End of the Road (map for peace)

Great Debates
21

I thought the analysis by Billmon of the Whiskey Bar was very much to the point:

What worries me even more is, OK, we’re fighting this War on Terror. To ‘win’ it, it’s absolutely essential that we ensure that the vast majority of the Arab Muslim world is at least somewhat more favorably disposed towards us than towards the terrorists.

We did a pretty good job of kicking ourselves in the balls last week in this department. Now we’ve done it again this week. In neither case was it remotely necessary. Just how crazy are these guys?

The other thing I want to know is, what does it take for Colin Powell to rediscover his manhood and resign in protest? You know he had to be against this one, just as Negroponte as the new US Ambassador to Iraq was clearly something the neocon wing stuck him with. When Bush referred to Rumsfeld as Secretary of State in his press conference, it was only sort of a slip of the tongue.

22

Desmostylus, got it; thanks.

23

First of all, Yojimbo - depends on how much I want the house and the car.

Now, SM - under virtually every peace deal seriously discussed, the large settlement blocks such as Ariel were to stay in Israeli hands. Just like the refutation of the Right of Returm, Bush only told Israelis what they already knew.

Yes, the water and the land situation is nasty, but the fact of the matter is, no West-Bank based Palestinian state will ever be viable, in an economic sense, especially after accepting millions of refugees; the geography is against it. But then, there are many nations that cannot supply themselves - Singapore, for example. Water and Food can always be important. If the Palestinians manage to put together a stable, peaceful, economically productive state, then it shouldn’t be a problem.

I don’t think you - all of you - understand the political realitie here. Ariel Sharon has promised to withdraw from occupied territory without recieving anything in return. This has put him at odds with the conservative wing of his own party and infuriated his traditional power base, the settlers. While he has the support of the Left and Center of the political map, going against the Likud will destroy his political career and cause his government to fall (always a danger in parlimentary system). To forstall this, he has called for a (non-binding) referrendum among the 200,000 Likud members, set for May 2nd.

The whole purpose of his trip to D.C. was to campaign for withdrawal among his own party members. Now that the U.S. has his back, Right-wing Israelis feel much more secure amd much more ready for concessions. By basically reaffirming certain “red lines”, Bush has struck a major blow to the panic-mongering of Israeli hardliners, and has given rank-and-file Likud members reassurance that maybe we’re not the ones who are getting the short end of the stick.

Face it: the most powerful force for change in the Middle East - both for peace and for war - is the Israeli voting public. If we’re nervous, or angry, or afraid, we go into bunker mode. If we feel safe, we’re ready to talk.

24

:smiley: I don’t know why, but for some reason this just made burst out laughing. Who the fuck are you, some sort of sick freak that likes to give charity to his sodomy victims?

25

Why is the Right of Return out of the question but keeping Ariel in Israeli hands non-negotiable?

It is even more against it if 80% of the fertile land and 65% of the water resources are behind a 30ft wall.

Does this justify building a wall through the middle of Singapore and declaring one half “Malaysian”?

Fertile land and water would help that, as would access to their fields which, preferably, aren’t burned to the ground.

Agreed, unquestionably. Please, please, Alessan, with all my heart I implore you:

Vote Green Line.

My praise for your courage and humanity would be higher than any wall.

26

And you wonder why virtually the whole world hates Israel Alessan?

The occupation of *everything * beyond 1947 borders is illegal. Moving from that to 1967 borders represents the major concession from the non-Zionist viewpoint. The retention of anything in Gaza, East Jeuselem or the West Bank should be non-negotiable, indeed outside Israel it was until yesterday when Bush fucked us all up the arse.

You seem to support the “real politics” behind the “right to return” and then wonder why it might be that *“no West-Bank based Palestinian state will ever be viable, in an economic sense, especially after accepting millions of refugees; the geography is against it.” * Well, where is it you think those refugees want to be exactly? By 'accepting" you presumably mean being dumped on you.

It is you who do not seem to understand the political realities. The “Greater Israel” policy will lead ultimately to the destruction of Israel in the long term, certainly as a functioning democracy (the first stage of that is already happening) and perhaps as an entity - if some rogue entity gets pissed enough to nuke you. It is in the long term interests of Israel not to push it when they have an advantage - but you never seem to learn. Your government deserve everything you will get, but tragically it is your people you will receive.

Don’t even try and tell us that Ariel Sharon is somehow the dove of peace who is gong the extra mile. This has been the never ending Zionist stance in justifying any move to get what they want while giving up nothing to which they have any right or claim other than that of “reality on the ground”. Occupation of another country qiute simply should have resulted in Israel being taken down by the UN, just like Iraq was kicked out of Kuwait. And it would have if the US had not been holding your coat for the last fifty years.

Israel getting the short end of the stick - fuck it - the 'road map" gave them the whole bundle of faggots! And still you push for more. What exactly is your idea of “safe”, having gone into “bunker mode”? Look around you. You aint seen nothing yet and nor has the US unless their new President come November (surely now) does a U-turn on this historic capitulation.

Struggling to avoid breaches of board rules here - maybe we should go to the pit.

27

What he got in return:

  1. US acquiescence to all those settlements y’all have been building in the West Bank over the past 25 years, in your relentless land grab.
  2. Plus some new settlements: “The Government of Israel is committed to take additional steps on the West Bank, including progress toward a freeze on settlement activity” which means that the freeze doesn’t have to happen anytime just yet, so long as there’s ‘progress’ toward a freeze.
  3. Plus no particular hurry on getting rid of illegal settlements: “[progress toward] removing unauthorized outposts”
  4. Plus no meaningful requirement of free movement for Palestinians within Palestine: “[progress toward] improving the humanitarian situation by easing restrictions on the movement of Palestinians not engaged in terrorist activities.” Since the Israeli security approach is to assume until proven otherwise that a Palestinian might be engaged in such activities, you see the problem.
  5. The removal of even a token ‘right of return’ from the table. I agree that even the entire West Bank wouldn’t be able to support a complete Palestinian right of return, but it’s my understanding that proposals had been floated in the past to allow a greatly reduced number to return.

And what did you give up? Settlements in Gaza. Now according to my atlases of Biblical geography, Gaza was Philistine territory, rather than part of Judah. So even the airy-fairy Likudnik ‘Judaea and Samaria’ BS doesn’t justify settlements there, it’s simply a lebensraum thing. Not to mention, Gaza is the densely populated corner of Palestinian territory, and the security problems of protecting settlements in Gaza must be damnably difficult and expensive.

Building a bunker and retreating into it is fine, if the bunker’s in your own yard.

28

Only to the ones near the Green Line, which we wouldn’t have left anyway. The U.S. didn’t approve of the deep ones, like Kiryat Arba or Tapuach; hell, most Israelis barely acquiesce to them.

So? nothing we wouldn’t have done anyway. Besides, there’s not much construction in the Territories, except for the blatently political; it’s not considered a good investment.

Hey, one thing at a time. The Settlers are pissed off enough about Gaza. No need to rile them up even more.

The roadblocks save Israeli lives. I see no need to apologize for them. Stopping suicide bombers is not Israel’s highest priority - it’s our only priority.

The Right of Return refers to Palestinians immigrating to Israel proper, not to the Territories. The vast majority of Israelis react to the the phrase “Right of Return” in much the same way they react to “Final Solution”, and for similar reasons.

Justifications? What do justifications matter to anyone except Ethics professors? I agree - settling in Gaza was a huge mistake, and if we could turn back time we would have prevented them from ever being formed. The fact of the matter is that they’re already there, and that removing them will be a long, difficult and heart-wrenching process. But still, we’re going to do it.

Listen, all: there are two ways of approaching problems - either treat the world as it should be or treat the world as it is. “Should have” and “could have” are vile phrases that, if I could, I would strike from the English language. Maybe we shouldn’t have taken the Territories in '67; the fact is, we did. Maybe we shouldn’t have settled them; the fact is, the settlements are already there. Maybe the Native Americans shouldn’t have sold Manhattan for $24; the fact is, nobody’s about to reduce Fifth Avenue back to pasture. The basic rule of business negotiations is that you negotiate with what you have, not with what you deserve. We have the Territories. That’s what we’re offering.

So please - stop this nonsense about “rights” or “legalities”. They’re not relevant in the game of nations, and they never have been. If you disagree with me, then tell me this - when has a nation ever done something against its own best interests because it was the “right thing to do”?

29

For a long time a lot of the world has waited on a resolution to the ambiguous position of the US: i.e. Is it prepared to act as an “honest broker” between the Palestinians and Israel. Because Alessan is entirely wrong in stating:

The only relevant force is the will of the US. Voting Israelis are largely irrelevant. The state of Israel exists at the beck and whim of the US.

Bush has resolved the ambiguity. The US will not pursue fairness in the Middle East. It will nakedly take Israel’s side absolutely, it’s finances and military being a mere rubber stamp Sharon.

With this resolution, the view of the US as anti-Islamic is settled in the Islamic world. It abandons any chance at being seen as a good faith actor. Further it puts clear ground between itself and its normal allies so far as the middle east is concerned.

Make no mistake, despite all the hating our freedom talk, the US’s attitude to the Israeli/Palestinian question is one of the primary issues troubling the Islamic world from Casablanca to Timor & in between. How this issue is resolved will in a large part determine the standing of the US in those parts of the world.

And this just when the Iraq situation is acutely delicate, bad US PR comes along to give it a push in the worst direction. It flies a flag “We Hate Islam.”.

30

Alessan,

Firstly, this view means surrendering any ethical/religious claim to the territory Israel claims. It’s not good enough to claim religious privilege when it suits but not when it constrains. There’s a word for that.

Secondly: FYI East Timor, Hong Kong & How about this one: a southern Mediterranean state created in the Post WWII era.

31

I’m probably gonna regret posting in one of these arguments, where everyone has their attitudes fixed in stone long ago - but what the heck.

Rehashing ancient grievances is pointless. The situation must be looked at as it is, not as people would like it to be. Chasing one’s tail over the morality of the borders, or of Israel’s very existence, is futile and thinking like that so far has gotten the Palistinians exactly no-where. Or, rather, worse than no-where: it has imprisoned them in stasis, living in squalid camps in the hope of reclaiming the past as opposed to trying to build a future. What they need is to do is to move on, to create a civil society, rather than re-fighting battles lost generations ago.

I don’t understand why people insist on chewing over and over whether this border or that is the “immutable, just, moral” border. There ain’t no such thing and never has been in the history of the world. Anyone who actually gave a shit about the plight of the Palistinians would see that what they need is not this or that slice of land, but peace in which to create the rudiments of a civil society - rather than living on in suspended animation, as if the '48 war, or the '67 war, had just ended and they were waiting for the victorious arab armies to restore them to their homes.

I read a story the other day about a Palistinian grandfather, who passed as his legacy to his grandson the key to the front door of his house in Haifa that his father fled in '48. Now, the family has lived for three generations in a wretched refugee camp. Grandpaw was proud to relate that he had refused every offer to move (for example, Canada’s offer a few years ago) - he wasn’t going anywhere except back to that house. Which no longer existed. Which will never happen, or not until Israel is destroyed in war - which seems an unlikely prospect. In context, this was supposed to be a heart-wrenching story, to raise sympathy for Palistinians … in my mind it did the opposite: I had to ask myself “you are willing to chew on this resentment, and have whole generations of your family live in misery and squallor - rather than making something of their lives?! I’m supposed to sympathize with that?”.

To my mind, Bush’s pronouncement is a positive move. Matters are deadlocked in an unacceptable status quo, while Palistine gets steadily more miserable and radicalized by that misery. Negotiations with the Palistinians have proved worthless for a number of reasons - mainly, because they are fragmented and thus cannot negotiate with a united voice; and also because their putative leader Arafat seems incapable of agreeing to anything. Unilateral moves must therefore be made, if anything is to be accomplished.

Right now, Sharon needs a to kickstart peace negotiations. He is facing a huge domestic crisis - the bribery scandal - which could easily topple him from power; however, the AG (Israel equivalent) cannot move against him if he is involved in real peace negotiations. This makes him much more amenable to untertake such moves, maybe even to make concessions.

Just my two centavos.

32

Alessan - you disgust me so much and I perceive you are so blinkered that it is impossible to change your world view that I will leave it to Sevastopol to tackle you.

He is totally right in pointing out that if the US pulls the plug on Israel then your whole ball game goes down the crapper. Maybe with Bush’s crazy (military) War on Terrorism, Iraq and now the milestone US acceptance of the illegal (I will continue to call a spade a spade whatever you may care to think) settlements in the occupied lands, maybe now we are approaching the end game.

If it is going to take a resolution of the Israel/Palestine issue to lead to lasting peace in the ME, and if that will only happen when the US break their stategic alliance with Israel as seems to be the case, then maybe it is going to take the US suffering catastrophic loss, an event or a series of events exceeding 9/11, for them finally to realise that their stance on Israel is going to take them down too. I hope not but I fear so.

Eventually Israel is going to have to recognise the moral and legal realitiies. And they are truths which will outlast any current “reality on the ground”. If you insist in equating the “Right to Return” with the “Final Solution”, then the Final Solution is what you will get. Not a threat, just a prediction.

33

You go too far. Alessan hasn’t said anything that remotely deserves this level of anger.

34

Also, how about South Africa giving up their nuclear program? Or Canada agreeing to allow Quebec to separate (so long as they had a clear majority on a referendum and a clear question, which they never had)?

Anyway, the point is that without some sense of higher purpose, those who ignore the lessons of history will be doomed to repeat it. If the differing sides in this dispute cannot look to a higher morality or ethical viewpoint, they will never truly resolve the issue without serious bitterness and resentment. Do you think the Palestinian people and the rest of the Arab world are just going to accept whatever deal comes out? They expect some sort of concession too, whether the voters of Israel agree or not. You have to acknowledge that the Palestinians are an aggrieved party too (though I am more of an Israel supporter myself). They deserve their own land and nation, since no one else wants them (though I think it is to the shame of the entire Arab world that they have left the Palestinians to rot in refugee camps rather than take them in).

If you subscribe to the mentality of your quoted statement then what happens when that attitude trickles down into the administration of your nation’s laws? What if “self-interest” becomes the predominate mode of legal decision-making? Having an enlightened morality and ethical viewpoint is the whole point of the UN and international relations, and even if it doesn’t always work out that way there should still be some attempt to continue down that path or all we will see is more Iraqs, Palestines, Zimbabwes, Congos and so on. Please, please keep that in mind.

35

Also, how about South Africa giving up their nuclear program? Or Canada agreeing to allow Quebec to separate (so long as they had a clear majority on a referendum and a clear question, which they never had)?

Anyway, the point is that without some sense of higher purpose, those who ignore the lessons of history will be doomed to repeat it. If the differing sides in this dispute cannot look to a higher morality or ethical viewpoint, they will never truly resolve the issue without serious bitterness and resentment. Do you think the Palestinian people and the rest of the Arab world are just going to accept whatever deal comes out? They expect some sort of concession too, whether the voters of Israel agree or not. You have to acknowledge that the Palestinians are an aggrieved party too (though I am more of an Israel supporter myself). They deserve their own land and nation, since no one else wants them (though I think it is to the shame of the entire Arab world that they have left the Palestinians to rot in refugee camps rather than take them in).

If you subscribe to the mentality of your quoted statement then what happens when that attitude trickles down into the administration of your nation’s laws? What if “self-interest” becomes the predominate mode of legal decision-making? Having an enlightened morality and ethical viewpoint is the whole point of the UN and international relations, and even if it doesn’t always work out that way there should still be some attempt to continue down that path or all we will see is more Iraqs, Palestines, Zimbabwes, Congos and so on. Please, please keep that in mind.

36

Malthus, you are entitled to your opinion. I revised my original text heavily on preview and do not feel I have in any way infringed board rules. Point out where you think I have gone too far - note no personal abuse, no hate language, no theats. I am just pointing towards a future I fear for, if Alessan’s openly admitted lack of any respect for, or even recognition of, the application of international law or human rights to the Palestinian question.

Alessan is entitled to his views too - even though I find them contemptable. And I am entitled to the disgust they instill in me.

I was just trying to raise his eyes to the ultimate result of such rejectionist views. It will lead to the destruction of Israel, and do untold damage to the USA the longer and the closer they associated themselves with Israel. I do not wish that - I would like to see Israel and it’s neighbours co-exist and prosper. I see the possibility of a solution but only on the basis on creating a viable Palestinian state - which means clearing out totally of the occupied territories.

My views are not extremist outside Israel/USA - they are mainstream.

37

I disagree. I am attempting to convince Alessan, a voter in the Israeli election, that the Green Line is a reasonable and humane basis for peace, given a little “wiggle room”. Your hateful invective is turning him away from such a course, utterly and completely.

38

Well, I’m a Canadian, and I do assure you your views are not mainstream here.

But that is totally beside the point.

My only point is that your debating style isn’t going to cut it. I’m not complaining about it; I’m just telling you for your own edification, that to an outside observer right now Alessan appears a lot more reasonable than you - which is imparing your argument.

He may be wrong and you may be right. If you want to demonstrate this to the uncommitted, it is probably better to out-argue him rather than go on about how much he disgusts you, or making wild predictions of doom if your POV is not heeded.

39

I take your point. Clearly I have not been particularly diplomatic but I am genuinely surprised if you think Alessan, or anybody who seems to believe that might is right, period, is more reasonable than I appear.

But I have to take you independent views on board I guess. I had no real prospect of convincing Alessan to accept my POV, frankly I was aiming more at the uncommitted but if I am alienating *that * audience then I am wasting my time.

Does that mean *your * debating style *is * cutting it?!? :wink:

Are my views mainstream? Well in Europe at least - 59% of those polled saw Israel at the “biggest threat to world peace”.

Previous posters questioned whether, given the current political position in the ME, US association and support for the new Israeli stance was going to improve or reduce the possibilities for peace. I think reduce - big time. Doom laden? Do you things have been getting better, safer, since 9/11? I know some Spaniard who might disagree…

Or is my using Alessan’s reference to the Final Solution against him what you think passed the point of good taste. Well, maybe it should be added to the Godwin Test - in which case look to which post used it first.

Hopefully this comes over more reasoned…

40

Yes, much better. :slight_smile:

  1. I can understand that the situation between Israel and Palistinians is a big threat to peace, but that is hardly a one-sided heap of blame - the “threat”, as I understand it and as you allude to it, comes from the reaction to Israel’s actions and/or existence. In any event, I can’t see that the results of a survey mean that “Europeans” believe anything other than the polled question - which is not included in your link.

  2. Whether the situation since 9/11 has gotten worse, or better, is quite irrelevant to an argument about the possible future effects of an action taken now.

  3. Alessan can speak for himself, I am sure … but I simply can’t resist pointing out that the previous post and now you are mischaracterizing what he said about the final solution.

The quote in question was:

Note that he is saying that the vast majority of Israelis react in this manner. That is simply a fact; it is not an argument or an analogy (the argument he is making is that, because Israelis react this way, implementation of the right will not be possible). That fact may be correct or it may be incorrect. Alessan is merely saying that his is how the public (which he knows better than we) reacts.

In other words, he is not equating the two - he states that the public does. Which may, or may not, be outrageous on their part. But there is no reason to get outraged at him for merely reporting that this attitude exists.