69 million page views

Contending for an Outcome that Cannot Be Predetermined Away from Peace Through Victory

Reader comment on item: The Way to Peace
in response to reader comment: Peace - not Victory - in a Globalizing World & Globalism

Submitted by M Tovey (United States), Jan 18, 2022 at 19:58

The contentiousness of this forum in debating how the Middle East might ever find peace in any of the dialogue (and contentious diatribes) as every one and their sons have competing opinions over how Israel should (or should not) be allowed to seek their own peaceful path to existence within the global consciousness of nation states seeking similar paths to harmonious existence in the world communities without interference by contraindicative powers of ambitions of empire by jealous states with open rhetoric of malicious ambitions. Dr. Pipes has spent an entire career in independent studies and successor interests inherited from how history affected his heritage and much of that is well documented in this forum. That he has his detractors cannot be examined without determining histories animosities towards the thinking recalled by Reader Robert as he reminds others as well as this observer that the global society is filled to the edge between tolerance and intolerance with ancient and modern hatreds fueled by eons of humanities against humanity; and where, oh where, did that get its start?
This commentary is entitled with a premise that is misleading in its outright mislabeling – the outcome this may lead to is easily determinable: destruction is the outcome for one very real reason; just as Reader Robert has outlined for us, there are powers that be that cannot function except in extreme hatred for that has been learned from the very beginning and peace does not enter into that realm of thought except as a ultimate resort when all other options are exhausted. In modern history, think of the ultimate sacrifice that the Japanese people were initially compelled to ponder, when, before the detonations of a weapon so terrible changed their countenance, they were told to prepare the ultimate sacrifice to their emperor for protection of their way of life. Who, in a proper respect for life, even contemplates that?
Reader Robert implores Dr. Pipes to make a distinguished difference of victory as achieved through military strength versus achieving peace through some negotiating tactics that might be premised upon some non-competitive exchange of values in preserving life through pursuits of peaceful activities, somehow overlooking that basic values that come from opposing views of life from a Occidental perspective versus Oriental models are actually at the base of ancient contentions that are, for the most part, irreconcilable. There are victories that are achievable non-militarily, such as found in sports (think 'Olympics'); but even that was compromised in modern terms (1936 games in Berlin, 1984 in Los Angeles, 2024(?)) and until those are made impervious to envies of empire, they cannot be made examples of achieving peace.
The same underlying contentions are manifest in the way that global ambitions are now circling around the attempt of imposing similar ambitions of empire (Iranian Islamic Regime seeking ummah; Turkiye, Russia -think control of gas reserves; Afghanistan and their manipulating harvests of addictive cash crops; Chinese Communists -so-called- desiring to control all capitalism in commerce); is there not one of these, or in their erstwhile alliances, that do not desire to bring about some semblance of a one world order; and all of them have designs through the global assembly of nations to take over the Middle East?
Ultimately, while peace may be sought, it will require a victory. From this perspective, Israel is promised the victory; the others will ultimately pay the price for not realizing that outcome.


Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".

Follow Daniel Pipes

Facebook   Twitter   RSS   Join Mailing List

All materials by Daniel Pipes on this site: © 1968-2024 Daniel Pipes. daniel.pipes@gmail.com and @DanielPipes

Support Daniel Pipes' work with a tax-deductible donation to the Middle East Forum.Daniel J. Pipes

(The MEF is a publicly supported, nonprofit organization under section 501(c)3 of the Internal Revenue Code.

Contributions are tax deductible to the full extent allowed by law. Tax-ID 23-774-9796, approved Apr. 27, 1998.

For more information, view our IRS letter of determination.)