If you were an irredentist Israeli dedicated to the annexation of all territory that might be included in the concept of “Greater Israel”, the willingness of the majority of your countrymen to make territorial concessions for the sake of peace would be a most troublesome development. A successful Palestinian Authority and a normalized democracy in Lebanon would play into the hands of those who would make concessions for peace. One of the worst things that could happen, in the irredentists’ view, would be for any kind of normal relations to exist between Israel and Lebanon or between Israel and Palestine.
It would be far better for the ultimate aims of the irredentists for their countrymen to live in perpetual fear of hostile neighbors. There must be a state of perpetual war, and a new consensus must develop among Israelis that annexation is necessary for security. The destabilization and radicalization of Lebanon would be a critical part of the strategy of the irredentist movement. Also, the Palestinian quasi-state must be made or helped to fail at any cost. Hatred of Israel among Arabs must not be allowed to lose intensity.
The irredentists have an opportunity at this moment to reverse the “land for peace” movement (or more properly, the “claim to land for peace” movement) because of their neocon allies’ control of the United States and that country’s involvement in MidEast adventurism. The neocons’ political aspirations depend on the same fear-mongering and instability as relied on by the Israeli irredentists. Also, the neocons are beholden to fundamentalist Christianists who believe that the restoration of Israel to its full glory presages the End Times (when the Israelis will have served their purpose and can finally be killed by God, a contingency which the irredentists know will never come about). This means that the irredentists may well be able to do considerable, if not irreversible, damage before the US is moved to put some checks on the irredentists’ immediate actions.
It is also possible in the irredentists’ wilder dreams that the neocon controlled regime and its Christianist coalition partners are crazy enough to escalate the conflict in the MidEast into a bigger and broader war. They’ve been itching to start something with Iran or Syria but haven’t been able to overcome substantial opposition and the constraints imposed by reality. Even if this escalation costs the neocons control of Congress and gets some of them hanged, the damage done before cooler heads prevail will strengthen the irredentists immeasurably.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
An irredentist is no less illogical than your typical voter, because in essense all he desires that a different gang to be in control.
Thus when Israel transferred control of the Gaza strip to the P.A., I saw no reason why armed Israeli gang members had to forcefully remove the "settlers" from those lands. If a person of the Jewish faith wants to homestead some no-mans land in the P.A.'s territory, there is no moral standing for any criminal gang to throw them off their land (assuming that the specific land title in question was rightfully acquired.)
Why can't individuals of various faiths and cultures live where they want to?
well said Ice.
Post a Comment