http://www.jewishjournal.com/home/preview.php?id=17190

"If I am elected President, I will do everything in my power to bring about negotiations between Israelis and Palestinians with the goal of achieving peace and security for Israel and a secure contiguous state for the Palestinians in West Bank/Gaza. As a supporter of Israel, I believe that Israel's surest route to security is by reaching an agreement with the Palestinians. Furthermore, I believe that achieving an Israeli-Palestinian agreement will advance America's interests throughout the Middle East and the Muslim world. Peace between Israel and the Arabs will only be achieved by means of US leadership and I intend to provide it."

That should be the basic message just as it should be our basic policy.

I respectfully disagree that this should be our basic policy. I take exception to the assertion that agreement between Israel and Palestine 'advances' American interests in the ME and throughout the Muslim world. America's attempts at 'advancing' have resulted in an escalation of terrorism abroad and domestically.  Further, I disagree that the only way for Israel and the Arabs to achieve peace is with US 'leadership' and I especially disagree that America should continue to provide leadership in the ME which is biased towards Israel, in turns of our foreign policy. 

 The basic message as you have framed it would be appealing to pro-Israel lobbyists and supporters but certainly not to the millions of Americans who find the ME foreign policy, to date, unacceptable. It begs the question of how has America gained from  having Israel as a permanent ally?   

This 'basic message' is not good policy for America nor America's standing in the eyes of the Muslim world or globally.

Thank you, Bruce. I really believe we can change the terms of the debate.
MJ

Anyone who thinks that Israel-Palestine is not central to America's problems in the Middle East should talk to a Muslim sometime, and not just Arab Muslims either. Why is it that people accept the idea that Jews in America care deeply and genuinely about Israel but that Arabs and Muslims (many of whom live near Israel-Palestine) only use Palestine as a pretext.
I do not know a single Arab or Muslim for whom Palestine is NOT at the top of their agenda.
It has to be dealt with, and with justice.

You have every right to support the status quo. It's a free country.

I fully agree with you Wordie, except--with us we always have a caveat or two it seems :) -- that I think that the final line between the two states, in taking equity into account, has to be flexible enough (by both Israel and Palestine) to make sense in terms of security and the daily lives of people on both sides of the border. (I hope you take this for what it is: identification of a factor that will have to be addressed in negotiations, and not as a cloaked rationale for land grabbing).

but is essentially what (according to the polls) the majority of Israelis and the vast majority of Palestinians want. It is essentially the position of Israel Policy Forum, American Task Force on Palestine, Brit Zedek, Americans for Peace Now, the Arab-American Institute and MOST Americans.

Cite source for any of those assertions please.

And for the record, I respectfully disagree that any AMERICAN policy should be established by what either Israelis or Palestinians want except insofar as it coincides with what is best for Americans.

I happen to strongly agree with the poster above that the U.S. is not, and has not been, an "honest" broker since that now-anti-semite of a president, Jimmy Carter, brokered the Camp David Accords. (heavy snark-asm)

The U.S. government is not trusted and cannot be trusted by most muslims. One cannot broker anything -- or sit at the negotiating table even -- if trust is absent.

Moreover, no true diplomacy can take place as long as there is a such a huge power differential between Palestinians and Israelis. Israel is a behemoth occupying military power all my itself, but when combined with the U.S. on its side so outweighs any other party in the region as to make "negotiating" a joke.

1947 was a long time ago. Poor little Israel doesn't need us to hold their hand.

That is not to say that the U.S. does not have a real interest in a resolution to Israeli/Palestinian conflict. Certainly, as MJ points out, the U.S. has a real interest in reducing the tension there - one of the sorest points among Arab/Muslims and the "West."

It is the means I differ with, not the ends.

The U.S. does not belong at the table. In my view the U.S. belongs at the end of a carrot/stick mechanism. Only the U.S. has the means to "encourage" both Israel AND Palestine to negotiate through offering or withholding economic aid.

Moreover, in my view, attempting to put a suggested policy statement in the mouths of candidates is counterproductive. Let them come up with their own policy statements. And may the best man or woman win.

I'm not clear how you have arrived at the notion that MJ Rosenberg's call for the US to embrace the Peace Now position on Israel/Palestine is somehow a neo-con warhawk stance. Generally when I hear interpretations that pretzel-like, they tend to come from followers of Lyndon LaRouche.

"All governments lie, but disaster lies in wait for countries whose officials smoke the same hashish they give out." - I.F. Stone

The real question is whether we want progress or the illusion of progress. Simply supporting negotiations with whoever happens to be the Palestinian leadership at the moment side-steps the critical issues of how exactly a Palestinian state is to be built. Who is going to disarm the various militias? Who is going to ensure that areas Israel withdraws from don't become launching sites for rocket attacks?

The idea of Hamas signing onto a peace agreement is laughable. Fatah had its opportunity during Oslo and ultimately chose to competing with Hamas rather than suppress it. (Moreover, for Fatah to turn the clock back to 1998, it would have to fight a bloody civil war with Hamas at this point.)

I think we've learned well enough from the Iraq experience that NATO or American troops aren't a good answer. Other Arab troops as part of a comprhensive Arab-Israeli settlement? This seems like the best option, but extremely dicey given the stability of the various governments who would have to supply the forces.

I'm not throwing this out to defend the status quo, but rather out of frustration that no one is thinking creatively about how to come to a two-state solution. We've tried installating Arafat as a mini-Mubarak - didn't work; we tried holding elections in the absence of functioning civil society - it didn't work either. Rather than reading the umpteenth essay which simply asserts that a peace process has got to work, I'd like to see something that indicates how it can.

Peace between Israel and the Arabs will only be achieved by means of US leadership and I intend to provide it.

This is not what I want to hear from our next President.   We should certainly encourage and support those in both camps who seek a fair and just peace but why should the US take the lead?  We've tried that for 50+ years and haven't succeeded.  Does Israel even want peace?   It doesn't always seem like it.

Mhpine:

I appreciate your frustration about the lack of discussion about a viable plan and how you believe that the lack of such a plan presents an obstacle to effective negotiations. I also understand what looks to be your implicit contention that, in order to negotiate, you have to have someone to negotiate with.

Negotiations often have to be undertaken without there being a plan in place, and, of course, negotiations take many forms and are often on multiple tracks. Thus, there are often meetings going on between intermediaries that aren't properly characterized as negotiations across the table per se, and there are often informal talks between leaders and their trusted aids. The problem comes when, as with respect to the status quo in the Middle East, such channels are effectively cut off and the talks that occur are piecemeal and face-saving at most.

In short, you often don't get the solution until the hard work is done at the multi-dimensional barganing table. And the fact of the matter is that negotiated settlements often encapsulate terms that the parties to the agreement never would have agreed to before negotiations commenced. In fact, it has been stated more than once that a good settlement is defined as one that nobody likes.

This lefty Zionist chooses not to condone your reference to "leftist ilk" or your allegations of foolishness and naivete direced at those of us, zionist or not, who seek peace in the Middle East through negotiations.

And please, I'm not interested in getting into a debate with you about who loves Eretz Y'srael or the U.S. of A. more. Candidly, I find what you have written to reflect an incomplete understanding of what is going on in Iran. I am not claiming a complete understanding either, but I submit that you are wrong if you think that the Iranian people have formed a consensus that is reflected in the saber-rattling of this or that mullah in that time-honored nation.

Twentyoneth Century?

Since it is Israel that chooses to eat at the trough of the U.S. largesse of economic support, they ELECT to submit -- no one is forcing them.

Likewise, Palestinians submit to the carrot/stick of wealthier arab nations' purse strings and rhetoric.

I don't think its a matter of whether I choose to put either in master/submission positions rather that THEY choose them.

They could both elect to deal with eachother on an equal basis without the interference of their proxies -- or masters using the terminology that you put in my mouth.

In any event, you chose the term "master" --giving the whole thing a negative connotation. I prefer the term "leaders" -- again if they elected to take on that role.

I certainly agree that things were more peaceful while we were "at the table" -- but that was long ago and under CLINTON. And for all his pecadilloes with interns under his leadership the U.S. was more trusted in world affairs, although not entirely. See my original post on the issue of trust.

Palestinians, rightly or wrongly (rightly in my view) distrust the United States and percieve the U.S. to be entirely biased toward Israel. The U.S.'s perceived bias against arabs/moslems increases with every second we remain in Iraq and worse, escalates tenfold with the saber rattling vis a vis Iran. Escapades like last summer's invasion of Lebanon -- unimpeded by words of U.S. or deeds by the Security Council - do nothing to alleviate this perception.

The U.S. cannot come to the table with all that baggage. They cannot.

Agreed. I guess what I'm saying is that the people who should be at the table is actually part of the multi-faceted negotiations process. This is, after all, an international problem.

MJ,
George Soros is a man, he admitted his mistakes. Would you?

George Soros v. Martin Peretz

Only at TNR Online | Post date 02.09.07 Discuss this article (9)
Martin Peretz falsely accused me of having been a "young cog in the Hitlerite wheel" ("Tyran-a-Soros," February 12). I need to set the record straight. In 1944, when the Nazis occupied Hungary, my father arranged false identities for his family. He placed me with an official of the Hungarian Ministry of Agriculture who claimed that I was his godson. In return, my father arranged a false identity for the official's Jewish wife. In my capacity as 14-year-old godson, I accompanied the official on a trip to inventory the estate of a wealthy Jewish family that had fled the country. That is the episode "60 Minutes" quizzed me about in the interview that Peretz quotes. In the same interview I also said "I had no role in taking away that property." The facts are documented in Michael Kaufman's biography, (Soros: The Life and Times of a Messianic Billionaire). I have also described the events at length in my own books and my father, Tivadar Soros, gives an account of our adventures in 1944 in his book Masquerade.

As regards my use of the term "de-Nazification," I am not too proud to admit this was a bad choice of words. I certainly do not put the United States and Nazi German in the same moral category. What I meant was that the United States needs to engage in a profound soul searching about the harm the war in Iraq has done to others and ourselves. Post-war Germany underwent such a process to its lasting benefit. Perhaps truth and reconciliation would have been a more felicitous expression, although it is also inaccurate because we need to be reconciled with ourselves not the terrorists. For the record, I am not equating the U.S. to South Africa either.

George Soros

The US may no longer be in a position to lead. But at least it can follow or get out of the way. Indeed, since 1967 the US has mostly chosen the posture of getting in the way of a just resolution of the Israeli-Plaestinian conflict. So possibly the most important thing the US can do is stop doing that, and rejoin the rest of the international community.

The US should re-commit itself to UN 242, for which it voted in 1967, which is binding as international law, and which has been at the core of a broad international consensus on the conflict since 1967. The US government should also stop embarrassing our country by applying weasling sophisms to the interpretation of that document, and clearly affirm that it understands that resolution to require the withdrawal of all Israeli forces from all of the territories occupied in the 1967 conflict. This should be a red line. Without the existence of such red lines, any more "negotiations" on final status will only degenrate in the same way they did during the Oslo process.

The Palestinian matter is a question of international law and justice. It's not an issue to be resolved by coercive deal-making between highly unequal parties. It is especially not an issue to be decided by a negotiating contest between one pathetically weak and stateless negotiating partner on one side, and a double-nuclear power tag team on the other.

The United States can never be an honset broker of a Israeli-Palestinian settlement. A new administration might alter our policies somewhat in a more positive direction, but it is clear to all the world that the US has a partisan rooting interest on one side of the conflict, and it will ever be thus. So if we want to help, we need to get out of the way rather than purport to lead the way.

A "contiguous" Palestinian state means nothing. The parking lot at my office is contiguous. So is the guest bathroom in my house. At the end of the day, you get Israel once again trying to hand Palestinians the keys to the bathroom, and calling their offer to fulfill only a part of their international obligations "generous", while the US stands by, shrugs its shoulders and says smirkingly to the Palestinians, "don't look at us - we got you your damn negotiations."

Adding "secure" to the formula also does nothing but toss in some wishful thinking. There is no magic amount of West Bank add-ons that will turn a tiny parking lot state into a "secure" state. No matter what size that state turns out to be, it will be tiny - even more tiny than Israel - and thus inherently insecure. And clearly any corridor of artificial contiguity connecting the West Bank and Gaza will be perpetually vulnerable, and will do little to guarantee Palestinian security. Their security can only be guaranteed by outside forces - and for that purpose size is irrelevant.

The reason to support UN 242 is not that returning the occupied territories to the Palestinians will finally give them the security they crave. It won't. Any power or wanna-be power with a single nuke will be able to wipe them off the face of the earth with the flip of a switch. The reason for honoring UN 242 is to uphold law and justice, and restore just a bit the rapidly unraveling dignity of what used to be called the "international community". The issue is giving back something that what was illegally taken, and which the world made a commitment to restore.

Or the reference about the amount of campaign money that comes from single-issue, neo-con influenced backers. High-level staffers whose background and influence has been in the pro-israel single issue political world.

Does $$$ talk and carefully hand-picked pro-israel staffers have more influence, or a bunch of bloggers -- ummm let me think?

On Hills AIPAC talk: Like she is really going to be blunt in her AIPAC 'minions' speech, I think her actions speak louder when she went to her ALL-HAWK think-tank Hillary campaign sponsored war meeting.

We need an HONEST broker in our next president, one who actually understands and stands by international law, especially when the US wants to stick its nose into other countries business, and a war is at stake.

Your paranoia is precisely why you are willing to commit atrocities.  Neither your paranoia nor your atrocities are justified.

Delete

Even American Jews who are fairly secure, though since participating at TPMCafe much less so, know that Israel is the ultimate guarantor of the safety of Jews.

Really? Then what is America to Jews in terms of safety? America where there are no terrorists attacks on Jews daily like in Israel? What is America to Jews ultimately?

"What's wrong with this picture?"
They all are f-ing Jews, Jews are everywhere. Let's unite and stop Jews from screwing America and whole world.
They already started 2 World Wars, and about to start third.

Davai,

MJ is not saying--I don't think he is anyway--that it's bad because they're all Jews, but these folks are known entitities and they happen to be Jewish. The point is that they are not exactly a reflection of a cross-section of the debate. You know Pipes, I know Pipes, and we all know Pipes. There is no counterweight to Pipes on Ackerman's schedule.

Bruce

You have not answered my last question to you.

Well, I don't recall that Good (I generally try and answer questions), but you are of course free not to answer my question. By the way, my question wasn't a trick question; I've seen you post quite a bit and I was trying to understand the basis for your screen name and how it fits in with your proposal for boycotts and aid restrictions against Israel.

P.S. I remember you asked me about the basis upon which I find Israel legitimate. I answered with a lengthy response and you replied to my answer with a lengthy response. If that's what you are speaking of, you might not have liked my response but I was, in fact, fully responsive.

"Israel should proclaim what it is along with the inevitable consequences. It cannot be a pure democracy, but it certainly can be more democratic than most other countries."

In any European country who would be making that argument?
And should the US go out of its way to defend such?

I mean essentially the latter bslev, although one doesn't need to appeal to UN 242 to make that case. The resolution empahsized the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by force - a principle that was already well-established in international law before UN 242 came along. It is clear that given the fact that Israel came to occupy the territories by force, and given the fact that Israel is using that occupation to settle the territories in addition to occupying them, that Israel is in the process of acquiring territory by force, and has been for some time.

It is my understanding that the US has refused to endorse the view that the establishment of a just and lasting peace in the Middle East should include the withdrawal of allIsraeli armed forces from territories occupied in the 1967 conflict. Instead it has indulged the minority Israeli interpretation that the absence of an explicit definite article "the" in the text of the resolution means that this part of the resolution can be fulfilled through the withdrawal of only some Israeli armed forces from some of the territories occupied in the "recent conflict".

Even though the US voted for UN 242, and officially endorses UN 242, it is my distinct impression that the US has not in recent years lead with it in its public statements and other diplomatic acts and representations, and has tended to bury it. Thus it would be a good thing for the US to, as I said, re-commit itself to UN 242, and the dominant interpretation thereof.

Indyk? Puhleeeze!

With the backing on an AIPAC board member and $100,000 in contributions, largley from the Jewish community, he (Martin Indyk)became the executive director of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy in 1985...."

Indyk was given a US citizenship fast-track and appointed by Clinton to shape US foreign policy on the Mideast (where he implemented the "Dual Containment" stategy on Iran and Iraq) and was then appointed as the first Jewish ambassador to Israel, in violation of a rule that prohibited such obvious conflicts of interest (no Polish americans are sent as US amb to poland either) but the real conflict of interest was in the fact that Indyk was an active participant in the pro-Israeli lobby community and was brought to the US by AIPAC, and started his "Washington Institute for Near East Policy" in ordre to give "think tank" legitimacy & cover to AIPAC's policy proscriptions. So, a pro-Israeli activist was sent to represent US interests in Israel. Think about that.

So the bottom line is that the full spectrum of views are HARDLY represented by the likes of Pipes and Indyk and such pro-israeli agentsat these Congressional show hearings.

That's obvious but instead you're trying to label others as being racists for suggesting that Arabs and Palestinians may have something legitimate to contribute to the debate.

Incidentally, Martin Indyk was once stripped of his security clearance for passing secrets to Israel. The same happened to Perle and Faith - but they all managed to get top level policy jobs. It seems that passing secrets to Israel is no big deal anymore - even frmr CIA director Woolsey who is tight with the NeoCons has espoused releasing Pollard. Talk about Israeli infiltration!

I am unfamiliar with LaRouche.

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

You do seem to have a binary view. An American does not have to be pro- or anti-Israel, any more than one has to be pro- or anti-Tibetan, or pro- or anti-Fijian, or pro- or anti-French. Well, maybe not so pro-Parisian.
--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

THANK YOU!

This is not an either/or debate. We can certainly negotiate with Iran's leaders, as a way of reaching Iran's people, and we can still defend Israel in the process.

thosethingswesay.blogspot.com

Hey Daniel,

Here, you're making an argument that I've never been able to understand, but that I've heard a lot. If I'm paraphrasing fairly, you're saying that Israel serves as a refuge of safety for Jews and that Palestine doesn't serve the same function for either Arabs or Palestinian Arabs.

I'm willing to grant that point.

But, and here's where I disconnect... is that the standard for having a country? I mean, can't a country be legitimate without serving as a safe haven for an ethnic or religious group? It strikes me that there's no such requirement for nationhood. It's enough that people live there and want to govern their own affairs.

Am I missing something? I'm not asking that rhetorically, by the way.

thosethingswesay.blogspot.com

MJ: Seeking more information about the hearing, I went to the site of the House Committee on Foreign Affairs, but find nothing about it there, although other hearings scheduled for next week are announced. Do you have a link or more information?

Politics is the art of preventing people from taking part in affairs which properly concern them. --Paul Valery

removed.
not worth arguing with an idiot

No that's not all I said. I posted a link

Although Iran and Israel are bitter enemies, few know that Iran is home to the largest number of Jews anywhere in the Middle East outside Israel.
About 25,000 Jews live in Iran and most are determined to remain no matter what the pressures - as proud of their Iranian culture as of their Jewish roots.
It is dawn in the Yusufabad synagogue in Tehran and Iranian Jews bring out the Torah and read the ancient text before making their way to work.
It is not a sight you would expect in a revolutionary Islamic state, but there are synagogues dotted all over Iran where Jews discreetly practise their religion.
"Because of our long history here we are tolerated," says Jewish community leader Unees Hammami, who organised the prayers.
He says the father of Iran's revolution, Imam Khomeini, recognised Jews as a religious minority that should be protected.
As a result Jews have one representative in the Iranian parliament.
"Imam Khomeini made a distinction between Jews and Zionists and he supported us," says Mr Hammami.

WHAT'S WRONG WITH A BINATIONAL STATE? You racist motherfucker

You assume that "US interests" are promoted by themselves and disregard the process - a process which has become totally infiltrated by Israeli agents of influence.
Foreign policy, like tax policy or trade policy or environmental policy, is formed as a result of lobbying and influence-peddling and sausage-making by self-interested politicians.

When candidates for the US Presidency make a regular habit out of pandering to the agents of a foreign power in the most disgusting way, declaring that the security of the foreign power is their foremost consideration etc., you have to start asking yourself a few questions about whose interests are being served.

I suggest starting with the Walt & Meirsheimer paper, though George Ball's Passionate Attachment: America's Involvement With Israel, 1947 to the Present is better.

Sorry but you're the one who has declared that "our civilization is better than theirs" so you have no leg to stand upon when you talk about "hate"

You want hate? Look into the mirror, Good German.

Which brings up the question: why are Zionists so dishonest and immoral. I mean, its simply mind boggling that anyone would abuse the memory of the Holocaust to justify a genocide. ANd yet they do, and yelp out loud that THEY'RE the victims! They have absolutely no shame. What is it about Zionism that makes them so dishonest even with themselves?

Take MJ Rosenberg here - he proudly identifies himself as a lifelong Zionist, but remains totally silent when I remind him that Zionism=racist genocide. Its a historical fact pure and simple, that even Israeli historians have come to admit (and some even endorse it ) But he still refuses to acknowledge it. Its a problem with all of these so-called "Jewish liberals" - they want to try to paper over the nasty realities of what Zionism is, and what Israel is built upon. But they're only fooling themselves.

Forget the past and rather pointless question at this point...

My screen name is a combination of my own misunderstanding of the rules as spelled out when I first joined this list (alpha numeric and spaces... If you are as computer intensive as I am, you read it as YOU MUST USE ALL THESE) and a poke in the eye at re-Publicans whose effort to dominate the patriotism business annoys me.

I am typically NOT America first and find your assertions that I am irritating.  I raise the issue of American interest in the ME in direct opposition to what I perceive as frequent false assertions that the US has an interest supporting Israel.  The US has absolutely no interest in supporting Israel.  Israel has an interest in obtaining US support.  So, Israeli behavior in clear violation of mainstream American morals seems pretty stupid to me.

The US DOES have an interest and, considering its own history, something of a strong imperative, in redressing racism and apartheid worldwide.  Unjust intra-national practices that are supported by US international policy is what leads to terrorism against Americans both abroad and at home.  Since I live and work within a few miles of the former World Trade Center, I think of this all to often.

I am advocating boycotting of Israel because international pressure on South Africa forced it out of apartheid, it is a model that works.  According to the New York Times article that Seth linked to, Israel is moving deeper into apartheid at this time.  Boycotts and other public disapprobation might bring home to the Israeli government what they so far seem to be overlooking, which is that they cannot thumb their nose at us forever and expect our support to continue. 

If boycotts don't work, I would want to push them into the Cuba category, where travel to or from Israel is illegal and all Israeli funds held in the US is frozen.  From my point of view, the time frame should be NOW.  The voluntary war with Lebanon, the carnage in Gaza, and the Wall indicate that Israel has no respect for world opinion or the majority American opinion.

"And I too am a racist MF?"
"right of return" after 2000 years.
Between Israel and the Palestinians I support the Palestinians, but
between Europe and the Jews I support the Jews. You don't have the guts to say that. You sound like a German. And I side with the Turks.

Here, have some fun: Baruch Kimmerling on Benny Morris

Herr Haider,
Why won't you accept a a binational state?
Cause you're a fucking racist.

something else 4u:

Last week, the CIA sent an urgent report to President Bush's National Security Council: Iranian authorities had arrested two al-Qaeda operatives traveling through Iran on their way from Pakistan to Iraq. The suspects were caught along a well-worn, if little-noticed, route for militants determined to fight U.S. troops on Iraqi soil, according to a senior intelligence official.
The arrests were presented to Bush's senior policy advisers as evidence that Iran appears committed to stopping al-Qaeda foot traffic across its borders, the intelligence official said. That assessment comes at a time when the Bush administration, in an effort to push for further U.N. sanctions on the Islamic republic, is preparing to publicly accuse Tehran of cooperating with and harboring al-Qaeda suspects.

I'm done with all of this. I've been spending time at a few blogs recently but I'm done. I have no patience for politics anymore.

WRB:

I didn't mean to "irritate you" by probing where you're coming from, and if I did irritate you on that basis I am absolutely sorry. In any event, I respect your right to express your views and I do feel a responsibility to read what you write.

Bruce

Lord Carodon, Britain's UN Ambassador at the time of the 1967 war, and a participant in the formulation of 242, wrote:

"Knowing as I did the unsatisfactory nature of the 1967 line, I wasn’t prepared to use wording in the Resolution that would have made that line permanent. Nonetheless, it is necessary to say again that the overwhelming principle was the ‘inadmissability of the acquisition of territory by war’ and that meant that there could be no justification for the annexation of territory on the Arab side of the 1967 line merely because it had been conquered in the 1967 war. The sensible way to decide permanent ‘secure and recognized’ boundaries would be to set up a Boundary Commission and hear both sides and then to make impartial recommendations for a new frontier line, bearing in mind, of course, the "inadmissibility" principle."

UN Security Council Resolution 242 - A Case Study in Diplomatic Ambiguity’, Caradon et al, 1981 [as quoted in Wikipedia, http://www.answers.com/topic/united-nations-security-council-resolution-242#wp-_note-7]

Dan K:

Another excellent post from you, thanks.

I guess I agree that the American interpretation of 242 is a "minority" view in the sense that most nations of the world believe that 242 requires Israel to withdraw from every inch of territory captured in 1967. But I do think that, if I understand things correctly, when the resolution was debated, the attempts of the Soviet Ambassador and the ambassadors of various Arab nations to have the resolution read that Israel would have to withdraw from "all of the" territories was rejected, and the resolution in its present form does not contain that language. I also believe that both Arthur Goldberg, the U.S. Ambassador and the British Ambassador who participated in the negotiations, corroborate my understanding. I do think that the Arab nations made a contemporaneous declaration at the time that they would read the resolution as you and most of the world now read it.

If that is what happened, I think the American construction would prevail in a court of law 99 out of 100 times just by applying age-old principles of contract interpretation, i.e. the decision to exclude something from a final agreement that is ambiguous has meaning.

I would be curious if anyone else has a more comprehensive understanding of the underlying negotiations leading up to 242.

In any event, what are the chances that there will be a settlement between Israel and Palestine if a condition precedent to the settlement is that 242 be construed in accordance with the "majority" position?
With respect to Camp David/Taba, didn't the failed negotiations contemplate some tinkering on the border on both sides? And, short of a land grab, isn't such tinkering more realistic if there will be a final settlement?

Your contribution to these discussions are appreciated by me.

Bruce

You clearly believe that a person with a German ethnic background or nationality is somehow defective or inferior, but your admiration and preference for the hate filled philosophy of Ahmedinijahd and the Third Reich is a disturbing throwback to an archaic and violent past that is the enemy of all civilized people. You should seek help.

Read Hezbollah's charter. Genocide and Global takeover! How do you think a land on the mediterranean got to be a majority Shia country? The same way they ran the Jews out of Iran, they ran the christians et al out of Lebanon...how? Murder, torture, terror, violence, kidnappings, executions!

These are the killers you want to defend. You are lying down with genocidal maniacs in a bed covered in blood.

Seth Edenbaum is one sick guy. I don't mind self-hating Jews. I despise self-haters who become Jew-haters.
Seth is more obsessed with his biological Jewness than an Orthodox Jew.
My favorite is where he attacks MJR, a Jew who consistently defends Palestinian rights and opposes the neocons. And he's not some anonymous dude like Seth "I'm not a Jew" Edenbaum. He's out there fighting in Washington and within policy circles to change things.
But to Seth, MJR is a neocon (even though he hates the neocons) because MJR is a Jew.
But so is Seth, although alot more obsessed with being one than MJR. Maybe Seth is a neocon and not the self-proclaimed Larouchite he claims to be.
Seth, go see a shrink or get your Larouchite mentors to give you a new line.
You are a tiresome bore.
You are not a Jew. You are not a Jew. Okay. We promise never to think of you as a Jew, Arab, African-American or any of the groups you are so uncomfortable with.
You are a WASP! A real American. Not a Jew. OK.

MJ,
George Soros is a man, he admitted his mistakes. Would you?

More to the point, will Marty Peretz?

No, I think a person like him that is so consumed with hate that he would do so many mental gymnastics to support Ahmedinijahd over Israel is in need of some therapy or at least a long vacation.

Why do I get the feeling that you are going to throw this dispicable grenade out and then later try to qualify it.

You said..

Jews starting World wars?
...screwing America and the whole world?

Unite to stop them?

Help me to understand what you are saying.

I was following you until this,..

"you are a WASP! A real American. Not a Jew. OK."

Real American? What does this mean?

No, I definitely do not oppose negotiations. I oppose negotiations for the sake of negotiations. Can we agree that Oslo and other negotiations can be graded in such a way that some are more productive than others? Can we agree that regarding the two state question, we have made progress towards a goal since 30 years ago? I am not afraid of compromise. I know that Israel can give up their leverage only once and I expect that they should receive something in return. Security and a reasonable expectation that they will be able to continue to exist. I have been in negotiations before. Sometimes you have to step away from the table in order to refocus both sides on their goals.

Israel's goal is survival. Their challenge is to not hold out for a 100% perfect guarantee of survival. Not even the US has that. Palestine's goal is to win it all and have all of Israel in their control. The challenge of their leadership is to convince their people that less than 100% is acceptable; to convince their people that when they agree to a two state solution, that they mean it, not with a wink and a nod.

Has Arafat killed Israelis and Americans in terrorist acts, Yes. Has he ever exerted energy to take a break from the killing, yes. If Netanyahu makes that call, then good for him.

Israel could have rushed to the table in 1975 and given it all back at once. For what? We live in a society in need of immediate gratification yet we are dealing with a region where solutions can be multi-generational.

When JFK said “Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty"

Survival, success, liberty...he is saying we value these things so much we ill fight more than 6 days, more than a limited air campaign, more than 3000 lives, more than 6 years, more than 6 centuries, we will never give up.

The Radicals in the mideast have said, A culture that does not believe in itself enough to defend its own existence and ideals can not expect others to defend it for them. Americans are our own greatest critics, will we not even bear arms to defend even liberty?

He also is saying we will support "any friend", even if it is tough to support Israel, it is the right thing to do. We have cajoled and pressured Israel plenty and they will be pressured again, as a friend.

Israel holds the final decision on what constitutes the best path for its survival. Everyone else possesses merely opinions. It is our obligation as friends to remain engaged, to encourage progress, but to resist a "clicker" impulse for immediate gratification. Our patience for a peaceful resolution can help Israel come to compromise safely and can help Palestinians resolve their internal conflicts so that they can compromise enough to have a homeland, although not as big as a homeland that they may want.

MJ, in my first post I mentioned my shock at the prevalence of hate on these left leaning meeting places. People like Seth and Davai. I don't see anything like this on the conservative boards. I know you are down on Neocons. I know that you are down on formerly liberal jews that now consider themselves conservative, but don't you feel uncomfortable amongst this vitriol? How can you not find it shocking? Why would it be a surprise to see Jews supporting conservatives?

The things I hear people saying on the left and in Europe and around the world are things I never thought I would live to see. People like Seth and Davai will say its the Jews that brought it on themselves (What's new). There is no excuse. How can this not be a shock to Freedom loving liberals?

bslev: There is indeed a great deal of controversy regarding the interpretation of 242. Whatever the interpretation, it does seem to me that any further negotiations ought to proceed from the "all the territories" interpretation, with any adjustments to the border to be worked out to the satisfaction of the Palestinians, not just the Israelis.

Here's why: 

However Resolution 242 is interpreted, it's clear that it relies for it's underlying principle on the Geneva Conventions, which state that territory seized in war cannot be annexed by an occupying country. Yet that's just what Israel has proceded to do, by it's policy of creating facts on the ground, namely settlement of the Occupied Territories by Israelis. The building of the Separation Wall is the most obvious case in point. The Advisory Opinion of the International Court of Justice, Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, rendered in 2004, is clear where Resolution 242 may not have been (there's also a summary, here):

The Court determines the rules and principles of international law which are relevant to the question posed by the General Assembly. The Court begins by citing, with reference to Article 2, paragraph 4, of the United Nations Charter and to General Assembly resolution 2625 (XXV), the principles of the prohibition of the threat or use of force and the illegality of any territorial acquisition by such means, as reflected in customary international law. It further cites the principle of self?determination of peoples, as enshrined in the Charter and reaffirmed by resolution 2625 (XXV). As regards international humanitarian law, the Court refers to the provisions of the Hague Regulation of 1907, which have become part of customary law, as well as the Fourth Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War of 1949, applicable in those Palestinian territories which before the armed conflict of 1967 lay to the east of the 1949 Armistice demarcation line (or “Green Line”) and were occupied by Israel during that conflict. The Court further notes that certain human rights instruments (International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child) are applicable in the Occupied Palestinian Territory.

The Israelis dismiss this opinion by saying it is only advisory and therefore not binding. And so the increasing of the Israeli population in the OT has continued unabated, even during the withdrawal from Gaza! I think what troubles many watchers of the I-P situation is that for far too long the Israelis have simply been taking the disputed land for themselves.

I might add that one of the things that has made Hillary Clinton far less appealing to me as a candidate is the enthusiastic endorsement of the Wall that she made on a trip to Israel a few years ago.

Politics is the art of preventing people from taking part in affairs which properly concern them. --Paul Valery

Wordie:

First of all, I just turned on the computer at work so I could finally get some work done and here I am again!

Anyway, Wordie I hear you loud and clear with respect to what Israel has done since 1967. I hope you know by now that I'm not here to defend the conduct of the occupation.

I do think what ultimately matters is that, with respect to forging good faith consensus, what you write makes me more confident that good people with different perspectives on this conflict can come to agreement.

The key is that I think we both agree that a final two-state solution could ultimately end up including adjustment of the pre-67 borders by either or both parties. Of course, as you stress, the agreement must also effect that portion of UN Sec. Res 242 that requires secure, or as someone once said, equitable :) borders for BOTH sides as a condition of settlement.

So that's a good thing, I think, or hope, or both.

This medium is poor and underlying assumptions are often not expressed.  In the democratic context, "America first" can be thought to imply rightwing indifference to the world at large, which I find offensive.  I have, for example, been raising issues of Iraqi deaths in the Iraqi war for 4 years.  The American discussion is 3,000 deaths.  Only in the last 6 months has the Iraqi mayhem received any attention.  That is 3 1/2 years tardy by my count.  Then you suggest I have an "America first" attitude because I point out that the US interest involves exactly zero support for Israel, especially since the US has very strong interests related to almost all of the surrounding countries.

Israel has dug itself into a hole through its immoral behavior.  The US has no need for Israel.  The US has interests that are in conflict with Israel is a tiny insignificant country that makes a habit of annoying large significant countries that are strategically important.  How self-denying does the US have to be to please a country that treats 15% of its own citizens as second class citizens and practices apartheid?

Realism would suggest that there are times where borders are an accident of history, or otherwise drawn to be an invitation to trouble -- think of the Danzig Corridor or the formation of Bengladesh whenever there's a question of territory being discontiguous. Absolute rigidity about the exact pre-1967 borders may be such.

A wall may be a reasonable interim security measure. Complete removal of settlements, with selected replacement by interim military bases, would seem a requirement. Final definition of the boundary, tied to bilateral security milestones for the removal of bases and barriers, would follow in negotiations. Multinational forces in some of the bases may be a reasonable idea.

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

I agree, I have heard Lucianne Goldberg say nutty things before. Whether you think it a fair comparison or not, I have heard people compare her to Molly Ivins in the fact that through crumudgeonly and hyperbolic rants she attempts to inject humor into a hostile debate. Unfortunately, Goldberg is not funny and what is left is ugly and offensive remarks like the one you mentioned. I have pointed out before the right has had its share of Vince Foster/Marcy park nutjobs, but the prevalence is quite small really and the assaults on those nutjobs from conservatives can be quite fierce.

Liberals find it hard to believe that mainstream conservatives openly mock the Michael Savages of the world. If you want examples, I can give you examples of every major conservative talkshow host criticizing him as a marginal anamoly. (and Pat Buchanen is not conservative).

There are two reasons why what I see on the left is scary to me. One, it is not pointing at Hillary or Ted Kennedy or even the now commonplace jokes about Bush's assasination, it is directed at Jews. That includes every man woman and child. It reminds me in the 90s after Rodney King and OJ, liberals I knew would come up to me and say, "You'll be happy to know I am turning more conservative, I am fed up with the blacks". My response was always, "What makes you think thats conservative, thats racist".

The second reason it disturbs me, Regardless of how you see the leanings of the media or the voices of alarm in our society regarding tolerance, if we can't count on the left to be the canary in the coal mine regarding racial hatred, no one is going to listen to the right on the issue of anti-semitism no matter how loud they yell.

I will pay a visit to FR and LGF and see if I see what you do, but saying they are "dominated" sounds like a majority and from what I have seen last time I looked, I don't see that. Trying to be open minded over here.

Thanks for your response. It is a trend that I truly don't understand.

TJ:

That was very impressive. Thank you.

Bruce

I thought TJ's post was impressive not because I agree with everything he wrote, but because I could tell it was from his heart.

"countries" are arbitrary geographical designations, moron. They can't be "good" or "bad." And anthrologists don't go around classifying human cultures into "superior" or "inferior" types as you do.

And incidentally, who was arming and supporting nun-raping death squads in Latin America? Evil Muslims? Who was dropping napalm on little girls? Arabs? What "culture" did Hitler come from - Iranian? Idiot.

"countries" are what?....oh, you innocent small minded cretin. You don't believe in Anthropology and now I find that the United States constitution does not have any meaning to you as well.

Now that you have tossed out political science, why don't you run the table and toss out all social and behavioral sciences, since your brain is an arbitrary geographic location devoid of any thought. Write me from Osama's cave, ok?

Sweetie, I know a lot more about the constitution that you do, so give it a rest, ok? You've embarassed yourself enough for one night. Shhoo.

Your generalization about "on the left and in Europe" are about as accurate as about "Seth and Davai". It may be a surprise to you, but there is very little in common between Seth and davai.

A keen observer of political scene should be able to tell a rant from a snark.

Dan K,

Indyk was a head of AIPAC....

And went on to serve an administration that is now routinely vilified by AIPAC and neocon thinkers.  Is historic association now all it takes to establish intelectual pariah status?  If so, MJ himself makes no secret of having once been employed by AIPAC, and it is a very ineteresting dynamic to introduce into this discussion (such as it is).

Israel is a RACIST society. 

How come any accusation of "antisemitism" is routinely called out as an attempt to stifle debate, but sweeping accusations of institutional "racism" leveled at Israel are not only permitted, but appear to be encouraged as a fundamental progressive value?

Good 4 A Merica,

Israel has dug itself into a hole through its immoral behavior. 

Can nations behave either morally or immorally?  By the same standard, has the USA risen as the world's sole superpower through its moral behavior?

You assume his connection to AIPAC is merely historic. He hasn't exactly DISassociated himself from being an Israeli agent of influence, did he?

Nevermind the fact that the "Jews" in this particular case used ethnic cleansing and mass murder and genocide to cleanse the land of non-Jews. No, that's not even a bit racist.

Seth said that Jews in Iran have it better than Palestinians in Israel - and he's right. He didn't say that everything is perfectly fine for them. Iranian Jews aren't rounded up into concentration camps as Palestinians are, families on picnics are not shelled, etc etc.

In fact Iranian Jews in Israel PREFER Tehran to Tel-Aviv.

I wasn't generalizing, although I could and in many cases generalizing has a useful purpose.

It is not generalizing about someone when you refer to feelings about different "things" that you have heard from a sample set that is derived from "around the world". Your knee jerk defensiveness does not wear well on "a keen observer of the political scene" like you.

This poor defense I hear on this board all the time, that certain groups can not be categorized or characteristics can not be defined or even the act of mentioning that two or more people share a certain belief or trait is commiting the sin of "generalizing". And this defense is being used by people that are grumbling about how a bunch of jews in the basement of the white house have tricked us into war and so they argue for the destruction of Israel. Next time just debate the assertion.

Regarding your other remark, the only thing that surprises me about Seth and Davai, is that you and so many others would run to the defense of two hate-filled racists. Before you claim I am making a generalization, it does not mean that you share their bigoted views, it only means that Racism should be confronted and not rationalized or excused.

Umm... the people who are being murdered and tortured are the Palestinians, and the people doing the murdering and torturing are the Israelis. Get real.

Reality is that it is happening on both sides, perhaps wholesale on one and retail on the other.
--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

He Who Should Not Be Named reminds me not of an ilk, an elk, a goofy moose or a gentle llama. It is characteristic of the rhinoceros that it can hold only one idea at a time in its well-armored head. Based on that idea, it lowers its head and charges.

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

bslev says:

I do think what ultimately matters is that, with respect to forging good faith consensus, what you write makes me more confident that good people with different perspectives on this conflict can come to agreement.

I have to thank you for that, bslev. I have to say, as a veteran of I-P discussions (I've been following the issues since the 70s), this is something new. That we are both able to communicate with respect for the other's somewhat different POV is something that gives me hope as well.

Because I value our ability to talk, without things quickly descending into name-calling and hostility, as is too often the case, I think I also have been a bit hesitant to dwell on one issue that does concern me, but it is a highly important issue, so, I do feel a need to raise it.

It's the whole issue of security and what that means in regard to expectations about setting borders. Typically, when the issue of security is raised, the underlying assumption is that Israel will need to annex parts of the Occupied Territories that fall on the Palestinian side of the Green Line. The tragedy is that the operative Israeli policy since 1967, but especially in the last decade or so, has been to establish settlements, and greatly expand existing Israeli population centers in the OT, in the name of security. I say it's a tragedy, because it's very clear that in many cases, these settlements don't have any realistic effect upon Israeli security at all, but instead clearly represent an effort to creat facts on the ground, that should final status negotiations be delayed long enough, will be seen as impossible to reverse. As I've mentioned repeatedly, the path of the Wall itself is an example of this; it's something that all Palestinians know, even if we here in the US are for the most part unaware of it. Human Rights Watch, in their April 2005 letter to President Bush, summarize the problem quite well.

No one but Israel disputes the fact that its settlement policy violates IHL. Yet the international community, including the United States, has failed to hold Israel accountable to its obligations under the Fourth Geneva Convention to, at the very least, immediately cease current Israeli settlement activity. The wrongfulness of the settlement expansion is compounded by evidence stemming from the construction of the wall within the OPT that suggests an Israeli intention eventually to annex the territory in question. Israel claims that the wall is being built for security reasons, but the deep intrusion of the wall into West Bank territory, and the capture of major settlements on the ”Israeli side” of the wall, suggest otherwise. The International Court of Justice, in a view shared by many international legal commentators and every major human rights organization in the world, concluded in its June 2004 advisory opinion that Israel’s construction of the wall within the boundaries of the OPT contravenes IHL and is tantamount to an illegal annexation of the settlements on the Israeli side of the wall.

Peace Now has published a list of seven settlements where large-scale construction (hundreds of units) is occurring. All but one of them are located on the Israeli side of the wall. In a similar list of seventeen settlements where medium-scale construction (tens of units) is occurring, all but three are on the Israeli side of the wall. In addition, two Israeli human rights organizations, B’Tselem and Bimkom, recently published a report that documents the fact that 55 settlements, including 12 in East Jerusalem, housing approximately 75% of all settlers, would fall on the Israeli side of the wall. The report shows that Israeli officials established the wall’s route hundreds to thousands of meters east of the existing boundaries of these settlements to allow for maximum future expansion. The organizations conclude that “contrary to the picture portrayed by the state, the settlement-expansion plans played a substantial role in the planning of the Barrier's route."

The Israeli government has recently sought to justify its construction of the wall inside Palestinian territory, and beyond the Green Line, as based on its sovereign duty to protect Israeli citizens, notwithstanding their presence in settlements. But Israel can well protect these citizens by dismantling the settlements and bringing its settler citizens back within the legitimate borders of its state. Such a measure would satisfy Israel’s duty to protect its citizens without undermining its duty to respect and uphold international law and would end the severe humanitarian and economic harm inflicted on the Palestinian population by virtue of the wall’s construction.

I personally am not opposed to making some adjustment to the border - whatever the Palestinians themselves may find acceptable in this regard is fine with me (and they have indicated a willingness to consider this in previous negotiations). But I'm uneasy with the idea that seems to be expressed frequently among pro-Israeli posters, that in negotiations, Israeli security concerns should trump Palestinian needs right from the get-go. I'm also not certain that the hardline approach to security, in which substantial territorial concessions are required by the Israelis of the Palestinians, in the end will be so effective. It's undeniably true that on the Palestinian side (just as on the Israeli side) there is a extreme element that won't be satisfied by anything less than the whole of Palestine/Israel. Yet, it seems to me that if the Israelis truly wish to achieve peace, it is only an agreement that is very generous to the Palestinians that can do it. Only a very generous territorial agreement will enable the more moderate elements of Palestinian society to sideline the extremists. Instead, the Israelis seem determined to use unreasonable demands, based on their security needs, as a way to prevent any agreement at all from taking place.

As I said, I have found myself a bit hesitant to address this issue with you too directly, bslev. I hope you see that my reasons for becoming somewhat uneasy whenever I hear references to "Israeli security," rather than being based on a lack of concern for Israel, flow from my genuine desire for peace - for both the Palestinians and the Israelis, and that our efforts to communicate about these difficult issues will continue.

Politics is the art of preventing people from taking part in affairs which properly concern them. --Paul Valery

I'll come back here just to say this, because I am disgusted by what you wrote above and by what you represent:

I grew up and live in a multi-ethnic democracy, and I defend multi-ethnic democracies on principle. I defend a multi-ethnic France, a multi-ethnic Germany and a multi-ethnic Canada as I defend the multi-ethnic United States. I defend them against racial nationalists who would define the US for example as a "Christian" nation. It is YOU who refuse to accept a fully multi-ethnic Israel. It is YOU who worry that democratic governments Arab nations are dangerous. It is YOU who said Israel has to come to terms with the Palestinians in some form "whether we like them or not."

And you have the gall to call me self-hating and racist. You claim to have the moral high ground when it is YOUR logic the comes out of 19th century reactionary politics of race and nation, when it is YOUR logic that is anti-modern and anti-democratic. It is YOU that follow Tudjman and Milosevic, Zhirinovsky Haidar and Le Pen. It is YOU who have tried to invent a nation out of a myth, throwing men women and children off the land of their grandfathers.
Uri Avnery does not write for TPM Cafe. Gush Shalom is not represented. The author of Arab Links does not post here. Helena Cobban does not write here. You do not link to The Palestinian Center for Human Rights. Discussions of Lebanon? Where's As'ad AbuKhalil? And as of today still no response to this: Noted Arab Citizens Call on Israel to Shed Jewish Identity.
Not even a mention other than by me on this site.
And you call me a racist.
You have no shame.

Hey Wordie:

Very nicely done. I can't really give your post the justice it deserves right now but let me say that when I talk about border agreements and the need for mutual security and, again, equity, I'm not talking about acceding to those who have tried to create "facts on the ground" with settlements, illegal and otherwise.

Arab peoples have legitimate national rights in 22 recognized nation states that also contain minority populations, but one Jewish state is too many.  Why is it so important to deny Jews their national rights?

Hi cadabra,

I haven't read Brenner's book, but I am somewhat familiar with his contributions to Counterpunch.  He seems consistently intent on demonizing Zionism, particularly at the time of Hitler's rise in Europe. 

Jewish assertion of nationalism in the Middle East is simply illigitemate in the eyes of most of the world’s people.

Shouldn't it be necessary to at least establish this premise (or even establish what most of the world's people believe) before we conclude the illegitimacy of Israel?  And even if such were the case, we should also discuss the steady diet of antisemitism and anti-Zionist propaganda exploited to maintain an authoritarian domination of Arab and other developing nations.  If 22 Arab nations are legitimate, why should it necessarily follow that one Jewish state is too many?

[duplicate deleted]

As Howard said, nobody here claimed Hitler "grew out" of Iran. That mysteriously grew out of your pea brain.

You left out the part about how before WWII the country was known as Persia. The Shah loved Hitler so much and endevoured to adopt every aspect of Hitlers nazism, that as an homage to his fellow nutcase, he renamed his whole damn country Iran, the Indo-Iranian term that would show solidarity to the Fuhrer.

Iran was a willing accomplice to Hitler throughout the war, and most of the Arab world was complicit in the Nazi war on the world.

They sheltered the Mufti of Jerusalem who in the history of Racism, he comes about as close to Hitler as can be imagined. In fact the Nurmemburg trials show he prodded and pushed Hitler to be even more severe in his plans to eliminate all Jews.

The Mufti was known in Nazi Germany as the "Fuhrer of the middle east". He spread his Genocidal message through out the middle east in both Iraq and Iran. He was the head of an insurgency movement in Iraq that was run by the Nazis. He successfully lobbied hitler in Berlin to not allow Jews to peacefully leave Hungary and also convinced Hitler to cancel a plan to trade 5000 Jewish children for POWs. They died in the Death camps. On visiting Auschwitz he encouraged the Nazis to work faster.

Sami al-Joundi, one of the founders of the Syrian Baath party readily admits that they so loved the Nazi party that they created their party to emulate Hitler.

Nassar in Egypt was a member of a party that was a copy of the Nazi party. Sadat was a member also and was arrested for spying for the Nazis. Saddam Hussein's Uncle was an officer in the pro-Nazi golden square coup instigated by the Hitler's Mufti. This Nazi group became the Iraq Baath Party.

This Fuhrer of the mideast, Mufti El Husseini had a cousin named Rahman Abdel-Raouf Arafat al-Qudwa al-Husseini in Gaza. Rahman's father was active in the Wahhabi movement that would later inspire Osama Bin Laden. Rahman and his father worked closely with the Nazis smuggling arms. Rahman served under his cousin the Mufti in combat in 1948 and would consider the Genocidal Mufti one of the greatest Arab leaders and his "hero" until the end of his life. At the beginning of his life he was known as Rahman, but later in life this Nazi spy would be known as the terrorist leader, Yassar Arafat.

No One said Hitler grew out of Iran, but since you brought up this linkage to the mideast, yes the Nazis and the Radicals of the Mideast were both wicked genocidal partners that worked together constantly to take over the world.

Oh, but returning to your original assertion of relativisim, These monsters are no different than the Dalai Lama or Ghandi. Genocide or Peace are equally good in your world, right?

I was glad to hear of your belly aching. Please tell me new ways that I can hurt your stomach. Don't forget to write me from Darius's grave in Persepolis where the Greeks left him.

Hi! Zionista,

I agree with you. I am in no position to corroborate that premise as to what most of the world's people believe. I am humbled.

However, It is the colonialism of the existence of the State of Israel that has the Arabs so upset. One can't derive legitimacy from the fact of one's existence. The tragedy of this, as Brenner points out, is that the Muslims always regarded the Jews and Christians as "eople of the book" and they didn't discriminate against them. Zionism was an Askanazi (sp?) thing. There had been Arab-Jews living in the Middle East for millennia, and living very prosperously. They were opposed to Zionism because they saw it as disturbing the waters. Why do that when it was so unnecessary? I think the Sephardics were also opposed to Zionism.

But, I think this is the central issue. Until Jewish people get over thinking that an alliance between Israel and the US can dominate the Middle East, its oil, and the whole world as a result, there will never be peace. It saddens me t the point that I feel physical pain that Americans are now so hated for the suffering we have caused. I don't want to be so hated. I think Jewish people, especially American Jewish people as to why they are willing to accept such intense consternationto assert their hegemony. I don't think it is worth it, and in the end, I think they will lose. I think Bush ahs hurat this country very deeply. I don't think we will ever again be perceived as favorably and admiringly as we once were. I want that back. I want to be one of the good guys again.

"Until Jewish people get over thinking that an alliance between Israel and the US can dominate the Middle East, its oil, and the whole world as a result, there will never be peace."

Anyone other than this tainted biased Zionist want to opine on the merits of the foregoing statement.

And that makes it all better Howard? For gosh sakes, this poster Cadabra seems bright, intelligent, writes real well, and we have to just qualify what he says to make what he writes more palatable? My friend, you are one of my idols on here, but when I see this kind of post from Cadabra, coming not from a ranter and a raver, I say that no wonder so many of my Jewish brothers and sisters have a hard time trusting others on the future of Israel.

I understand and respect your position on Israel Howard. In fact, I knew and understood and respected your position on Israel before we had this lovely discussion about Cadabra. Respectfully, that wasn't my point, a point that you admonish me to forget.

Zionista: I can understand why you might be uncomfortable with the paper, but must point out that the authors desire for their own self-determination is not, in itself, an effort to deny Jews their national rights, nor are the authors in any way saying that "one Jewish state is too many." Their comments reflect their own experience and aspirations. This is of course the crux of the tragedy that the conflict represents.

I hope you didn't get stuck on the title of the NYT article, as the paper itself seems to present a variety of ideas and alternatives. The author's stated goal, as mentioned before, is to start a discussion; this isn't a manifesto.

I should also probably re-state my own belief that a two-state solution to the conflict is the only practical solution. Nevertheless, the Vision paper is important.

Politics is the art of preventing people from taking part in affairs which properly concern them. --Paul Valery

Nobody is denying Jews their national right.  The debate is over Jewish racism and apartheid.

If they are really from that region, aren't they Arabs who practice a different religion?  Isn't that the upshot of the genetic studies?  If they are not Arabs who practice a different religion, where are they from?

No it is irrelevant to the question of whether Hitler was a result of "Western" culture or not and you know it.

Oh you're SUCH AN AMUSING IGNORANT MORON! I can't take the laughter!

FYI Iran was NEVER known as "Persia" by the Iranians - the Iranians always referred to their country as Iran - for more than 2 thousand years. The term "Persia" was commonly used in the West thanks to the ancient Greeks and in 1935 the SHah of Iran officially requested that the West use the term Iran too.

And while your so desperately trying to link Iran to Hitler, you conveniently forget that Iranians SAVED JEWS FROM HITLER.

And when the Nazi killing machines began their slaughter of innocent Polish Jews, 1,388 Jews, including 871 children were moved to Tehran where they lived in relative safety till they moved to Israel. Again the "History of Contemporary Iranian Jews" has provided an account of what are called "Tehran Children."

I suggest - yet again - that you educate yourself before inserting foot-into-mouth.

Ignorant shithead.

Why must we presume that Arab peoples are the only peoples native to the Middle East?

MJ,

I guess I don't address the anti-semites around here because, like racists of all sorts, you just can't argue with them.

And yet you openly accuse davai of being an antisemite?  Maybe you just wanted to "stifle the debate."

Good 4 A Merica,

The debate is over Jewish racism and apartheid.

I disagree.  The debate is over the comparable legitimacy of national self-determination from one people to the next.  "Jewish racism and apartheid" is one particularly lame and unbalanced way to frame the overall debate.

Good 4 A Merica,

There really isn't any substantive difference between national sovereignty and "racism" in your argument.  Your use of immigration and citizenship especially tries way too hard to pin every moral weakness in the reality of international relations on one particular nation.  Qualification of citizenship pretty much is the foundation of any national sovereignty, not just Israel's.

Howard,

While I disagree with Good 4 A Merica that nationalism is always bed, a given thing is done elsewhere does not mean that the United States necessarily should support it. I believe Israel, along with various other countries, does have specific legal status for specific ethnic heritages, or religions.

O...K.  Seems like we agree more with each other than you agree with Good 4 A Merica, and that's fine.  But it's puzzling how G4AM's comment earns your "5."  Unless you really liked the part about the chip on my shoulder.

I have already addressed this absurd comment from another proponent  of Israel.  In short, rePublicans are NOT good for America and I am damn tired of hearing their absurd nationalistic claims that they are.

Israel is a made up country colonizing land that belongs to others who are still alive or their children.  It wouldn't exist if not for the aggregate power of Western Europe and the United States, not only back in the 1940s, but today as well.  How many Israelis actually live in Brooklyn or Toronto? 

Zionista, are you good for America?  Or are you an Israeli masquerading as an American?

You have not been one of those screamers. I took his prose, however, as more anti-GoI than anti-Jewish.

On rereading it, I think this is what pushed my button:

Until Jewish people get over thinking that an alliance between Israel and the US can dominate the Middle East, its oil, and the whole world as a result, there will never be peace.

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

The 5 was based less on the specific content than with the eloquence about nationalism. In point of fact, outside the context of Israel, I disagree with G4A that nationalism is always bad.

Before you pat me on the shoulder, however, in an ideal world, I would rather see the American ideal of identity based on ideas become wider, and would prefer the US not actively support states who have exclusionary policies based on ethnicity or religion. That applies just as much to Saudi Arabia as to Israel.

I would further note that I approve of nationalism based on ideas, at least when the ideas are representative of the majority. While Marxist-Leninist states were based on an idea, it was an idea believed, often cynically, by an oligarchy.

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

davai,

Your creative sarcasm is unfortunately lost in this medium and on this crowd.

Howard,

In point of fact, outside the context of Israel, I disagree with G4A that nationalism is always bad.

"Outside the context of Israel."  So, nationalism is always bad when it's Jewish?

I would rather see the American ideal of identity based on ideas become wider, and would prefer the US not actively support states who have exclusionary policies based on ethnicity or religion. That applies just as much to Saudi Arabia as to Israel.

But for some reason, Israel should be the first to walk the plank.  Nevertheless, considering the global popularity of ethnically based national identities, I'm afraid your dream leaves the USA a very lonely superpower.

May I offer clarification? I was trying to say that nationalism is not always bad, and I was simply trying not to make any specific reference to Israel in that context. That being said, I consider the particular form of nationalism of many Arab countries to be bad, but perhaps there is no alternative within their politics. Japan has its problems, while Germany, for example, has made strong efforts to change from WWII.

If the US cut off aid to all such countries, those that have explicit ethnic or religious criteria for status being a small subset of those that are nationalistic, I'll live with the loneliness, along with quite a few other countries that base their citizenship on ideas and voluntary commitment.
--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

I am hardly the only one playing the morals card here.  You seem determined that anyone who asks about Israeli policies suppressing non-Jews is anti-semitic and that it is perfectly permissible to say so.  So, what is wrong with asking you where your loyalties lie?