Well, Alessan needs to understand how angry and appalled some people–including those objectively sitting on the fence–are at his suggestion that there is no such thing as morality and justice, only those actions that power enables.
Reading the latest editorial by Friedman got me thinking. The problem of the logistics aside, what Israel should do is pull back to the original borders, do something with the settlers, and make sure that they are not somehow restricting access to the Palesteinian areas. Then, if it works and the attacks stop, great. If the attacks continue or escalate Israel can say “Look, we tried it your way and it didn’t work. Now shut up and go away while we defend ourselves.”
Honestly, I’m sick of the whole mess. I don’t care one way or the other anymore about the entire area as long as America pulls her support first. As furt said
Neither of you win! This thread was Godwinized by RTFirefly in the post before Alessan’s use of “final solution”:
Well, I read, but did not see. Perhaps you could point me to where he says that?
So far, all the “outrage” over Alessan I have seen has been the result of taking things out of context, misunderstandings, putting the worst possible interpretations on his motives, etc. etc. Has he annoyed you guys in other threads or something? 
As is typical of these threads this thing has turned into a screaming match about the relative virtues of the Israelis and the Palestinians. As an American who is heartily tired of the tribal violence that has been going on as long as I can remember, and that goes back to 1948 when Sunoco Five Star Extra News told us about one outrage after another as Israel expanded its boundaries and cleansed its population, I no longer think there is any hope for the Palestinians or their aspirations for a viable independent nation. Sooner or later the Palestinians will go the way of the Armenians; they will become a marginal ethnic group without power, influence or prospects.
My concern is how this will impact the ongoing so-called War on Terror. You have to wonder if our President sat down and tried to thing of what he could do that would give the Jahadists the biggest boost and generate the greatest ill will toward the US on the part of the Islamic World with the least possible effort. I think he found it. Feel safer?
You can’t help but think that Carl Rove and the committee to reelect W had more to do with this than the state department did.
Wow. Quite a response. I’ll try and keep this brief.
-
I have no idea why people are have been whipped into such a frenzy due to my post. If I have accidentally insulted any one of you, then I apologize. However, I will not apologize for being proud of my country - and for believing that Bush’s proclimation was, in fact, a stong move towards peace.
-
I do believe in morality and justice, with all of my heart, and I know my country is doing things that I hate… but I also believe that it needs to do most of them in order to survive. That’s because morality and justice take second seat to national survival. I may sacrifice my life for some abstract ideal, but I won’t sacrifice my loved ones.
Besides, saying “you’re wrong and you have to capitulate or else!” is no way to make friends.
- Look, Israelis, as individuals and as a nation, really like the United States. We see it as an ally, a friend and an older brother. However, we’d do fine wiyhout it. American financial asistance is only a small fraction of our GNP, and military assistance is virtually nil (outside of hardware we could probably get elsewhere). If the U.S. cut off assistance, things would probably be rough for a while, and we’d have to fight a war or two, but we’d pull through. Remember, the Soviet Block is gone. Our enemies don’t have any patrons of their own.
One thing I can tell you, is that an American cutoff would be the worse thing possible for the Palestinians. We can hurt them a lot more than we are now, and if we start to feel as if our backs are to the wall, we will.
-
I also don’t see what’s so holy about the Green line - after all, it was never an internationally accepted border. It’s only important because the Palestinians think it’s important; what I’ve been trying to say is that Israeli opinion matters two. That’s the essence of compromise - both sides have something they want, and both sides get only part of it. Compromise means giving up your dreams, which is something the Palestinians refuse to do, and is something I believe Ariel Sharon has already done.
-
Zionism is not a religious movement. Although there are religious Zionists, this country was founded by secular Jews, many of them outright atheists. We did not come here for religious reasons, and that whole “ancient birthright” thing is no more than a sales pitch (although unfortunately, too many people actually bought it). The fact of the matter is, we needed a country, and here was one we had a reasonable claim to. No more than that.
-
Allow me to be unimpressed by the near unanimous European disdain. First of all, history teaches us that when a majority of Europeans believe in something, it’s usually incredibly stupid and often quite dangerous. Second of all, the feeling is mutual. I’m not saying that one of the original purposes of founding this country was to annoy Europeans. I’m just saying that it’s a bonus.
P.S. on review - if this is “tribal violence”, then so was the Cold War. Don’t patronize us.
I don’t agree.
The only “safe” course is to end this particular conflict - and the only way to do that is to ensure that Palistinians eventually get a state of their own, and start to build up a civil society. Continuing the status quo has generated and will continue to generate resentment. It is that resentment which provides recruits for the ranks of the extremists. Those extremists will, rightly or wrongly, blame the US for it.
Thus, to the extent that the US cares about extremism, the US cannot do nothing. Its policy ought to be to craft a solution that, at the end of the day, results in a civil society for Palistinians rather than the stasis and misery they currently live in.
Naturally, the preferred solution would be to sit the two sides down and negotiate a solution. That has been tried and failed. In part, it has failed because the Palistinians cannot agree on concessions - the issues have become so politically and religiously charged that “concessions” draw accusations of disloyalty and treason. Note that whether the Palistinians ought to be making concessions (the issue over which so much anguish, anger and talk has been devoted) is a secondary question - barganing, particularly from a position of weakness, cannot work if one side cannot make concessions.
In part, this is a chicken-and-egg problem - Palistinian negotiators cannot make concessions because their leaders do not speak with a united voice: any leader offering concessions is sure to be faced with denunciations (and loss of power to) leaders who take a harder line. This may be cured if Palistinian society enjoyed the peace and stability required to create a civil society. But they are denied that peace and stability because of lack of an agreement - an agreement which cannot be reached without making concessions.
How to cut this gordion knot? The only solution, it seems to me, is to impose a peace unilaterally.
Now, initially such a peace will not be on terms that are likely to appeal to Palistinians. How could it? It is imposed by their enemies; and Sharon is a man who dislikes makeing concessions as much as any.
The hope is that such a peace will give the Palistinian people some room to breath - a chance to start the process of building a civil society. Should they seize that chance, they have a much greater opportunity to aquire a leadership that thinks pragmatically about improving their well-being (rather than radically in terms of apocalyptic visions); in turn, the prospect of some sort of security may well convince Israelis to elect a less confrontational government. If those events happen, the chance for the Palistinians to negotiate a more favourable deal will be there.
And if that happens, the tensions in the region will considerably lessen.
I think the risk of short-term anger is worth the prospect of a long-term solution.
I agree that if peace is to come to Israel and Palestine it will have to come unilaterally, but I still, despite the rare flash of light, do not expect it to come from either side. I long for the day when the UN finally lives up to its potential and its mandate, steps in, and says, “You two are fucking things up for the rest of us. Work it out and we will help but there will be some hard decisions to be made and if you can’t make them we will.” Martial law, UN Peacekeepers, and all, just like if it were some shithole in the Balkans or Africa. Except follow through, unlike in the Balkans or Africa. It even would’ve done more good if the US had invaded Israel and Palestine than Iraq. “Grow up, you two. People are getting hurt and it’s your fault.”
None of that’s gonna happen but I can still look forward to the inevitable deaths of those matching horse’s asses, Sharon and Arafat. Whoever replaces them is unlikely to be much better, though. Same childishness in younger bodies.
Frustrating. Especially frustrating because both groups SHOULD be our friends.
The only one who seems to think the US president can enforce pease there is GW Bush and he is making things worse. Nobosdy is asking him to enforce peace but how about not making matters worse?
Like BenLaden. GWB benefits when things get worse and so, like BenLaden, he is contributing to make things worse.
This is just awful.
Do you have a word that differentiates between violence specifically targetting civilians and violence targetting combatants who retreat to and hide behind civilians?
Both of these quotes imply that, as the Palestinians are ‘negotiating’ from a position of weakness, they cannot expect an equitable agreement. How can this send any message to the Palestinians other than that they had better keep fighting and try to gain more of a position of strength before going to the negotiating table?
Because they’re losing.
And Israel is winning? That is a pretty fucked up way of looking at things. So, so long as you kill more of them you don’t mind them killing some of yours? What kind of victory is this? And it seems the Palestinians are quite determined to continue “losing” as long as Israel continues the present policies. Good luck and enjoy the “winning”.
One thing is for sure: This will drive the EU further away from the US
Can anyone define “just, fair and realistic solution?” Because it seems that the Palestinians, Israelis, Americans, Europeans and Muslims all have far different meanings for all of those terms.
The Palestinian, European and Muslim definition of “just, fair and realistic solution,” seems to be the end of Israel as a state, something neither Americans nor Israelis would agree is either fair or realistic.
As for the OP, I would like to see the Muslims and Europeans put the same pressure on the Palestinians they expect Americans to put on the Israelis.
Not only does he break US policy, Bush is supporting further disregard for international law.
The settlements are illegal. Their existance violates United Nations General Assembly and Security Council resolutions and lead to breach of the Geneva convention.
The man is dangerous.
btw, from my understanding there are very few Jewish settlers already in the Gaza strip (7500) compared to the number of Palestinians (1.3 million). Most of the focus of Israeli land grabs has been in the west bank.
ll: *Can anyone define “just, fair and realistic solution?” Because it seems that the Palestinians, Israelis, Americans, Europeans and Muslims all have far different meanings for all of those terms. *
True. However, the proposed Geneva accord has won a lot of support as a potential compromise, although not from the Israeli or Palestinian leaders themselves:
This policy reversal could hardly have come at a worse time for the US, so why now?
On reflection, my take on this is that the Likudnik/Neo-conservatives have realised the probability that their time is up & now wish to implement as much of their agenda as possible in the remaining months.
This includes making broad and practically irreversible concessions and policies so as to bind the succeeding Kerry administration to the promises of the prior Bush govt.
Additionally the decision is already giving succour to the view that the US’s intervention in the middle east was in a large part driven by zionist influence. It does appear to make sense: eliminating Israel’s largest strategic threat & keeping that Iraq in a state of submission. The thing about this radical view is that on the evidence and circumstances it may well be true.
Finally considering US domestic politics, I’ll repeat my view that the GOP, while steadily losing the swinging and normally decisive middle, is hoping to mobilise those on the religious right who normally wouldn’t vote. This looks like another attempt. Consider the radical religious politics of this administration and it makes sense.
Alessan wrote:
Yeah!
The bank-robber gave back the stolen escape-car and got nothing in return. 
Put this in Your head, please:
The land is grabbed, stolen. Do You understand.
Even Sharon do.
Henry
So, now the US prez. tells us that any country can grab land “won” by war, even if all countries decided the opposite in Geneva in 1948!
And guess who was the first to congratulate for this historical decision?
Yes, Russia!
We all thank Bush for his decisions.
And from now on, the Iraqi people should kill as many occupying soldiers as possible, othervise some big country can just grab the land.
It is legal nowadays. To grab I mean.
To kill occupying soldiers has always been legal.
And a duty.
Henry
**"Everybody has to move, run and grab as many hilltops as they can to enlarge the settlements because everything we take now will stay ours… **
Ariel Sharon