Charles Johnson's "Islam Is Religion of Peace Sweepstakes" has truly had a banner month. Part of that was the June 13th "distinctive barbarism" post about the Palestinians, whose comments section quickly became the site of a cyber melee lasting several days. Here's the article and its 30+ comments.

Part of that melee was a sharp but respectful duel between Per Sullivan and yours truly. Those exchanges struck me as worth reproducing, so here they are [unedited]...

(Per)"Perhaps the reason Palestinian terrorists have become so violent and depraved is because they are the only people on that list of terrorists who have had their home taken away from them, their identity and existence denied, and then virtually imprisoned for the last 25 years of their history. How many other people in the world have lived under heavy-handed military rule for such a long period?

Lots of other people have suffered in the world, but perhaps none as completely and as consistently over the past 50 years. The British, all the countries of the Arab world, and the Israelis have made their life a living hell. The Israelis may just be one of the groups responsible for their plight, but they clearly hold the keys.

Of course, for the past 6,000 years, Jews have been the victims of virtually every society in the world. Because of this, they do not have the collective well to either exterminate or expel the Palestinians, which probably would have happened in pretty much every other case in any other country in the world. In one sense, you can say the Palestinians are lucky that their oppressors are the former (and still, in more subtle ways) oppressed, and their religion and humanity are strong enough to not completely wipe out the far weaker party. But at the same time this consigns the Palestinians to a special hell of having their punishment doled out in stages. Because of the Jewish experience on the one hand, and the anger and 'never again' mentality of the Holocaust on the other, the Palestinians are driven to the edge of madness but never put out of their misery. Because of the strength and power of the Jewish faith, there will never be a violent or bloody 'final solution' to the question of the land of Israel.

As for those who see a racial, religious, ethnic, or social component to Palestinian violence, I present the case of Arab Israelis. Living under martial law from aprox. 1948-1967, they have perodically suffered acts of violence and discrimination, including having their land seized and unarmed demonstrators killed. In virtually all respects, they are identical to their Palestinian neighbors. Most Arab-Israeli villages are within walking distance of West Bank villages, and their faith, ethnic composition (Gaza is slightly different in this regard) and history up until 1948 are identical. And they have rarely been involved in acts of terrorism. In fact their involvement in terrorism has been minimal. The only significant difference between these people is that the Arabs in Israel did not lose their homes in 1948, and have lived in a Democracy where even though the application of law is biased against them, generally provides equal treatment for citizens, and certainly doesn't repress them violently. Obviously Palestinian leadership is the other role-player in this difference, but its involvement is limited in comparison the other factors.

So while this article linked is 'true' in some regards, it really misses so much of the big picture.

   posted by Per Sullivan @ 6/13/2002"

That didn't sit well. Slap parry, and counterlunge:

(Joe) "Lots of other people have suffered in the world, but perhaps none as completely and as consistently over the past 50 years."

Wow.

Bet a discussion with a Tibetan would be enlightening. Or those few Jews still left in the Islamic world. How about people in the Baltic states, whose last 50 years have not exactly been a picnic. North Koreans (98% of them) come to mind. And maybe you'd rather be a Tutsi in Rwanda? Or how about a Sudanese Christian - hey, that slavery thing... really oversold, if you ask me. Or an Eritrean? Or a small clan in Somalia, that would make for a fun last 50 years. Or maybe you'd rather be a resident of East Timor from 1950-2002? Not a good bet, if you ask me.

Oh, and if you want to talk about identity denied and imprisonment on small pieces of land, we have a lot of native people in North America who would like a moment of your time. Oddly, they don't blow themselves up.

The heart of Per Sullivan's post is moral exculpation. Circumstances made them do it. Which is, of course, bunk. Everyone makes choices. Everyone lives with the consequences.

The Palestinians choices have included Hitler, Saddam, and Hamas over the last 60 years. They are finally running out of options, and have no clue where their choices are taking them... but it's a dark, dark future that probably starts with expulsion and ends in genocide at the hands of one or more of their arab brethren.

Nothing surprising in that last sentence. We could also point out that the Palestinians' suffering at Israeli hands is far eclipsed by their suffering at the hands of Kuwaitis and Jordanians. Would that be mean?

If the Palestinians had adopted nonviolent methods, they would have had a quality state a decade ago. The responsibility for that failure is theirs. It is wholly theirs.

The Palestinians are this way because they've created themselves this way. Their leadership has seen this mindset to be in their interest. The same is true for the surrounding Arab states, who are very happy to fight to the last Palestinian. They, too, are very happy to inculcate the mindset described - the Palestinians themselves having been conceived in the 60s as a weapon of war whose misery was part of the weapon's forging.

The Arab states see this as a good bargain, as long as the Palestinians don't actually come to their country. Because if they do, they'll be persecuted. Or worse, if they make trouble.

We all make choices. The Palestinians have chosen poorly. Again. They will learn to choose well. Or they will pay the price of their choices, in full. History admits to very few exceptions.

   posted by Joe Katzman @ 6/14/2002

Of course, I wasn't the only one engaging Per. Normally polite, his temper showed through in a fast combination attack and a sweeping tateki no kurai:

(Per) To those who responded to my ideas, did you even read what I wrote? Half of you try to tell me that others suffered too, including the Jews. Well go back and read my post.

One of the other responders gave a nice list of others who have suffered in the past 50 years. I still hold that none of those people were dispossessed from their land, and then held in virtual captivity for the next 4 decades.

And still no one is able to rebut my essential point: The difference between Arab-Israelis and Palestinians is a case-study for how Israeli violence, repression, and dispossession (which, as I also stressed, is not nearly as bad in terms of deaths as pretty much every other group in the history of the world, but is pyschologically far worse) breeds terror. As I wrote, Arab-Israelis and Palestinians are virtually identical in every aspect except for their recent history. Participation in the Jewish state, while not full, has resulted in a populace that is rarely, if ever, involved in the barbarism described daily in the news. Can there be any other reason (obviously living since the 90's under Arafat is one, but that is a more recent development) besides the dispossession of 1948 and the repression since 1967?

My central point is that as a Jew I am proud of the fact that we have moved beyond, however tempting it is, wholesale eradication of our enemies. This is a tactic of Milosevic, Hitler, and any number of other murderers of history. Of course it would be easier to just slaughter and drive out the Palestinians. But that is not going to happen, so even though I have seen friends hurt and wounded and friends of friends blown up for the awful crime of wanting to have dinner out, I still think the only solution is to live together in the same land. Arab Israelis (of whom I have several friends) are proof to me that when circumstances are equaled in terms of general freedom, the Palestinian is no different from any other person on earth. You racists on this website can have your other ideas, even when presented with the facts, but I have faith in G-d that we will persevere without resorting to the evil that Palestinian evil engenders within us.

posted by Per Sullivan @ 6/14/2002

Seeing Per's ability and willingness to stand his ground, one respectful admirer stepped forth:

(EN) Per Sullivan, I disagree with you (and will answer you some time later), but I would like to compliment you on posting lucidly and thoughtfully.

See Bunky? This is how it's done. Not just a "different point of view," but a point of view well-defended, and worth responding to. Pretty cool, huh?

   posted by E. Nough @ 6/14/2002 09:54AM PST

It was, actually. The melee was fast becoming a disorderly brawl, but our anonymous poster had given the duel its space again. Time for a Flowing Water Cut:

(Joe) Per's posts are calm and well argued. They are also wrong, often factually so. Their factual dishonesty is, alas, the precursor to their moral dishonesty.

"I still hold that none of those people were dispossessed from their land, and then held in virtual captivity for the next 4 decades."

To pick just 3:

- What do you call the Tibetans' situation? What could you possibly call it, EXCEPT that? Yet no suicide bombers. No terrorism.

- What land does anyone in North Korea own (because about 50 years ago, there were many people who did)? Their captivity, unlike the Palestinians' isn't virtual. Yet no suicide bombers. No terrorism.

- The native peoples of this continent would find this an excellent and exact description of their plight... except for the time frame. Yet no suicide bombers. And the few AIM terrorists that existed are now greying men in jail.

Why is that, do you think?

Your point about the Israeli Arabs also fails, on two grounds.

First, those who stayed were self-selected as those who were prepared to remain in place and coexist with the war's victors. They did, and they did.

In addition, while living within the Israeli state the steady diet of hatred, weapons, and armed training provided so liberally to their Palestinian brethren was denied them. That they are less engaged in terrorism under such conditions should not be surprising.

Which is not to say that none are trying.

The Israelis themselves will tell you that a problem does exist, may be as large as 100,000 people [Ed.: about 10%], and has accelerated sharply since the Palestinian Authority's return. Given that this problem's growth was prompted by the most strenuous efforts yet for a peaceful settlement, with the only other variable being the return of the PA, the "terror connections" hypothesis only gets stronger.

If your example proves anything, it is that cutting off the states supporting the terror network will dry up terrorism, and that allowing those connections to flourish will increase it. What your argument actually supports is a declared wider regional war.

The question isn't whether one should start, but how this one will finish. I say "declared war" because [an undeclared] one is already going on, complete with incontrovertible state sponsorship and frequent acts of war. But then, that has always been the plan.

For who imprisoned the Palestinians?

Their Arab brethren who refused to absorb them, as every other refugee exchange in history had been absorbed (Greek & Turks, Hindus & Muslims in India-Pakistan, Jews in Arab countries and...?) cannot wash their hands.

Had this been done in the 60s, we would have seen a roughly equal number of Arab Jews and Palestinians exchange locations, and that would have been the end of it. But this was never the plan of an Arabic culture that glorifies blood and death, and ethnic hate. The cynical invitation to suffering they extended to the Palestinians was surely no less than many extended to their own people, and thus of no moral concern.

Consigned (and thus confined) now to squalid refugee camps in Gaza and beyond. Provided nothing by the Arab nations. Fed a steady diet of hate by those who profited from their blood and misery. And recruited to violence by those who knew of nothing else.

The results were predictable. Continued, they will become tragic.

Right between the eyes, Per:

-- Your belief in the exceptionalism of the Palestinians' circumstances is simply untrue. To continue to maintain that stance will take it from "untrue" to a lie.

-- Regardless, your belief in the moral exceptionalism of the Palestinians' cause is morally bankrupt. There is no moral justification for this. Period. to quote Wieseltier: "We are not all in the same universe socially and economically, but we are all in the same universe morally. Either we are accountable for our actions, or we are not. Either, or."

-- Choices have consequences. No society will indefinitely put up with what the Israelis now face. As we can see in the poll numbers rise for "transfer" options since the late 90s. So what then? The Arabs have already demonstrated that they consider the Palestinians rabid dogs, with the full Arab cultural implications behind that term. Unless things change, it doesn't take a genuis to see tragedy in the offing.

-- And it will be a tragedy. Whatever they have done. To argue otherwise is morally wrong - and risks the same trap that has engulfed the Palestinians. I too, wish a better future for them.

But that isn't the direction they've chosen to head in. And there's nothing I can do about that. EXCEPT refuse to make excuses for them, because making those excuses fuels the very belief systems that are now creating the tragedy before our eyes, in slow motion.

That, I can do for them.

It is up to the Palestinians to make better choices if they wish to avert that fate. The Israelis are not going away, and they will not submit to the slaughter planned for them by the Islamists and Arab bigots around them. That leaves the Palestinians with the option to either create a brighter future, or no future.

The burden of that choice, and the responsibility for the consequences, rests with them.

As it always has. As it always will.

The pseudonymous "E. Nough" then offered the funniest review my posts have ever received:

(EN) Wow. I was going to respond to Per Sullivan's whole post, but Joe Katzman wrote a response that beats the snot out of anything I might have written -- and then gives it a wedgie and takes its lunch money.

So first of all, what Joe said.

That mental image still makes me chuckle. He then went on to make a number of points, ending with this:

(EN)Your faith in God is commendable, but at some point you need to remember that He only helps those who help themselves. Having faith is one thing, but you have yet to offer an explanation as to how you plan to "persevere," which once again leads me to think that your entire outlook is the triumph of hope -- and faith -- over experience. For my part, I share your hope, but no longer have your faith....

   posted by E. Nough @ 6/14/2002

Which what I'm seeing in Israel. It's exactly this loss of faith in better possibilities that will eventually create tremendous pressure for a "transfer" solution and set in motion the tragedy described above. So let's start with the reminder that averting tragedy depends on the existence of hope... among the Israelis.

Faith alone will not suffice to get us there. Better choices are needed. As the great duellist Miyamoto Musashi put it: "One must respect God and Buddha, but not be dependent upon them." To which I say: "Amen."

UPDATE: Letter from Gotham has a reply, agreeing with the rethinking but not the why. As for the enemy being "Islam," we disagree. The Bible tells us to stone adulterers too, but we don't. Different interpretations of the religion's works, plus the reduced temporal influence of the Church, led to the collective creation of a very different Christian faith. Victory begins when the same processes are at work to create a very different Islam.