Do you really expect people to believe this? Seriously?
You’re honestly claiming that there’s no contradiction between Assad saying:
“But we cannot accept [a demilitarized Golan] because we are sacrificing our sovereignty.” and Carter claiming that "President Assad informed me that he was willing to negotiate with Israel on the status of the Golan Heights. His proposal was that both sides withdraw from the international border, with a small force of foreign observers and electronic devices to monitor the neutral zone. "
Do you really expect people not to understand that having “both sides withdraw from the international border, with a small force of foreign observers and electronic devices to monitor the neutral zone.” is creating a DMZ on the Golan and that just miiiiiight be contradicted by Assad saying he wouldn’t accept a demilitarized Golan?
Weaksauce.
I didn’t say Carter is an anti-Semite.
You seem to think I did.
That’s elucidative.
“Withdraw from the international border” is not equivalent to “Create a DMZ”. I know how much you like to twist other people’s words to suit your conclusion, but you can’t pound a round peg into a square hole and then declare someone a liar.
Untoward_Parable, you have been taking this entire discussion into the realm of the personal. Claims that other posters have made accusations of anti-semitism when no such statements can be found in their posts is liable to do more to incite anger than to move the discussion forward.
Back off.
= = =
EVERYONE needs to concentrate more on the facts of the disputes and less on the personalities of one’s opponents.
You cherrypicked away every single word after “withdraw from the international border.”
Naturally, of course, after “both sides withdraw from the international border,” then they establish a “neutral zone” that has “a small force of foreign observers and electronic devices to monitor [it]”, that’s a DMZ. That’s pretty exactly the definition of a DMZ. So yes, Assad specifically said he wouldn’t agree to creating a DMZ, and Carter claimed that Assad agreed to creating a DMZ. You’re wrong, your objection is patently false and it’s based on ignorance of the vocabulary you’re using.
Perhaps not, but “both sides withdraw from the international border, with a small force of foreign observers and electronic devices to monitor the neutral zone” looks pretty much like a DMZ.
So accusing Finn of “twisting” words is doing nothing to promote discussion, either.
Quote from Finnagain “Or, ya know, because Carter’s book was objectively filled with errors, distortions and outright lies which Carter knew were lies because we have actual records of him being corrected and then later going on to use the same lies. Carter is a bigot and one who deliberately distorts information, when he doesn’t simply invent it, in order to support a bigoted narrative, which is that Israel and Israelis are evil and bad and Palestine and Palestinians are blameless and good.”
This is the same and more than calling Carter an anti-semite. If it’s not I guess I don’t know what words mean.
I did not divert the topic, I am merely defending myself and my position, the truth as I see it.
No, a DMZ is an area where no military activity is allowed. That is the exact definition of a demilitarized zone. Withdrawing from a combat line and allowing in observers, without a placing a blanket prohibition on military activitiy is like a DMZ, one might even call it a semi-DMZ. But clearly it is not a DMZ.
I’m sorry, but when did FinnAgain get his own special set of rules?
A DMZ is an area that’s neutral and where both sides have withdrawn their forces. The only addendum here is that it’d be a DMZ monitored by foreign observers. But that’s a means of monitoring a DMZ, it doesn’t invalidate the fact that it’s still a DMZ.
A) Both sides will withdraw.
B) The area will be a neutral zone.
C) The area will be a neutral zone.
D) Both sides will withdraw.
It’s a DMZ.
Are you now seriously arguing that Carter claimed Assad agreed to a “neutral zone” with “international monitors” and that “both sides” would “withdraw” , but one of them would leave military forces? Or that after it was a “neutral zone” one of them could put military forces back in? You are either wrong about the definition of "DMZ, “neutral” or “withdraw”.
No, as I clearly said a DMZ is an area where no military activity is allowed. Syria and Israel could have withdrawn the vast majority of their combat troops, left some observers and military watch posts. That would satisfy any definition of the word “withdraw”, yet not be a DMZ. One might call it a semi-DMZ, but a full DMZ it ain’t. If you want cites, here they are:
Again, the important point here is that Carter doesn’t claim Assad agreed to a DMZ. Twisting his words to match where Assad says no to a DMZ doesn’t make him a liar. It’s even more ridiculous when Stein’s notes clearly state that Assad would agree to “semi-demilitarization”. You can’t simply ignore the definition of a DMZ, ignore Assad’s agreement to “semi-demilitarization”, and then trumpet how Carter was wrong.
Not if we’re using the actual definition for “withdraw”. The specific claim Carter made was that “both sides withdraw from the international border.” Not that “Both sides would withdraw most but not all of their combat troops and they can leave some observes and military watch posts.” Just that both sides would withdraw.
Answers.com and Dictionary.com? Well, why didn’t you just say so? I mean, they’re not as strong as citing wikipedia but…
…oh.
Also not true.
He stated that “In the past” they would have agreed to “semi-demilitarization”. Of course, “In the past” is rather obviously contrasted with “Today” and Assad clearly stated “we cannot accept [a DMZ] because we are sacrificing our sovereignty.” And, of course, Carter claimed that Assad agreed to a DMZ. Yes, despite your wikicite. Yes, despite your claim that both nations can somehow withdraw their forces but leave forces at the same time. Yes, despite your claim that a “neutral zone” is compatible with Assad’s statement that he absolutely refused to “[sacrifice Syria’s] sovereignty.”
You are wrong on all counts, just admit it.
Although I admit, I’d love to see you apply your logic to Israel at some point.
“Israel invaded area X and hasn’t withdrawn.”
“Yes it did. Sure, it’s got combat troops there. And observers. And military posts. But of course Israel has withdrawn.”
It requires an understanding of what “in the past” means coupled with the use of the hypothetical “we should ask for a larger DMZ” and the clear statement that Assad absolutely would refuse to agree to a DMZ at all in the present.
We’ve been over this. You’re still wrong.
Yes, even if you claim that you can “withdraw” your forces while leaving forces.
It seems to me that Assad in that dialogue was rejecting any claim by Peres that Syria was immediately agreeing to or had spontaneously proposed implementing a demilitarized Golan. Syria, according to him, “couldn’t accept” that without “sacrificing sovereignty”.
But Assad was apparently not saying that Syria could never accept a demilitarized Golan: on the contrary, he was saying that Syria was willing to talk about how to get “international forces, semi-demilitarization—on equal footing” in the Golan. Doesn’t that mean starting a demilitarization process in the Golan?
And apparently including at some point a DMZ, since Assad says Syria should have the right to ask that the Israeli part of the DMZ would be bigger.
If that’s a reasonable interpretation, then there isn’t really a contradiction between Assad’s remarks and Carter’s summary. Otherwise, I don’t understand what it would mean for Assad to say in one breath “we cannot accept this [demilitarized Golan]” and in the next breath to say that “semi-demilitarization” and “a larger DMZ from their part” could “be done mutually”.
Well, that’s another way of looking at it: you think Assad must have meant “We would have semi-demilitarized in the past but we’ll never accept it from now on”.
Whereas I’m thinking he meant “We can’t accept a DMZ as an unconditional offer right now, contrary to what Peres was implying, but just as we’ve said in the past, we are willing to talk about how we could mutually move towards creating one eventually with the help of international observers.”
I think that this is an interesting example of how two different possible interpretations can coexist, with neither one being indisputably true or obviously a lie as far as we can tell from the evidence.
Even still, we don’t really know what “semi-demilitarization” means. But that doesn’t play into the Carter is a liar bit, so it’s ignored in favor of twisting words and fabricating meanings to support their side.