![]() |
MideastWeb Middle East Web Log |
log | archives | middle east | maps | history | documents | countries | books | encyclopedia | culture | dialogue | links | timeline | donations |
Search: |
|
|
Iraq: State of denial, again?04/25/2009 As the situation in Iraq disintegrated following the U.S. invasion, Bush administration officials famously remained in a "state of denial," insisting that everything was just fine as hundreds of people were bombed into oblivion, aid money disappeared and Iraq sank farther and farther into the mire. For a brief time, it looked as though the "surge" had really put an end to violence. But a series of horrendous bombings in recent months, activity that seems to increase systematically as U.S. forces are withdrawn, should have served as a wakeup call. In 2008 there were at least 115 suicide bombings (not every bombing is a suicide bombing and Wikipedia has not counted all the bombings) and just about every one was reported with a reminder that the situation is much better than it was previously. But you don't need a lot of bombings to terrorize a population and destabilize a situation, especially if they are concentrated in a few key urban areas. At least 11 of the 2008 suicide bombings occurred in December. If you think the most recent bombings on April 23 and 24 are isolated instances, think again. A perspicacious analyst noted that April was a "bad month" even before those bombings, and raised the specter of Iraqi civil war. But March, February and January were not such good months either. Here is a partial listing of Iraq bombings in 2009:
I do not guarantee that I found every single bombing, or even all fatal ones. Hopefully, you got the idea. If Iraq was your country, would think it was "pacified?" Do you see a justification for U.S. withdrawal? Just about every day there seem to be a few IEDs going off somewhere in Iraq. Almost every bombing report is accompanied by a fixed refrain like this:
"The situation is under control. Nothing can go wrong," Stop and think. Iraq is a majority Shiite country, ruled by a majority Shiite government, with a majority Shiite army. Isn't it strange that so many Shiite civilians and particularly pilgrims get killed. Isn't it strange that so many bombings are done in mosques, on Friday? What organization would deliberately outrage Muslim public opinion by killing civilians worshiping in mosques? U.S. Secretary of state Hillary Clinton explained away the last few bombings as follows:
One wonders what Hillary Clinton thinks the right direction might be. Her American audience may not know what is happening in Iraq, but Iraqis do, and the Mukhabarat of every country in the Middle East knows as well. Later, Clinton more realistically "reassured" Iraqis that America would not abandon them. After all, the United States didn't abandon South Vietnam, did it? The same AP article told us once again:
Over the past few months there were dozens of incidents, as we saw, in which one or two people were killed or wounded. These little murders do not count, and do not trigger any military investigative task forces. Of course, the little murders are the parents of the big ones. Each "success" helps to recruit new enthusiasts. And each bombing of one sect, triggers slightly more than one retaliation bombing attempts, The effect is something like a combination of a fusion and fission reaction. The hotter it gets, the hotter it can get, and each incident tends to fuel another and another. That's the wonderful about starting a civil war in someone else's country. It costs only a few dollars in explosives and none of your own soldiers. Iran and Syria, the main players in Iraq know this quite well. Lebanon was just practice for Iraq. Iraq will be practice for Saudi Arabia or Turkey. If you take the moderator rods out of the reactor, which the US is in the process of doing now, then each incident may trigger two or even three retaliatory incidents, and you have a fine bit of mayhem going. Every batch of U.S. soldiers that leaves Iraq is going to be marked by an increase in violence, because the Iraqi security forces are not ready to take over security, and at this rate they never well be, and because Iran and others are going to make sure that accidents keep happening. It seems rather convenient that each outrage against Shiites, and particularly Iranians, helps to lay the groundwork for the self-righteous and outraged intervention of Iran in Iraq. It is not entirely farfetched to see an Iranian hand in these provocations. There is not the slightest sign that the security situation is really under control. If it were, there would be a growing number of attacks that were prevented and suicide bombers caught before they exploded, as happened in Israel. In Iraq, almost every bomber aiming for paradise gets to his or her destination. Iraq is not on the right road. If you travel on the wrong road for a long time, you get to a very wrong place, and that is where Iraq is going. Iran, naturally, blames Israel and the United States for the violence. Some of the latest incidents involved Tunisians. Who let them in to Iraq? Was it the United States or Israel? Everything, however, is relative. Compared to Afghanistan/Pakistan, the situation in Iraq doesn't look nearly half as bad. In Lebanon, an upcoming election is probably going to propel Hezbollah into national political leadership. An Islamic Republic will be established on the doorstep of Turkey and Israel. That cannot be good for the United States. The United States doesn't even show signs it is aware that there is a problem in Lebanon. Compared to Pakistan, Lebanon is small potatoes. If America wants to have a position left in the Middle East, it will have to make some hard decisions. Fine statements are not enough. Middle East states and operators are all either wolves or lambs. The lambs must find a sheep dog to protect them if the old one has lost his teeth and has let the wolves into the fold. The wolves are not going to become vegetarians. Ami Isseroff
Original text copyright by the author and MidEastWeb for Coexistence, RA. Posted at MidEastWeb Middle East Web Log at http://www.mideastweb.org/log/archives/00000758.htm where your intelligent and constructive comments are welcome. Distributed by MEW Newslist. Subscribe by e-mail to mew-subscribe@yahoogroups.com. Please forward by email with this notice and link to and cite this article. Other uses by permission. |
|
Replies: 24 comments Replying to a few quotes, just in case anyone besides myself actually still reads here. The place seems empty of traffic. Perhaps your tone and style has damaged the reputation of this site.
(Quote) Justification? You must be kidding! The US invasion of Iraq was not justified, so I can't imagine why the withdrawal should be. For that matter, I wonder why the author seems so interested in pointing out reasons that might prevent a US withdrawal. Sooo... *why are* you so interested in maintaining the US occupation of Iraq? Is it possible that perhaps you hate to see a good occupation go to waste? What I'm trying to point out is that we can't know if the bombings are intended to (A) drive us out, (B) divide those whom we wish to bring together, or (C) provide a justification for US forces to stay in Iraq forever -like former Vice President **** Cheney intended to do. We really can't see that kind of answer clearly until some years after the last American soldiers and other operatives have left. We will know when the last soldier leaves, but we may never know when the last American covert operatives have left.
(Quote) An interesting question. Also a very leading question. I would say that America finally did what had to be done in Vietnam. The American public had become horrified by scenes of what US troops were doing in their efforts to implement our government's "war policy". We withdrew, and eventually things got better. -And in time most of the American public forgot the terrible things that happened. Kind of reminds me of the terrible things Israeli troops have done to maintain Israel's on-going occupation of the Palestinian Territories. Consider the recent Israeli military operations in Gaza. I wonder if the USA ever had numbers approaching a 100 to 1 kill ratio in Vietnam? There is one thing you didn't mention that could improve developments in the region. If the USA were to focus on establishment of a Palestinian state, the Mideast Conflict could be ended. This would remove one of the strongest motivators of the Islamic fundamentalist movement that continues to destabilize the region. Even better, if Israel were to agree to the Arab Peace Initiative of 2002, it could result in normalized relations with all Arab countries of the region. Thus Israel could become party to a coalition of mideast states if a *real* reason to confront Iran becomes apparent in the future. So regarding long-term security and regional stability, what's good for Palestinians might also be the best thing for Israel. And what is this thing? It's called two states living side by side in peace. Cheers. Posted by Kiev500 @ 04/26/2009 08:51 AM CST I feel the need to defend the author as I'm a new reader of this site and am impressed by his fair but still Zionist editorial stance. It seems that by simply pointing out the looming civil war in Iraq, one can get smeared as a neo-con now. "I would say that America finally did what had to be done in Vietnam. We withdrew, and eventually things got better." By better, you mean a communist takeover of the south. Regardless of your political views though, radical Islam is not the same as communism. Another Islamic state in the Middle East would be disastrous for the region and the world. I don't have any easy answers for the situation but ignoring it and pretending that violence in Iraq comes only from an American presence there is ignorant. "I wonder if the USA ever had numbers approaching a 100 to 1 kill ratio in Vietnam?" I always like it when anti-Zionists show their true beliefs through comments like this. Normally, the trick is to complain of the high Palestinian casualties (while intentionally mixing civilian and combatant numbers) in the war; not to note the casualty ratio. By doing this you've explicitly said that the issue wasn't Palestian loss of life but that not enough Israeli's were killed for your satisfaction. If you think this sounds crazy, compare the anti-Zionist reaction to the 2006 Lebanon War to Cast Lead. And typically you ended it with the "easy solution". "Why doesn't Israel just withdrawal from the WB?" Evidently, you support Syria's land grab around the Sea of Galilee (Arab Peace Initiative - see the difference in Palestine's international borders to the June 5 1967 green line). Worse yet is al-Assad's publicly made comments stating that there would be no "real" peace between Sryia and Israel unless Israel accepted all Syrian Palestinian refugees. Until this was done there would only be "peace on paper". It's worth noting that this is also the only country that actually matters in the Arab Peace Initiative (peace treaties already exist with Egypt and Jordan). I could go into the Clinton Parameters in 2000 and Barak's acceptance of them (which would have resulted in a very close map to Arab initiative) but you'll probably just deny that it happened like all anti-Zionists. Posted by Brendan @ 05/05/2009 07:40 PM CST Hummmm... words spoken honestly in the pursuit of truth and justice need no defense. I support the author's right to a Zionist perspective. I understand that the term describes a movement to re-establish and support a Jewish homeland in Israel. The problem is Zionism has been co-opted to support criminal organizations that have taken land beyond the green line in violation of international law.
(Quote) Neo Con? Whoever said that? I didn't. My issue centers on *why* the author is pointing out the problems in Iraq now. Consider that he was not pointing out how violence supposedly justifies extending the occupation during the last 8 years under President Bush -when there was no real risk of America ending the occupation. The author apparently thinks a US withdrawal from Iraq (based on the legally binding status-of-forces agreement) would be a bad thing. But bad for whom? Bad for the USA? I don't think so. Bad for Iraqis? I think that would be for Iraqi citizens to decide, and their votes indicate a clear majority of them want us out. The only other interested party is Israel, and while they may have an interest, they have no legal position to make demands.
(Quote) I don't think you have a litigimate basis for the latter statement. It sounds like something the UN and the Iraqi people should be allowed to decide.
(Quote) Let's reconsider Vietnam. Within a reasonable time after the US troops withdrew, the violence ended. That is not ignorance, it's history. Of course, there was some hyper-elevated military activity and regrettably some significant political purges subsequent to the US withdrawal, but this would be unavoidable regardless of the timing of withdrawal. It is an unavoidable consequence of going in, not one of pulling out.
***
(Quote) I would be happy for you to sort the total number of casualties into categories for civilians and combatants. For the time being, perhaps Israel's own numbers would suffice? The IDF says 295 Palestinian non-combatants died during the operation - 89 of them under the age of 16, and 49 of them women. The IDF determined it was unclear whether the remaining 162 from that group -men of combat age who died but were not attributed to any group -were militants or civilians. The number of Israeli non-combatants who died? Three. Can you do basic math? 295 divided by 3 is 98.3333. That is almost perfectly a 100 to one ratio. It is off by only 1.7 percent. As you can see, I don't make up numbers off the top of my head. "By doing this you've explicitly said that the issue wasn't Palestian loss of life but that not enough Israeli's were killed for your satisfaction." No, I am not. In fact, I'll invite you to please demonstrate where I explicitly said not enough Israelis died. I understand the Jewish perspective as "perpetual victim" might incline one to frame the issue predominently in terms of Israeli deaths, but I meant EXACTLY what I said: The number of Palestinian deaths was excessive. By the way, this is what most other world authorities said also.
(Quote) Apparently abiding international law -as it applies to occupied territory -is too much to ask of Israel. Claiming that militants who have launched rockets from Gaza are criminals is not unreasonable. These are in fact criminal acts. However, it is disingenuous for Israel to make such claims while it continues to advance it's own criminal settlement policy in the WB and East Jerusalem.
(Quote) I'll be happy to look at any reference material or maps you wish to cite. Please provide documentation with appropriate links to reputable web sites. Until I have seen that, please don't tell me what position I hold on the issue. Attempting to do so before I have seen your reference is disingenuous.
(Quote) I would suggest Assad meant that all Palestinian refugees in Syria would return to the newly created Palestinian state. Since Israel currently controls all entry into the West Bank, this is not an unreasonable statement.
(Quote) Interesting. When you say "matters" to whom do you mean? You apparently discount Saudi Arabia and it's influence. Here is a list of member states of the League Of Arab States, which supports the initiative:
The Hashemite Kingdom Of Jordan
(Quote) Oh, not at all. It happened. Indeed, it would have produced a map showing two states with borders similar to (although not the same as) the Arab Peace Initiative. There was only one real issue missing. -Control of water resources. Israel would retain control of water resources in the West Bank, and that would have been unacceptable. -Remember that control of water resources constitutes de-facto control of the population. An issue like this is easy to overlook for the news and the general public, but impossible to ignore for municipal authorities who would be responsible for basic services. By the way, where did you hear that I was anti-Zionist? Cheers. Posted by Kiev500 @ 05/06/2009 05:07 AM CST I should first say that I'm using the colloquial definition of Zionist, rather than "one who supports the idea of a Jewish state". Basically, I mean one who's sympathies for the current situation lie much more with the Palestinians than the Israelis. It's not just being against settlements as I am as well, but blaming the Israelis and all Israeli governments while ignoring Palestinian and Arab intransigence. It's a bit hypocritical for me to use the word like this because I've always wanted to separate criticism of Zionism (which should have been then and should still be now an inoffensive idea) from criticism of the State of Israel. I use it though because I can't think of any other word to use. "I'll invite you to please demonstrate where I explicitly said not enough Israelis died. I understand the Jewish perspective as "perpetual victim" might incline one to frame the issue predominently in terms of Israeli deaths, but I meant EXACTLY what I said: The number of Palestinian deaths was excessive. " You definitely implied by that comment that not enough Israelis were killed for your satisfaction. It's an entirely fair criticism and here's why... You COULD have pointed out that too many Palestinians were killed during Cast Lead and left it at that. It would have been an inoffensive comment and I would have left it alone. Instead you pointed out the discrepancy in civilian deaths on either side. Note that these civilian deaths were not the cause of the war and therefore you cannot claim that the war was disproportionate because of their deaths. Remember that you colored your remark with, "I wonder if the USA ever had numbers approaching a 100 to 1 kill ratio in Vietnam?". By this you are directly stating that the high Palestinian casualties were made worse by the fact that so few Israeli's died. I find it to be an offensive comment despite having no personal connection to Israel and I would expect that anyone personally affected by rocket inflicted casualties would be furious if they read that. "I'll be happy to look at any reference material or maps you wish to cite. Please provide documentation with appropriate links to reputable web sites. Until I have seen that, please don't tell me what position I hold on the issue. Attempting to do so before I have seen your reference is disingenuous. " Syria captured small amounts of land (east and north of the Sea of Galilee as well as on the Lebanese/Syrian/Israeli border) during the '48 war and held on to them during the armistice agreements. Syrian held Israeli territory (Israeli as it was inside the clearly demarcated Mandate of Palestine and allotted to Israel by the UN) became DMZs and it was these same DMZs that were the center of so much fighting in the 60s between Israel and Syria. None of this is the slightest bit controversial (see Benny Morris, 1948: The First Arab-Israeli War or any other book on the subject). After holding this territory "illegally" - as you would say - for 19 years, Israel captured it along with the entire Golan Heights in the Six Day War. Had peace have been achieved prior to the outbreak of war, this territory would have remained Syrian permanently and no one in the world would ever have raised a fit about international law. It's this same territory that was a significant factor in the derailment of Syria-Israel peace talks. This is from the initiative document: "Complete withdrawal from the occupied Arab territories, including the Syrian Golan Heights, to the 4 June 1967 line and the territories still occupied in southern Lebanon. " (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/monitoring/media_reports/1899395.stm) Notice that it's June 4th and not the international borders. Syria insisted on this. Also notice the outrageous suggestion (in a "peace plan" no less) that Israel still occupies a part of Lebanon. Not that it really matters as it would be given back along with the Golan Heights; it's still ridiculous though. Now consider how ridiculous it was for you to chastise Israel for its violations of international law while suggesting the Arab League violate it yourself. Not to mention that Syria's claims to that land are far weaker (they don't even currently control it) than Israel's claims to East Jerusalem or any of the other "ethnically cleansed" former settlements in the West Bank (Etzion Bloc, etc.). As you can probably tell, I don't think much of international law in this context. This is just one of the many valid complaints I could raise. Posted by Brendan @ 05/08/2009 12:18 AM CST
Part 2)
He DEFINITELY did not mean that because of the following reasons: 2)I took this from a website called "forced migration online" (http://www.forcedmigration.org/guides/fmo017/). It was the best I could do in short time. "Most Palestinian refugees fled to Syria in 1948 and came from northern Palestine, Safad, Haifa, Acre, Tiberias, and Nazareth." By right of return he meant that they'd return to Israel where most of them formerly lived. "Interesting. When you say "matters" to whom do you mean? " I mean matters as in militarily. Jordan and Egypt already have peace treaties and Syria is the only country that is currently making war on Israel via its proxy armies (Hamas, Hezbollah). I should have mentioned that Lebanon would also matter. ALSO, this is all ignoring the fact that Israel's principle enemy, Iran, would not make peace under these conditions. Now, peace with the Arab states would definitely make dealing with Iran easier, but you must admit that it's troubling that Iran has nothing to do with this deal (as well as Hamas). "Oh, not at all. It happened. Indeed, it would have produced a map showing two states with borders similar to (although not the same as) the Arab Peace Initiative. There was only one real issue missing. -Control of water resources. Israel would retain control of water resources in the West Bank, and that would have been unacceptable. " Well this is a new one. Arafat couldn't handle Jewish sovereignty over the Wailing Wall because it extends into the Muslim Quarter. This was just one of his many issues with the parameters which by all accounts, he had several. Water (if it was even a significant issue) was just one of many problems he had. None of this matters though because the Noam Chomsky/blame Israel for everything narrative claims that the Israelis have NEVER made a serious offer. It'd be ridiculous to assert that they got that close but couldn't complete the deal via water rights. Therefore, accepting the mainstream account of the parameters would be absolutely devastating to this narrative. This is why the usual tactic is to just ignore it or claim that the Israeli's also had objections to the parameters (see Normal Finkelstein vs. Shlomo Ben-Ami debate on Democracy Now). Posted by Brendan @ 05/08/2009 01:06 AM CST You never said where you heard I was anti-Zionist... This is getting kinda long, so I'll post in two parts also. Sorry...
Part 1 That's odd. You say you're a Zionist, but you're not like the definition of 'one who supports the idea of a Jewish state'. Rather, you say your "sympathies for the current situation lie much more with the Palestinians than the Israelis." I'm not exactly sure how a person can be Zionist without being one who supports a Jewish state. That sounds crazy. I have no problem with Zionism as it is officially defined. On the other hand, I do have a problem with those who use the term Zionism as a blanket defense to cover for criminals who take land beyond the Green Line and build illegal settlements there. "It's not just being against settlements as I am as well, but blaming the Israelis and all Israeli governments while ignoring Palestinian and Arab intransigence." This is another sentence I am having some trouble with. I'll try to parse it. You are against settlements. You are also against the practice of blaming the Israelis and all Israeli governments while ignoring Palestinian and Arab intransigence. If I have this correct, then I agree. There has been a lot of intransigence on the Arab / Palestinian side. One example of Palestinian intransigence is the "right of return" issue. I cannot imagine any solution where those refugees and their descendents who left what is now Israeli territory during the conflict would be allowed to return to the Israeli territory. This issue must be resolved by a return to a newly created Palestinian state. Generally, I tend to speak more on issues related to Israel, Israeli policies, and Israeli actions because I expect better of Israel. I hold Israel to a higher standard. Between the two sides, Israel is by far the more powerful and better funded party. As the more powerful party, Israel bears a larger burden of expectation as it relates to behavior. As I said before, both sides have committed criminal acts. Israel is directly able to hold the Palestinian side to account for it's crimes. One example of this is Israel's almost continuous military activity. Another is the de-facto collective punishment of Palestinians implemented through Israeli municipal policies related to denial of building permits, destruction of Palestinian buildings, the building of Jewish settlements, obstruction of Palestinian freedom of travel, etc. Clearly Israel is capable of holding Palestinians to account as it sees fit. However, in the absence of a willing and determined USA and UN, no authority acts to hold Israel to account for it's crimes. As long as this remains the case, Israel will never reform itself because there are no significant consequences for criminal acts. In other words, crime pays.
* "You definitely implied by that comment that not enough Israelis were killed for your satisfaction." I never made any remark related to my 'satisfaction' or lack thereof. "...It's an entirely fair criticism and here's why: You COULD have pointed out that too many Palestinians were killed during Cast Lead and left it at that. It would have been an inoffensive comment and I would have left it alone. Instead you pointed out the discrepancy in civilian deaths on either side. Note that these civilian deaths were not the cause of the war and therefore you cannot claim that the war was disproportionate because of their deaths." I chose one group. I did this because you accused me of intentionally mixing together casualty figures for combatants and non-combatants. Of course, you made this accusation before you even knew what was going on. By choosing one group and applying simple math, I demonstrated the validity of my initial observation. By the way, do you wish to look at numbers for the other group? IDF figures indicate 1,166 total Palestinian casualties, of which Israel classifies 709 as "Hamas terror operatives". The number of Israeli combat casualties in operation Cast Lead which are attributable to engagement of militant fire? Six (See reference *). 709 divided by 6 is 118.1666. Thus the casualty ratio is approximately 100 to one regardless of whether you choose to use the civilian figures or the combat casualty figures. -Or for that matter, even the combined figures. It makes no significant difference either way.
* Reference link:
Repeating a bit of your last commentary: This statement makes absolutely no sense. In fact, NONE of the casualties suffered *during* Operation Cast Lead can be classified as the *cause* of the war. It is a time paradox. Obviously a cause must preceed an event, and casualties which occur during an event cannot have preceeded it. Please try to adhere to logic when you analyze facts. "Remember that you colored your remark with, "I wonder if the USA ever had numbers approaching a 100 to 1 kill ratio in Vietnam?". By this you are directly stating that the high Palestinian casualties were made worse by the fact that so few Israeli's died." Ummm.... no. A direct statement would be ahhh... -what is the word... DIRECT! It would be EXPLICIT! This is not even implication or inference. It is factual data. I knew the casualty numbers for Cast Lead, and I wondered if they were -or were not- similar to Vietnam. You seem to be offended that the comparison was made, even though it is quite valid to compare one war to other wars. To directly address your apparently warped perception of reality, I would not be pleased by an increase in the number of Israeli casualties. I do not think one casualty number has a "magnifying effect" on the other. They are just numbers. They are data. I would be pleased by a REDUCTION in the overall number of casualties. Of course, the past can't be changed, it can only be learned from. I would be pleased if there was a clear and difinitive argument that Cast Lead made a difference that brings the end of the mideast conflict closer. I don't think it did, and I am unaware that anyone has attempted to suggest it has. In fact, most analysts believe it made more enemies than it eliminated because it exposed many younger Palestinian civilians (who might not otherwise be familiarized) to the oppressive hand of Israels military forces.
Picking up your commentary where it left off: Ok, it appears to me that you have "invented" a context, -in which you choose to view the casualty figures -that allows you to be offended. Congratulations. We call this circular logic, or perhaps "Jewish" logic... Remember, this discussion has so far been constrained to casualties which ocurred *during* operation Cast Lead. Of those, there were four which are attributable to rocket fire. You seem to be blurring the lines in order to reference all Israeli casualties (civilian and combat) incurred from rocket fire at any time. As you previously argued, this would be "intentionally mixing the numbers", as well as mixing the dates. End part 1 Posted by Kiev500 @ 05/08/2009 12:12 PM CST
Begin part 2: "Syria captured small amounts of land (east and north of the Sea of Galilee as well as on the Lebanese/Syrian/Israeli border) during the '48 war and held on to them during the armistice agreements. Syrian held Israeli territory (Israeli as it was inside the clearly demarcated Mandate of Palestine and allotted to Israel by the UN) became DMZs and it was these same DMZs that were the center of so much fighting in the 60s between Israel and Syria." In the interest of consistent logic, we should compare apples to apples. The British Mandate which mentioned among other things "the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people" was superceeded by the UN resolution that created an Israeli state in part of Palestine. By the way, please take note that the Mandate did NOT say ~"establishment in *all* of Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people". In light of this, the state of Israel is a home for the Jewish people, and it is in Palestine, so the UN resolution seems to comport with the intent of the Mandate. Regardless, UN resolution 181 is the first legal specification for state borders. It specified borders for the new Israeli state that are quite different relative to the Green Line of the armistice of 1967. Therefore if you wish to argue that Syria held small amounts of land (prior to 1967) that were intended for Israel, is it not also fair to suggest that Israel holds a lot of land inside the Green Line that was never intended by the initial UN resolution to be Israeli? See? This is comparing apples to apples. It is consistent logic. If your point is valid, then my point is also valid because they are based on the same original documents. Therefore, I suppose Syria's position (relative to the difference between the Arab Peace Initiative for returning to 1967 borders and the original borders from UN resolution 181) might constitute an illegal land grab -if Israel's position holding certain lands inside the Green Line *also* constitutes an illegal land grab. Further, it is noteworthy that Israel's Green Line position effectively made Jerusalem an Israeli city when it was intended by UN Res 181 to be a "special international territory" administered by the United Nations. "This is from the initiative document: "Complete withdrawal from the occupied Arab territories, including the Syrian Golan Heights, to the 4 June 1967 line and the territories still occupied in southern Lebanon." Notice that it's June 4th and not the international borders." I did not see a map at the link you provided indicating the specific border changes you cite. The closest thing I can find is a map provided here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1947_UN_Partition_Plan It indicates a small amount of land beyond the Jordan river (in or near the Golan heights) was originally allocated for Israel in US resolution 181. It also shows a small amount of land in or near what is now Lebanon was also allocated for Israel. This is my basis for the above arguments relating to the "land grab".
* It is called consistent logic. Israel's policy of building settlements is illegal. The Palestinian rockets and bombs are illegal. As illegal actions, those are the same and I chastize them both. On the other hand, the Arab Peace initiative is a proposal. If you were referring to this you are again comparing apples to oranges. "As you can probably tell, I don't think much of international law in this context." Law is absolute. Either accept it all (including the resolutions that formed and legally recognized Israel), or reject everything. We can't pick and choose those parts of international law that we will abide and those we will reject without losing ligitimacy as a lawfully recognized state entity.
*
"He DEFINITELY did not mean that because of the following reasons: Well, for the Arab Peace Initiative to be implemented, all those things would have to happen SIMULTANEOUSLY. As for being non-controversial, this depends on which-ever Israeli coalition government happens to be making policy at the time. One aspect of this idea is the Israeli argument that fewer Palestinian refugees returning into the West Bank would mean reduced needs for Palestinian land and resources (like water), thus it becomes easier for Israel to justify keeping more land and resources. I should not have to point this out for you. "2)I took this from a website called "forced migration online" It was the best I could do in short time.
* By right of return he meant that they'd return to Israel where most of them formerly lived." That's your interpretation. My interpretation is he meant that they could not remain in Syria after a peace agreement was finalized, and would instead return to the new Palestinian state. Further, under the heading "Expectations From Israel" the BBC document you linked previously (Excerpts from text of "Beirut Declaration") says:
*
*
(Me) "Well this is a new one. Water (if it was even a significant issue) was just one of many problems he had. None of this matters though because the Noam Chomsky/blame Israel for everything narrative claims that the Israelis have NEVER made a serious offer." You continue to ignore the reality that he who controls the water has de-facto control over the the people. Consider the laws of nature: If the lack of access to water can force herds of cattle or elephants to migrate (or die), then it can just as easily be used to FORCE humans to migrate off of territory in the West Bank. I should not have to explain this for you. Therefore any offer that does not include sovereign rights to water resources of the West Bank is not a serious offer. "It'd be ridiculous to assert that they got that close but couldn't complete the deal via water rights." No, it's not ridiculous at all, and I can easily prove it to you. Try living without water for one week and I think you will get the point. To wit: If I can deny your farm irrigation water, I can force you to give up your farm. And if I can deny you drinking water, I can force you to move off your land. And if you don't move, you will not continue to live. End part 2. Cheers. Posted by Kiev500 @ 05/08/2009 12:19 PM CST Generally, I tend to speak more on issues related to Israel, Israeli policies, and Israeli actions because I expect better of Israel. I hold Israel to a higher standard. Between the two sides, Israel is by far the more powerful and better funded party. As the more powerful party, Israel bears a larger burden of expectation as it relates to behavior. This is where I fundamentally disagree with most like-minded people as this reason for disproportionately criticizing Israel over the Palestinians is completely unsatisfying. You first claim that Israel is the more powerful party, but Israel's military might is clearly useless when up against international opinion. Propaganda is infinitely more powerful in this context and the Palestinians have done an incredible job at convincing the world that their national movement has always been about human justice. Consider the Mufti Hajj Amin al-Husseini's (his Nazi role and extensive use of terrorism against his fellow citizens, see Hillel Cohen, Palestinian Collaboration With Zionism), Palestinian terror against Israel between 1949-1967, and the dominance of the current movement by Islamists. But that's all secondary as you claim that the more powerful party should bear the larger burden of expectation when you should expect different things of the two parties. For example, as Israel has been a state for over 60 years, I DO accept it to follow international norms of warfare more than Hamas. It's not enough to claim that because Hamas fights in a morally reprehensible manner that Israel can too. States have responsibilities that terrorist/militant groups do not have. However, as Israeli governments have more responsibilities in some areas than a group like Hamas, you should expect less of them in others. It's more understandable and acceptable that an Israeli government would drift away from the 2 state solution than Hamas. To the Israeli's, the 2 state solution means making huge material concessions for a peace agreement on paper. To Hamas and Fatah the 2 state solution is everything that they were supposed to be fighting for for the last 60 years. Hamas's intransigence doesn't make any sense in the context of the common anti-Israel narrative and the world should not accept Palestinian wavering from the 2 State Solution. If the world worked to apply pressure to Palestinian intransigence, the Israeli Left wouldn't have been destroyed in the last decade and a peace agreement would have easily been signed. As to the casualty thing, it's a simple point which you don't seem to understand. You SHOULD HAVE referred to the Palestinian casualties (either combatant or civilian) on their own, INSTEAD you referred to the casualty ratio itself as something deserving of scorn. As you finally pointed out with, "I do not think one casualty number has a "magnifying effect" on the other", this is what I was accusing you of implying. Unless you can explain to me why you stated the casualty ratio instead of the Palestinian figure by itself, the accusation stands. In fact, most analysts believe it made more enemies than it eliminated because it exposed many younger Palestinian civilians (who might not otherwise be familiarized) to the oppressive hand of Israels military forces. This doesn't make much sense. Israel only left Gaza ~3 years ago. I doubt that too many Palestinian civilians forgot about the IDF. The war was a failure because Hamas mananged to make large gains in worldwide acceptance. Ok, it appears to me that you have "invented" a context, -in which you choose to view the casualty figures -that allows you to be offended. Congratulations. We call this circular logic, or perhaps "Jewish" logic... I'm not sure what you meant by the Jewish comment... Posted by Brendan @ 05/12/2009 12:18 AM CST
Part 2) This was a sort of comical complete misunderstanding of the point. YES, they should both be illegal according to international law, yet they were both ignored (by different standards as well) by the international community. A return to the green line armistice lines for a final solution WOULD recognize land acquired through war - UNSC Res. 242 says we should not. In this case, it's Israel that's being given slack on international law. Your rigid international law has been blatantly violated here. Now consider Syria's land grab. Unless you believe that Israel's "illegal" '48 gains are somehow canceled out by Syria's even more illegitimate gain of another country's land, than international law has been violated here. UN 181 followed Palestine's borders at the base of the Golan Heights. Syria captured land that was undeniably Israel's. Correctly, the two should be looked at separately. Israel's gains fit into the wider context of the to be partitioned borders of Palestine (Israel accepted the original borders and was attacked). Syria's gains have no justification and returning that land back to Syria makes even less sense in the context of a peace deal. Either way though, your claim that we can't pick and choose from international law is blatantly false. We can and have. Your argument about Syria's Palestinian refugees is absurd so I won't go into much detail. Assad wants a "right of return" for them. Generally one returns to where they came from, in this case Israel. He explicitly stated this and every bit of evidence would hint that he meant what he said.
About the Clinton Parameters... Yes I agree that water is important, obviously the Palestinians didn't think so because the Western Wall jutting into the Muslim Quarter was seen as a worthy reason to delay statehood again (see Dennis Ross, The Missing Peace). Posted by Brendan @ 05/12/2009 12:50 AM CST Correction "You're a member of a dying breed of Chomskyites who still claim that the deal wasn't good enough at Camp David." to "You're a member of a dying breed of Chomskyites who still claim that the Clinton Parameters were not a good enough deal." Posted by Brendan @ 05/12/2009 12:52 AM CST I will ask you again: Where did you hear I was an anti-Zionist?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Consider this: International opinion of Israel would be more favorable if Israel did not continuously use it's military power to create those lopsided casualty numbers (not to mention the wide-spread destruction of homes and buildings) that we talked about previously. Just look what they did to the UN school and the UN food warehouse. For you to equate military power with a public relations battle for perception and opinion is perhaps the most dishonest thing I have heard since Golda Meir suggested there were no "Palestinians" to return the land to. "Propaganda is infinitely more powerful in this context and the Palestinians have done an incredible job at convincing the world that their national movement has always been about human justice." Propaganda is a completely different issue than military power. Propaganda did not kill all those people in Gaza. Propaganda did not destroy the UN school and food warehouse. All conflicts have their share of propaganda, and certainly if the Palestinians have used propaganda then Israel has also made use of it to great advantage. This is a wash.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Please elaborate. Tell me those areas or issues wherein I should expect less from Israel.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ You need a reality check. It is not acceptable for either party to back away from the 2 state solution. In fact, this was the very first thing that the Pope mentioned when he got off the plane in Israel this week. As for "concessions", that would mean giving up something that you are legally entitled to have and to keep. Therefore it DOES NOT apply to any Israeli position in the West Bank that is beyond the Green Line. "To Hamas and Fatah the 2 state solution is everything that they were supposed to be fighting for for the last 60 years." No, it clearly is not everything that Hamas wanted or called for. Did you conveniently forget that Hamas called for elimination of Israel? Obviously a 2 state solution does not accomplish that. Further, it significantly undermines any possibility for elimination of Israel because it takes the primary driving force of militant recruitment (the Israeli occupation) off the table. And did you also forget "right of return"? The 2 state solution would place all displaced Palestinian refugees into the new Palestinian state. No, I don't think you overlooked these things at all. I think you intentionally ignored them.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Consider this: A country goes to war to defeat or eliminate an enemy. On the other hand, politicians go to war to improve their political position. They do it because it is politically expedient. Further, politicians frequently prolong wars that have effectively failed in an effort to prove that their underlying philosophy for entering the war in the first place was not wrong. When a war has not ended in clear victory for one side or the other, metrics are developed by politicians and generals to justify the success of strategy. The most common metric is the body count. In general, any leader who kills more of the enemy is regarded as more successful. Thus it is inevitable that politicians and generals refer to the body count and kill ratios to measure their progress. All I am doing is recognizing a fact. Israel was in control of the situation from the moment they went into Gaza. It is my opinion that Israel is responsible for the disproportionate casualty numbers that I used. They are factually accurate.
### "I'm not sure what you meant by the Jewish comment..." Let me ask you a question: How large would the number of dead Palestinians have to be before you become horrified? Where is your humanity? "Unless you can explain to me why you stated the casualty ratio instead of the Palestinian figure by itself, the accusation stands." Indeed. Your accusation stands. However, it paints you as the dishonest party in this debate, not me.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ "This doesn't make much sense. Israel only left Gaza ~3 years ago. I doubt that too many Palestinian civilians forgot about the IDF." Being in an occupied territory (one that lacks widespread violent conflict) is not the same as having the invading forces of the occupier bomb your homes, your schools, your UN shelters, and shoot your family and your friends. Why should I have to point this out for you?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Those who do not abide the law are criminals. Therefore we should know who the criminals are on both sides. Agreed?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ You are remarkably stubborn, -especially when you are wrong. This is not an admirable characteristic. Yes, Assad recognizes a Palestinian "right" of return. That does not mean it will happen. Likewise, many Israelis recognize a "biblical right" to all lands of Palestine because (to paraphrase) ~"this land was given to us by God". Again, this does not mean it will happen. The Arab Peace initiative stipulates a "just resolution" on the issue of right of return. To me, this sounds like returning Palestinians into a new Palestinian state. I pointed out that Israel wants the Palestinian refugees to remain in Syria, Lebanon, and Jordan because putting them all back in the West Bank creates a significantly larger demand for resources and water. This development would make it very difficult for Israel to justify keeping more land and water resources in the West Bank. "Your argument about Syria's Palestinian refugees is absurd so I won't go into much detail." Then the truth is absurd. Facts are absurd. Reality is absurd. -On the other hand, perhaps it's just your perspective that is irrational...
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ They were created to bridge differences on those issues that were placed on the negotiating table for discussion. Not every issue was placed on the table. There were issues that Israel refused to discuss. Among these were Palestinian sovereignty over water, border security, and airspace in the new state. "From this one can only conclude that water was either an already solved issue or it was not controversial. If it was an issue it would have been mentioned some time at Camp David and therefore end up in the Clinton Parameters." You are using circular logic again. Nothing ever said that the Clinton Parameters -or the negotiations they were intended to bridge -covered every single issue that existed. This is a false assumption you have made.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ No tricks here, just facts, theories, and analysis. "Yes I agree that water is important, obviously the Palestinians didn't think so because the Western Wall jutting into the Muslim Quarter was seen as a worthy reason to delay statehood again (see Dennis Ross, The Missing Peace)." Circular logic again. The recognition of any single issue in those negotiations (for example the Western Wall) does not preclude the possibility of existance of other issues that were not placed on the negotiating table. By the way, I exerpted the material below from your reference work (Dennis Ross, The Missing Peace).
Link: While the context of the above discussion was primarily issues between Israel and Syria relating to the Golan and it's water resources, it illustrates the general Israeli concern for retaining control of water resources. This concern continues to govern the negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians regarding final status of the West Bank. There are two large watershed aquifers in the West Bank. As of 1999, Israel was using 82% and 80% of the total output of these aquifers, respectively. That means Israel was allowing the Palestinian refugees currently living in the West Bank to use only 18% and 20% of those water resources, respectively. Cheers. Posted by Kiev500 @ 05/12/2009 08:26 AM CST A bit more on water issues relating to Israel:
Link: In 1951 the tensions in the area were raised when, in the lake Huleh area (10 km from Banias), Israel initiated a project to drain the marsh land to bring 15,000 acres into cultivation. The project caused a conflict of interests between the Israeli government and the Palestinian Arab villages in the area and drew Syrian complaints to the United Nations.[17] On 30 March in a meeting chaired by Ben-Gurion the Israeli government decided to assert Israeli sovereignty over the DMZs, consequently 800 inhabitants of the villages were forcibly evacuated from the DMZ.[17][18] From 1951 Israel refused to attend the meetings of the Israel/Syria Mixed Armistice Commission. The Security Council condemned the attitude of Israel, in its resolution of 18 May 1951, as being "inconsistent with the objectives and intent of the Armistice Agreement".[18] Under UN auspices and with encouragement from the Eisenhower administration 9 meetings took place between 15 January and 27 January 1953, to regularise administration of the DMZs.[19] At the eighth meeting Syria offered to adjust the armistice lines, and cede to Israel's 70% of the DMZ, in exchange for a return to the pre 1946 International border in the Jordan basin area, with Banias water resources returning uncontested to Syrian sovereignty. On 26 April, the Israeli cabinet met to consider the Syrian suggestions; with head of Israel’s Water Planning Authority, Simha Blass, in attendance. Blass noted that while the land to be ceded to Syria was not suitable for cultivation, the Syrian map did not suit Israel’s water development plan. Blass explained that the movement of the International boundary in the area of Banias would affect Israel’s water rights.[20] The Israeli cabinet rejected the Syrian proposals but decided to continue the negotiations by making changes to the accord and placing conditions on the Syrian proposals. The Israeli conditions took into account Blass’s position over water rights and Syria rejected the Israeli counter offer.[20] In 1953, Israel unilaterally started a water diversion project within the Jordan River basin by the Israeli National Water Carrier. This caused shelling from Syria[citation needed] and friction with the Eisenhower Administration; the diversion was moved to the southwest. September 1953 Israel advanced plans to divert water to help irrigate the coastal Sharon Plain and eventually the Negev desert by launching a diversion project on a nine-mile channel midway between the Huleh Marshes and Lake Galilee (Lake Tiberias) in the central DMZ to be rapidly constructed.
** (As a result of these developments) The US cut off aid to Israel. The Israeli response was to increase work. UN Security Council Resolution 100[21] “deemed it desirable” for Israel to suspend work started on the 2nd September “pending urgent examination of the question by the Council”. Israel finally backed off by moving the intake out of the DMZ and for the next three years the US kept its economic sanctions by threatening to end aid channelled to Israel by the Foreign Operations Administration and insisting on tying the aid with Israel's behaviour. The Security Council ultimately rejected Syrian claims that the work was a violation of the Armistice Agreements and drainage works were resumed and the work was completed in 1957.[22]
After the 2nd Arab summit conference in Cairo of January 1964, Syria, started development of the water resources of Banias for irrigation along the slopes of the Golan toward the Yarmouk River.[23] The project was to divert 20 to 30 million cubic metres of water from the river Jordan tributaries to Syria and Jordan for the development of Syria and Jordan.[24][23] This led to military intervention from Israel, first with tank fire and then, as the Syrians shifted the works further eastward, with airstrikes. This suggests that retaining control of water resources was of paramount importance to Israel.
An obseravation: Cheers. Posted by Kiev500 @ 05/12/2009 09:01 AM CST
The Casualty Ratio Issue: "The IDF says 295 Palestinian non-combatants died during the operation - 89 of them under the age of 16, and 49 of them women. The IDF determined it was unclear whether the remaining 162 from that group -men of combat age who died but were not attributed to any group -were militants or civilians. The number of Israeli non-combatants who died? Three. " Notice that you used the non-combatant ratio. Now, this was your explanation for using the ratio in your last comment: "When a war has not ended in clear victory for one side or the other, metrics are developed by politicians and generals to justify the success of strategy. The most common metric is the body count. In general, any leader who kills more of the enemy is regarded as more successful. " Clearly, in this quote you're referring to the combatant ratio. The problem is not the confusion over which ratio you're referring to, but that you can't possibly defend using the ratio in either case (combatant or non-combatant). Consider the combatant case. I'm not aware of anyone in the world that would consider a significantly higher Hamas casualty rate to the IDF a bad thing. No one should care as Hamas fighter casualties are combatant casualties and are fair game in war. Remember that you pointed out the ratio as something deserving scorn ("Kind of reminds me of the terrible things Israeli troops have done...I wonder if the USA ever had numbers approaching a 100 to 1 kill ratio in Vietnam? "). CLEARLY, your comments make no sense if referring to the combatant ratio only. Now, consider the non-combatant case. It's interesting to learn that "In general, any leader who kills more of the enemy [civilians] is regarded as more successful". Well obviously this doesn't make the slightest sense if you're referring to the non-combatant ratio. Still though, from this latest comment of yours... "Consider this: International opinion of Israel would be more favorable if Israel did not continuously use it's military power to create those lopsided casualty numbers" ...you're definitely referring to the non-combatant ratio and haven't given up yet on this ridiculous point. You'll have to excuse my long-winded method of debating this because I'm trying to make sense of what you're saying. Unfortunately, it's not that easy as you haven't made much sense at all. It was a stupid thing to say in the first place as you just as easily could have referred to the total number of Palestinian casualties. There was no reason for you to use the ratio other than to state that the high Palestinian casualty numbers were made worse because so few Israelis died.
A Few Replies: The use of "...a just solution..." to the refugees was intentionally ambiguous. Notice that you gave your impression of it and I'm sure you can understand that other parties may interpret that differently. An ambiguous statement like that is designed to appeal to all participants. Consider UNSC Res. 242 and its "...withdrawal...from territories" statement, instead of any direct mention of the green line. We KNOW that the ambiguity was used in that case to appease all parties involved and through common sense alone you should realize that "a just solution" was placed in the initiative text because it could mean a myriad of things. Unfortunately, your interpretation doesn't mean a damn thing when Syria can renew the conflict after a complete Israeli withdrawal to the Green Line as its condition for "real peace" (refugee return to Israel proper) will never be realized. Assad explicitly stated this too. It's an ingenious trick because Syria can always claim that "a just solution" was never realized and people like you will continue along defending them. It doesn't sound like a great deal for Israel to me. "They were created to bridge differences on those issues that were placed on the negotiating table for discussion. Not every issue was placed on the table. There were issues that Israel refused to discuss. Among these were Palestinian sovereignty over water, border security, and airspace in the new state." ...and... "You are using circular logic again. Nothing ever said that the Clinton Parameters -or the negotiations they were intended to bridge -covered every single issue that existed. This is a false assumption you have made. " ...and... "Circular logic again. The recognition of any single issue in those negotiations (for example the Western Wall) does not preclude the possibility of existance of other issues that were not placed on the negotiating table. " You have an interesting negotiating technique that I'd like to learn more about. Apparently in final solution negotiations, it's common to simply ignore fundamental issues such as water because one side asked the other to leave it. Not only that, but the mediators who've labored away during the negotiations don't see fit to discuss this one issue while tackling far more sensitive issues like sovereignty in the Old City of Jerusalem and refugees. The Clinton Parameters by definition covered ALL issues! That was the entire point of them. They were Clinton's summary of the disagreements and suggestions for halfway points between both sides on all the issues. This gets even more absurd when you consider that if water was really intentionally left off of them than Arafat would have had no reason to reject the parameters as they took no stance on the issue. But then you'd have to explain your secret connection to the high level talks as you're reporting things that the participants most definitely did not. Also, airspace WAS discussed. It's mentioned in the Prologue of Dennis Ross's book. As I mentioned before, there's a good reason why Norman Finkelstein, Noam Chomsky, and others debate whether or not the proposals detailed what they did or whether or not Israel accepted them because this debate we're having is absolutely ridiculous. Posted by Brendan @ 05/14/2009 04:18 AM CST
The Casualty Ratio Issue: "The IDF says 295 Palestinian non-combatants died during the operation - 89 of them under the age of 16, and 49 of them women. The IDF determined it was unclear whether the remaining 162 from that group -men of combat age who died but were not attributed to any group -were militants or civilians. The number of Israeli non-combatants who died? Three. " Notice that you used the non-combatant ratio. Now, this was your explanation for using the ratio in your last comment: "When a war has not ended in clear victory for one side or the other, metrics are developed by politicians and generals to justify the success of strategy. The most common metric is the body count. In general, any leader who kills more of the enemy is regarded as more successful. " Clearly, in this quote you're referring to the combatant ratio. The problem is not the confusion over which ratio you're referring to, but that you can't possibly defend using the ratio in either case (combatant or non-combatant). Consider the combatant case. I'm not aware of anyone in the world that would consider a significantly higher Hamas casualty rate to the IDF a bad thing. No one should care as Hamas fighter casualties are combatant casualties and are fair game in war. Remember that you pointed out the ratio as something deserving scorn ("Kind of reminds me of the terrible things Israeli troops have done...I wonder if the USA ever had numbers approaching a 100 to 1 kill ratio in Vietnam? "). CLEARLY, your comments make no sense if referring to the combatant ratio only. Now, consider the non-combatant case. It's interesting to learn that "In general, any leader who kills more of the enemy [civilians] is regarded as more successful". Well obviously this doesn't make the slightest sense if you're referring to the non-combatant ratio. Still though, from this latest comment of yours... "Consider this: International opinion of Israel would be more favorable if Israel did not continuously use it's military power to create those lopsided casualty numbers" ...you're definitely referring to the non-combatant ratio and haven't given up yet on this ridiculous point. You'll have to excuse my long-winded method of debating this because I'm trying to make sense of what you're saying. Unfortunately, it's not that easy as you haven't made much sense at all. It was a stupid thing to say in the first place as you just as easily could have referred to the total number of Palestinian casualties. There was no reason for you to use the ratio other than to state that the high Palestinian casualty numbers were made worse because so few Israelis died.
A Few Replies: The use of "...a just solution..." to the refugees was intentionally ambiguous. Notice that you gave your impression of it and I'm sure you can understand that other parties may interpret that differently. An ambiguous statement like that is designed to appeal to all participants. Consider UNSC Res. 242 and its "...withdrawal...from territories" statement, instead of any direct mention of the green line. We KNOW that the ambiguity was used in that case to appease all parties involved and through common sense alone you should realize that "a just solution" was placed in the initiative text because it could mean a myriad of things. Unfortunately, your interpretation doesn't mean a damn thing when Syria can renew the conflict after a complete Israeli withdrawal to the Green Line as its condition for "real peace" (refugee return to Israel proper) will never be realized. Assad explicitly stated this too. It's an ingenious trick because Syria can always claim that "a just solution" was never realized and people like you will continue along defending them. It doesn't sound like a great deal for Israel to me. "They were created to bridge differences on those issues that were placed on the negotiating table for discussion. Not every issue was placed on the table. There were issues that Israel refused to discuss. Among these were Palestinian sovereignty over water, border security, and airspace in the new state." ...and... "You are using circular logic again. Nothing ever said that the Clinton Parameters -or the negotiations they were intended to bridge -covered every single issue that existed. This is a false assumption you have made. " ...and... "Circular logic again. The recognition of any single issue in those negotiations (for example the Western Wall) does not preclude the possibility of existance of other issues that were not placed on the negotiating table. " You have an interesting negotiating technique that I'd like to learn more about. Apparently in final solution negotiations, it's common to simply ignore fundamental issues such as water because one side asked the other to leave it. Not only that, but the mediators who've labored away during the negotiations don't see fit to discuss this one issue while tackling far more sensitive issues like sovereignty in the Old City of Jerusalem and refugees. The Clinton Parameters by definition covered ALL issues! That was the entire point of them. They were Clinton's summary of the disagreements and suggestions for halfway points between both sides on all the issues. This gets even more absurd when you consider that if water was really intentionally left off of them than Arafat would have had no reason to reject the parameters as they took no stance on the issue. But then you'd have to explain your secret connection to the high level talks as you're reporting things that the participants most definitely did not. Also, airspace WAS discussed. It's mentioned in the Prologue of Dennis Ross's book. As I mentioned before, there's a good reason why Norman Finkelstein, Noam Chomsky, and others debate whether or not the proposals detailed what they did or whether or not Israel accepted them because this debate we're having is absolutely ridiculous. Posted by Brendan @ 05/14/2009 04:18 AM CST
Part 2) This is actually what I meant to quote in my other comment. It's a curious strategy to ignore major issues in final status negotiations, but apparently you know better than I do. Especially when issues with at least as much controversy are discussed and solved in the parameters (Jerusalem and refugees). Anyway, I'll have to continue on by making more general arguments:
International Law: -Consider the territorial integrity of the various nations from 1949 to 1967 (on the armistice lines). The inadmissibility of acquiring territory through war is central to international law (see UNSC Res 242). Yet, no one respected Israel's territorial integrity during these years. Michael B. Oren details American and international pressures (see Six Days Of War) on Israel to relinquish large amounts of land to make peace with Arabs. See plans Alpha and Omega which pushed Israel to cede the Negev to Egypt for peace. The point is that if international law really mattered, claims for Israeli land would never have happened and peace should have resulted on its own. Obviously this isn't the case as only the relative power of the two sides matters and the Arabs have significant economic power through oil. -Whether you like it or not, ownership of the west bank isn't so clear. The Palestinian rejection of UN 181 at the very least confuses Palestinian ownership of the area. THEN, Jordan's annexation of the West Bank and its acceptance by the Palestinians further confuses the situation. For people who can think on their own, the wrongs that Israel committed by settling the West Bank can be determined separately from international law. Calling any Israeli presence past the Green Line flat out illegal is counterproductive and a sign of a weak argument. -Somehow through international law the Palestinians will legally annex East Jerusalem (the most important part, the old city, and the one place in Palestine that was historically Jewish and set aside as an international city). The popular interpretation of international law seems to justify this possible annexation and the ethnic cleansing of the cities Jewish inhabitants in 1948. I liken arguing based on international law to overuse of words like terrorist and criminal. Seeing the gray area in between would unsettle your worldview a bit too much. Posted by Brendan @ 05/14/2009 04:50 AM CST
Looks like you posted parts of your commentary twice...
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ You then accused me of explicitly saying "not enough Israeli's were killed for (my) satisfaction". Of course, this is completely psycho.
Now you seem to be trying to compare my various pieces of dialog in a manner that takes them out of context. You say I made commentary on the non-combatant ratio. Indeed I did. I did this because you insisted on separation of the numbers. Subsequently I made commentary on the combatant ratio. Then I commented on the ligitimacy of using the casualty ratio terminology, -because you claimed my reference to it was offensive. "The problem is not the confusion over which ratio you're referring to..." You wish to accuse me of attempting to confuse you? "...But that you can't possibly defend using the ratio in either case (combatant or non-combatant)." Now you claim I can't defend using the ratio either way. Wow! "Consider the combatant case. I'm not aware of anyone in the world that would consider a significantly higher Hamas casualty rate to the IDF a bad thing. No one should care as Hamas fighter casualties are combatant casualties and are fair game in war." Ahhh... so all is fair game in war, right? Then let's say for instance... that Russia declared war on Israel and immediately nuked the piss out of the entire place, -killing every man, woman, and child. Lets say that this horrific thing actually happened. Then using your logic, the lopsided casualty ratio would be just fine and dandy because it was all done in war, right? I'll bet you disagree, and I think you should. This leads us to the issue of whether any specific war is in fact justified. Regarding the last two Israeli incursions into Gaza and Lebanon, I'd say the answer is no. Using the same consistent logic, a Russian declaration of war against Israel would not be justified either, -even *if* the actions of Israeli operatives (or some loosely affiliated Israeli militant groups) had killed a few Russian citizens. I bet you are getting the point now. You would be right to be horrified by such an act, even if Russia claimed it was justified by insisting that in nuking the place they *did* kill the specific militant operatives they were after. -And of course you would be right to be scornful of the casualty ratio of the war Russia had waged against Israel. You continue to meander around this issue without a clear direction: "You'll have to excuse my long-winded method of debating this because I'm trying to make sense of what you're saying. Unfortunately, it's not that easy as you haven't made much sense at all. It was a stupid thing to say in the first place as you just as easily could have referred to the total number of Palestinian casualties." Ahhh... but I *did* initially cite the total number of Palestinian casualties. This was the point where you accused me of intentionally mixing civilian and combatant numbers. Like I said, it's just psycho circular logic.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ...and...
### ...and...
### "You have an interesting negotiating technique that I'd like to learn more about." -Who is negotiating here? This is a debate of issues, *not* a negotiation. Debates employ facts, logic, and reason to confer better understand of the issues -in order to allow the parties to eventually come to a position of general understanding. At least the honest ones do... "Apparently in final solution negotiations, it's common to simply ignore fundamental issues such as water because one side asked the other to leave it. Not only that, but the mediators who've labored away during the negotiations don't see fit to discuss this one issue while tackling far more sensitive issues like sovereignty in the Old City of Jerusalem and refugees." Ummm... can you tell me why you are qualified to determine which issues are sensitive and which ones are not? Getting to the specifics of your comment, Israel *did* offer to discuss sharing water. This is *not* the same as discussing sovereignty over Palestinian water resources. I previously pointed out that Israel currently controls access to all the water resources of the West Bank and uses (as of 1999) 82% and 80% of the two aquifers, allowing Palestinians only 18% and 20% respectively. Israel refused to discuss allowing Palestinian sovereignty over these water resources. "The Clinton Parameters by definition covered ALL issues! That was the entire point of them. They were Clinton's summary of the disagreements and suggestions for halfway points between both sides on all the issues. This gets even more absurd when you consider that if water was really intentionally left off of them than Arafat would have had no reason to reject the parameters as they took no stance on the issue." Absurd? Really? Clearly you are no lawyer. Lawyers understand the need to spell out and account for every aspect of every issue, otherwise the stronger negotiating partner retains control of that issue or aspect. In other words, if Arafat had accepted the offer as it was, the Palestinian state would NEVER have control over the water resources of it's own lands. For instance, did you know that Palestinians cannot drill a water well without Israeli approval? Another example of typical Israeli policy: Did you know that in East Jerusalem Palestinians cannot build a house because they *never* get approval and thus cannot obtain a building permit? Every day Palestinian homes are demolished for the disingenuous excuse that they were ~"built without permits". This is one method Israel uses to control the Palestinians. It effectively forces them to leave the area because they are not allowed homes to live in. The same thing is happening with water, and you are too ignorant to see it. "Also, airspace WAS discussed. It's mentioned in the Prologue of Dennis Ross's book." Once again, you have ignored an important word that I had used. I said SOVEREIGNTY OVER AIRSPACE, -as in Palestinian sovereignty over it's own airspace. This was not something Israel would discuss. Israel intended to retain sovereignty over the airspace of the West Bank. I can understand this from a logical perspective. -What I cannot accept is Israel's intent to retain control over West Bank water resources that it has no ligitimate right to keep.
### Essentials of the Camp David II Proposals by Israel -Israeli aircraft could overfly Palestinian airspace. (Thus no Palestinian Sovereignty over airspace) -The Israelis would retain management over water sources in the West Bank while approving a limited quota to the Palestinians. (Thus no Palestinian Sovereignty over water resources inside the West Bank)
-Within East Jerusalem, in (Beit Hanina-Shuafat), there would be a civilian administration affiliated with the Palestinian Authority with the possibility of linking it to West Jerusalem through a municipality covering both sectors. The Palestinians would run a branch municipality within the framework of the Israeli higher municipal council ####while depriving them from planning and construction jurisdictions####. (Thus Palestinians would continue to have no authority to approve and distribute building permits in any portion of East Jerusalem)
### "This is actually what I meant to quote in my other comment. It's a curious strategy to ignore major issues in final status negotiations, but apparently you know better than I do." Yes, apparently I do. Those issues or aspects which are left off the "final status" negotiations would in fact be retained by the more powerful party which currently has de-facto control over them. Thus an agreement that does not specify Palestinian sovereignty over West Bank water resources would (if it had been signed) permanently give control over that asset to Israel. Of course, this is exactly what Israel wanted.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Intellectual equivalent? ~I like that phrase. That's nice. You know what I'm going to do? I'm going to leave your words right up there for everyone to enjoy, -giving you full credit of course.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Ummm.... you do realize you are conflating real states like Syria, Jordan, and Egypt with an imaginary state which did not exist at the time of UN resolution 181? Palestinians could not reject 181 because they had no ligitimate government. This is a common example of circular logic. "Calling any Israeli presence past the Green Line flat out illegal is counterproductive and a sign of a weak argument." Yea... and you can tell that to the Pope. "Somehow through international law the Palestinians will legally annex East Jerusalem." I do not think this will happen. Rather, I think the Clinton proposals relating to the issue of land division in East Jerusalem will be very close to what actually happens. Israel will retain sovereignty over the The Western Wall, and Palestine will have sovereignty over the Dome Of The Rock. Those settlements that cut deeply through East Jerusalem and into the West Bank (in the direction of Jerico) will not be allowed to remain. Those settlements that would create "pockets" or "bubbles" will not be allowed to remain. That leaves plenty of settlements near the Green Line that are likely to remain.
My opinion is that the best way to accomplish this would be to: Cheers. Posted by Kiev500 @ 05/14/2009 01:17 PM CST This is off-topic. Sorry. I discovered a VERY strange copy of this discussion. It is either a remarkably bad double-translation or some perverted type of entertainment. It *is* this discussion, however it is barely recognizable. What the heck is going on?
See it here:
Hummm... Have a look at this:
############### (As a denouement of these developments) The US shear unpropitious grant-money to Israel. UN Security Council Resolution 100[21] “deemed it desirable” seeking Israel to put bring about started on the 2nd September “pending imperative exam of the dispute next to the Council”. The Israeli comeback was to inflation bring about. Israel seeking all backed unpropitious next to valid the intake distant of the DMZ and seeking the next three years the US kept its remunerative sanctions next to minacious to sign off grant-money channelled to Israel next to the Foreign Operations Administration and insisting on tying the grant-money with Israel’s manners. The Security Council in the end rejected Syrian claims that the bring about was a abuse of the Armistice Agreements and drainage works were resumed and the bring about was completed in 1957.[22]
After the 2nd Arab apex colloquium in Cairo of January 1964, Syria, started maturing of the damp resources of Banias seeking irrigation along the slopes of the Golan toward the Yarmouk River.[23] The obligation was to change course 20 to 30 million cubic metres of damp from the river Jordan tributaries to Syria and Jordan seeking the maturing of Syria and Jordan.[24][23] This led to military intervention from Israel, instruct with tank animate and then, as the Syrians shifted the works enthusiasm eastward, with airstrikes. This suggests that retaining statute of damp resources was of prime pornographic to Israel. Cheers. An obseravation: In Lower House, the most louring issues are as per usual the ones that are not mentioned. Posted next to Kiev500 @ 05/12/2009 09:01 AM CST
The Casualty Ratio Issue: “The IDF says 295 Palestinian non-combatants died during the direction - 89 of them second to the years of 16, and 49 of them women. The IDF constant it was unclear whether the extant 162 from that pornographic -men of contend years who died but were not attributed to any pornographic -were militants or civilians.
” opine: “When a conflict has not ended in clarify b generous up success seeking ado side or the other, metrics are developed next to politicians and generals to acquit the celebrity of tactics. The most down metric is the thickness embody. In non-exclusive, any concert-master who kills more of the foe is regarded as more prospering. basically The emotionally ruffle is not the intermingling across which proportion you’re referring to, but that you can’t God passive fit to bat seeking using the proportion in either In (combatant or non-combatant). ” Clearly, in this bring in you’re referring to the combatant proportion. basically Consider the combatant In. basically I’m not receptive of anyone in the give birth to that would cheat to be a significantly higher Hamas misadventure place to the IDF a awful matters. basically No ado should be creditable seeking as Hamas fighter casualties are combatant casualties and are unobstructed amusement in conflict. CLEARLY, your comments grow into no head if referring to the combatant proportion barely. basically Remember that you malicious distant the proportion as something exemplary contumely (”Kind of reminds me of the terrific things Israeli troops lay up done.I stunner if the USA endlessly had numbers approaching a 100 to 1 destroy proportion in Vietnam? “). Now, cheat to be the non-combatant In. It’s gripping to learn that “In non-exclusive, any concert-master who kills more of the foe [civilians] is regarded as more successful”. basically Well certainly this doesn’t grow into the slightest head if you’re referring to the non-combatant proportion. “Consider this: International appreciation of Israel would be more favorable if Israel did not continuously advantage it’s military power to deem those unequal misadventure numbers”. you’re indubitably referring to the non-combatant proportion and haven’t conceded up still on this outlandish core. basically Still notwithstanding that, from this latest opine of yours. You’ll lay up to unpropitious my long-winded method of debating this because I’m tiring to grow into head of what you’re saying. basically Unfortunately, it’s not that undemanding as you haven’t made much head at all. basically It was a mad matters to communicate in the instruct hypothesis get to the cover as you fair as indisputably could lay up referred to the add up to junta of Palestinian casualties.
A Few Replies: The Arab Peace zip stipulates a “just resolution” on the exit of veracious of give back. ” The advantage of “.a fair unravelling.” to the refugees was intentionally indeterminate. basically Notice that you gave your exit of it and I’m unswerving you can get it that other parties may cheat to effect that differently. basically An indeterminate declaration like that is designed to entreat to all participants. 242 and its “.withdrawal.from territories” declaration, on one’s own prefer than of any just upon of the plain contour. basically Consider UNSC Res. basically We KNOW that the indistinctness was tolerant of in that In to appease all parties convoluted and in toto down head Music a cappella you should become conscious that “a fair solution” was placed in the zip subject-matter because it could effect a myriad of things. Unfortunately, your clarification doesn’t effect a brass farthing matters when Syria can reinvigorate the wrangle after a concluded Israeli withdrawal to the Green Line as its nerve circumstances seeking “real peace” (refugee give back to Israel proper) see fit on no account be realized. basically Assad explicitly stated this too. basically It doesn’t report like a formidable big seeking Israel to me. basically It’s an Daedalian bilk because Syria can again forth that “a fair solution” was on no account realized and people like you see fit proceed with along defending them. “They were created to marry differences on those issues that were placed on the negotiating submit seeking dialogue. Not every exit was placed on the submit. There were issues that Israel refused to judge. “You are using illogical reasonableness again. Among these were Palestinian jurisdiction across damp, abut on refuge, and airspace in the redesigned constitution.” .and. Nothing endlessly said that the Clinton Parameters -or the negotiations they were intended to marry -covered every second to none in harmony exit that existed. This is a untruthful assumption you lay up made. ” .and. The perception of any second to none in harmony exit in those negotiations (for archetype the Western Wall) does not statute out the capacity of existance of other issues that were not placed on the negotiating submit. “Circular reasonableness again. ”
You lay up an gripping negotiating MO that I’d like to learn more all sonorous. Can anyone make sense of this? Cheers Posted by Kiev500 @ 05/15/2009 08:19 AM CST Could the above piece be some kind of automated ambiguation intended to sabotage the advancement of ideas and positions? Cheers. Posted by Kiev500 @ 05/15/2009 08:25 AM CST As this isn't going anywhere at all, I'm going to change formats. My first post will be a direct reply to selections of your comments. In the second post I will attempt to tie this whole debate into your original comment. I answered the anti-Zionist question in my 2nd comment in what I thought was an apologetic manner. Although I still see you as one who espouses the worst kind of obscurantism, it wouldn't be fair to lump you in with anti-Zionists as I haven't heard enough to make that judgment. You probably should actually read my comments though before making these comments.
Casualty Ratio: Why would you use the deaths of every man, woman, and child in Israel as a comparison for a combatant casualty ratio between Israel and Hamas? I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you were tired when you wrote that and didn't really mean it. This just distracts from whatever point you could have made. "Using the same consistent logic, a Russian declaration of war against Israel would not be justified either, -even *if* the actions of Israeli operatives (or some loosely affiliated Israeli militant groups) had killed a few Russian citizens. " I must say you have a very effective debating technique. Make new absurd points every post so that I cannot possibly answer them all. If "Israeli operatives" as you put them, attacked and killed Russian citizens(in a manner even remotely similar to a military attack), that would most definitely give Russia the right to go to war against Israel. Consider even the Israeli right breaking off to form a "new Irgun", attacking Russian citizens with the Israeli government doing nothing to stop them. This would also most definitely be a justified cause for a Russian war against Israel. Of course, my first example much more closely resembles Hamas attacks on Israel. You've disappointed me, I was expecting some rant about the events on Nov. 4th, 2008. Regardless though, all that really matters is that there was SOME justification for Israel's war in the context of this argument. Hamas's breaking of the ceasefire's renewal (regardless of the reasons), their stepped up rocket attacks in the days leading up to the war, and the hard line ideology they continue to hold. It was because of these reasons that the entire world was reluctantly tolerant of the war (even the Arab world wanted Hamas beaten) as long as they determined that the civilian toll was acceptable (it obviously became unacceptable very soon into the war). This brings me back to the point, definite Hamas fighters (not the Hamas police force that suffered huge losses at the beginning of the war) were considered fair game by the world in this war. It was the civilian casualties that caused outrage. So, we have to bring this back to a simple question to move forward: Were you referring to ONLY the combatant ratio when you made your initial scornful point? To summarize, any reference at all to the non-combatant casualty ratio as an object of scorn IS offensive. Your comments made little sense in the context of the combatant ratio and can only be interpreted as referring to either the non-combatant ratio or some mix of the two (also offensive as it includes non-combatant Israelis in the ratio). "Ummm... can you tell me why you are qualified to determine which issues are sensitive and which ones are not? " This comment particularly annoyed me. If you'd like to argue that water is just as sensitive an issue as Jerusalem for Israelis and refugees for the Palestinians, than do it! Otherwise, this was a pathetic attempt at dodging a devastating point of mine. Common wisdom would say otherwise. Jerusalem has been central to the Jewish people and Zionism throughout history. East Jerusalem was annexed immediately after the Six Day War and never seriously considered to be returned to Jordan, unlike the rest of the West Bank. Splitting Jerusalem again would remind Israelis of the 19 years of Jordanian rule when they were unable to visit their holy sites. Unlike withdrawal from most of the West Bank, the Israeli public is still mostly unprepared for splitting Jerusalem. Not to mention Palestinian sovereignty over Haram al-Sharif, the site of the Jewish temple, which is understandably an explosive issue. On the other side, the Right of Return is also an incredibly sensitive Palestinian issue and one that I can understand their reluctance to give up publicly due to the expected political fallout. This has essentially been the "dream" of Palestinian nationalists from 1948 on as Palestine's refugees have languished in Arab imposed prisons. With the public dropping of calls to destroy Israel, the right of return remains the last way to do so, although quietly. Enormous public pressure rests on this issue. Consider also that water was "solved" between Israel and Jordan. Check out this Ynetnews article about Israel's supply of water to Jordan. http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3681056,00.html. Clearly it can't be that much of an issue. " Israel *did* offer to discuss sharing water. This is *not* the same as discussing sovereignty over Palestinian water resources." This is an almost clever word trick. Israel DID discuss water with the Palestinians. Qualifying discussion of a subject as Israel accepting the Palestinian position would mean that no one has discussed anything! What you said means that the two sides had irreconcilable differences on the subject, not that it wasn't discussed. This means that it was discussed and that Israel rejected the Palestinian position. You did the same thing again with airspace. This distinction is all the more important in the context of the Clinton Parameters which were meant to reconcile different positions and should have mentioned these issues if the two sides were still far apart on them in Dec. 2000. "Thus an agreement that does not specify Palestinian sovereignty over West Bank water resources would (if it had been signed) permanently give control over that asset to Israel. Of course, this is exactly what Israel wanted. " And apparently what the Palestinians wanted as they didn't see fit to push a compromise into the Clinton Parameters, or use this as a last minute complaint to Clinton when they turned down his parameters. PLEASE, start making sense. "Ummm.... you do realize you are conflating real states like Syria, Jordan, and Egypt with an imaginary state which did not exist at the time of UN resolution 181? Palestinians could not reject 181 because they had no ligitimate government." WHAT? At least this is original. "Israel will retain sovereignty over the The Western Wall, and Palestine will have sovereignty over the Dome Of The Rock." The Palestinians would have sovereignty over Haram al-Sharif (The Temple Mount), not just The Dome Of The Rock. This is a subtle difference with massive implications. Perhaps this is why you've downplayed the significance of this issue? Posted by Brendan @ 05/20/2009 02:41 AM CST So, to tie this all back into your original comment. I was most offended by your dismissing of the author's viewpoints and presentation of the "easy solution" as something he was apparently ignoring. By "easy solution" I mean the idea that if Israel would just do what it is supposed to do, peace would reign in the middle east. It's a viewpoint that flagrantly ignores Israel's great efforts at peace in the 90's and Camp David to Taba process. I'll admit that you got me thinking about one thing, which is whether or not I should have invested a great deal of my time into thoroughly researching the role of water in the Camp David to Taba process so that I can provide a comprehensive refutation of your "explanation" for Israel still being the bad guy. In addition to the large amount of time this would have wasted on top of this pointless discussion, I didn't fell the need to do it as you've completely failed in showing its role in the failure of the Parameters. The onus is on you to show this as it goes against both common wisdom and the more extreme leftist line. Instead I've had to settle with indirect points - that should have satisfied any honest opponent. I'll list these points.
1) The MOST sensitive issues (Jerusalem and refugees) were solved in the parameters and there was no reason that any difference in water could not be easily reconciled. Posted by Brendan @ 05/20/2009 03:01 AM CST 5) Israel's refusal to discuss certain points doesn't explain the Palestinians ignoring them if they really were important. Posted by Brendan @ 05/20/2009 03:06 AM CST As you can probably tell, I’m trying to wind up this debate as it’s not going anywhere. It bothers me much more that someone reading our debate would be persuaded by your water claim more than any of your other points sticking would. To do this, I’ll better illustrate what was so wrong with your point about water. Instead of creating a hierarchy of issues with Jerusalem and refugees at the top, consider only the fundamental difference between two types of issues. One type is ideological and the other practical. Overcoming Jerusalem and refugees requires the two sides to take significant steps towards peace. Other examples would be the PLO recognition of Israel’s right to exist and Israel’s recognition of Palestinian statehood. Both of these required large ideological steps for their respective parties to take. Obviously there could be differences on interpretation, but there’s only so much gray area here and ultimately when the respective sides accepted these steps, the ideological gaps were crossed.
To better illustrate my point, the following is a list of some of these ideological issues and more specifically what hurdle had to be climbed. You don’t need to argue the hurdles that I’ve listed as these were just the first things that came to mind and are not so important to the point.
Now consider a practical issue: ^^^There’s a very important point to make about the above practical issue. I say that the forces agreement was practical and should have been solvable. Obviously it was not solved. This does call into question Assad’s crossing of the peace ideological gap. Although I personally believe that a deal with him was not impossible, he was clearly not particularly enthusiastic about peace. Note here that the lack of solution to this practical issue can even possibly be explained by the failure to cross the ideological gap of making peace with Israel. Assad may have been fine with peace but under very favorable conditions to himself and was not so enthusiastic about achieving it. There’s a point to all of this. Once the ideological hurdles have been crossed, there’s no going back. This is why ideological issues are held to be so much more important than practical. This is why we celebrate the parties overcoming their ideological issues. The Israelis DID overcome their ideological issues during the Camp David to Taba process, beyond all expectations. We also know that the Palestinians DID NOT. They overcame some, but not all (they did not give up the right of return for the Clinton Parameters and did not accept Israeli sovereignty over the Western Wall). This is the context of your claim that Israel is the intransigent party. Not because they failed to overcome any ideological hurdles but because they asked that the Palestinians not bring up water as they wanted an issue to destruct the peace process with and the Palestinians gladly accepted. You’ve provided zero evidence for this viewpoint despite the fact that it contradicts the popular interpretation of the peace process and the far leftist version arguing that Israel never accepted the parameters. Keep in mind that I use the parameters and not Camp David as I’ve always accepted that we may not know enough about what happened there to use it for points and that its offer was likely unacceptable. The Clinton Parameters are a much less controversial history and a clear statement of Israel’s intention of peace. Your original comment criticized the US and Israel for being the intransigent parties. I'll let the reader of this debate decide whether Israel or the Palestinians are the intransigent party by considering this post along with your points. Posted by Brendan @ 05/20/2009 05:12 AM CST To cover the "anti-Zionist" dialog, let me re-cap:
(Your last reply)
This was my original question: Below is the material you referenced in your above comment as the 'answer' from your 2nd reply: "I should first say that I'm using the colloquial definition of Zionist, rather than "one who supports the idea of a Jewish state". Basically, I mean one who's sympathies for the current situation lie much more with the Palestinians than the Israelis. It's not just being against settlements as I am as well, but blaming the Israelis and all Israeli governments while ignoring Palestinian and Arab intransigence. It's a bit hypocritical for me to use the word like this because I've always wanted to separate criticism of Zionism (which should have been then and should still be now an inoffensive idea) from criticism of the State of Israel. I use it though because I can't think of any other word to use." This says nothing about WHERE you heard I was anti-Zionist. Obviously you didn't answer, so I pointedly asked once again:
*** For a second time you didn't answer, so I asked a third time:
*** Once again, you didn't answer, so I asked a fourth and final time:
*** Your reply was: "I answered the anti-Zionist question in my 2nd comment in what I thought was an apologetic manner." As I previously pointed out, this was no answer, it was a dodge. Well, guess what? That's strike four, dude. I asked you four times to answer. I gave you four opportunities because I'm a generous and tolerant person. You can't say I didn't give you a chance. My conditions do apply. Since you didn't answer, you might as well have not replied, because I'm done wasting time on you. My decision is to govern my own actions. I will not post replies here in the future. I leave only my words and my logic behind to speak for themselves. By the way, have a look at the quote below of one of your previous replies: "Also, airspace WAS discussed. It's mentioned in the Prologue of Dennis Ross's book. There is a dead give-away in this sentence. There is a word capitalized that should not have been. Much like a Freudian slip, it belies a habit formed from years of discussions. "As you can probably tell, I’m trying to wind up this debate as it’s not going anywhere." Consider it finished. I'll leave you with one final quote and my reply: "I'll admit that you got me thinking about one thing, which is whether or not I should have invested a great deal of my time into thoroughly researching the role of water in the Camp David to Taba process so that I can provide a comprehensive refutation of your "explanation" for Israel still being the bad guy. In addition to the large amount of time this would have wasted on top of this pointless discussion, I didn't fell the need to do it as you've completely failed in showing its role in the failure of the Parameters. The onus is on you to show this as it goes against both common wisdom and the more extreme leftist line."
My closing reply: Cheery-bye. Posted by Kiev500 @ 05/21/2009 12:55 AM CST
Most people do not pay attention to politics and history until they intrude rudely on their every day lives. When a dramatic event occurs, a few will rush off to find sources of information that will explain, in “capsule summaries,” what has happened. Media and Web sites provide many glib and conflicting opinions, designed to boost circulation and promote a viewpoint, not to inform. The opinion makers are polarized according their political bias, and rarely change their ideas because of facts. They assemble facts to suit opinions. Depending on whom you read, the latest disaster is the fault of the Jews, the Moslems, the infidels, the Arabs or the United States. If we believe the pundits, the latest crisis, whatever it is, has inevitably proven both that the anti-Zionist Noam Chomsky and the pro-Zionist Charles Krauthammer were absolutely right in their analyses. The Gush-Shalom movement, the Yesha Council, United Rabbis for Greater Israel, Hamas, and the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, all claim that they knew and warned of the impending disaster and all of their contradictory analyses and solutions could have averted it if adopted in time. Likewise the Zionist Organization of America (ZOA), CAIR and the Arab League can explain to you exactly how they predicted what would happen, and how it came about because nobody listened to them. If you do not believe it, read what they write. Posted by willson @ 06/02/2009 09:01 AM CST Please do not leave notes for MidEastWeb editors here. Hyperlinks are not displayed. We may delete or abridge comments that are longer than 250 words, or consist entirely of material copied from other sources, and we shall delete comments with obscene or racist content or commercial advertisements. Comments should adhere to Mideastweb Guidelines . IPs of offenders will be banned. |
[Previous entry: "Lieberman and Annapolis: Reason versus wishful thinking"] Main Index [Next entry: "Israel. USA and the peace initiative: So dumb it has to be smart?"]
ALL PREVIOUS MidEastWeb Middle East LOG ENTRIES
Thank you for visiting MidEastWeb - Middle East.
If you like what you see here, tell others about the MidEastWeb Middle East Web Log - www.mideastweb.org/log/.
Copyright
Editors' contributions are copyright by the authors and MidEastWeb for Coexistence RA.
Please link to main article pages and tell your friends about MidEastWeb. Do not copy MidEastWeb materials to your Web Site. That is a violation of our copyright. Click for copyright policy.
MidEastWeb and the editors are not responsible for content of visitors' comments.
Please report any comments that are offensive or racist.
Editors can log in by clicking here
|