaceful solution to this problem. And just like Bill Clinton before him, Barack Obama just might come to realize that the PA and Hamas will never agree to anything that will end their free ride.