« "Restrepo" and "Taliban," a contrast | Main | A Few More Thoughts on Restrepo - Silverman »

13 December 2010

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Fred

Walrus,

I hope not, the world economy can not sustain $100/barrel oil.

Charles I

I LOOK ASKANCE AT MURDERER'S ABUSING CANADIAN PASSPORTS TO CARRY OUT THEIR WORK, AND I LOOK ASKANCE AT ISRAEL ACCIDENTALLY SHELLING CANADIAN U.N. OBSERVERS WHILST CARRYING OUT SAVAGE ATTACKS AGAINST THEIR NEIGHBOURS RATHER THAN MAKING PEACE AT THE HEIGHT OF ITS POWER.

Sorry for the caps, no bold or italics here.

I do perfectly understand differing viewpoints in the debate and assessment of states' illegal actions outside their borders being characterized as hostility, just as I understand that today's terrorist is tomorrow's prisoner and Friday's President.

Thanks for not accusing me of being an anti-semite, Doc.

Charles I

Doctor, perhaps you were too busy to relate the facts because the thesis of your cite is a bald faced lie.:


"The fundamental problem is that the Palestinians continue to reject these inherent rights of the Jewish people. That's indeed why we do not yet have two states for two peoples: The Palestinians remain steadfast in their refusal to accept that there even exists a Jewish nation that lays legitimate claim to its land. They reject the entire premise of a state for the Jewish people -- not only beyond the pre-1967 lines of the state of Israel, but even within its original 1948 boundaries. This, of course, explains why the Palestinians did not pursue independence prior to 1967, when Israel was within the 1949 Armistice lines."

This is flatly contradicted by the historical and documentary record. In 2002, every party except Israel explicitly called for a 1967 2 state solution.

Ya'alon state that Palestinians "must be taught to respect the human dignity of their Jewish neighbors, just as Israeli youths are instructed to be tolerant of others -- including Palestinians -- with whom they may not agree. And all Palestinians must come to terms, once and for all, with the fact that the Jewish people will continue to exercise their historical right to sovereignty in their homeland, a sovereignty that guarantees equal rights for all of Israel's citizens.'

Palestinians must "respect" the oppressive interloper.

Israeli's must "tolerate" the previous inhabitants.

"Historical right to sovereignty"

Wtf is that?

Is is the same as Netanyahu's demilitarized, partially occupied state with no control over its exporrts and imports, borders, coasts or electromagnetic spectrum, as he is quoted touting in Wikileaks?

Netanyahu "wasn't interested in a sovereign Palestinian state emerging in the West Bank, but rather "an agreement over territory,settlements and 'refined' Palestinian sovereignty without an army or control over air space and borders."

Top 10 Wikileaks Palestine Nuggets : http://blog.thejerusalemfund.org/2010/11/top-10-wikileaks-palestine-nuggets.html

I'll post the original when I get a moment, the links are ever changing.

Just a coup[le of trite representative examples of the hypocrisy in accusing the Palestinians of the self-defeating duplicitous stance you and Ya'alon bruit.

If you can't understand why people would have differences of opinion over what those positions mean for 2 state peace, let alone the future of Israel, or what they reveal about the party's positions, and choose to characterize difference of opinion as hostility to a state - gee, that sounds familiar from somewhere - rather than discussing a position, I've no more to say to you sir, except Godspeed and a steady hand during your surgery.

Fred

I wonder if we should say 'thanks' to our allies one more time:
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/2010/1215/Stuxnet-virus-could-be-altered-to-attack-US-facilities-report-warns

Charles I

Fred, mutual universal vulnerability seems to be upon us, partially my point above, the self interest angle aside from my usual bleeding slant.

Here's the quote of the Day from the Global Security Newswire available at NTI http://www.nti.org/

Quote of the Day

The residents of Israel shouldn't be under the illusion that someone will open an umbrella over the heads.

--Israeli Maj. Gen. Gadi Eisenkot, saying the country's missile defense system was primarily intended to protect military installations.

I don't believe the General is being hostile to Israeli's in pointing out their vulnerabilities, nor alluding to misapprehensions regarding same, any more than I think his admission support any "not so bad" thesis.

Its primary source evidence tending to a view of current events developing from many sources. I'd like Israel to be secure(d), and the Palestinians, same as the rest of us, as best can be. I don't think its going about it in the right way. The General doesn't sound convinced either.

A Palestinian state'd do the trick is my cheap opinion, but it may be too late.

so in this case I discount Ya'laon and note the comment of Maj. Gen. Eisenkot bearing directly upon my argument about vulnerability, as well as the serendipity of the latter's arrival in my mailbox given my earlier comments - a phenomenon that tickles me to no end notwithstanding the dreary subject.

Chalk me up as exasperated and then bemused.



Robert R. Rock


Charles1 wrote;

Doctor, perhaps you were too busy to relate the facts because the thesis of your cite is a bald faced lie.:


"The fundamental problem is that the Palestinians continue to reject these inherent rights of the Jewish people. That's indeed why we do not yet have two states for two peoples: The Palestinians remain steadfast in their refusal to accept that there even exists a Jewish nation that lays legitimate claim to its land. They reject the entire premise of a state for the Jewish people -- not only beyond the pre-1967 lines of the state of Israel, but even within its original 1948 boundaries. This, of course, explains why the Palestinians did not pursue independence prior to 1967, when Israel was within the 1949 Armistice lines." {from Ya'alon's Op Ed}

This is flatly contradicted by the historical and documentary record. In 2002, every party except Israel explicitly called for a 1967 2 state solution. [Charles1 comment]

Charles1, The "Palestinian" position repeated consistantly is no recognition of Israel as a Jewish State. In must be emphasized that in addition to the demand for the establishment of a state for The "Palestinians" within the '67 border, which must be without a single Jewish resident, by definition; Israel must allow the so-called "Palestinian right of return", flooding Israel with millions of Palestinian Refugees",their offspring and families.
The "Palestinians" have stated they will take the disputed territories based upon the 1967 lines for the establishment of a state,inclusive of Jerusalem etc etc but refuse to accept such territory as a full and final settlement. That is because as Ya'alon stated, they consider all of Israel to be occupied. This strategy was given a name when it was announced by it's founder Y. Arafat: The Strategy of Stages. After the establishment of the state within the '67 borders will be realized, the next stage is to take what remains of the "zionist entity" that is all of Israel. So, in essense even if Israel is recognized as a state in the region, not as a Jewish State, as I explained, then with the flooding of Israel with millions upon millions of "Palestinians", resulting in a majority of those in favor of changing the name of The State to something very different, like Palestine;Israel would cease to exist. This is what Arafat envisioned as "peace", the end of Israel. Very different from the way Israelis define "peace". This is what Ya'alon is alluding to in his closing remarks. Don't hold your breath for any agreement for years.
You are quite right Charles 1,that The Israeli position has been to place all kinds of strict conditions upon what the "Palestinian State" could have or not have. That list has been expanded to now include a permanant Israeli presence in The Jordan Valley. Obviously Israel can invoke PM Sharon's Gaza Experiment as what they fear will become of "The West Bank". I have read comments by folks here that demanding a permanant military presence in The Jordan Valley is extraordinary. I think what the Israelis are saying is that they can not and will not permit a fully independant Palestinian State given the present reality at this point in time. There is no way all of Israel's conditions can be met and guaranteed forever. As time goes by and it will, I am afraid, that list will most certainly grow.
Originally when Begin and Sadat met at Camp David to negotiate peace between Israel and Egypt, Begin was only willing to offer future consideration for a limited autonomy plan for the "Palestinians". The Israelis refused to negotiate with The PLO and Arafat, but would only consider those "not tainted by terrorism".
Of course PM Rabin ended that with his "historic" handshake with Arafat resulting in Oslo Accords. This was a huge gamble and one could argue a huge blunder by Rabin.
I would like to go more into Rabin another time. In short, The Israelis now accepted the notion of a "demilitarized Palestinian State" with a long list of conditions defining what that state must be. The conditions are very restrictive and The Israelis are dead serious about making these conditions potential deal breakers, they want absolute guarantees; the list is well known. Charles mentioned a few of them.
The point I made, not so long ago is that it seemed to me that what The Israelis were really offering was more of what PM Begin had in mind when he negotiated at Camp David. That is a limited autonomy.
Patrick Lang picked up on this point from my posting and used it in his opening remarks before an audience, in which The Colonel delievered a lecture at The University of Virginia the following week.

Posted by: Robert R. Rock |

Patrick Lang

RRR

Yes, and I thank you for the moment of clarification that your comment provided me. pl

DE Teodoru

According to Shalom Alehem, when the wise rebbe was asked: Rabbi, why does the dog wag his tail?...the Rebbe responded: well, would you rather have the tail wag the dog?

The answer is clear: if you are a Zionist with a "chosen people" foundation-- more secular historical notion than religious as religious Jews are far more modest-- you would insist that so it must be when the superior few dominate the inferior many.

Yet great majority of American Jews are Americans first and exactly this kind of Netanyahu chutzpah bravado is turning even them against Israel. It's not apparent in public because their motto is: silence does no harm. Yet, they know that, once again, the Zionists are promoting Krystanacht because it's the only way they'll turn the Diasporic 70% of World Jewry into olims on a Great Aliyah with all their assets to be fleeced by the Israeli Gov. Israel doesn't need space. Per DoS, 74% of settlements are empty. Israel needs bodies to fill them. So, as PM Sharon said in 2002: any Jew who does not move to Israel by 2020 will lose his Jewish soul (sic). I feel I must ask whether the current Likud side of Mideast Peace is not creating a forced migration by fueling anti-Semitism in America?

Cal

I do not really understand all of the hostility towards Israel.
Posted by: Robert R. Rock | 15 December 2010 at 05:35 AM
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

I am hostile toward Israel so let me explain it to you.

1- Israel is of no value to the US, it is a liability not an asset, contrary to all propaganda.

2-America has no moral obligation to Israel, is not responsible for the Jews or any of their misfortunes and the aid we give Israel is purely a product of domestic political corruption brought about by US Jewish
lobbying and political influence and other interested parties.

3- Despite facts 1 & 2, the aid US taxpayers are forced to pay Israel helps support their illegal occupation and their violation of all international laws which is repugnant to all decent people and brings shame on the US.

4-The fact that US politicians running for offices in the USA have to pledge allegiance to the foreign country of Israel to get elected is the most bizarre and Orwellington aberration in the history of this country and should be consider treason imo.

5- Israel is a bottomless pit which according to a CSM economist has cost Americans 1.2 trillion dollars of their hard earned money.

6- Israel and it's supporters try to and in many case do manipulate US
policy against it's own interest.

7- Israelis have killed and are still killing Americans with complete impunity thanks to the aforementioned 2, 4 & 6.

Americans have good reason to be hostile to Israel.
Many principles critical to a sovereign country and a democracy have been subverted by this pernicious influence and alliance.
I have no doubt it will eventually end, the question is how much damage America and Americans will suffer before it does.

Charles I

The demand for recognition as a Jewish State is merely a reformulation of we have no partner to talk to, so bombs away, mind the settlements. It is an obfuscating demand put to captives who sensibly demand an end to illegal occupation and simple statehood as understood in international law rather than the Torah.

Wanna be a Jewish state? Go nuts. Want my eternal sympathy for the sufferings of your people? You got it. Support for secure legal borders? Unquestioned. Lets get the U.S., U.N. in, Canada too, evacuate Afghanistan and Iraq, send them them all in.

Respect for current behaviour in the name of The Book? Fat chance.

Want a free pass?

NEVER AGAIN.

Why can't Israel be satisfied with its current unchallenged autonomy, and cast itself as whatever it wishes for what ever sound or loony reasons within its legitimate autonomous spheres , without demanding lessor subject autonomies avow, prior to permission to exist, metaphysical fealty, let alone deference or respect, to an oppressor comprised of the very same Creator-endowed mortal clay?

I don't care if you're a Rastafarian, tho I'd like to visit.

You've got no right bigger rights than me other than your gun and international law, and if you catch my attention by abusing the neighbours, spouting gibberish and abusing my country's diplomatic process and members of its armed forces as well, tough.

Sharon's Gaza experiment was no experiment at all but a coldly rational move to cut losses and sever the P.A in two in a single stroke.

Fatah begged for a measured plan including security and other assistance to maintain some semblance order, just as they beg for settlement halts - to no end.

What followed was the most naked display of obscenely hypocritical realpolitik from the west - at war to impose democracy in Asia, sanctioning it in the M.E.

My Prime Minister called the Gaza attack "a measured response". I

I shudder to measure the possible response to the past century and the start of this one. Recent geological phenomena call tectonic metaphors to mind.

In any event, what is "offered" in return for the demands of fealty, land, diminished sovereignty and and a lot of water is patently insufficient. Suicidal, Arafat characterized mooted acceptance of one "offer" ginned up by one roadmap, process or accord.

Partial Occupation, er, I'm sorry, Limited Autonomy, it reminds me of guys in rehab, let's try controlled drinking so I can keep at it. Really not very salutary, never works for long. Not realistic.

In any event, perhaps demands for recognition as a Jewish state puts the cart before the horse of mutual recognition of states, even one with lessor sovereignty, at the cost of physical, as opposed to metaphysical relief for the parties.

Down there in the dust, bet it tastes like jack-booted gall.

From all I have seen and heard it seems possible this may be the intent and desired result. If that's not the case, and that demand has not produced the DESIRED result lo these 60 years, perhaps another tack is indicated.

Roy G.

Since Mr. Rock isn't just doing a drive by here, i'd like to ask for some clarification to an earlier statement of his:

"Do you see starvation? Nope."

Are we to assume that you are referring to Biafra-style distended belly starvation in the Gazan children? Is this really your benchmark?

I am asking, because it is well-documented that malnutrition is endemic in Gaza, and it is the direct result of the official Israeli govt. position several years ago to effect the siege of Gaza in order to 'put the residents of Gaza on a diet.' Despite some slight easing of the embargo on foodstuffs entering Gaza, this remains to be the case.

I am curious, because you represented yourself as working in the medical field: do you find that the Israeli government's stricture on foodstuffs to be consistent with the Hippocratic Oath?

Robert R. Rock

I am hostile toward Israel so let me explain it to you.
Posted by: Cal | 16 December 2010 at 01:05 PM

Cal,

Thank you very much for taking the time to reply to my question.

Robert R. Rock

...From all I have seen and heard it seems possible this may be the intent and desired result. If that's not the case, and that demand has not produced the DESIRED result lo these 60 years, perhaps another tack is indicated.


Posted by: Charles I | 16 December 2010 at 01:47 PM

Charles The First,

Thank you very much for taking the time and effort to respond to my posts. I truly appreciate it.
Although I cannot disagree with you more, I respect your views and look forward to reading your posts in the future.

Robert R. Rock

...Despite some slight easing of the embargo on foodstuffs entering Gaza, this remains to be the case...

Posted by: Roy G. | 16 December 2010 at 02:25 PM

I have never been to Gaza personally and must rely upon what I have read. The most recent information I have received is that supplies of food are plentiful and Gazans are not starving at all. Israel reportedly delivers on the average of over 600 truckloads of foodstuffs each day in addition to all of what comes in through the numerous tunnels under the Philadelpi Corridor.
Actually Roy you are not the only one who misread my post. I wrote;

Things are not really so bad for them. Do you see a major war? Nope. Do you see uncontrolled acts of violence/terrorism? Nope.
Do you see starvation? Nope.

Who was the "them". You assumed I meant Gazans. Well, I did not. I meant the whole lot of them; All of Israel and all of the disputed territories inclusive of The Gaza Strip, whatever name you wish to give it. Perhaps I did not articulate very well what I was thinking.
The point I was trying to make was that I do not believe that Abbas, Hamas nor Israel want an agreement at this time, but are being forced into playing games by The Elites.

As far as they are concerned everything is ok. I was not focusing on Gaza. Just to clarify.

Robert R. Rock

I feel I must ask whether the current Likud side of Mideast Peace is not creating a forced migration by fueling anti-Semitism in America?

Posted by: DE Teodoru | 16 December 2010 at 12:40 PM

Netanyahu chose a center right coalition in lieu of a right/far right coalition, he could have formed either one. He was not stuck with labor. He did so to form a more stable coalition in which he would be less beholden to the smaller parties of the far right.He also had an alliance with Ehud Barak against Livni and Olmert[both formerly of the left ranks of The Likud which followed Sharon to the new Kadima party]. Even within Likud, Netanyahu is under attack from the right side; e.g. Feiglin. My point is Netanyahu is not the far right wing reactionary bogey man he is portrayed as. He is basically a centrist with a more skeptical view of The Peace Process, especially after his first go round as PM. He does differ significantly from former Prime Minister Olmert in his policy to review the peace process and demand secure borders for Israel. The thing about secure borders is that as the situation on the ground has changed, i.e. Lebanon/Hezbollah and Gaza/Hamas as well as the apparent loss of Turkey; secure borders concept has evolved and it continues to...the situation is extremely volatile and nobody in the region is in the mood to appease The United States' appetite for meaningless "photo op peace conferences" made up of paper tiger clothed actors, well kind of like George Mitchell, which will tend to cause a surge in violence; possibly even a bloodbath. It's happened before and it could easily happen again. Many left wing Jewish organizations, such as J Street, funded by Mr. Soros pressured Obama to force Israel to make silly one sided concessions which were sure to backfire when they were not reciprocated.Obama must have been out of his mind if he believed Netanyahu was going to endlessly make one sided concessions in return for terrorism. Too bad Obama fell for it. He really was wrong for the job. McCain should have won except for his dreadful fatal choice of Palin.

Cal


Cal,

Thank you very much for taking the time to reply to my question.

Posted by: Robert R. Rock | 17 December 2010 at 04:08 AM
>>>>>>>>>>>

No problem, and it's nothing personal directed at you.
It just appears many Israel supporters can't/ won't accept the actual facts on Israel & P/I.
But I have learned to not argue with the more avid supporters of Israels, it's a futile exercise.

Only thing I will say is that discussions of Israel always get sidetracked into pie fights like ...are they starving or aren't they starving Gaza...and so forth.

For us, for non Jews and non Israelis, Israel is about the core issues; one being the injustices of P/I legally and on humanitarian principles, and the other being the influences and corruption in our own government that enables it.
What I always point out to supporters of 'Israel right or wrong' is the old German saying..."resist the beginings, consider the end." Because Israel as it is cannot last forever, just as it's supporters subversion of US policy cannot last.
There is always a reaction to the extremes.

The comments to this entry are closed.

My Photo

September 2020

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
    1 2 3 4 5
6 7 8 9 10 11 12
13 14 15 16 17 18 19
20 21 22 23 24 25 26
27 28 29 30      
Blog powered by Typepad