Here’s an article
I agree with every word, except that i’m not so sure Cheney have actually learned any of these things.
Comments? Refutations?
It’s quite short, but here’s some quotes for you lazy fucks 
“A cease-fire in the conflict is meaningless unless there is a political context of hope.”
“The peace plan of Saudi Crown Prince Abdullah offers the best hope for the peace and security that normal people, not the ideologues, earnestly desire.”
“Both Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon and Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat will respond to US pressure when it is firmly applied and when their situations are desperate.”
“This last lesson is the most basic one, for it rests on earlier teachings from the history of the conflict as well as on current realities. In the past, Israel has made concessions to its Arab enemies only when pressed by Washington or by those enemies. It withdrew forces from the Sinai Peninsula on three occasions when Presidents Eisenhower, Nixon, and Carter demanded it.”
I know that you are new here CDW, but you really need to watch your language outside of The Pit.
My apologies. I’m not the first to use the f-word in GD, though, but that perhaps a little too casual. No harm intended.
Just a little something I would like to get you to explain to me please:
Quote: In the past, Israel has made concessions to its Arab enemies only when pressed by Washington or by those enemies.
So you think that Israel should have to make concessions? Please explain to me why the Israelis should do this. I would prefer that you not say something like “the occupation is untendable”. I guess what I am asking is how do you come to the conclusion that Israel is in the wrong?
Quote: It withdrew forces from the Sinai Peninsula on three occasions when Presidents Eisenhower, Nixon, and Carter demanded it."
What do you think the result would have been had they not?
I do think Israel is in the wrong in a number of ways, but that is perhaps beside the point. The article is about what conclusions the administrations should draw and indirectly what actions they should take. They want a lasting peace, like most people, and also quick progress. For that to happen, Israel must clearly make some kind of concessions, yes? Start negotiating for example.
Too off topic, methinks.
My OP was too vague again, wasn’t it? Sigh.
OK, i’ll make it more specific: USA needs to apply more pressure on the Israelis for peace to happen.
I’m dubious that this conflict will ever be settled by agreement. My guess is that one side or the other will eventually win, and the other side will lose.
I believe those who say the Arab goal is to drive the Israelis completely out of the Middle East. Obviously, Israel’s goal is to stay in existance. These goals cannot be reconciled. It will take a total military victory by one side or the other to settle this.
december, just think about what you just said. If it will take a victory for one side of the other, there is no way that the winner is going to be Israel. They cannot drive out all of the Arabs from the middle east. It is just impossible. So, what you are saying is that we wait until Israel is driven out. In other words you have unintentionally taken sides (or maybe not).
I saw an Israeli woman on TV, the other night. She was crying over a lost loved one. Her statement was that everyone knows that what is needed is for the Israelis to give up their settlements in the disputed areas. I knew, more years ago than I want to admit, that these settlements were a mistake. The U.S. should have said “No” to them when they were starting to build the first ones.
I had five children, the last were twins. They were the only ones that would say “you treat (the other twin) better than me”. This situation reminds me of that. Both sides think they are right and have excuses for their misbehavior. It is getting very tiresome, hearing the same “We’re right, they’re wrong”. It has gone on so long that all I know is that both sides have done bad things that are inexcusable. But that’s just my feelings.
I take my position because it seems true, although I don’t like it. As kniz implies, my view is that Israel will likely be eventually destroyed, although I hate that outcome. Israel has won several wars against the Arabs, but none was a total victory. If Israel ever loses ONE war, that will be a total defeat.
My feelling is that Israel has done fewer bad things. However, who’s “right” doesn’t matter very much. I think the matter will be settled by force. Furthermore, Israel may kill millions of people with nuclear weapons during the process of being destroyed.
Sorry to be so gloomy, but that’s how it looks from here…
Israel won’t kill millions. It will have to kill billions in order to win. The Arabs fear that Israel can.
I don’t mean to pick specifically on you, kniz, but this is an argument along the “pave the Middle East” or “if you can’t share, nobody gets the Holy Land” routes that I see bandied about semi-seriously.
These arguments imply a moral equivalence between Israeli and Palestinian leadership that I just can’t see. Granted, I am pro-Israeli, but I am also pro-human rights and pro-Palestinian state.
This is not to say that Israel hasn’t done (and isn’t doing) morally reprehensible things – I abhor the idea of the settlements, and I think it is just a matter of time before the 200,000 settlers will have to be forcibly relocated.
I can see very little Israeli guilt in this situation beyond that. Israel has made offers for peace, and has followed through on them. Israel has not pursued offensive war against the Palestinian people. Israel has not targeted civilians. Israel does not indoctrinate her children to hate the Palestinians, and does not use its official organs of information dissemination to spread hateful lies about the Palestinians. Israel maintains a rule of law in a free and open society. Most recently, Israel has complied with Palestinian demands for a cease fire with, like usual, utterly no reciprocation from the Palestinians.
I support the idea of a Palestinian state. But for Israel to acquisce to the creation of a violent, hateful, unruly neighbor on lands necessary to ensure her survival is basically a call for her to commit suicide.
Implying this is a hateful argument, or that all current dispute can be traced back to Abraham’s progeny oversimplifies the matter and forces moral equivalence on a situation where there is little. When opportunities for peace have come to Israel, she has seized them. The same cannot be said in reciprocation. From today’s news, it appears Cheney has carried the same message from his vists, and has refused meetings with Arafat until he publicly denounces terror in Arabic.
As always -
EVERYTHING’S LOCAL
Dick: Ummm… OK if we bomb Iraq?
Mideast: Do you MIND?! We have a REAL problem here!