Now having suffered through a second listen of this debate, I find Einat Wilf even more obnoxious than I did the first time.
She’s aggressively self-regarding, likes to hear herself talk, is full of wishful-thinking excuses for the Oslo, etc ‘empirical’ experiments, and got nasty when her debater did not bend to her viewpoint.
She condescended throughout the entire interview, endlessly complaining that the debate was exhausting her because her debater remained unconvinced by her expositions.
My response to her would be, “I don’t accept your historical outline, your explanations, excuses, so we don’t agree.
I react to this debate as someone who remembers Oslo and the jubilation surrounding it. My demographics have a bearing: Jewish, secular, female, grew up in a New York City leftist community, older than both debaters (well, not combined).
Einat was uncomfortably and unnecessarily combative for me, but I do concur with her on one point: to speak in terms of "Jewish bosses," "treason," "told/didn't tell" is barking up the wrong tree, and I would add, is the wrong cultural model for the Jewish/Israeli community (there's generally no ring-kissing type stuff... and the only Jews who cry "I was lied too!" are truth-hating anti-Zionist Jews like Seth Rogen). Moreover, it seems to me the Jewish bosses were drilling a hole in the life boat that they too occupied. Realizing this--realizing also, for example, that the director of Yad Vashem openly opposes displaying the photo of Haj Amin al Husseini's meeting with Hitler because it would portray Palestinians badly--is I believe a signal that psychology is not a side issue, but is integral and central in any analysis of Israeli political decisions.
I remember doing many eye rolls in the 90s seeing the excitement about Oslo, and this was before I knew any history whatsoever and still thought of myself as a leftist. After all, just seeing Arafat shaking hands wearing keffiyah and military jacket told you all you needed to know. Yet for Einat, who knew far more history than I did, arguments like the Berlin wall falling and the-world-is-looking-up apparently could override the obvious.
I need to agree with Diana Brewster's comment that much to do with left/right is going on. Einat says she's still "very much a leftie." Yet her more right-wing colleagues called Oslo correctly; leftists got it wrong. So why no reflection here? I see the still ongoing problem and the true divide as horizontal (left vs right), not vertical (bosses vs masses). If there are any "treasonous, reality-snuffing bosses," maybe it's the bosses in some people's heads. Moreover, since when have facts--even hard facts like "the PLO are Nazis!"--been motivational? I heard a Queer for Palestine say that yes, they know Islamists kill gays, but still....
It's unfortunate that the debate got harsh, because the importance of making decisions based on good information--regardless of why one thinks this info doesn't get through--should be an easy enough point to agree upon.
Think about it: who can, and is willing, and capable of digesting, that they are so radically, and passionately, and systematically, and immutably hated? There is a natural inhibition to doing that. You—sanely—tell yourself to stop, else you are going to go nuts! It just doesn’t make sense. The Jew is Not an antisemite in this precise deeply irrational sense.
Francisco, this was an excellent conversation. I much appreciate your work and the information you divulge. However, I agree with Einat. Beyond the discussion of the facts, you must accept that there is also empirical psychological reality. This is another way of saying what she was trying to convey to you. Think about it: Innumerable times we attempt to confront people with realities they refuse to accept or simply cannot digest. This may go on for years. So, it is perfectly feasible that Israelis, and Jews throughout the world, and any number of political actors, might have known and understood the information you present. And, even so, they might wish to convince themselves, or simply not be willing to be unconvinced, that things could change. Especially when everything else in the world was changing. You must understand that for many— and particularly for Jews—it is hard to believe that Arabs/ muslims/ Palestinians would be so uniquely, monolithically and stubbornly convinced of their position, and that they would maintain it regardless, and indefinitely, for decades to come. You yourself have spoken about projection. There is no reason why Israel’s, and Jews, and all kinds of political actors, would not be blinded by their own wish and project onto the Palestinians their own willingness to shift their view. This may be naive, and, again, a projection— but it is one that Jews have been “guilty” of for millennia.
Francisco, I much appreciate your response. I have read your book on Al Husseini and learned much from it. I think you are missing the obvious. Literally, the dimension of the obvious: that which is so taken for granted that it goes un-noted and only becomes apparent at a remove, perhaps retrospectively or being pointed out by a third party. I do not think this may be dismissed or separated as “psychology”. An example would be Germany’s reoccupation of the Rhineland in 1936. This seemed a minor move and was overlooked by France and Britain even when Hitler’s program was explicit. Everyone knew about it. No one thought it needed to be explained. It was obvious. This is a good parallel to what we are discussing. Later it proved crucial, boosting Hitler’s confidence and enabling World War II invasions. Historians now see it as a pivotal moment that might have changed history.
My questions to Einat Wilf had nothing to do with the psychology of Israelis. That is certainly an interesting topic. And no doubt it must be considered when producing a full explanation of why the Oslo "Peace" Process happened. But that was not the issue at stake in my questions (though she kept going to it in her non-answers).
My question to her was this: Why didn't Israeli bosses inform the Israelis citizens that they were bringing into militarily strategic territory of the Jewish State an organization, PLO/Fatah (aka "Palestinian Authority"), created by the Nazi butcher of the European Jews, Hajj Amin al Husseini? Seems relevant, no? Something for Israeli citizens, whose lives this will impact, to consider.
My other question to her was this: Why didn't Israeli bosses inform the Israelis citizens that they were bringing into militarily strategic territory of the Jewish State an organization--the same one, PLO/Fatah (aka "Palestinian Authority")--that had played the key role in the creation of jihadi Iran, whose bosses openly announce that they mean to repeat the Final Solution in Israel?
She never answered these questions.
She was foreign policy advisor to Shimon Peres and Yossi Beilin, architects of Oslo, and she never explained why it is reasonable to keep this key information from the Israelis when asking them to accept PLO/Fatah in militarily strategic territory of the State that was supposed to protect them from Final Solutions.
Her problem with “the timeline” is that the Arab/Muslim world is on its own “timeline” of eternity coming from Muhammad’s conquest of Mecca to the Mahdi’s “inevitable” conquest of the rest of the planet. Our secularized leadership thinks in terms of cost/benefit balance, rational self-interest and some empathy towards the non-western world as fellow partners in humanity. Their opposite viewpoint is salvation versus damnation, the value of jihad and martyrdom, and total rejection of the non-Muslim world as infidel dogs unworthy of any respect. But also on the Western side there may also be a utilitarian inclination to view the State of Israel as the most untidy complication in an envisioned global governance in which neither Jewish nor Muslim aspirations are really valued but each is exploited only to serve the globalists’ agendas.
Thanks for the enlightenment about Husseini. With that in mind one wonders about Trumps suck-up to the Arabs and Syria. Now Israel is totally surrounded by those who wish Israel off the map. Trump is selling them the weaponry. Is he abetting the next Holocaust?
I do love Einat Wilf. She's a clear and forceful speaker who does excellent research. This was a striking conversation because she was instantly dismissive of Francisco's sense that something devious and anti-semitic lies behind these years of disastrous policies, whereas Einat, from her perspective of being a witness and participant in shaping Oslo, believes that Israelis were repeatedly willing to "give peace a chance" by negotiating (really?) with people who just want to kill them. You're the expert in this sort of thing, but isn't there a body of research that shows a distinct difference between people who trend left vs. right? I've heard that people who gravitate to the left believe that people are fundamentally good, given the right opportunities and conditions. People who gravitate to the right believe that people are fundamentally responsible moral agents, and while someone who has evil ideas might change their mind (God willing) they are not going to be a credible party to a negotiation. For the right, the distinction of good/evil is crucial. For the left, it's as if morality is a fuzzy continuum of qualities. While watching this video I had the feeling that I was seeing a contest of views between a left-leaning person and a right-leaning person.
There exists no "middle ground" in such a dichotomy. One is either a responsible moral agent who can be held accountable for one's actions, or one is a sort of moral infant who needs a more nurturing environment, and "privilege", like a plant. There's a lot of this right/left theme showing up these days.
I’m new and having huge problems with the edit function of this message board.
My message below is a mess. I hadn’t gotten my thoughts together and suddenly it was posted! I had only begun to write it. Suddenly I see that it posted! Now I’m trying to edit it and I’m going nuts with that.
I do apologize for the mess below this sentence.
……….
How does Wilf do excellent research? She apparently missed the New York Times article that Francisco was trying to point out to her.
I’ll grant you she’s forceful. In fact, she’s rude. She dominated the conversation with her sense of conviction and self-importance.
She excuses herself too easily. She made nasty remarks about the person who was debating her, numerous times hitting below the belt, i.e. maybe her debater was not old enough to know what she knew.
She kept interjecting that Israelis weren’t born yesterday, that Israelis knew everything, you didn’t have to tell them anything because they knew it all already!
I found her a total put-off. I can’t imagine defending her on any level. Her arguments to me were all excuse-making and missing the central point that was being discussed, which was, if these things were well known by those that were pushing for the Oslo accords and pushing it forward politically, why, in fact, were they not more upfront about the dangers that would be involved, and if they didn’t know about these dangers, didn’t know the facts about Fatah, why not?
It doesn’t make sense that they didn’t know! That itself would be willful……and suspicious.
You might like to read "The War of Return" which Wilf co-authored with Adi Schwartz. It's a well researched book that takes Westerners into the mindset of the Arabs and shows the deadly consequences. Yes, it was a hostile interview, but Francisco is a big boy and can handle himself. Either you think her point has merit, or you don't: That Israelis knew their enemy very well, but were mysteriously willing to attempt a land-for-peace negotiation once again. There were myriad pressures on Israel to make this deal, some malicious, some well-intended but ill-conceived. Francisco points to other pressures and manipulations to explain the Oslo Accords, including the Nazi roots of Palestinianism, but Wilf is adamantly refusing to consider this, as if all we need to know is what we already know about Oslo. Still, as an authority, I like Einat Wilf. I just don't accept authorities as the final answer when trying to explain the acts and intentions of human beings. It's not that we can't study ourselves and our fellow human beings, but life is an ongoing process of deepening insight. People get hung up on regarding themselves as authorities, and that can block research.
With all due respect, I believe you are missing the central issue in this debate, so allow me to clarify it, and hopefully you will reply.
The question is not whether the left believes that people are good or can change, whereas the right believes in good vs evil and prefers caution and mistrust to blind faith.
This is not the issue.
The issue is whether all those Israeli Jews who wanted to believe in the possibility of peace were TOLD what PLO/Fatah was when they were asked to support the Oslo "Peace" Process.
This exchange with Einat Wilf, who was foreign policy advisor to the architects of the Oslo Process, makes clear that the Israeli Jews were not informed that PLO/Fatah descends from the German Nazi Final Solution and that PLO/Fatah was the key player in the creation of jihadi Iran, which means to repeat the Final Solution in Israel.
Indeed, most Israelis, and most Jews around the world, are still in ignorance of these facts, and they have been paying for this ignorance with their lives.
So, why didn't the bosses inform the Israelis what PLO/Fatah is and has always been: a Nazi machine to exterminate the Jews?
Thank you for your reply! I've been following your work excavating the evidence of Husseini's influence on the Final Solution, and I feel it like a gut-punch. But I have to question your point about the "management of reality," the manipulation of Israeli public opinion, because Fatah and the PLO were already universally dreaded in Israel well before the Oslo accords— which was why the accords were so bizarre, so fantasy-like. I get how they look so staged. And they were deliberately staged. To make people believe, by a ritual. It's as if it was proposed that if you only believed harder, like believing in fairies (the Tinkerbell effect?), then it could become possible.
I think that Wilf is being honest about her experience, and that she is accurate about what the Israeli public knew of the PLO. I also tend to agree with her that the 1990's were a strange era in which unexpected things happened, and, well, Israelis are both cynical and hopeful, and perhaps that is one of the best things about them. (I lived there 1970-72 when I was a child.) I also think she's showing the limits of her capacity to question when she rejects out of hand that there might be something more going on.
Really, isn't there always something *more* going on? We are, after all, human.
I think you're doing important work to expose the common root between Nazism and Palestinianism. It needs to be more widely recognized.
I think that there is a huge psychic value when people can place the Negative in some other group of people, or an idea, or a belief. This is the engine that drives antisemitism and other irrational hatreds. To call it "mass formation psychosis" doesn't reveal the immense psychological function of having a bugaboo, and knowing exactly where and what it is. Yes, it is like falling into a dream.
You need to examine the logic of what you wrote, Diana. I understand it is difficult to imagine that Israeli bosses have been committing treason. But the argument must be considered.
Think about it this way: Do you really think you would have ever needed little ol' me to inform you about the German Nazi origins of PLO/Fatah if, at the time of the Oslo Accords, the Israeli bosses who signed them had told the Israeli public, and world audiences, that PLO/Fatah had been created by Hajj Amin al Husseini, the German Nazi butcher of the European Jews?
Don't you think it would have been an international scandal?
You present a very interesting premise, but I see other ways to explain the conduct of Rabin and Peres, who I consider must bear the greatest responsibility for Oslo. Is it your point that they were ignorant about the intentions of PLO/Fatah? Rabin and Peres dedicated their lives to Israel. To persuade me that they are in fact evil traitors I would need to see strong evidence— not just in actions, which can have multiple causes and interpretations, but evidence in their own unambiguous words, or at minimum I'd want testimony from direct, reliable witnesses— that Rabin and Peres knowingly and purposefully chose to expose the Jewish population of Israel to more bloodshed and persecution.
To be sure, there WERE lots of people who called them traitors for trying to come to an agreement with the PLO! People who saw clearly that this was a mistake.
But there's a big difference between a mistake and an intentional betrayal. Human beings make deadly mistakes all the time.
You know, I read somewhere that Ariel Sharon genuinely thought that by vacating Gaza and letting Palestinians run their own affairs, then vile organizations like Hamas would be reformed because they'd have to be concerned with things like filling potholes. Did anyone ever think Sharon was a liberal? How could he believe such a thing? I think my dichotomy of left/right still leaves us with strange acts that make us think that we are being manipulated. My background is in philosophy, and I know that there are seasons of ideas, and very bad ideas, and that people cooperate in being manipulated. Is it all an antisemitic conspiracy... or garden-variety antisemitism? I'm wondering.
Now having suffered through a second listen of this debate, I find Einat Wilf even more obnoxious than I did the first time.
She’s aggressively self-regarding, likes to hear herself talk, is full of wishful-thinking excuses for the Oslo, etc ‘empirical’ experiments, and got nasty when her debater did not bend to her viewpoint.
She condescended throughout the entire interview, endlessly complaining that the debate was exhausting her because her debater remained unconvinced by her expositions.
My response to her would be, “I don’t accept your historical outline, your explanations, excuses, so we don’t agree.
Too bad, so sad.”
I react to this debate as someone who remembers Oslo and the jubilation surrounding it. My demographics have a bearing: Jewish, secular, female, grew up in a New York City leftist community, older than both debaters (well, not combined).
Einat was uncomfortably and unnecessarily combative for me, but I do concur with her on one point: to speak in terms of "Jewish bosses," "treason," "told/didn't tell" is barking up the wrong tree, and I would add, is the wrong cultural model for the Jewish/Israeli community (there's generally no ring-kissing type stuff... and the only Jews who cry "I was lied too!" are truth-hating anti-Zionist Jews like Seth Rogen). Moreover, it seems to me the Jewish bosses were drilling a hole in the life boat that they too occupied. Realizing this--realizing also, for example, that the director of Yad Vashem openly opposes displaying the photo of Haj Amin al Husseini's meeting with Hitler because it would portray Palestinians badly--is I believe a signal that psychology is not a side issue, but is integral and central in any analysis of Israeli political decisions.
I remember doing many eye rolls in the 90s seeing the excitement about Oslo, and this was before I knew any history whatsoever and still thought of myself as a leftist. After all, just seeing Arafat shaking hands wearing keffiyah and military jacket told you all you needed to know. Yet for Einat, who knew far more history than I did, arguments like the Berlin wall falling and the-world-is-looking-up apparently could override the obvious.
I need to agree with Diana Brewster's comment that much to do with left/right is going on. Einat says she's still "very much a leftie." Yet her more right-wing colleagues called Oslo correctly; leftists got it wrong. So why no reflection here? I see the still ongoing problem and the true divide as horizontal (left vs right), not vertical (bosses vs masses). If there are any "treasonous, reality-snuffing bosses," maybe it's the bosses in some people's heads. Moreover, since when have facts--even hard facts like "the PLO are Nazis!"--been motivational? I heard a Queer for Palestine say that yes, they know Islamists kill gays, but still....
It's unfortunate that the debate got harsh, because the importance of making decisions based on good information--regardless of why one thinks this info doesn't get through--should be an easy enough point to agree upon.
Think about it: who can, and is willing, and capable of digesting, that they are so radically, and passionately, and systematically, and immutably hated? There is a natural inhibition to doing that. You—sanely—tell yourself to stop, else you are going to go nuts! It just doesn’t make sense. The Jew is Not an antisemite in this precise deeply irrational sense.
Francisco, this was an excellent conversation. I much appreciate your work and the information you divulge. However, I agree with Einat. Beyond the discussion of the facts, you must accept that there is also empirical psychological reality. This is another way of saying what she was trying to convey to you. Think about it: Innumerable times we attempt to confront people with realities they refuse to accept or simply cannot digest. This may go on for years. So, it is perfectly feasible that Israelis, and Jews throughout the world, and any number of political actors, might have known and understood the information you present. And, even so, they might wish to convince themselves, or simply not be willing to be unconvinced, that things could change. Especially when everything else in the world was changing. You must understand that for many— and particularly for Jews—it is hard to believe that Arabs/ muslims/ Palestinians would be so uniquely, monolithically and stubbornly convinced of their position, and that they would maintain it regardless, and indefinitely, for decades to come. You yourself have spoken about projection. There is no reason why Israel’s, and Jews, and all kinds of political actors, would not be blinded by their own wish and project onto the Palestinians their own willingness to shift their view. This may be naive, and, again, a projection— but it is one that Jews have been “guilty” of for millennia.
You comment excuses, but does not justify, the Oslo Accord’s authors, supporters, shills.
imo.
Francisco, I much appreciate your response. I have read your book on Al Husseini and learned much from it. I think you are missing the obvious. Literally, the dimension of the obvious: that which is so taken for granted that it goes un-noted and only becomes apparent at a remove, perhaps retrospectively or being pointed out by a third party. I do not think this may be dismissed or separated as “psychology”. An example would be Germany’s reoccupation of the Rhineland in 1936. This seemed a minor move and was overlooked by France and Britain even when Hitler’s program was explicit. Everyone knew about it. No one thought it needed to be explained. It was obvious. This is a good parallel to what we are discussing. Later it proved crucial, boosting Hitler’s confidence and enabling World War II invasions. Historians now see it as a pivotal moment that might have changed history.
My questions to Einat Wilf had nothing to do with the psychology of Israelis. That is certainly an interesting topic. And no doubt it must be considered when producing a full explanation of why the Oslo "Peace" Process happened. But that was not the issue at stake in my questions (though she kept going to it in her non-answers).
My question to her was this: Why didn't Israeli bosses inform the Israelis citizens that they were bringing into militarily strategic territory of the Jewish State an organization, PLO/Fatah (aka "Palestinian Authority"), created by the Nazi butcher of the European Jews, Hajj Amin al Husseini? Seems relevant, no? Something for Israeli citizens, whose lives this will impact, to consider.
My other question to her was this: Why didn't Israeli bosses inform the Israelis citizens that they were bringing into militarily strategic territory of the Jewish State an organization--the same one, PLO/Fatah (aka "Palestinian Authority")--that had played the key role in the creation of jihadi Iran, whose bosses openly announce that they mean to repeat the Final Solution in Israel?
She never answered these questions.
She was foreign policy advisor to Shimon Peres and Yossi Beilin, architects of Oslo, and she never explained why it is reasonable to keep this key information from the Israelis when asking them to accept PLO/Fatah in militarily strategic territory of the State that was supposed to protect them from Final Solutions.
Her problem with “the timeline” is that the Arab/Muslim world is on its own “timeline” of eternity coming from Muhammad’s conquest of Mecca to the Mahdi’s “inevitable” conquest of the rest of the planet. Our secularized leadership thinks in terms of cost/benefit balance, rational self-interest and some empathy towards the non-western world as fellow partners in humanity. Their opposite viewpoint is salvation versus damnation, the value of jihad and martyrdom, and total rejection of the non-Muslim world as infidel dogs unworthy of any respect. But also on the Western side there may also be a utilitarian inclination to view the State of Israel as the most untidy complication in an envisioned global governance in which neither Jewish nor Muslim aspirations are really valued but each is exploited only to serve the globalists’ agendas.
Thanks for the enlightenment about Husseini. With that in mind one wonders about Trumps suck-up to the Arabs and Syria. Now Israel is totally surrounded by those who wish Israel off the map. Trump is selling them the weaponry. Is he abetting the next Holocaust?
That is precisely our hypothesis. But it is not Trump alone that is doing this. It has always been the policy of all US presidents.
https://franciscogilwhite.substack.com/p/part-1-are-us-bosses-managing-next-holocaust?utm_source=publication-search
I do love Einat Wilf. She's a clear and forceful speaker who does excellent research. This was a striking conversation because she was instantly dismissive of Francisco's sense that something devious and anti-semitic lies behind these years of disastrous policies, whereas Einat, from her perspective of being a witness and participant in shaping Oslo, believes that Israelis were repeatedly willing to "give peace a chance" by negotiating (really?) with people who just want to kill them. You're the expert in this sort of thing, but isn't there a body of research that shows a distinct difference between people who trend left vs. right? I've heard that people who gravitate to the left believe that people are fundamentally good, given the right opportunities and conditions. People who gravitate to the right believe that people are fundamentally responsible moral agents, and while someone who has evil ideas might change their mind (God willing) they are not going to be a credible party to a negotiation. For the right, the distinction of good/evil is crucial. For the left, it's as if morality is a fuzzy continuum of qualities. While watching this video I had the feeling that I was seeing a contest of views between a left-leaning person and a right-leaning person.
There exists no "middle ground" in such a dichotomy. One is either a responsible moral agent who can be held accountable for one's actions, or one is a sort of moral infant who needs a more nurturing environment, and "privilege", like a plant. There's a lot of this right/left theme showing up these days.
FYI:
I’m new and having huge problems with the edit function of this message board.
My message below is a mess. I hadn’t gotten my thoughts together and suddenly it was posted! I had only begun to write it. Suddenly I see that it posted! Now I’m trying to edit it and I’m going nuts with that.
I do apologize for the mess below this sentence.
……….
How does Wilf do excellent research? She apparently missed the New York Times article that Francisco was trying to point out to her.
I’ll grant you she’s forceful. In fact, she’s rude. She dominated the conversation with her sense of conviction and self-importance.
She excuses herself too easily. She made nasty remarks about the person who was debating her, numerous times hitting below the belt, i.e. maybe her debater was not old enough to know what she knew.
She kept interjecting that Israelis weren’t born yesterday, that Israelis knew everything, you didn’t have to tell them anything because they knew it all already!
I found her a total put-off. I can’t imagine defending her on any level. Her arguments to me were all excuse-making and missing the central point that was being discussed, which was, if these things were well known by those that were pushing for the Oslo accords and pushing it forward politically, why, in fact, were they not more upfront about the dangers that would be involved, and if they didn’t know about these dangers, didn’t know the facts about Fatah, why not?
It doesn’t make sense that they didn’t know! That itself would be willful……and suspicious.
Hi r.e., thank you for the points you make.
You might like to read "The War of Return" which Wilf co-authored with Adi Schwartz. It's a well researched book that takes Westerners into the mindset of the Arabs and shows the deadly consequences. Yes, it was a hostile interview, but Francisco is a big boy and can handle himself. Either you think her point has merit, or you don't: That Israelis knew their enemy very well, but were mysteriously willing to attempt a land-for-peace negotiation once again. There were myriad pressures on Israel to make this deal, some malicious, some well-intended but ill-conceived. Francisco points to other pressures and manipulations to explain the Oslo Accords, including the Nazi roots of Palestinianism, but Wilf is adamantly refusing to consider this, as if all we need to know is what we already know about Oslo. Still, as an authority, I like Einat Wilf. I just don't accept authorities as the final answer when trying to explain the acts and intentions of human beings. It's not that we can't study ourselves and our fellow human beings, but life is an ongoing process of deepening insight. People get hung up on regarding themselves as authorities, and that can block research.
Wilf is in love with herself and her own viewpoints. She’s of no interest to me.
Thank you for your comment!
With all due respect, I believe you are missing the central issue in this debate, so allow me to clarify it, and hopefully you will reply.
The question is not whether the left believes that people are good or can change, whereas the right believes in good vs evil and prefers caution and mistrust to blind faith.
This is not the issue.
The issue is whether all those Israeli Jews who wanted to believe in the possibility of peace were TOLD what PLO/Fatah was when they were asked to support the Oslo "Peace" Process.
This exchange with Einat Wilf, who was foreign policy advisor to the architects of the Oslo Process, makes clear that the Israeli Jews were not informed that PLO/Fatah descends from the German Nazi Final Solution and that PLO/Fatah was the key player in the creation of jihadi Iran, which means to repeat the Final Solution in Israel.
https://franciscogilwhite.substack.com/p/the-oslo-debate-failed-hypothesis-or-treason-against-israelis
Indeed, most Israelis, and most Jews around the world, are still in ignorance of these facts, and they have been paying for this ignorance with their lives.
So, why didn't the bosses inform the Israelis what PLO/Fatah is and has always been: a Nazi machine to exterminate the Jews?
https://franciscogilwhite.substack.com/p/arab-palestinian-movement-and-nazi-genocide
https://franciscogilwhite.substack.com/p/us-forced-israel-to-cede-strategic-land-to-iran
Thank you for your reply! I've been following your work excavating the evidence of Husseini's influence on the Final Solution, and I feel it like a gut-punch. But I have to question your point about the "management of reality," the manipulation of Israeli public opinion, because Fatah and the PLO were already universally dreaded in Israel well before the Oslo accords— which was why the accords were so bizarre, so fantasy-like. I get how they look so staged. And they were deliberately staged. To make people believe, by a ritual. It's as if it was proposed that if you only believed harder, like believing in fairies (the Tinkerbell effect?), then it could become possible.
I think that Wilf is being honest about her experience, and that she is accurate about what the Israeli public knew of the PLO. I also tend to agree with her that the 1990's were a strange era in which unexpected things happened, and, well, Israelis are both cynical and hopeful, and perhaps that is one of the best things about them. (I lived there 1970-72 when I was a child.) I also think she's showing the limits of her capacity to question when she rejects out of hand that there might be something more going on.
Really, isn't there always something *more* going on? We are, after all, human.
I think you're doing important work to expose the common root between Nazism and Palestinianism. It needs to be more widely recognized.
I think that there is a huge psychic value when people can place the Negative in some other group of people, or an idea, or a belief. This is the engine that drives antisemitism and other irrational hatreds. To call it "mass formation psychosis" doesn't reveal the immense psychological function of having a bugaboo, and knowing exactly where and what it is. Yes, it is like falling into a dream.
You need to examine the logic of what you wrote, Diana. I understand it is difficult to imagine that Israeli bosses have been committing treason. But the argument must be considered.
Think about it this way: Do you really think you would have ever needed little ol' me to inform you about the German Nazi origins of PLO/Fatah if, at the time of the Oslo Accords, the Israeli bosses who signed them had told the Israeli public, and world audiences, that PLO/Fatah had been created by Hajj Amin al Husseini, the German Nazi butcher of the European Jews?
Don't you think it would have been an international scandal?
You present a very interesting premise, but I see other ways to explain the conduct of Rabin and Peres, who I consider must bear the greatest responsibility for Oslo. Is it your point that they were ignorant about the intentions of PLO/Fatah? Rabin and Peres dedicated their lives to Israel. To persuade me that they are in fact evil traitors I would need to see strong evidence— not just in actions, which can have multiple causes and interpretations, but evidence in their own unambiguous words, or at minimum I'd want testimony from direct, reliable witnesses— that Rabin and Peres knowingly and purposefully chose to expose the Jewish population of Israel to more bloodshed and persecution.
To be sure, there WERE lots of people who called them traitors for trying to come to an agreement with the PLO! People who saw clearly that this was a mistake.
But there's a big difference between a mistake and an intentional betrayal. Human beings make deadly mistakes all the time.
Okay, so the case that this was not treason would have to hinge on whether they knew what PLO/Fatah was. Don't you agree?
Because if they knew, and yet they didn't tell the Israelis (they didn't), then it's treason.
You know, I read somewhere that Ariel Sharon genuinely thought that by vacating Gaza and letting Palestinians run their own affairs, then vile organizations like Hamas would be reformed because they'd have to be concerned with things like filling potholes. Did anyone ever think Sharon was a liberal? How could he believe such a thing? I think my dichotomy of left/right still leaves us with strange acts that make us think that we are being manipulated. My background is in philosophy, and I know that there are seasons of ideas, and very bad ideas, and that people cooperate in being manipulated. Is it all an antisemitic conspiracy... or garden-variety antisemitism? I'm wondering.
No comment on what Ariel Sharon THOUGHT can be anything other than pure speculation. We don't have access to a person's thoughts.
Thanks for starting the YouTube channel.
You're welcome!
:)