Shimon Peres has Died

[Darth Yan]

http://www.cnn.com/2016/09/27/middleeas ... eres-obit/

93 is a good long life though

[Elfdart]

A guy who would offer to sell atomic bombs to P.W. Botha (while committing numerous atrocities for his own apartheid state) is about as vile as it gets.

[Flagg]

A guy who would offer to sell atomic bombs to P.W. Botha (while committing numerous atrocities for his own apartheid state) is about as vile as it gets.

Israel has been a bad actor in general for decades so that hardly surprises me.

[Edi]

Well, he had an unexpectedly long run. Won't shed any tears for his passing.

[Thanas]

He was the lesser of evils for a long time in Israeli politics.

[Ace Pace]

To provide the local perspective.. The last of the first generation of Israeli statesmen has died and also one of the last actual leaders.
It's not just "respect" for the dead or a dismissal of the current crop as bad, it's just he really was a good leader. Principled, opinionated, didn't tack to the winds. Compared to what we currently have to choose from, I'd be fine voting for his dead body.

He did some evil things along with some things with unexpected consequences, but over the last 3 decades he was consistently pushing for organised peace solutions, moderation and as much as possible, conciliation. I find it telling that world leaders not only sent generic messages but actually showed up for him (while giving a cold shoulder to the current PM).

[Edi]

To provide the local perspective.. The last of the first generation of Israeli statesmen has died and also one of the last actual leaders.
It's not just "respect" for the dead or a dismissal of the current crop as bad, it's just he really was a good leader. Principled, opinionated, didn't tack to the winds. Compared to what we currently have to choose from, I'd be fine voting for his dead body.

He did some evil things along with some things with unexpected consequences, but over the last 3 decades he was consistently pushing for organised peace solutions, moderation and as much as possible, conciliation. I find it telling that world leaders not only sent generic messages but actually showed up for him (while giving a cold shoulder to the current PM).

Thanks for this perspective. All told, he did, at least in the recent decades, more good than evil, and the same cannot be said of Netanyahoo, Lebensraum and the other sadistic clowns who run the show these days.

[MKSheppard]

A guy who would offer to sell atomic bombs to P.W. Botha (while committing numerous atrocities for his own apartheid state) is about as vile as it gets.

He gets a for nuclear proliferation, and a for the 'peace process' he helped start and supported, even after it became blindingly obvious that the 'peace process' was nothing but a murderous clusterfuck.

[Simon_Jester]

To provide the local perspective.. The last of the first generation of Israeli statesmen has died and also one of the last actual leaders.
It's not just "respect" for the dead or a dismissal of the current crop as bad, it's just he really was a good leader. Principled, opinionated, didn't tack to the winds. Compared to what we currently have to choose from, I'd be fine voting for his dead body.

He did some evil things along with some things with unexpected consequences, but over the last 3 decades he was consistently pushing for organised peace solutions, moderation and as much as possible, conciliation. I find it telling that world leaders not only sent generic messages but actually showed up for him (while giving a cold shoulder to the current PM).

Thanks for this perspective. All told, he did, at least in the recent decades, more good than evil, and the same cannot be said of Netanyahoo, Lebensraum and the other sadistic clowns who run the show these days.

A related point is that without statesmanship and leadership, the Israelis (like a lot of modern nations) are basically restricted to "stay the course," with minor policy squabbles over the details of whether to turn a few degrees to the left or right.

So when a man like this dies, it's worth reflecting on the difference between statesmen and politicians, and just why so many countries seem to mindlessly pursue policies that lead to long term disaster.

[Ace Pace]

A related point is that without statesmanship and leadership, the Israelis (like a lot of modern nations) are basically restricted to "stay the course," with minor policy squabbles over the details of whether to turn a few degrees to the left or right.

So when a man like this dies, it's worth reflecting on the difference between statesmen and politicians, and just why so many countries seem to mindlessly pursue policies that lead to long term disaster.

To take this towards IvP and general Israel Policy, I'm going to copy some paragraphs from a Foreign Affairs article and add commentary in the end.

Israeli national security strategy can seem baffling. Many observers in the United States and Europe, for example, wonder how Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu could have warned for years that Iran’s nuclear program [2] posed an existential threat to Israel yet has balked at the international community’s attempts to defang it. By raising concerns about the nuclear deal [3] between Iran and five great powers without offering a convincing alternative, Netanyahu has appeared to oppose any solution at all. Instead, as Philip Hammond, the British foreign secretary, said in July, Netanyahu is acting as though he would prefer a “permanent state of standoff” with Tehran.

Nor do Israeli leaders seem to have a clear answer in mind for how to solve the country’s conflict with the Palestinians. The country faces nearly universal opprobrium for its occupation of the West Bank and the looming possibility that it will have to sacrifice either its democracy or its Jewish demographic majority should it not pursue territorial partition with the Palestinians [4]. Yet few in the Israeli government offer realistic strategies for ending the conflict. Netanyahu himself has gone back and forth, declaring his support for a two-state solution in theory, indicating that he does not believe one can emerge in the foreseeable future, and offering no alternative solution in its place.

What lies behind the absence of a constructive Israeli national security agenda, however, is neither illogic nor confusion but rather a belief that there are currently no solutions to the challenges the country faces and that seeking quick fixes to intractable problems is dangerously naive. Kicking problems down the road until some indefinite future point at which they can be tackled more successfully therefore does not reflect a lack of Israeli strategy; rather, it defines Israeli strategy. This strategy is at times wrong, but it is not absurd.

Israel’s strategic conservatism—the notion that it can be better to bide one’s time and manage conflicts rather than rush to try to solve them before the conditions are ripe—is not inherently bad and has in fact served Israel well in some cases. In others, as in the conflict with the Palestinians, it has damaged the country’s prospects. Whether or not this strategy is effective, U.S. policymakers need to grapple with it as they make their own decisions about how to address the problems in the Middle East.


[..]

This strategic pessimism is reflected in the vagueness of Israeli leaders’ descriptions of an eventual solution to the conflict. Netanyahu has expressed hope for some version of a two-state solution, but Yaalon and many others in the Likud Party reject it outright. Naftali Bennett, a senior cabinet minister who heads the right-wing religious party the Jewish Home, is particularly illustrative. At a June 2013 gathering organized by the Yesha Council, Israel’s main settler body, he described the medical dilemma of a friend from his military days who had a piece of shrapnel lodged near his backside. Operate to remove it, and the procedure could paralyze him; live with it, and he could continue to walk, although not without pain. He argued that Israel was in the same situation with regard to the Palestinians and that it should learn to accept the unpleasantness of the current state of affairs rather than risk catastrophe in trying to resolve the conflict.

[...]

This strategic pessimism is reflected in the vagueness of Israeli leaders’ descriptions of an eventual solution to the conflict. Netanyahu has expressed hope for some version of a two-state solution, but Yaalon and many others in the Likud Party reject it outright. Naftali Bennett, a senior cabinet minister who heads the right-wing religious party the Jewish Home, is particularly illustrative. At a June 2013 gathering organized by the Yesha Council, Israel’s main settler body, he described the medical dilemma of a friend from his military days who had a piece of shrapnel lodged near his backside. Operate to remove it, and the procedure could paralyze him; live with it, and he could continue to walk, although not without pain. He argued that Israel was in the same situation with regard to the Palestinians and that it should learn to accept the unpleasantness of the current state of affairs rather than risk catastrophe in trying to resolve the conflict.

At this point it continues on with explaining the problems with this policy, which is obvious to everyone on SDN.

But this precise problem is the reason Peres will be missed by people on the right and left. He was one of the few politicians left in Israel who had a real plan and had the drive to execute it. The left here, is in shambles and I've yet to vote for the main Left wing party. The right is ruthlessly doing ideological purges and rapidly becoming more problematic. Politics in Israel are very much a no-win situation.

Now looking forward isn't precisely this threads goal, but if we look at what Peres said near the end of his time, it was a basic goal of "despite everything, keep trying"

[Darth Yan]

A guy who would offer to sell atomic bombs to P.W. Botha (while committing numerous atrocities for his own apartheid state) is about as vile as it gets.

He gets a for nuclear proliferation, and a for the 'peace process' he helped start and supported, even after it became blindingly obvious that the 'peace process' was nothing but a murderous clusterfuck.

Now you're lying. The peace process was working until ISRAEL started offering blatantly unfair deals (netenyahu openly tried to sabotage it and Camp David was absurdly unfair)

[U.P. Cinnabar]

He was the lesser of evils for a long time in Israeli politics.

Compared to Sharon or Johnathan Netanyahu's little brother, yeah, he was.

[eyl]

A guy who would offer to sell atomic bombs to P.W. Botha (while committing numerous atrocities for his own apartheid state) is about as vile as it gets.

He gets a for nuclear proliferation, and a for the 'peace process' he helped start and supported, even after it became blindingly obvious that the 'peace process' was nothing but a murderous clusterfuck.

Now you're lying. The peace process was working until ISRAEL started offering blatantly unfair deals (netenyahu openly tried to sabotage it and Camp David was absurdly unfair)

The fuck it was.

Anti-Israel terrorism was significantly worse under Oslo than it was before (until Israel got Arafat to crack down in 1997 by threatening to invade if he didn't) and the Palestinian Authority aided and abetted it on occasion. I was not very surprised when the whole thing came crashing down.

[Darth Yan]

Attacks actually declined in 95. Polls also show most palestinians were SUPPORTING it when Israel made actual concessions. After the breakthrough in Sept 93 the people supporting negotiations rose from 33 to 66.

Netanyahu cheerfully gloated to a settler he deliberately sabotaged things.

Even Israeli negotiators said Dennis Ross was full of crap in claiming that the arabs sabotaged Camp David.

[Alyrium Denryle]

OK. We have a moratorium on this shit. Any more and I start flushing posts.

[SCRawl]

I will take this opportunity to remind users of PR8:

Avoid the History of Israel vs Palestine. Feel free to discuss news from that part of the world, but we have a special moratorium on debating the history of that conflict, since such debates always go round and round in the same endless circles. If you wish to discuss IvP issues, stick to current events.