Thanks, MJ. As an Israeli, I am ashamed of some of the terrible things we do. But I am proud that we have a vigorous media that points these things out.
Also, we do not have a powerful lobby that intimidates our media or our liberal politicians into silence.

Haaretz does not have the largest circulation by any means. But it is the most respected paper. It is pro-Labor but not fringy at all.
To be fair, articles like this regularly appear in Ma'ariv and Yediot Achronoth, which are the two biggest papers and are also both rightwing.
I may clarify the original post. Thanks.

MJ:

Poignant column, and worthy of lots of discussion. Israelis can and should be proud of their vibrant and free press, a press that does not shy away from what is ugly and what is painful and what makes lovers of peace bleed in our hearts for every innocent victim of this never-ending dispute.

We have issues indeed with our press and what tends to be reported. An understatement, I know.

Sorry I cannot participate cause I'm headed out on vacation. See you in a week or so.

Bruce

"I am ashamed of some of the terrible things we do"

Can you be more specific?

I don't think your example is fair to the US press.
You compare the US press with headlines from the rest of the world.

Wy don't you compare US press with the press of a any other country?

Falcon 2.

The better ones do, at least with respect to challenging the conventional wisdom in Iraq and Afghanistan. People on this blog do bring up inappropriate levels of force in other contexts, so yes, they have business mentioning that in the I-P context. When Blackwater security guards are criticized for using force that is appropriate only to troops under regular command, then it's quite appropriate to criticize excessive force in the I/P context.

Until you start paying attention to such responses here, a little less knee-jerk tu quoque automatic justification for Israeli actions might get you more credibility. Even more credibility would come from your recognizing excessive and uncontrolled force regardless of the source.

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]

""People on this blog do bring up inappropriate levels of force in other contexts, so yes, they have business mentioning that in the I-P context."

Sure, but MJ was not talking about people on this blog.

He was talking about our major Democratic candidates.
They don't talk about murder of Iraqi or Afgani children by American military.

MJ.
"they barely mention the slaughter of Iraqi kids in America's war."
Did you insert this comment later?

BTW, How about murder of Afganistani and Serbian
kids in America's wars.
Is it OK with you for American military to murder kids if you agree with the goals?

"It's apparent that you don't look at this is a discussion of American politics, but simply as a way to continue your vendetta against MJ."

Not at all. I just directly comment on MJ post.
What's wrong with that?
I see that several other people already moved from discussion a topic of MJ post to repeating their thoughts about Israel.

Even by MJ Rosenberg standards, this is an inane post. 

The idea that the Western media spends no time covering Palestinian casualties or the effect the situation is having on Palestinian lives is so unbelievably stupid and wrong that it just leaves one dazed.  Open up the newspaper or turn on the TV or radio in any given week and chances are there will be a story about how many Palestinians were killed in this or that IDF action.  The story is often accompanied by images of wailing Palestinian mothers and/or chanting young men and usually features some articulate terrorist mouthpiece saying how evil the Israelis are.  This happens so often that one can almost predict how these kinds of stories will be presented.  Meanwhile, the IDF spokesman perfunctorily trotted out to provide "balance" is inevitably some hard-looking military man who says the same things about terrorists every time.  So the reader or viewer is left with the image of the wailing bereaved mother (and never mind if her son that just got blown to smithereens is a vicious killer) vs. the cold-hearted military man who expresses "regret" at the loss of any innocent lives.  On the propaganda front, Israel stands little chance.

Stories like this pervade the media day after day, month after month, year after year. 

Another example is the way stories about the security fence are presented.  There is often the story of how the poor olive farmer is going to be inconvenienced.  I have yet to read about the suicide bombing victim whose life might have been saved or whose body might not be maimed if there had been a fence to stop the evil scum who blew himself up in the name of Allah.

But the silliest claim is the idea that such a story about Palestinian child victims could never appear in the New York Times when one such similar story DID appear about six months ago in both the NYT and the International Herald Tribune (whose largely European readership you can bet lapped it up). 

Years of Strife and Lost Hope Scar Young Palestinians

I'm sure MJ will be issuing a retraction any minute now....

Finally, it is true that political candidates are often very circumspect about what they say about Israel.  In the heat of a campaign, comments about many things that are probably innocent are often jumped on by people with extremely heightened sensitivity.  This is true of NRA voters, NARAL voters and many other issue voters, not just supporters of Israel. 

But supporters of Israel do have a right to ask what is the relation between the words a candidate uses on the stump and their underlying philosophy.  So if a candidate goes out of their way to criticize Israel, even if that criticism is entirely justified, it is reasonable to ask whether it is evidence of an underlying bias against Israel.  To complain that the debate is freer in Israel than here is ridiculous.  In Israel, it is usually taken as a given that even vociferous critics support the state and its fundamental security objectives.  Outside, supporters of Israel need strong evidence that on a fundamental, deep, philosophical level, a candidate understands Israel's security concerns.  If that has the effect of making candidates choose their words carefully, well tough shit I say.

This was an amazing post. People, let's not obliterate the point of Gideon Levy's piece by responding to cranks like Davai and Brad. Let's stay on the issue.
The whole reason they come here is to derail the debate. Ignore them, troll rate them, don't engage them.

A self-proclaimed DAD celebrates the murder of children. I hereby excommunicate the faux-Jew known as Brad the Dad.

So what's the debate all about.
I think the first we need to debate
why major and minor Democratic candidates would never even consider expressing regret for
of the murders of children by American military
in Iraq and Afganistan or Serbia at all?

What you want to discuss?

What a tragic report. It is a shame that its real import in not understood by those reflexively anti-Israel. There the obvious if relatively minor question of what Arab paper reports on the deaths of any Israelis? More to the point where is the demand from the Arab World and the people on this thread that the Palestinians protect their children by laying down their weapons and stop firing missiles at Israel and cease efforts at terrorism against Israel.

As Ken Burn's "The War" so forceably illustrates some wars are necessary but never good. In wars even the "good guys" do ignoble things. To say that terrible things happen in war as if that answers everything is naive and potentially very dangerous.

Daniel A. Greenbaum

Only not troll-rated to comment that I don't believe that no candidate hasn't regretted civilian deaths in other countries. No, I'm not going to play your little game, Davai, and respond to asking for cites. It's your contention none have -- the burden of proof is on you.

The nature of conflict is such that people of all ages die. While quite a bit of historical evidence shows that the WWII Allied high command, in the European theater, did not know about the full extent of the Holocaust until 1945, and some much later, there were those that argued that the best way to end it was to defeat the Third Reich. I'll note that the aerial photographs taken of Auschwitz/Monowitz, because the camera wasn't turned off after the immediate target, were not understood until the seventies. The Polish death camps were also at the extreme range of US and UK bombers, unless the Soviets gave them refueling access -- which they refused.

The way to stop the murders of civilians in any conflict is to stop the conflict. Sometimes, that means defeating a foe decisively. Sometimes, it means that a situation is not repairable from the outside, and withdrawal is the prudent course. Sometimes, it means that more defensive measures are needed, because (see Marighella), the retaliatory methods generate more attacks and are actually counterproductive. Sometimes it means that more precise firepower is needed--a single bullet in the right place may be decisive.

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]

Freedom of discussion? I wasn't aware that was a right. The First Amendment guarantees freedom of the press and freedom of expression. It does not say "Congress shall make no law restricting the freedom of someone to express himself on someone else's printing press."

In this case, the virtual printing press is Josh's site. He sets the rules for discussion, which includes the ability for trusted users to troll-rate. As a trusted user, I used to turn off displaying low-rated comments, but realized that was unfair. There have been comments, including yours, where I uprated them so they would be seen, and one person alone could not suppress them.

Get enough trusted users to override a zero, and you won't be "censored", to use an inaccurate term. Of course, getting that confidence means that enough users have to see value, rather than whining, in your posts.

If you don't like Josh's coffeehouse rules, it's very easy to set up your own blog with its own rules.

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]

Your idea of a current discussion is anything that lets you complain about MJ.

I regard any discussion of finding peace in an area, or when it's hopeless and getting out is the best alternative, as dealing adequately with whether children are killed or not.

MJ's point is that Israel's papers are more open than the US papers. I don't trust the US media to bring accurate reporting.

Further, I do not believe that the killing of children is worse than the killing of noncombatants of any age. The issue are the conflicts, not emoting about children. If Democratic candidates talk about civilian deaths anywhere, then that's adequate for me. If they aren't talking about the conflicts, that's a problem.

I believe the US needs to be in Afghanistan. I believe the US needs to be out of Iraq. I believe the US gives too much unquestioning support to Israel, which is a contributing but not decisive point about the killing of innocents in the West Bank, Gaza, or Israel itself. I want to know the candidates' positions on all those conflicts.

Now, how about you stating your position, rather than continuing to ask questions in what I can't decide is just your way of trolling, or your inability to express a coherent position of your own.

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]

Well put, Howard.

"Finally, whether they constitute "murder" or negligence is probably beyond you."

Look, I didn't not introduce "murder" terminology
to this discussion, don't blame me.

At this point, it's up to you to re-read the post and then state what you think the point is.

Here is a basic statement of the point, as I see it, found in para 2:

"I love Israel because an article like this can appear in a newspaper that is the New York Times of Israel -- when it could not appear in the real New York Times or any major media outlet here."

The Israeli press is freer on this subject than the US press. MJ goes on to say the US candidates aren't free in speaking on this topic either.

So the point about the candidates is somewhat subsidiary to the main point, which is one about the courage and informative of the US press vs that of the Israeli press.

One reason he loves Israel is their press.

I'm curious if you can point to an instance where sympathy for Israel's security concerns led an American politician to support something that was manifestly not in America's national interest.

And please don't cite the Iraq War - contrary to popular lefty belief, that was opposed by most of the Israeli security establishment.

Some actions taken by Israel are completely appropriate. Some are not, and, especially when they involve the use of US-supplied weaponry, continue to feed into "Great Satan" propaganda.

Also curious how you distinguish between appropriate and inappropriate use of US-supplied weaponry, BOTH of which feed into "Great Satan" propaganda.  This is not to say that Israel never does anything inappropriate.  Only that the distinction between what is appropriate and inappropriate is lost on the sort of people who call the US the "Great Satan". 

Daniel - Do you honestly believe that if the Palestinians laid down their guns, Israel would let them have a viable state? The most the current Kadima and the probable incoming Likud will allow is outdoor prisons and "reservations". Meanwhile, settlements and outposts are expanding and proliferating to make it impossible for a Palestinian state.

There are now 500,000 Israelis living beyond the Green line. When is Israel going to make an offer that can't be refused? When there are 1,000,000 Israelis in occupied territory? 2 million? What Israel is doing in the West Bank is crazy. Yet it is quickly getting to the point of no return - what then?

Israel is the Occupying Power and it is her responsiblility bring it to a conclusion.

"Do you honestly believe that if the Palestinians laid down their guns,\"

What's the point of creating trouble for Israel
from Gaza. Obviously Palestinians can have a
viable state there.

"When is Israel going to make an offer that can't be refused? "
To Palestinians:
Already did:
In 1948, 1968, 2000.

I won't troll-rate this so it can be seen. In my opinion, you are constantly trolling by complaining about MJ. I suggest others join me in zero-rating Davai's future posts, like this one, that have no content other than he doesn't like MJ.

At this point, I'm more certain that Davai doesn't like MJ than I am that Dick Cheney is not, deep down, a humanitarian. Frightening, isn't it?

Perhaps even more frightening is if Davai were the official spokesman for Israel. I can only think of a visual metaphor for that, from the farcical comedy, Hot Shots, Part Deux. Our Hero and an Evil Arab Terrorist are blasting away at one another, using automatic weapons, and having the general marksmanship of the Imperial Stormtroopers in Star Wars.

Suddenly, the Everready Bunny enters the scene. The two combatants stop firing, look at one another, nod, and blow away the Bunny. Let me know if someone removes Davai's batteries, willya?

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

Even more nightmarish was the time I was rushing to catch a plane at the Colorado Springs airport. It was quite foggy, and I was mildly lost.

I had not known that a hot air ballooning festival was underway. Suddenly, out of the fog, emerged what I learned was a 110 foot high Bunny, with a giant Big Mac following closely.

There is blogger here, Herlz, who claims to be be left wing soldier in IDF.

Herlz, can you explain the article?
Does it sound true to you?

From what I read, Israel often risk lifes of own soldiers to minimize civilian deaths.

Is this not true?

What kind of human beings are these?

Tribal humans, not unlike tribal humans here.

"The sheer barbarism of many of the commenters was simply unbelievable."

I have been following the comments in Haaretz for some time. Yes there are posters there that will curl your hair. They make Davai, D. Green, Brad the braindead, etc seem almost civilized.

It is, in part, why I have come to believe that the US will never be able to push the Israelis into a two state solution to end the conflict and that really the only thing we can do is to pull out our support for Israelis and just leave them alone to carry on as they will. Whatever they choose --negotiations and peace, concentration camps, transfer or genocide -- we do not have influence on events any more and will have to let them do as they will. And we should not be shocked when the transfer and genocide options are discussed because there is definite currents in Israeli society that support those.

I don't understand you.

Are you using his post just to express your thoughts about anything that interest you but that has nothing to do with the post?

If so why do you piggy back on M.J posts,

why don't you post yourself?

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

Now landsmen all, whoever you may be,
If you want to rise to the top of the tree,
If your soul isn't fettered to an office stool,
Be careful to be guided by this golden rule--
Stick close to your desks and never go to sea,
And you all may be rulers of the Queen's Navee!

And MJ, just mho: if you don't want the latter to happen, and you're going to continue to post on IP, you'll ask Andrew Golis for some intereference. Things started going downhill with abuse of the ratings system, but they are rapidly moving further along in the trash direction now. All the grown-ups are going to start taking a pass on these threads soon.

Daniel,

Thank you for letting me, I hope, use the rating system as it should be used. While I might not agree with all your points, and I suspect we define "reflexively anti-Israel" differently, this was an eloquent post, especially the second paragraph.

I hope I can quote a friend, retired now from Army Special Forces, enough to resonate with that paragraph. He talked about special forces (not the whole special operations community) as "having to do the things that nobody ever should have to do, but sometimes wind up being necessary." I was honored to be with several of his colleagues, in a quiet and really meditative evening, sipping single malts. They spoke of what it was like to be a pure sniper, something that many think of as remote and distant, but it's forgotten that they have strong telescopic sights (and spotting scopes) and usually see the face of the person they just killed, as the bullet hits. They talked about some of the joys of providing medical care to third-world villages, and then losing they had saved to guerillas.

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]

"but they'd take it from anyone who would help them carry out their anger."
The problem is that Israel can't do anything about their anger as long as they are angry.
So, it's pretty much lost cause, some pain for Israel, a lot of pain for Gazans who don't get money from Iran.

BTD potpourri:...terrorists, wailing bereaved mother, vicious killer, bombing victim, evil scum , blown to smithereens , child victims,  well tough shit I say. 

Whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap.

Galatians VI

D.G.: [W]here is the demand…that the Palestinians protect their children by laying down their weapons and stop firing missiles at Israel and cease efforts at terrorism against Israel.

Golda Meir: Peace will come when the Arabs will love their children more than they hate us.

From the levy article: The first of them was buried twice. Abdullah al-Zakh identified half of the body of his son Mahmoud, in the morgue refrigerator of Shifa Hospital in Gaza, by the boy's belt and the socks on his feet. This was shortly before last Rosh Hashanah. The next day, when the Israel Defense Forces "successfully" completed Operation Locked Kindergarten, as it was called, leaving behind 22 dead and a razed neighborhood, and left Sajiyeh in Gaza, the bereaved father found the remaining parts of the body and brought them for a belated burial.

Eloquent, my ass; your comment is disgusting. Blaming the victims is low. Collective punishment is illegal and immoral. Israel is an occupying force and is responsible for those it subjugates. The continued decades old assault on innocent people is a crime. These deaths are murder.

"Yes there are posters there that will curl your hair."

"there are posters here that will curl your hair." Just read some comments about Clintons.
Forget I/P.

"It is, in part, why I have come to believe that the US will never be able to push the Israelis into a two state solution to end the conflict "

There is no need. Israel always accepted a two state solution, last time in 2000.

"That might put Hamas in a position of needing to be responsible to hold power. It's not a situation that offers optimism"

The problem posed by both Hamas and Hezbollah is that their ability to hold and grow power is one of their strengths. Hezbollah is the model. That's why the US and Israel have extended so much effort to insure that Hamas would never get a chance to face the challenges of democracy.

The opinion that Israel should deal with Hamas isn't all that rare in the professional circles of those who know them best.

The context of the publication determines the reader's interpretation of the article's overall meaning.

When published by a mainstream Israeli paper, the article's main audience is understood to be an Israeli one that accepts with bedrock certainty the legitimacy of Israel's existence. Members of secondary markets where the article appears in syndicated form, I suspect, realize that.

In contrast, if reported by a European publication, say the Economist, the underlying assumption of Israel's legitimacy cannot be assumed -- indeed, the article could be interpreted to be part of a publication's general animosity towards Israel's existence as an independent Jewish state.

Thus, this article's horrific description of violence perpetrated by Jewish Israelis against Palestinians Arabs is fundamentally a call for a change in Israeli government policy, not a call for one state solution (be it called "Israel" or "Palestine").

Howard,

your depth of knowledge here is incredible.

REQUEST FROM MJ ROSENBERG

Thanks for all the comments on this article. I can't tell you good folks what to do but, particularly when I post a piece like this, I'd appreciate it if you would not engage in arguments with Davai and the other trolls here.
A friend (not a TPM regular) told me that he stops reading these pieces and your comments once the trolls take over.
If we want, as most of us do, people to read and think about the horrors Ha'aretz reported on, we'd discuss them with each other but not allow anyone to divert TPM readers from an important subject by creating nonsensical threads.
A number of you urged me not to stop writing on the Mideast. And I don't want to stop.
But I could use your help in keeping the trolls at bay.
I understand why some of you are troll rating Davai and the others. That's fine. But it's far more effective not to engage them especially on a subject like yesterday's Ha'aretz piece.
Thanks and peace.
MJ Rosenberg

Davai,

I'm walking a line here between some of my instincts and MJ's requests. Perhaps you might, on some of these issues, consider starting a blog post to the MJ issue isn't involved.

As far as verification, look through news of the time for one specific item: Israeli request for resupply of M26, or even any rocket for the M270 system. If you want American tactical doctrine, look at Fires (formerly Field Artillery) at http://sill-www.army.mil/FAMAG/, or go to the Army online doctrine library and start reading the doctrinal and artillery manuals. For more conceptual papers, see the Strategic Studies Institute at the Army War College, or the McNair Papers at the National Defense University. Beyond the magazine, you will have a substantial amount of reading, but that's the price of being able to read a partially censored news article and deciding if it makes sense.

I cannot accept that Israel did not know the effects of the weapons they were using. If they considered massive overkill the best way, I suppose that's possible. Realistically, I believe they were trying both to attack the rocket sites and punish civilians for any support of Hizbollah. Given that Israel was simultaneously bombing electrical plants, causing an oil spill into the Mediterranean and then interfering with cleanup attempts, I can't see much other explanation.

What I cannot do is look inside the decisionmakers' and know why they did that. Military censorship here is also hurting, not helping, Israel.

Again, I urge you to read, think, and offer an opinion, preferably with background, rather than just ask questions.

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]

" These deaths are murder."

Just to be clear, is it your opinion that any military action of Israel in Gaza or US in Iraq
or Afganistan that resulted in a death of a child is a murder?

Why don't you read the article MJ linked to?

Herlz claims that he was a soldier in Israel.
He was in Lebanon last year.
I was asking what he knows personally.

As the vacating of Gaza indicated is that the answer is clearly yes. Israel is not going to be blown-out of Israel, on either side of the Greenline. As Sadat and King Hussein both demonstrated if you offer peace to Israel they will give back territory and enter into a peace deal.

I would make a further point. If the Palestinians continue to fire missles at Israelis and hide their launchers in civilian populations there will never be a Palestinian State and more Palestinians will be responsible for the death of more Palestinian children.

Without peace there will be more settlements. Israel will not and should not make a deal with those who will just continue to murder Jews. When are the Palestinians and their supporters going to act like adults and take responsiblity for their fate?

Daniel A. Greenbaum

Howard,
Sometimes you are reasonable, sometimes you are not.
My answer:
"Herlz claims that he was a soldier in Israel.
He was in Lebanon last year.
I was asking what he knows personally."
was direct answer to W.B question.
What problem do you have with direct answer to direct question?

Original troll rating changed because this needs to seen.

If it was anyone else, Davai, I would treat it as an actual question. Your questions usually are a distraction. Until I see you contributing to the discussions, from now on, I will troll-rate nonspecific or argumentative questions from you, which have no original text with them.

Further, if you knew anything of war, you never would ask a soldier, unless possibly a very close friend, about his experience, unless he volunteered it. I knew that a friend had been in Vietnam, and, a while later, that he had been in the Long-Range Reconnaissance Patrols.

One evening, he fell asleep at a party, and started screaming in his sleep. We woke him up, literally held him, and he gasped out the experience of having to kill a Viet Cong, face to face, with a knife. He calmed a little bit, and then told us of watching a head explode from a sniper bullet. When he started to tell us of an assignment surveying a headquarters that that had been carpet-bombed by B-52s, he started to cry, and we held him until he got back to sleep.

Let soldiers take the initiative.

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]

On September 28, 2007 - 4:43pm hcberkowitz said:

Your idea of a current discussion is anything that lets you complain about MJ.

Howard, heh, heh, truly.

In the 1950s film version of 'A Christmas Carol' starring Alastair Sim, you see a scene of Marley's ghost accosting Scrooge. The ghost is wearing heavy chains and weights hanging down from around his shoulders.

I see davai trying to be the chains and weights around MJ's shoulders. :-)

". Occupying forces, especially a forty-year occupation, have an obligation to the security and safety of those it has hamstrung from developing their own institutions."

Israel left Gaza. How Israel should provide
security and safety of Gazans?

"Israel has never hesitated to collectively punish the Palestinians by cutting them off or cutting off necessities. Hundreds of children are incarcerated in Israel. "
Let's stay with the murder topic.

"Yes, there are some terrorists that Israel has a right to go after, but not with impunity from any action."

So, what's OK with you?

"Just to be clear, is it your opinion that any military action of Israel in Gaza that resulted in a death of a child is justified?"

Of course not.
If the following is true
"IDF troops killed children in the West Bank, too. Jamil Jabaji, a boy who tended horses in the new Askar refugee camp, was shot in the head. He was 14 when he was killed, last December. He and his friends were throwing rocks at the armored vehicle that passed by the camp, located near Nablus. The driver provoked the children, slowing down and speeding up, slowing down and speeding up, until finally a soldier got out, aimed at the boy's head and fired. Jamil's horses were left in their stable, and his family was left to mourn."

it's a murder.

"Again, I urge you to read, think, and offer an opinion, preferably with background, rather than just ask questions."

What's wrong with asking questions?
Let's admit, you have some knowledge.

But most people here, have no clue what they are talking about, they only offer baseless opinion.
Asking them questions so they have to explain their opinions is very appropriate.

Your classification of the Israeli newspapers is way off the mark. You calling Maariv and Yediot "right-wing" is simply wrong. They were at one time, 30-40 years ago. Neither support the Likud or the "National Camp", both support Kadima/Labor. Both are strongly anti-YESHA settlments. Both are largely anti-Religious.
Ha'aretz supports the MERETZ/HADASH line...largely post-Zionist or anti-Zionist.
It is true that all three papers do have an occassional "right-wing" opinion piece, but the newspapers all support the post-Zionist oligarchy that rules Israel. They are all mouthpieces of the Establishment. "Crusading, muck-raking" journalism of the Drew Pearson/Jack Anderson type is virtually unknown in Israel.
Dan Margalit wrote in his autobiography "I Have Seen Them All", that in the 1970's when Rabin was Prime Minister, there were an endless number of scandals involving him and his family came to Margalit's attention. Each time he wanted to publicize them, Shocken, the publisher forbade him from doing it because he said "we support Rabin". So please don't give me an tripe about Gidon Levy and Ha'aretz being crusaders for justice.

But...Davai...your opinions are baseless, but no one asks you about them.

Sorry, some straight lines cannot be resisted.

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]

I'm going to try to educate a little. My friend Bob, prior to falling asleep and screaming, had only mentioned he had been in Vietnam, and in combat.

John is far better qualified to comment here, because I haven't been in true combat. I can speak to some very ugly things in emergency medicine. Courses and mailing lists have to show some very nasty things, so when the real thing is in front of you, you don't freeze. Still, there are things that you can't anticipate. I think my worst experience was the smell of gas gangrene.

Still, I know enough combat veterans who have advised that unless it's a support group or counseling system, don't press the veterans. Let it come out at their own pace.

A good friend of mine was in WTC on 9/11, and told me that his Navy training kicked in, and he urged his team down almost 40 flights of stairs, even though the loudspeakers were saying stay there. At such time as he wants to talk about any other experiences, I'll listen to what he has to say. On 9/11, I was close enough to the Pentagon that my windows shook, but I didn't lose anyone in there. Still, I'll never forget the sounds -- of the impact, and of the fighters that got there a few minutes later. I can empathize with the fighter pilots that blame themselves, unreasonably, for not getting there sooner -- in reality, even if they shot it down, it would have landed in a populated area.





Herzl made a general statement. If he wants to amplify, in posts or in messages, I'll listen.

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]

"But...Davai...your opinions are baseless"
Correct.
"but no one asks you about them."
Wrong, You always ask me to express my opinions but I try not to because I understand that
my opinions are baseless.

We went thru this discussion before and agreed that Barak couldn't offer ALL the land.
We agreed that for example Barak coudn't offer Western Wall.

Howard, you are the intellectual equivalent of the IDF, showing disproportionate use of force against the rhetorical equivalent of a 10-year-old throwing rocks at a tank.

That's right Daniel--everybody who disagrees with you is either an anti-Semite or not somebody to be taken seriously.

How dare TPM Cafe link to an article in the Israeli press that documents the deaths of Palestinian children at the hands of the IDF? Quick, call Abe Foxman!

Thanks MJ for the post. At least I now have another source for news.

"vengence is mine" just something I read once.

I believe that Hizbullah and Hamas need to be viewed separately in light of their respective situations--HA *wants* more representation/power in the Lebanese govt, and are being held out by those who want to maintain the status quo power balance. Also, in contrast to Hamas, they do have a history of actually providing social services to their people.

Daniel complained to the management about us bad TPM people. Daniel, you are a real DB.

Hamas is similiar to Hezbollah in the way both orgs provide services for their followers. It's the core of their strength among the populace they serve. That's why Abbas, the US and Israel are targeting their NGOs/infrastructure/providers in the WB and attempting to set up a similiar network of local NGO's under the control of Fatah to replace the services formerly supplied by Hamas.

Davai - Cute answer that avoids the question. You know damn well what I meant. In 2000 he essentially offered 70+% of the occupied territories with the "chance" of getting another 15% over 15-25 years. That was not close to a Sadat like offer.

Where you got this from?

Please read :
http://www.mideastweb.org/lastmaps.htm

I know that I'm not wise enough to know all the answers. I don't even think I know all the questions. From my perspective, you posed one that is good and fair:

in his experience, [is] the war is being fought honorably and to good ends and are there serious transgressions happening?

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]

I'm new to TPM. A friend referred me to the Haretz piece here. Thanks for printing it. Terrible stuff. And we taxpayers pay for it.

"which is, at best, only tangentially related."

See, you have no clue, Even Human Rights Council finally understood that

"The Palestinian issue is very complex. It has many facets. ... However, the council must examine the actions of both sides, not only one side,"

However, I doubt that the teacher, MJ, and his student will ever understand that the Palestinian issue is very complex. It has many facets

If you don't understand this simple fact
the conversation about the topic of the thread
is just silly.

MJ doesn't understand complexcity, or many facets.
For him "That's it. Problem solved."
http://www.tpmcafe.com/blog/coffeehouse/2007/sep/25/two_presidents_make_fools_of_themselves_at_columbia#comment-303238

How about you?
Did you ever in your comments showed understanding of "many facets"?

Howard,
Even you rated me 0,
I have to admit that from time to time you show understanding of "many facets", but you are exception.
Very few people understand that
"The Palestinian issue is very complex. It has many facets. ... However, the council must examine the actions of both sides, not only one side.

"Dear teacher,
Sorry for misunderstanding of your assignment.
When I read the assignment sheet I thought that the following should be appropriate topic for discussions:
- Why we should love Israel.
- Why US is not the land of the free
- Why American media barely mention the slaughter of Iraqi kids in America's war.

- Why Israeli press is free from far right but American press is not.

- Why not one of our major Democratic candidates would even consider expressing regret for the slaughter of Iraqi kids in America's war.

From your latest comment I see that the real assignment was
“to read and think about the horrors Ha'aretz reported on,”

Sorry for misunderstanding, Please don’t drop me from the class.
While English is my second language, and sometimes I have trouble understanding the deep meaning of your assignments, I’ll
try harder next time.
Truly yours,
Davai

davai,
Oh, this is news. We have here someone in the world who actually agrees with Bush. That is so hard to find and you found it! Good work.

Now this Human Rights Council (HRC) is the same bunch that criticized the US for its human rights abuses, no? Rendition, torture, that sort of thing.

But now the HRC has a new outlook with its new Romanian chief. Let's see, Romania, isn't that where the US just recently signed a military basing agreement? Lots of greenbacks about to flow in if they toe the line? By golly, it is. I guess that explains it, all right. The legacy of Bonkers Bolton lives on in the UN. The HRC will now be given a chance to "improve", i.e. to criticize those uppity Palestinians who have the audacity to react to little things like eviction, destruction and oppression.

I don't think we'll follow that example, davai, if you don't mind. Or even if you do.

ecotourism
WeGoEco.com

Welcome! And to show you how picky we can get: The taxpayers aren't actually paying for it, the US borrows from China and Japan. I mention it because if the taxpayers were required to pay for it, and other wars, it might help matters.

ecotourism
WeGoEco.com

"As the occupying Power, Israel has an obligation to provide protection and essential services to the civilian population under its occupation"
I guess I'm lost,
Do you suggest that Israel should go back to Gaza
killck out Hamas and other gangs and establish order?

Correction.

Daniel's sentence containing the phrase "....you better start advocating the end of Palestinian use of missles against Israel..."

should read: "....you better start advocating the end of Palestinian use of ROCKETS against Israel..."

Would you accept, with all due respect, both that we might have been talking past one another, and also that something was on my mind -- that I was dealing, in this thread, with an individual whose persistent questions, usually nothing but questions, struck me as morbid when directed to a soldier?

It is fair to ask someone if they felt a war, in which they participated, was fought according to the customary laws of warfare and if things were out of control. Your point about understanding the nature of combat is a more subtle one to me.

Have you read Ken Grossman's book, On Killing? He is a soldier-academic, who tried, systematically, to characterize the combat experience. Some other attempts to do so, such as SLA Marshall's, have been discredited. Perhaps it is sensitivity on my part, but when you came into the thread, it was at a point where I felt one veteran was being badgered for needless, in this context, details. As I recounted, I've had people close to me had ugly flashbacks, even before we rose to our current level of still-limited knowledge about PTSD. There was a time, not long ago, where something called Crititical Incident Stress Debriefing was all the rage in psychological support of emergency responders. In CISD, usually within 48 hours of a traumatic experience, the participants would be invited, then pressured if they refused, to retell what had happened. Yes, that was in a therapeutic context, but it is now understood that CISD is a terrible idea if it's assumed to be right for everyone.

Some people need time for themselves, and then will talk about things in their own time. What seems appropriate is that in emergency services, or the military, that supervisors be trained to watch for signs of PTSD or other stress disorders, which do need treatment.

Your phrasing struck me, rightly or wrongly, as an assertion that any citizen, at any time, had the right to quiz a combat veteran about his experiences. There is a difference between such quizzing and asking, without demanding specifics, if the individual had seen things that could have been war crimes.

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]

Liar, in addition to being a troll.

He doesn't , but you you do so you can tell us more.

"Israelis cannot stand the Daniels of the world because they happily have us die and kill so they can strut around like they are tough"

So tell us what Israeli people need from American people in general and American Jews specifically to make a peace with Palestinians?

Why Israeli continue to fight, just to please Daniels?

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]

Howard,
Are you saying that my questions you cited
struck you "as morbid when directed to a soldier?"

Bye , You got in your unreasonable mood, there is no point to continue.
Please avoid if you can your usual long winded personal attacks that usually follow when you lose argument.

BTW, I would really like Herlz to answer my questions, there are really important.

Do I misunderstand, or does your summarization essentially say either the Arab states or Israel will ultimately exist, but not both, unless there is a radical change in Arab thought? What are the logical consequences of there being, or not being, such a change?

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]

Are you out of your frikkin mind? Get your head out of your ass! There is nothing in my post that condemns Israel nor Israel's right to defend itself.

You seem to be a modern day Diogenes roaming the world with your little lantern and a scanning electron microscope seeking out anti semitism or "anti semitic
implications" when many of your babbles are the result of your own paranoia.

Go away, shoo!

Last night, I posted an analysis of what I thought Bar Kochba was saying, and asked for confirmation of what I saw was the essential conclusion: that, to use the title of Samuel Huntington's book on a wider scope, this was a "Clash of Civilizations". In such a clash, it may be that two civilizations cannot coexist, and one will live and one will die. More comforting, some civilizations will tend to assimilate a threat, or even other cultural elements. The latter is more what the US has done, and the former, surprisingly, is what one finds when reviewing Persian (as opposed to Arab) history.

When I hear that there is no possibility of peace with Arabs, and they are intent on the annihilation of Israel, I get uncomfortable flashbacks to the Wannsee Conference, with Heydrich announcing the policy of a Final Solution to the Arab Problem.

As far as the attacks described, while I regret them sincerely, I tend to look a terrorism through the filters of a public health epidemiologist. In several hundred years, medicine, which is really a very young science, has managed to eradicate -- a term of art meaning total elimination from the wild, extinction if you will -- one disease, smallpox.

Epidemiologists know that most sources of death and injury cannot be eradicated, whether they are automobile accidents, heart disease, or the nightmarish viral hemorrhagic fevers like Ebola and Marburg. They focus on two possible things. The first is reducing the incidence of bad things, the rate and number of places they occur. The second is reducing the virulence, or severity, of incidents.

In the US, where formal terrorism has been rare, there is a greater incidence (in count) of serial and mass murder. No one suggests that will go away; there is too long a history. All know of Oklahoma City and Columbine, but few know of Bath, Michigan, the worst incident of mass murder at a school -- which happened in 1927. Charles Whitman, shooting at random people on the University of Texas campus, will never be explained; there's no reason to believe it was ideological.

So, I believe, it will be with political terrorism. GWOT or not, it won't go away, here or in Israel or Sri Lanka or anywhere else. It can be reduced, sometimes by simple measures. Israel, for example, immediately disables cell phone service at the site of a bombing (except preauthorized emergency phones), to interfere with both second bombs triggered by cell phones, and a possible escape by accomplices.

Reducing the virulence of terrorist attacks is also possible. There's quite a bit that can be done, technologically, about rocket attacks. I've occasionally wondered how suicide bombers bring in their explosives, which, in air transport, can be spotted by nitrate detectors or trained dogs -- and yes, there are ways around both.

As John says, citing a way of reducing but not eliminating incidence or virulence,

There is nothing in my post that condemns Israel nor Israel's right to defend itself.

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]

Bar,

...the preacher saying, in his presence, that Islam demands that all Muslims kill every Jew they can get their hands on…

I am sorry you are "uncomfortable" at Israel defending itself against this kind of things, but we have never been too popular, throughout history.

I had already engaged a couple of posters before I saw MJ’s and Madison’s requests not to “feed the trolls.” I’m not going to engage you here except to point out that it is idiotic, offensive, confrontational posts like this that justify the troll label.

REQUEST FROM MJ ROSENBERG Thanks for all the comments on this article. I can't tell you good folks what to do but, particularly when I post a piece like this, I'd appreciate it if you would not engage in arguments with Davai and the other trolls here. A friend (not a TPM regular) told me that he stops reading these pieces and your comments once the trolls take over. If we want, as most of us do, people to read and think about the horrors Ha'aretz reported on, we'd discuss them with each other but not allow anyone to divert TPM readers from an important subject by creating nonsensical threads. A number of you urged me not to stop writing on the Mideast. And I don't want to stop. But I could use your help in keeping the trolls at bay. I understand why some of you are troll rating Davai and the others. That's fine. But it's far more effective not to engage them especially on a subject like yesterday's Ha'aretz piece. Thanks and peace. MJ Rosenberg

Ah, but I see that you haven't really read the article--there were *zero* Israeli children killed last year, versus 92 Palestinian children. Also, as many other posters have pointed out, while Qassam rockets are not insignificant, they pale in lethality to the IDF arsenal, which is one of the major reasons in the disparity of deaths.

Howard,

I warned you more than once to stop introducing clarity to the discussion. I find I'm now forced to fine you $10.00.

And remember, we'll have no more of this 'logic' crapola either.

*sniff* I was trying so hard to emulate Mr. Spock, but I suppose the influence, growing up, of Dr. Spock was just too much.

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

"The liberty of the press is essential to the security of freedom in a state: it ought not, therefore, to be restrained in this commonwealth" [Constitution of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts]

The Allies killed German children.

Upthread, I suggested reasons for a more controlled press in the US, which included national size and population density that allowed organizations like CNN to make money on pure news. As media conglomerates acquired networks, they also regarded news as an advertising profit center, as opposed to a public responsibility from the days of Murrow and Cronkiten in TV, and a wide range of print journalists. It's now more practical for large organizations to acquire presence in multiple cities, lowering the cost of national and international news acquisition.

In Israel, do these same economic factors exist? Could a news conglomerate make money, or does smaller national size make it unattractive to homogenize news?

The US public often doesn't challenge the accuracy of news, or wants "news" that is really entertainment. That can look like talk radio. I'm sadly amused that it's rather hard to distinguish between the original "Point Counter Point" and the Saturday Night Live parody, with "exchange" starting out "Shana, you bitch."

Are there different expectations in the Israeli public, both for print and electronic news? I've always been fascinated even when watching commercials on European television, as they pushed limits of all sorts more than in the US.

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]

Well, that settles it then.

You usually offer well thought out comments, this one is beneath you.

Today, it's being reported that Hamas is willing to commit to another ceasefire with Israel. The Israeli response is to spit on the offer. For those who don't know, Hamas has declared ceasefires with Israel in the past, AND STUCK TO THEM.

Unlike the settler right as represented by bar on TPMCafe, Israelis who know what in the bloody hell they're talking about, such as former Mossad head Ephraim Halevy, support talking to Hamas.

(If bar wants to dismiss Halevy as yet another member of Israel's ruling oligarchy, so be it.)

But for those who have a scintilla of common sense, the reason underlying the opinions of Halevy and other Israelis who have dealt with Hamas and who advocate negotiating with them is their pragmatic knowledge that once Hamas commits to a course of action, they stick to it, including the cessation of terrorist operations.

BTW, the same is true of Hezbollah altho you wouldn't know that about them or Hamas unless you dig deeper into the situation than the jingoistic picture provided by the American MSM and our profoundly ignorant and compromised politicians.

As bar has said on another website, one of the two Israeli news sources that most closely represents his views is Arutz Sheva.

I would hope that those TPMCafe who profess an interest in Israel would do themselves a favor and start reading Arutz Sheva along with the other sites available in English. Haaretz is no more representative of Israeli opinion any more than any other single source is. Haaretz can be characterized as the most leftist Israeli news source and Arutz Sheva the most rightist. The others fall along a rough continuim in between the two.

Link to Arutz Sheva:
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/

So, Howard, I see you have a lovely discussion :-)
Le me tell you a small secret.
This is not a place for civil discussions.
This place has one and only one goal to blame Israel and the lobby for all problems in the world.
If you try to discuss something else,
nobody give a damp.
Sorry for interrupting your discussion.
Continue to have fun.

It's hard to count the most powerful militaries after the US. Russia has large forces, the largest or next largest nuclear arsenal, but poor maintenance. China and India have the greatest number of soldiers. The UK has demonstrated ability to project amphibious power, and France has a lesser capability.

as if Israel could take on France, or the UK, or Germany or any number of very large countries.

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]

From Ma'ariv: the real state of play on negotiations and Palestinian acceptance of Israel. Ben Caspit is one of the top journalists in Israel and very mainstream.

AFTER THE HIGH HOLIDAYS
Ma'ariv (p. B4) by Ben Caspit -- [September 28] Q: When will the
conference in Washington take place, who will take part in it and what
will be the agenda?
Well, no one knows at this stage. Condoleezza Rice was here last
week and still did not give a date for the conference, which is supposed
to push the peace process forward and launch the last effort of
President George Bush's administration to exit the stage with an
achievement. The original intention was to convene in the week that
starts on November 11. As of now, there is no final decision. The main
opposition comes from Abu Mazen's Fatah circles. They, mainly the
veterans of the negotiations with Israel, say that the historical error
of Camp David in the summer of 2000 must not be repeated. Then, Yasser
Arafat begged Bill Clinton to postpone the summit and to prepare it
carefully. The Americans, arrogant and slipshod, ignored him. The end
is known. Now, in light of the increasing political difficulties being
encountered by Ehud Olmert, and the mini-mutiny in Kadima, there may be
a further postponement. Against this backdrop, it is also still not
clear who will participate and who will not.
Q: What about the Saudis?
On this matter, it is not the participation itself that is important,
it is the echelon. The Saudis may send a junior representative, let's
say a second secretary at an embassy, if they understand that the
conference is becoming worthless. If they assess that this is a
dramatic move with real progress, they will raise the echelon. The
Saudis have a list of conditions. The first: "Seriousness of content
and a tangible achievement." The second: "A detailed timetable for an
arrangement." We will return to that later. The third: "For the United
States to invite Syria and Lebanon too." Real progress is being
achieved, in the meantime, with regard to the third condition. Abu
Mazen spoke to Ehud Olmert in their last conversation about his desire
to invite Syria to the conference.
Olmert's response knocked Abu Mazen off his chair. "He was
enthusiastic," Abu Mazen later reported to his aides. Olmert was more
than enthusiastic. His associates made the following astounding
statements this week: It is possible that a rare historical opportunity
has been created here. What happened or did not happen between us and
Syria could actually push the parties to renew the negotiations, or at
least [push towards] Syria's participation in the conference in
November. When Israel is strong and Syria is weak there are no
negotiations, and when Syria is strong and Israel is weak there is also
no dialogue. Only when the two parties are in a similar situation, and
neither of them is humiliating the other and dancing on his nerves, is
there a chance of something. Indications have also been received in
Jerusalem that Bashar Assad liked Olmert's declaration that he
"respects" the Syrian president. Javier Solana, who has been holding
talks with Damascus recently, reported that the Syrian administration
expressed cautious satisfaction at this statement.
Q: What motivates Olmert?
Perhaps he has finally understood that removing Syria from the axis
of evil is an Israeli strategic interest of the first order. Or else he
is trying, by means of this initiative, to cause the Syrians to bring
the Saudis to Washington, so that he will have an attractive photo-op
that will clip a few more coupons for him in public opinion. On
condition that Bibi does not let anything slip, of course.
In their conversation, Abu Mazen and Olmert talked about the fact
that "the main obstacle to inviting the Syrians is the Americans." They
agreed to cooperate in an attempt to persuade the Americans. Abu Mazen
has already discussed the matter with Condoleezza Rice. Olmert promised
to speak with President Bush. Together, they believe, they will succeed
in changing the American position.
The Saudi participation will lead to a stream of participants from
the Gulf. Qatar, Oman, the UAE and more. Incidentally, more than a few
fabrications have been published on this score in the past year,
figments of the imagination. For example, an Arab newspaper published a
report last summer stating that Qatari Foreign Minister Sheikh Hamad
al-Thani visited Israel secretly after the Second Lebanon War, met
defense minister Peretz here, as well as Foreign Minister Livni and
Prime Minister Olmert, and continued to Beirut on a direct flight
accompanied by two Israeli F-16 jets. No shred of confirmation has been
found for this report. Senior sources close to Olmert and in the
Foreign Ministry split their sides laughing when asked about this
possibility. There is an internal Gulf attempt here for mutual
defamation, at the expense of Israel's already bent back.
Here is a nugget to end with: Recently, the Portuguese foreign
minister (Portugal serves as the duty president of the European Union)
met with Condoleezza Rice. He too spoke to her about the importance of
inviting Syria to the conference. "I understand the importance," said
Rice, "but it comes at a high price." The Portuguese minister assumed
that "this refers to the return of the entire Golan," but Rice denied
it. "Not the Golan," she said. "This refers to leaving Bashar Assad in
power. Inviting him to the conference will give him legitimization and
help him survive."
What can be said about this, is that if it did not involve us, we too
would laugh. The Americans continue to believe that the (relatively)
secular and pragmatic regime of the Alawites in Syria should be toppled.
Who will rule after it? Who knows. Probably the Sunnis. In short,
until Syria has been turned into a modern version of their dizzying
success in replacing the regime in Iraq, the Americans will not rest.
What do they care, we will be the ones who will remain here afterwards.
The fool from the White House ("Nelson Mandela is dead") will play golf
in his Texas ranch, and we will stay here with the flames.
Conversations into the night
Q: What is really happening between Abu Mazen and Olmert?
A love story. On the personal level, the two are infatuated,
supportive, appreciate one another, and are aware of the internal
difficulties that each experiences on his own front. In short,
excellent chemistry, long conversations into the night, mutual
understanding. They were favorably surprised by each other.
Q: What surprised Abu Mazen about Olmert most?
First of all, the flexibility and the openness. But what was most
surprising, according to Abu Mazen, was the Olmert's level of ignorance
regarding the history of the negotiations and the Palestinians' real
positions. Olmert, apparently, knows about the talks between the sides
in the past decade only what he has read in the newspapers. He also
does not have beside him the people who were part of this story, who
accumulated the experience, the archive, the genetic code of the
conflict and all the efforts made to resolve it. That is sad. For
example, Olmert almost fell off his chair when he found out that Abu
Mazen does not insist on including in the solution to the refugee
problem a statement about the return of refugees to Israel.
Abu Mazen demands to mention UN Resolution 194 and no more. This
resolution has many interpretations, and the Palestinians are willing to
word an interpretation that will ensure that there will be no
institutionalized return of refugees to Israel's territory. Olmert did
not know all this.
Q: This indicates that they are close to an arrangement.
This is not certain. Abu Mazen says that if Olmert were willing to
write down everything he says, there would have been an arrangement long
ago. Olmert says that if Abu Mazen were capable of carrying out
everything that he is willing to write down, there would have been peace
here long ago. Both of them are shackled, limited and weak. Until a
few weeks ago, it looked like the matter was advancing quickly. Abu
Mazen was optimistic, almost complacent. And then it got stuck. As of
now, the gaps between the parties are not trivial. Abu Mazen is now
demanding of Olmert, "let's start to write down everything we talked
about." The next meeting is scheduled for October 1, and will also be
attended by the work groups. Then the moment of truth will arrive. The
work groups are supposed to sit down with each other and start to draft
[a document].
The devil, as we know, is in the minute details of the wording. The
Palestinians want a document that is as comprehensive and as broad as
possible. The Israelis want the same thing, only the opposite. A
document that is as limited as possible. Olmert knows that he will not
be able to bring a detailed "declaration of principles" (DOP), which is
what Abu Mazen wants. Ha'aretz reported that during the talks, Olmert
asked to see the good old Beilin-Abu Mazen agreement (how eagerly we
would sign this agreement now). Now it has also become apparent that
the parties asked to see a joint declaration published by Israel and
Jordan on September 14, 1993, immediately after the Oslo Accords. This
was a "joint agenda" declaration, which consisted of just two pages, and
preceded the peace negotiations between the two countries after Oslo.
Olmert did not even know that such a thing had existed in the history of
the peace talks.
Incidentally, when this declaration was retrieved, it became apparent
that in it, Israel endorsed a clause stating that the parties are "in
favor of a just and agreed-upon solution to the refugee problem, in
accordance with international law." This is almost what the
Palestinians want now too. In brief, the document that will be achieved
may be called a "joint declaration of principles," or it may be called a
"declaration of commitment" or a "joint agenda." The question is not
what it will be called, but what will be written in it.
Olmert's surprise
Q: So where does the refugee issue stand?
Here there is actually progress. Olmert is surprised by the
Palestinian flexibility and by the fact that all the Palestinians who
come into contact with him know that there will be no return of refugees
into Israel's territory. "When have you heard me demand the right of
return to Israel?" Abu Mazen asks him, "we demand the right of return to
Palestine. Where is Palestine? We will decide on that in the
agreement." In his appearance before the Foreign Affairs and Defense
Committee this week, Olmert said that "Abu Mazen and Salam Fayyad want
to make peace with us, advocate a two-state solution and support the
fact that Israel is a state with a Jewish character. If we do not make
peace with them, we will not make peace with anyone. I identify an
opportunity here that will not recur. If we do not succeed this time,
we will kill and be killed for a great many years to come."
Q: Are there advanced wordings on the refugee issue?
Yes. The Palestinians demand a mention of Security Council
Resolution 194, but agree that the agreement will invest it with
explanatory content in accordance with Israel's demands. For example,
there will be a just and agreed-upon solution to the refugee problem,
there will be a right of return for refugees according to Resolution
194, with Israel's consent and with the following conditions: Unlimited
right of return to the Palestinian state; limited right of return to
Israel, with Israel's consent, only in special and humanitarian cases;
in addition, there will be recognition of the suffering and damage, a
commitment to a grandiose international rehabilitation program and
compensation. Such programs have already been revealed, some of them
are being devised here, and the most prominent of them is being worked
out between Tzippi Livni and Stef Wertheimer, and was revealed about a
year ago in Ma'ariv.
Q: Where does the territory issue stand?
Here there are still differences of opinion. The Palestinians want
an explicit mention of a state within the 1967 borders. Olmert, as of
now, is unwilling to mention this volatile term due to political
considerations. Dr. Saeb Erekat, therefore, says, "OK, we want a
Palestinian state that will cover 6,205 square kilometers, which is the
area of the West Bank. We are willing for a land swap in any format you
propose, as long as this is the area of the state. A three-way
exchange, a four-way exchange, with a third country, without a third
country, the main thing is that we receive this amount of land. This
problem is resolvable."
Q: The timetable?
The Palestinians demand a detailed and inflexible timetable. In
return, they are willing to open the joint declaration with an
agreed-upon condition that nothing will happen on the ground until the
completion of the first stage of the road map, in which they have to
demonstrate a war on terror, reforms and collecting illegal weapons.
Afterwards, they say, a quick implementation has to be launched.
According to one version, they demand the beginning of the
implementation during the term of President George Bush in the White
House, meaning within slightly over a year. The completion of
implementation within three years. Olmert cannot commit to these dates.
Q: Jerusalem?
Here too, the Palestinians are displaying a certain measure of
flexibility. They are willing for a "capital city of the two states,"
they are alternatively willing for a "united city that will serve as a
capital of the two states," and are willing for a special arrangement in
the holy basin. Haim Ramon emphasizes that the details of the special
arrangement must not be addressed in the preliminary agreement or in the
declaration of principles. The Palestinians are willing for there to be
no defined sovereignty over the Temple Mount. From their standpoint,
this is a great concession. On our side, the situation is still not
clear. In general, the Palestinians say that the nuances in the outline
agreement are not the main thing.
Q: So what is the main thing for them?
Not to make the errors that they say were made in Camp David. Abu
Mazen thinks that the recognition of the agreement by the Arab League is
more important than the agreement itself. Without the support of the
moderate Arab world, we will not be able to go anywhere with you, they
say. The Palestinians demand that the US devote maximum efforts to this
issue, but the Americans, as always, are dragging their feet. Just as
they did not prepare Camp David properly in the past. Abu Mazen is
shuttling between the Arab capitals, but it is not enough. This,
incidentally, is the reason that the Palestinians want to include in the
document of understandings that will (or will not) be reached, a
sentence that states in principle that it matches the Arab peace
initiative.
Q: Who else is vital for the success of this agreement?
Marwan Barghouti. Everything goes through him. He is updated with
the details of the negotiations down to the most sensitive nuances, and
gives the green light. Barghouti has a demand of his own: The agreement
should include a statement that "at the end of the conflict" all the
Palestinian prisoners will be released. This is a bridgeable
difficulty. First of all, Olmert himself said this week that the
conflict will end in a long time, and that a real final status
arrangement for implementation can only be in 20-30 years. By then,
most of the Palestinian prisoners will no longer be prisoners.
Secondly, the sentence can be included without the word "all," only
referring to "the "Palestinian prisoners," and from here on each side
can interpret it as they please.
Q: Are the Palestinians aware of Olmert's internal difficulties?
And how. Much more than Olmert is aware of their difficulties. They
follow the reports about the investigations, they are fluent in what is
going on with regard to the house on Cremieux Street and the Investment
Center, but this issue less troubles them. Abu Mazen and Fayyad say to
their Israeli interlocutors, "first finish the negotiations amongst
yourselves, and then come to us." The Palestinians ask Israeli figures
who are loosely associated with the negotiations (there are such
figures) about the positions of Shas and Ehud Barak. These are the two
factors that truly trouble them. "Olmert says that there is a partner,"
they ask, "Barak says that there is no partner, you should make up your
minds." The Israelis tell them that "it will be all right," but know
that it is not certain. And we have not even mentioned Lieberman.
Q: Who are the Israeli figures "loosely associated with the
negotiations"?
Israeli peace experts, veterans of the "peace industry," and mainly
figures linked to the Geneva agreement and to Yossi Beilin. Apparently,
these figures are very active, they come into intensive contact with
both sides, and try to fill in the infrastructure of memory, archives
and expertise that is sorely lacking on Ehud Olmert's side.
Incidentally, the various drafts that were leaked, mainly to the
Palestinian media, and presented as the "emerging agreement," were
papers authored by these Israelis. These are unauthorized, unofficial,
non-substantial documents, but they reach everywhere on each side, are
commented upon and often serve as a basis for discussion. [.]
Q: Is there a possibility that the conference in Washington will lead to
deterioration in the situation instead of stabilizing it?
Certainly. If Abu Mazen should return from there humiliated,
everything will be ruined. This is the reason that people are now
talking about the possibility that if the declaration is anemic and
unimportant, it should be accompanied by a package of benefits for Abu
Mazen that will make him the hero of the Palestinian street and save his
dignity. Something like a real prisoner release, transferring one or
two peripheral neighborhoods in Jerusalem to Palestinian municipal
control or even willingness to shorten the route of the [separation]
fence by several percent (instead of the High Court of Justice, which
will do so anyway).
The prisoner release is worth expanding upon: This is a dramatic move
that is now being worked on in Jerusalem, in which hundreds of
prisoners, perhaps even more (about 2,000) will be released, making Abu
Mazen a Palestinian hero almost overnight. The plan has already been
revealed in Ma'ariv by President Shimon Peres. Now it has become
apparent that it has additional supporters. [.]
Q: So what can we expect this fall? Everyone spoke about war, and is
now speaking about peace. What will happen?
No one knows. There is room for a tiny measure of optimism and
limited pessimism. It could blossom, it could blow up. If one asks
Haim Ramon, the paper that will be agreed upon between Israel and the
Palestinians should be general and non-binding, but is supposed to
launch real negotiations between the parties, not a long waiting period.
On the other hand, Hamas will do everything in its power to blow up the
deal. Hamas knows that if Abu Mazen returns from Washington with an
achievement (if he should even go there), this poses an existential
problem for Hamas. As the days go by, the huge effort to execute a
large terror attack that will thwart the talks will increase. One
Kassam rocket that falls in the right time and the right place could
prevent us from going to Washington in November, and could send us into
Gaza in October with great noise and commotion.

By saying the allies killed German children you seem to be trying to ameliorate or justify dead Palestinian children.

Only the insane would charge Israel with targeting children, or, once seeing dead Palestinian children, show ambivalence.

I read your comment as addressing the lunatics of the world who charge Israel with every crime Clinton is not guilty of.

Innocent, non combatant men, women and children die in war and that is sad whichever side you're on.

As they say, it's deja vu all over again. For those of you who have been following the Israeli-Arafat-Palestinian dance since the 1980's, this report is old news. "Good chemistry", "unprecedented flexibility", "new realism", "atmosphere of pragmatism", "bridging of gaps", "optimism".
Ben Caspit could have copied this report, word for word, from what has been written hundreds of times since the 1990's. Why do the leaders spew out this tripe? Olmert keeps the state prosecutor's office off his back a little longer, Abbas gets more American cash for his Swiss bank accounts (BTW-we see in some of the postings at this site outrage at what Israel is supposedly doing with 'American Taxpayer's Money'-why is there never such outrage, much less curiosity over the millions of American's Taxpayer's dollars that have vanished from the Palestinian's side?).
In any event, I can assure that the supposed "flexibility" Abbas is showing on the refugee issue will be promptly denied.

What I find particularly amusing are the repeated examples of wishful thinking that Assad will "change sides", and give up his alliance with Iran, which the radical Islamic world views as being on the march, to make some sort of agreement with Israel and the US whom these groups see as being in decline. Of course, Assad wants any goodies he can get from the US, but the Syria/Iran axis has been in place for almost 30 years. There is a natural alliance between the Alawite ruling clique in Syria and the Iranian Shi'ites. Now that the Shi'ites are in ascendancy in Iraq, we see this making a "Shi'ite crescent" from Iran, through Iraq and Syria (regardless of the Sunni majority which is NOT in power) up to Lebanon with Shi'ite HIZBULLAH as a major power. So why should Assad break this up when he has only benefitted from it up until now?

Caspit is certainly right that this could very well be a recipe for another war. Why people should rely on Bush with his abysmal track record is beyond me.

This is certainly valuable information, and I could reply to its content. With all due respect, MJ, isn't this bringing us into the substance of what the free Israeli press is saying, as opposed to why it manages to be so independent? I really had hoped to hear reasons that could stimulate more independence in the US media.

Given the physical format of the blog, it is hard to respond to a post this long. Are there specific parts of the article, with respect to independence of media, on which to focus?

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]

Howard, I posted the Maariv article to demonstrate that contrary to the rightwing views of the Bar K's about there being no Palestinians to negotiate with, the Israeli mainstream believes the opposite. The article shows that the Pals have accepted Israel and are ready for peace. Not all. But not all Israelis are ready for peace either.
The respective mainstreams are.

Howard, I posted the Maariv article to demonstrate that contrary to the rightwing views of the Bar K's about there being no Palestinians to negotiate with, the Israeli mainstream believes the opposite. The article shows that the Pals have accepted Israel and are ready for peace. Not all. But not all Israelis are ready for peace either.
The respective mainstreams are.

MJ is stuttering :-)

Frankly, I'm puzzled about what you want. You seem emphatic that the Arab world will never give up core beliefs that prevent peace. Given that, what happens next?

Does Israel deliberately control more land to give maneuvering room, and massively retaliate against any terrorist act? You mentioned Arabs speaking of a Final Solution.

When I hear you speak of no way out, I begin to wonder if the Israeli Right is also thinking of implementing a Final Solution to the Arab Problem. What is your proposal, since you seem to find the present situation intolerable but with some of the primary actors insisting on what you call impossible conditions?

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]

Actually, I have NOT said there is no possiblity of the Arab/Islamic world changing. However, since the Six-Day War in 1967, and more so since the Iranian Revolution of 1979, the forces of Islamic extremism are on the rise, and many perceive them (wrongly, in my opinion) as being on the winning track. As long as that is the case, there is NO possibility of any formal, contractural solution to the Arab/Israeli conflict. You must admit there have been significant changes in the nature of the conflict. Suicide bomber terrorism was unknown in the Muslim world until recently. Even the cult of the "Hashashun (sp?)" (Assassins of the Middle Ages) where suicide attackers killed political opponents, there was no history, as I understand it, of using suicide attackers to kill the maximum number of civilians. This has now become commonplace in the Islamic world, with attacks, not just in the US, UK, Spain Israel and the West, but in Pakistan, Iraq, Morocco, and other places in the Islamic world. This is certainly a major shift in the wrong direction. And they seem quite willing to do it to their own people, and not just "infidels". There is also the empowerment of the Shi'ites which is a tectonic shift in the Muslim world.
But it must be remembered that for all the curses directed at the colonialist period in the Middle East, the French and British left behind some sort of rudimentary free press and multi-party parliamentary system, imperfect as they were, in major Arab states like Egypt, Iraq, Syria, Jordan, etc.
This has all been swept away, with most Arab states (even supposedly "liberal" ones like Jordan) having many of the characteristics of totalitarian states. We even see hereditary monarchies (without the name) being already established in "revolutionary, socialist" Syria, with Egypt and Libya on the way. Thus, the Arab world is moving further and further away from Western concepts of government, institutions and international values. Just yesterday, I saw an item that said for the first time, the police are arresting people seen eating in public during the Ramadan fast month in Ramallah, known as the most secular Palestinian city with a large Christian population. Thus, FATAH-controlled Judea/Samaria is now trying to "out-Islamize" HAMAS.
Just as secular pan-Arabism went out of favor in the 1970's, due to its failure to modernize the Arab countries and to eradicate Israel, Islamism will no doubt fall out of favor at some time in the future. However, it must be SEEN to fail. This has not happened yet. In fact, it is perceived to be winning in Iraq, Lebanon and, unfortunately, in Israel. If Israel tragically makes more concessions to the Palestinians, there will be a race between FATAH and HAMAS to see who will get credit for defeating Israel, just as the signing of the Oslo agreement led to the biggest wave of terrorism in history in Israel, and Israel's wanton, criminal destruction of Gush Katif brought Israel the Lebanon II war and increased terrorism and rocket fire from Gaza. ISRAELI CONCESSIONS BREED EXTREMISM and TERROR. Israeli firmness, will eventually, with time reduce them to a minimum.
I totally reject any idea of expelling the Arabs of Israel. I object to removing either Jews or Arabs from their homes. The flight of Arabs from ISrael in 1948 (most fled out of panic, some were driven out by force, just like the Sudeten Germans in 1945 from Czechoslovakia) did NOT solve the Arab/Israeli conflict.
No one in Israel, even the so-called "far right" (does it even exist any more?) calls for the expulsion of the Arabs. Some have called for paying Arabs to leave, just like some Labor Party people are pushing a law to pay Jews to leave Judea/Samaria. Such a law is IMMORAL unless applied equally to the Arabs. Thus, the whole idea should be dropped.
The Middle East is largely, but not exclusively, Arab and Muslim. I think Israel is making a BIG mistake by not teaching Jewish kids to speak Arabic. It is also largely religious, and I am firmly convinced that if Israel would tone down its secularism (the things that offend Islamic sensibilities) like pushing homosexuality in public, advertising showing immodestly dressed women and the such, day-to-day friction would be reduced. Believe it or not, the religious Judea/Samaria Jewish "settlers" have a lifestyle much closer to that of the Arabs than does secularist Tel Aviv. There is more day-to-day contact between the settlers and the Palestinian Arab population than there is with the secular Leftist crowd. Dialogue with between Jews and Arabs has the best chance of success if Israel would adopt a more traditionalist, religious face (in a non-coercive manner). This would, over time, reduce the tension much more than Bush's phony peace conference which is nothing more than a cynical ploy by the politicians to push their own personal agendas rather than improving the lives of their peoples.

While I think one of your comment diverges from MJ's original post, I find it fascinating.

I think Israel is making a BIG mistake by not teaching Jewish kids to speak Arabic.

It is also largely religious, and I am firmly convinced that if Israel would tone down its secularism (the things that offend Islamic sensibilities) like pushing homosexuality in public, advertising showing immodestly dressed women and the such, day-to-day friction would be reduced.

Believe it or not, the religious Judea/Samaria Jewish "settlers" have a lifestyle much closer to that of the Arabs than does secularist Tel Aviv.

There is more day-to-day contact between the settlers and the Palestinian Arab population than there is with the secular Leftist crowd. Dialogue with between Jews and Arabs has the best chance of success if Israel would adopt a more traditionalist, religious face (in a non-coercive manner)

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]

Not to question your deceased friend, but during the Korean War the US leveled most of the towns in both North and South Korea. I'm not going to hunt for the quote online, but Curtis LeMay later said the US bombing killed a million people. Other estimates vary from several hundred thousand up to 2 million civilians.

So frankly, I doubt the US military leadership was overly concerned about the deaths of Korean civilians and I don't think the US was innocent of war crimes in its aerial bombing policy in Korea. Perhaps it was just as you say in the opening stages, but far too often Western nations with air superiority rationalize doing whatever they want to do with it. (See Israel in Lebanon in 2006 for a recent example.)

Which is not to say that your friend wasn't torn up inside by his experience. But I've long since stopped believing what Western generals and politicians (American, Israeli or others) say about their humanitarian intentions.

We aren't in total disagreement. The particular point I was making was early in the war, with a junior pilot, a little too young for WWII, with some ideals left. That which bothered him was not what happened in cities, but at low level, on roads, so, more than many pilots hitting cities, he directly saw the slaughter.

If you look through some of my earlier posts at this site, you will find I was extremely concerned about Israeli actions in Lebanon, but I primarily discussed artillery use of rockets with cluster submunitions, in massive overreaction to Hizbollah rocket fire.

Don (ocincidence)was my former father-in-law, so I'm not sure I'd say friend. Nevertheless, he was a new ensign at the time and retired as a commander, so I wouldn't call him a top political or military leader. He loved to fly, went through the extreme competition and got into test pilot school, but, for an assortment of reasons, wound up as a financial management specialist when he was on the ground.

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]