Israel--current Events

I don't think he's at that point yet, he still has the luxury of an intact idealism and what I suspect is an inflated idea of what he will be able to accomplish, particularly in this situation. He has wisely kept his opinions quiet so as to defer to the current administration, so its hard to tell what's up his sleeve. He's certainly intellegent enough for a creative solution, but so much depends on what cards the other players lay on the table.

I suspect Hilary has a wild hair up her butt especially after she spoke almost flippantly about nuking Iran. I know we live in sound bite land where a pause to consider a thoughtful answer is seen as uncertainty, lack of confidence or pre-thought or even stupidity, but something tells me Bill might have to issue a few whoa nellys - Hilary's smart but has a bit of a schoolmarm attitude which will not serve her well in terms of being taken seriously. She can lie and prevaricate well which is a public relations asset, but as a diplomat I wonder how long the learning curve will be. Despite who has the job title, I think you take the Clintons as a matched set, and Bill is not sold separately. Their experience speaks well and the fact that they know all the players, but I also wonder how the Clintons will fare in a subordinate role after playing the big house for 8 years - to what degree will they want to uphold an Obama agenda, particularly when they may disagree on major policy points. They may be a headache waiting to happen and may exasperate Obama. We'll see. Anyway, back to the topic.......

Emmett - I believe the ball's in your court - wanna volley?

....and this is precisely what makes a solution so difficult and why only band-aid temporary pseudo solutions have been accepted so far. I'm not suggesting that the US play Dr. Phil here or that we even can given the Muslim perception of us as Zionist enablers, but some acknowledgement of nefarious gains by both sides should be broght to bear and dealt with, and the accounting for, albeit reluctantly, of the larger stake holders circling the situation like Harry Potter's Dementors. The current situaton is usefull to all who gain from it and no one seems to care how many are sacrificed to the cause, so either the cause has to be redefined, which could be worse depending on what the redefinition is, or the situation has to be altered in a way that the same gains are no longer possible. What that is or how it manifests I have no idea at this point and I don't see any one else with a tenable approach either partially because of the way they choose to perceive it as Stoirmeil has said and that no one comes up with a greater set of long term gains aquired by peace.

I can't speak for Emmet, but I for one would see Isreal GONE. It may not bring total peace to the area, but would certainly calm things WAY down.

Absolutely not; I am in favor of the international rule of law and the rights of man; particularly in the right to self determination. Israel, as established by the U.N., has a right to exist within their own borders; those (as imperfect as they may be) established in 1948 by U.N. resolution 181. Neither I nor the U.N. believe that Israel has any legal claim to any other territory beyond the "Green Line" (including Gaza) pursuant to U.N. Resolution 242. Furthermore, I would suggest that any expectation of others respecting your rights under international (or any other) law, including the integrity of your borders, is predicated upon your respect for the rights of others, including the integrity of their borders. I fail to see any legitimate claim to "self defense" when another country fires glorified bottle rockets into your territory when you blockade their ports, starve their populace and blithely send death squads and bomb-laden F-16's into theirs with complete impunity.

The future of Palestine legitimately should rest solely with the Palestinians, not Israel or the United States (including who they elect to represent themselves; I'm quite passionate about true democracy, too). I'd say precisely the same thing about Northern Ireland or Puerto Rico.

I'm neither Protestant, Catholic, Muslim, or Jewish, so I have no dog in any of the above sectarian hunts.

I say this just generally -- but I don't think a person has to be an adherent of any particular religion to be politically, for example, a Zionist or a pro-Arab sympathizer or even militant. In fact, the higher up in real political influence one gets, legitimate or otherwise, the less one can afford to genuinely adhere to at least a fundamentalist shut-down of reason in any case. Use it, yes -- genuinely subscribe to it? I think not. The fire-eating demagogues are not generally the ones with their fingers on the button, and if they get too efficient at moving masses out of control in competition with the real movers, they very often get taken out. We've done that here with some regularity, and if it came to it I don't doubt it would happen again. I am quite sure the religious aspect of ANYBODY'S ideological nationalism is, was, and ever shall be an administrative fig leaf and rallying tool for getting the masses to bear the losses proudly and keep hurling their generations into the fray.

The future of Palestine can't rest solely with the Palestinians. Do you honestly think the future of America rests solely with Americans? I'm not just talking about establishing borders and administration, or rule of law. Once any nation is set up on turf it bloody well has to behave in a lawful manner internationally or be prepared to receive justice or revenge behavior from the offended, predictably or otherwise. (You can sort out a reliable distinction between justice and revenge if you like, it's beyond my powers -- it is the most slippery semantic we have.) If the time is not here, it is coming very soon when we here in the States need to pay more than an amused little nod to the fierce interest offshore in our elections -- we already know what the world thinks of our aggressions, and it may not be so very long before we get pulled up short by international disapproval in a manner we can no longer ignore, right along with Israel. If there is a paternalistic, controlling attempt to set up Palestine for the Palestinians, -- and yes, I do think it's being done very badly and arrogantly -- it's still because of a history of unstable factionalism and tendency for at least some factions to act out violently in Israel's direction and drag the unwilling population's "culpability" with them. What that leads to, with sickening predictability, we've already discussed.

There is enough guilt to go around in the middle east to get everyone's hands bloody. The exercise that both sides seem to be intent on in placing blame and assigning punishment is a great way to continue the violence for a long time to come. I don't think any kind of solution is possible until Israel withdraws to within its own borders and stays there. The same would need to be true for the Palastinians. All are equally guilty and all are being victimized. (by there own forces as well by their enemy's forces) A difficult concept for those involved to grasp.

Not so easy when there is no consensus on just where the borders are, either for Israelis or for Palestinians. Israel has been know to quip that if we Americans ever had to withdraw to within our legitimate borders, we'd be 13 colonies again.

The other thing is true, sad, and very difficult to grasp from inside the problem -- that the leadership of a country can be victimizing its people, and that they might fail to recognize it, or if they do, that they still might not be able to break the relationship. You have to be careful with generalizing behaviour from individuals to populations -- but if you have ever seen a very little kid clinging desperately to the legs of someone who is beating the s*** out of him, because that abuser is after all his provider and protector, you kind of get the idea.

bullshirt Dogshirt.

Jillian

Two outdated and impracticable historic stabs at a solution that considered the needs of neither contending party realistically, but what can you expect from a colonial-power understanding of the situation? Both of those resolutions were blind to the problem of Jerusalem from the inside: 181 called for the city of Jerusalem to be a UN-administered separate entity -- not workable for 5 minutes -- and 242 provided that the jurisdiction over Jerusalem be split. If you have been there, you have seen and will not forget just where it would be split, across what particular defining real estate. Neither side is ever going to give it up or concede half to the other. Does an outside referee have the right to demand that they do so?

I see Israel's truce with Hamas is at the point of breakdown. Yesterday Hamas fired 10 rockets and mortars int Israel. The rocket attacks have increased steadily since the unwritten truce and disengagement. Three Israelis were wounded. Israel warned that further attacks would be met with "harsh and disproportionate" retaliation. I guess Hamas wants "war and destruction."

I hoped the truce would hold but was concerned that Hamas would not or could not control it's terrorist members. Obviously my concerns were founded.

Slàinte,    

Patch     

And doesn't it totally suck when the best thing you can say is "Oh, well, at least those poor people had a break for a couple of weeks." It really doesn't seem to matter that the world is getting on to their strategy and losing sympathy -- it seems they are doing it to keep their own militant factions hopped up, at the expense of the people, and that is enough. What is really making me angry is that Egypt is right in there rebuilding their tunnels with them. The same tactic: hide among the civilians, so the Israelis will take blame for bombing the people -- and bring in food and medicine through the same tunnels you use for smuggling in ordinance, so the Israelis can also be blamed for starving the people. They started repairing those tunnels as soon as the cease-fire was declared.

stoirmeil

For the first time, I agree with your entire post!

On a lighter note:

Israeli Sense of Humour at UN

An ingenious example of speech and politics occurred recently in the United
Nations Assembly which made the world community smile.

A representative from Israel began: 'Before beginning my talk I want to tell
you something about Moses.
When he struck the rock and it brought forth water, he thought, 'What a good
opportunity to have a bath!'

He removed his clothes, put them aside on the rock and entered the water.

When he got out and wanted to dress, his clothes had vanished. A Palestinian
had stolen them.'

The Palestinian representative jumped up furiously and shouted, 'What are
you talking about? The Palestinians weren't there then.'

The Israeli representative smiled and said, 'And now that we have made that
clear, I will begin my speech

Slàinte,    

Patch    

Imagine the shoe being on the other foot...and people saying, the "Laktoa" people don't have a right to be a nation. Most would not say that...most are saddened by the injustice done to native American tribes. There are unfortunately, many destructive natures (in word, thought, and in deed) present in this world...don't be one of them. Israel has every right to live in a world of peace--as do peaceful Muslims.

Jillian

Well put.

In the history of the human race the Palestinians are but youngsters. They are a group of people that other Arab countries didn't want and refer to in derogatory terms. Unfortunately they are being used by these countries against Israel.

Length of occupation not withstanding, both groups deserve to live in peace. However, EACH must afford that right to the other.

Like it or not, Israel has the ability to destroy the entire region and probably indirectly most of the rest of the world.

Some people in this world are just not smart enough to realize that you do not step into the tigers cage and kick the tiger in the a@@!

Slàinte,    

Patch