Lobby Reeling Over House Letter On Palestinian Aid
The good news from Capitol Hill is that the Ackerman-Boustany letter to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has 135 signers so far. This is a big deal. The letter supports the upcoming Israeli-Palestinian negotiations, urging more vigorous U.S. diplomacy to promote its success and calling for more U.S. aid to the Palestinians.
In the past, far too many letters and resolutions circulated on Capitol Hill originated with conservative pro-Israel lobbying organizations and were essentially exercises in Palestinian-bashing.
Significantly, Ackerman-Boustany is supported by a very different array of organizations: Israel Policy Forum, the American Task Force on Palestine, Americans for Peace Now, Brit Tzedek v’Shalom, the Arab American Institute, the Union of Reform Judaism (which represents 1.5 million Reform Jews, the largest Jewish denomination), the Jewish Reconstructionist Federation and Churches for Middle East Peace (representing 21 Protestant, Catholic and Orthodox denominations and tens of millions of congregants).
Perhaps most remarkable about this letter is its wide range of signatories. Several of the most senior Jewish House Members have signed on, as have all the Arab Americans and the one Muslim Congressman.
It is signed by liberal Democrats, conservative Republicans, and top leaders from both parties. In other words the message that movement on the Israeli-Palestinian issue is central to America’s security may be sinking in.
This effort builds on last year’s success when a House-passed bill that would have stopped virtually all humanitarian aid to the Palestinians was stopped dead in its tracks.
The House bill, AIPAC's #1 legislative priority, was killed in the Senate, which passed, in its place, a far more moderate bill. This is not to say that morning has broken on Capitol Hill. Not at all.
In fact, with elections looming—and the Bush administration dipping its toe into the negotiating waters—we can expect a host of initiatives designed to both score partisan points and shoot down any possibility of an Israeli-Palestinian breakthrough.
For instance, in Thursday’s Jerusalem Post, Congresswomen Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL) and Shelley Berkley (D-NV) join in a bit of bipartisan Palestinian bashing. The two House members want the United States to end all dealings with and aid to the Palestinians—both Fatah and Hamas—because “continuing to assume the existence of a viable Palestinian partner for peace” endangers both Israel and the United States. “The United States must settle for nothing less than a genuine partner for peace with Israel that leads, and sets the tone in achieving results,” they write.
It’s par for the course in almost all respects, but with a twist because, in the past, even the Congressional hardliners recognized the existence in Palestine of both moderates and extremists and understood that it was in our interests to strengthen the former. When they argued against the Palestinian Authority, it was ostensibly because the authority, with its strong Hamas presence, had not clearly disassociated itself from terrorists.
But since the Gaza-West Bank split, the Palestinian Authority is completely run by Fatah and governed by the PLO’s support for the two-state solution. The PA recognizes Israel’s right to security, opposes terrorism, and supports the signing of a peace treaty with Israel that would allow it to establish a state in 22 percent of historic Palestine (while agreeing that the Jewish state would encompass the other 78 percent).
In other words, the Palestinian Authority has called the bluff of the hard-liners, by recognizing Israel, rejecting terrorism, and divesting itself of Hamas. By ignoring these moves and implying that Hamas and Fatah are interchangeable, the Congressional hawks reveal yet again that they just oppose negotiations with any imaginable Palestinians.
By their reckoning, Israel can hold on to the settlements and the territories forever. They deny that this is their intent. Ros-Lehtinen and Berkley argue that they just want the Palestinians to work with Israel to meet “their commitments to combat terror, incitement and corruption.”
I won’t repeat the extensive laundry list of commitments the Palestinians would have had to implement before meeting the standards laid down by last year’s House Palestinian Anti-Terrorism Act. Suffice it to say that Israel and the United States would have a hard time meeting some of them.
And that is the point. The American hard-liners want the status quo to continue. Times like these—when there is a glimmer of hope for peace—are, for them, the most threatening. From their vantage point, the status quo looks hunky dory.
Of course, the Congressional hardliners are far removed from the Mideast turmoil so can afford to indulge in drafting laundry lists of requirements for Palestinians to fulfill in order to become acceptable to them. The Israelis, led by Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni, have no such luxury which is why they believe that President Abbas, Prime Minister Salam Fayyad, and the Fatah leadership are not only acceptable partners but represent an opportunity that might not come again.
The Israelis, of course, are aware of the facts on the ground, facts that don’t show up in the Ros-Lehtinen-Berkley piece. They understand that any opportunity for peace must be pursued. They also know that the Palestinians are in fact working hard to live up to their “commitment to combat terror” and they are doing it in full cooperation with the Israelis.
On Thursday, the daily Ma’ariv reported that “security relations between Israel and the Palestinian Authority in the West Bank have not been this good in years.” It quotes Israeli military sources as saying that “there has been a real change in the willingness of the security organizations affiliated with Fatah to confront Hamas” and that in general, “the Palestinian police are working with great courage against lawbreakers and against Hamas activists.”
The article goes on to list a host of incidents in which Fatah vigorously went after Hamas and its supply of weapons. “No less than 20,000 armed Palestinian police are working today in all the Palestinian cities. . . . It happened quietly and gradually, almost secretly. Palestinian security forces began to trickle from Ramallah to other towns: to Bethlehem, Hebron, Jenin—where a preventive security service force recently rescued an IDF officer who accidentally entered the city—and in Nablus, where about 300 police recently entered.
“In Nablus, the city most hostile toward Israel, there are now 2,500 police altogether. In every Palestinian city there are now thousands of Palestinian policemen in shifts of a few hundred people” working on security, according to the IDF.
In other words, the Palestinian Authority is, with very limited resources, trying to do exactly what the Americans and Israelis have asked them to do. This is something the hard-liners choose to ignore. They also ignored (and still refuse to cite) the last time Israelis and Palestinians worked together to fight terrorism. That was during the last three years of Oslo (from the fall of 1997 to the fall of 2000) when Israeli-Palestinian security cooperation made Israel virtually terror-free and safer than at any time in its history.
It is foolish to think that Israelis and Palestinians cannot do it again (including, most importantly, ending the shelling of Sderot). But that is going to require both the United States and Israel to provide more assistance to the Palestinian Authority, including more equipment to fight terror, rather than making them jump through hoops to get walkie-talkies and night vision equipment, etc. And it also includes looking for ways to bring Hamas supporters who reject violence into the process.
Needless to say, the Ackerman-Boustany call on the United States to strengthen the Palestinian Authority makes infinitely more sense than the Ros-Lehtinen-Berkley plan to cut it off at the knees and thereby further empower Hamas’s most violent adherents.
Yes, the Palestinian security forces need to do more. But that means they need more. Those who call on them to act against terrorism but would deny them the resources to do so are clearly content with the status quo. It’s just not their problem that the status quo is so lethal to Israelis, West Bank Palestinians, and to school kids in Gaza.
LATE NEWS FRIDAY NIGHT. THE ACKERMAN-BOUSTANY letter is causing big problems for AIPAC. To its credit, it is feeling the heat from the peace camp and is trying to triangulate a bit. But its far right donors ain't happy. With one far right donor paying for AIPAC's new 8 story HQ in DC, it's not hard to see how this little tempest will end. It's all here.
Top donors criticize AIPAC
on backing for P.A. funding
| Published: 11/16/2007 |
Sheldon Adelson, a casino magnate ranked by Forbes as the third wealthiest American and the sixth wealthiest man in the world, told JTA he raised the issue in a phone call with Howard Kohr, the executive director of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee.
An active Republican, Adelson likened AIPAC to a friend assisting Israel's suicide. "If someone is going to jump off a bridge, it is incumbent upon their friends to dissuade them," he told JTA. He added: "I love and admire the concept of AIPAC."
The objections to the letter underscore debates within the Jewish community over possible Israeli concessions to the Palestinians. It also illustrates the tension between AIPAC's mandate to support Israeli policies and its need to navigate differences among its own constituents.
The other donor who has raised questions is Gary Erlbaum, a property developer prominent in the Philadelphia Jewish community. He said he would urge others to lobby against the letter.
"We should lobby our own congressmen never to sign the letter, unless there is clear evidence Palestinians have changed their educational system and have fought terrorism," Erlbaum said.
The letter to U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice was initiated last month by U.S. Reps. Gary Ackerman (D-N.Y.) and Charles Boustany (R-La.). So far 118 of 435 members of the U.S. House of Representatives have signed, including 12 Jewish Democrats. It casts increased assistance as necessary to help Mahmoud Abbas, the Palestinian Authority president, make the changes needed to guarantee Israel's security.
"Addressing corruption and public safety in the P.A., while continuing to engage with Israel to coordinate a remittance schedule for Palestinian tax monies and to improve access and movement," the letter states, "will ensure that assistance will be effective in reviving the Palestinian economy and creating the atmosphere of hope required for the success of diplomatic efforts."
Neither Adelson nor Erlbaum would address whether AIPAC's support for the letter would influence how they donate to the group. Speaking generally, Adelson said, "I don’t continue to support organizations that help friends committing suicide just because they say they want to jump."
An AIPAC spokeswoman confirmed that both men are supporters of the organization, and described Adelson as a "major" donor.
Adelson, with an estimated net worth of $26.5 billion, often contributes in the millions to favored Jewish causes. He donated $25 million last year to Yad Vashem, Israel's Holocaust memorial, and gave birthright israel -- the program that flies Jewish youth to Israel for free tours -- $55 million over the past two years.
The casino magnate is believed to have pledged a significant portion of the money AIPAC is using to pay for its new seven-story premises, opening in February. His latest project is FreedomsWatch, a group promoting President Bush's commitment to staying the course in Iraq; Adelson is believed to have contributed the bulk of the group's $15 million startup costs. Erlbaum is also a backer of the new group.
Ackerman, who is Jewish, chairs the House's Middle East subcommittee and has a close relationship with AIPAC. In the past year, however, he has wondered aloud whether Israel and the United States have missed opportunities by failing to encourage Palestinian moderates.
A coalition of three dovish groups -- Brit Tzedek v'Shalom, Americans for Peace Now and Israel Policy Forum -- joined the Arab American Institute, Churches for Middle East Peace and the American Task Force on Palestine in lobbying for the letter. Much was made at the outset of Ackerman being Jewish and Boustany being an Arab American.
AIPAC did not initially back the letter, something JTA reported on Oct. 19. Within days, however, AIPAC officials reached out to JTA to say the lobby decided to back the letter after assurances from Ackerman's office that the money requested would be "project based" -- a provision that guarantees strict oversight. AIPAC sought the assurances even though the letter makes explicit that the assistance is to be "project-focused."
It is not clear what else was behind the switch. The Bush administration has launched a concerted effort to rally U.S. Jewish support for the Annapolis summit, which is slated to occur during the week of Nov. 26.
Separate from the Ackerman-Boustany letter, the White House surprised lawmakers last month with a new request for $410 million in extra funding for the Palestinians. AIPAC has yet to take a position on that request, which includes $150 million in non-specified funding.
On Capitol Hill, sources say AIPAC's support for the Ackerman-Boustany letter appeared limited to telling lawmakers -- and only if they call and ask -- that the organization is on board, a significant difference from AIPAC's usual full-frontal lobbying blitzes, which often garner majority support. Another recent AIPAC-backed letter urged the Bush administration to press Arab nations to reach out to Israel as a means of reinforcing peace talks; out of 100 senators, 79 signed.
Adelson told JTA that Kohr, AIPAC's executive director, assured him on Tuesday that the group did not yet back the Ackerman-Boustany letter. AIPAC officials would not discuss the conversation between the two men, except to restate that AIPAC still supported the letter. They said that Kohr would not comment.
Erlbaum also called AIPAC officials; he said he was told AIPAC backed the letter, but not the Bush administration request for $410 million.
The news of the contretemps drew praise for AIPAC from an unexpected corner -- Brit Tzedek, a group that considers itself a grassroots dovish alternative to the lobbying powerhouse.
"We are very pleased that AIPAC has stepped up in support of the Ackerman-Boustany letter, joining the overwhelming majority of American Jews who support a negotiated two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict," said Diane Balser, Brit Tzedek's vice president.
Adelson, who recently launched a giveaway tabloid in Israel, said his research showed that vast majorities of Israelis opposed the concessions Olmert is reportedly considering, particularly sharing Jerusalem.
"Governments have to listen to the people -- of course, Olmert was duly elected, but promises made" on not dividing Jerusalem "are being neglected," Adelson said.
Rice has acknowledged pressing the sides toward a solution before her boss leaves the Oval Office. Still, Adelson would not criticize the Bush administration.
"The Bush administration and Condoleezza Rice can't be holier than the pope if the government of Israel wants to accept the destruction of Israel," he said.
Adelson and Erlbaum are also donors to the Zionist Organization of America, which has driven a campaign against any further funding for the Abbas-led Palestinian Authority.
"It is high time to condition any further U.S. aid on the Palestinians arresting terrorists, outlawing terrorist groups and ending incitement against Israel in their media, schools and speeches," ZOA president Morton Klein said. "Otherwise, the message is sent that the U.S. is not serious about the Palestinians changing their actions."
POSTSCRIPT Another sign of the times. Tom Dine, AIPAC's most prominent Executive Director, who left the organization to go into the Clinton administration, has now joined our Israel Policy Forum Washington team. He has the kind of savvy the good guys needs.
CURRENT SIGNERS OF ACKERMAN-BOUSTANY: Ackerman, Boustany, Lantos, Alcee Hastings, Crowley, Rahall, James Moran, Ellison, McCollum, Capps, Blumenauer, Jackson, Honda, Frank, Doyle, Schiff, McGovern, Coble, Faleomavaega, Sestak, McNulty, Baird, David Price, Lee, Wynn, Farr, Melancon, Boswell, Cardoza, Costa, Boyd, Kaptur, Baldwin, Hodes, Holt, Doggett, Delahunt, Carnahan, Geoff Davis, Maloney, Schakowsky, Woolsey, Altmire, Hill, Fortenberry, Mike Thompson, Kucinich, Jackson-Lee, Gonzalez, Waxman, Van Hollen, Issa, Markey, Lahood, Pascrell, Conaway, Velazquez, Meeks, Olver, Alexander, McDermott, Chris Smith, Capuano, DeLauro, Dingell, Fattah, Conyers, Norton, Larson, Baker, Putnam, Jefferson, Stark, Kuhl, Susan Davis, Carney, Christopher Murphy, McNerney, Neal, Langevin, Gwen Moore, Sanford Bishop, Dennis Moore, Braley, Cohen, Larsen, Kennedy, Berman, Matheson, Rangel, Brad Miller, Adam Smith, Lynch, Bonner, Kildee , Hinojosa , Gilchrest, Wasserman, Sires, John Lewis, George Miller, Grijalva, Norm Dicks, Filner, David Scott, Scott Garrett, Pastor, Gillibrand, Tierney, Sarbanes, Arcuri, Diane Watson
Tom Dine abandoning the pro-Israel right is pretty cool. Maybe Rahm Emauel can take some time off from his anti-immigrant alliance with Tancredo and doff his IDF uniform (Rahm actually served in the IDF but was too minuscule to be in a fighting unit.) I bet our army would take him in Iraq though. He is over 5 feet tall and quite fit.
November 16, 2007 11:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
Progress should be appreciated in the small steps that lead an eventual peace. Perhaps the diplomats and politicians that are pushing this process realize that this small step is first needed before moving on to the larger goal of Israel withdrawal from the West Bank and recognition of a viable Palestinian state. But here is the problem. These are the same small steps that began in 1992. They were so tiny and moved so slowly that Likud governments could easily undermine them and thwart the whole process. But today there is one new difficulty and that is that the Palestinian people elected Hamas to lead them. And this entire process is designed to exclude Hamas. And to the extent that MJ comments on this problem he seems to agree that Hamas should be excluded. I see nothing but failure in this formula.
Those who accept this process as it is now defined must also believe the following. Even though the Abbas faction has lost the support of his people, it is hoped that the US and Europe can pour in sufficient amount of money that will buy his co-operation and create a viable government. This money, as did the sums that poured in during the 90s, will make the highest PLO officials quite wealthy. In addition, they will be able to pay good salaries for body guards and for police to restrain an restive Palestinians that object to the on going occupation. (Yes the occupation must be allowed , at least for an 'interim' period in order to see if the peace agreement holds, this latter compromise is needed to get Likud support for the agreement). So for this to work we will have to have bought Palestinians whose job it will be to quell the rest of the Palestinians in their struggle against the occupation.
The last time this worked for 8 years because the PLO had popular support in the beginning and the people had hope. This time it would optimistic to see this lasting more than 8 weeks. Someone, somewhere must be saying that Hamas must be involved.
November 16, 2007 12:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
November 16, 2007 12:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Dear teacher MJ,
I'm sure that you must be proud of your best deciple, Sean1979. With Sean on your side, the victory is around the corner.
November 16, 2007 1:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Lets forget what the PA demands of Israel. In the last week Hamas kiled seven members of Fatah and have started rounding up journalists. Hamas has threatened to take over the West Bank as they did Gaza if their is a settlement. Abbas said that Hamas will have to give up Gaza if they want to be let back into the PA.
The Palestinians don't seem to be able to stop killing each other nor honor any agreements between each other.
I must have missed the posts discussing and denouncing these actions. These must have been with the ones condemning Syria's control of Lebanon.
Israel has little to worry about from Congress as long as their opponents are the Palestinians.
I wonder, Syria, Lebanon and Palestine were all part of Greater Syria within the Ottoman Empire. Does anyone think Syria will leave any new Palestinian State alone. I will predict now this will be greeted with deadly silence.
Daniel A. Greenbaum
November 16, 2007 1:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
I can't quite decipher your point, are you saying that Palestinians are savages through and through, and so can be disregarded?
November 16, 2007 1:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
He presented you with some information, and you can make any conclusions you wish.
November 16, 2007 1:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
When you talk about historic Palestine what in heavens name are you referring to? Did the land that is now Jordan simply not exist in ancient times?
November 16, 2007 1:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
I have to defend MJ, he is just using PLO talking point. Don't blame him, blame PLO.
November 16, 2007 1:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
I know that this is a virtual impossibility but maybe if we turned off the flow of weapons (and the money used to purchase them) to the region we might be able to start making some progress. This of course applies to all parties involved. So for every person screaming about Syria and Iran and who they supply weapons to, you need to also mention the United States.
It seems a bit silly to me that people continue trying to find a peaceful solution and yet fail to deal with the reality that there are weapons everywhere. Weapons are probably more available than food. Just look how many weapons we're supplying to god knows who with our fast and loose actions in Iraq. Does anyone want to deny that some of those missing or black marketed crates of guns and ammo will end up involved in violence elsewhere in the region and not just in Iraq? I'll bet they do. And I'll also bet no one will start rattle sabers and talking tough to the United States about how WE are supporting terrorism and violence in the region as they do for the countries of Syria and Iran. If Syria and Iran are knowingly supporting this kind of violence what are we doing? While on the surface we may be able to say that we're not doing it intentionally but we also don't seem to really give a damn that ultimately we're doing it too. And I'm personally not so sure one is any worse than the other.
November 16, 2007 2:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
November 16, 2007 2:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Okay, I'll take your "screw you" reply and raise you a "let's divest and let them all fight it out amongst themselves."
November 16, 2007 2:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Back on MJ's post, my thoughts are the establishment is coming to the conclusion that the Palestinians are turning more and more into people that have nothing to lose. This is how I interpreted the Hamas electoral victory, "What the hell, how much worse can it get?"
The establishment has come to except the obvious, probably with the help of the happenings in Iraq, that people with nothing to lose are rather inclined to do some rather violent, hateful things towards those they feel persecuted by. Hence why we have the Shia-Sunni violence, complete with finger-nail pulling torture and summary executions, and the Palestinian continuation of violence against Israelis and this new trend of Palestinian killings.
So does this mean that concessions are finally on the table?
November 16, 2007 2:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
SeeDee
Davai, With all due respect I'm supposing that you prefer peace and its benefits to war and the resultant horrors.
Everyone knows there are myriad problems which present difficulties to reaching accord between Israelis and Palestinians.
What I ask you to furnish, if you will, is an outline of the requirements that YOU expect the Palestinians to conform to (on the one hand) and the concessions and/or requirements incumbent on the Israelis to achieve peace. Will you comply with this request?
Constant snark toward MJR is certainly your right, but it is not very productive in addressing the main question of Peace in the Middle East.
November 16, 2007 2:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
syvanen,
Hamas has pretty much excluded themselves, even rejecting the Arab League Beirut/Riyadh initiative. And while Hamas won a majority in the PLC, a look further inside the numbers showed that Fatah had often split their own votes running more than one candidate per seat in a district where Hamas would run only one. Khalil Shikaki's research has also revealed less actual popular support for Hamas among Palestinians as well. I don't have the data at my fingertips, but it's out there somewhere -- If someone doesn't beat me to it, I'll try and find it and post it when I get a better chance.
November 16, 2007 3:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Dude, that's really not necessary. Calm it down.
November 16, 2007 3:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hamas has pretty much excluded themselves, even rejecting the Arab League Beirut/Riyadh initiative.
Wrong. Important factions within Hamas did accept the Arab League suggestion at the time it was made. Shortly afterward the US denounced them, placed Hamas in the humiliating position of pleading to join the talks and they backed away.
"There is no one to speak with" is the Israeli and their right US wing supporters line used to sabotage any potential progress. Why do you join them here? This is a poison pill that will render any agreement useless.
November 16, 2007 3:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
I long for "peace in the middle east" and hope it can be achieved. But as long as Rosenberg and others continue with nonsense like:
"The PA recognizes Israel’s right to security, opposes terrorism, and supports the signing of a peace treaty with Israel that would allow it to establish a state in 22 percent of historic Palestine (while agreeing that the Jewish state would encompass the other 78 percent)."
it is difficult to have sensible discussions.
The term "historic Palestine", if it means anything, must mean the mandate, land on both sides of the Jordan. More than 2/3rd were taken out for arab settlement in "transjordan" before the area west of the Jordan was even considered. Whatever the final outcome, Israel will have not 78 percent, but less than a quarter of "historic Palestine".
With that, I wish the conference great success with the result of a safe and secure israel.
November 16, 2007 4:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
I can't speak for Davai but I have an remote in-law that makes similar public arguments. I once asked him the same question with the same assumptions that you posed -- just what would a final agreement look like. His answer was a real conversation stopper. Namely, it is a fight to the death. Victory for Israel would be uncontested control of 100% of the British mandate. Transfer would solve the occupation problem. Short of this the Arabs would annihilate or drive the Jews into the sea. At the time he resided in the Westbank and served in the IDF patrolling in the Westbank. After he married and had a child he came back to the US out of fear for their safety. Maybe he has changed since then.
November 16, 2007 4:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Except that this time, Israel is saying explicitly that they do have a partner.
November 16, 2007 4:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
MJ,
I guess the big--and hopeful--surprise is that AIPAC is supporting this letter, even if it's less than a full court support.
Moreover, they seem to be standing up to some of their biggest supporters.
Very interesting development.
November 16, 2007 4:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Certainly there was a "what do we have to lose" aspect to Hamas's electoral victory. But at least as important was the fact that Palestinians were fed up with Fatah's culture of corruption and longstanding failure to address the need for basic municipal services. (A cynic might suggest that this was just a continuation of the historic pattern of Arab leaders, including Arafat, intentionally keeping the Palestinians in desperate straights to forestall complacency in the struggle against Israel. But I digress ... ) So there was a certain "throw the bums out" attitude that was not directly concerned with Israel. All of which militates toward assisting with any efforts likely to help the Palestinians achieve measurable progress toward a decent level of economic and civic success. Is that a concession - or a smart move for Israel's benefit?
November 16, 2007 4:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
It is good. It is also interesting that their #1 donor is the guy who funds that loathsome neocon Iraq-Iran war booster org, Freedom Watch.
November 16, 2007 5:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Historic Palestine is where Palestinians live and have always lived i.e. in what is now Israel and the West Bank. It also refers to the so-called Holy Land. The East Bank of the Jordan (i.e. the country of Jordan) is not and never has been historic Palestine but is Bedouin country.
What Palestinian city or town has ever existed there? Palestinians lived in Israel, Jerusalenm Hebron,Ramallah, Jenin, Nablus etc.
The idea that Jordan is Palestine is a joke invented by Likud propagandists.
November 16, 2007 5:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
November 16, 2007 5:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
SeeDee
I was NOT making an argument syvanem, public or otherwise.
I was asking for Davai (and now you, since you have entered into my quest for answers) to furnish an outline of what you think would be terms acceptable to you RE the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
Your implied suggestion of a 'fight to the death' hardly advances any meaningful terms for discussing the issue. Perhaps a 'fight to the death' is what we are seeing at present...albeit in the opening stages.
But, at any rate, why do you take a serious request for opinions and turn it into an 'argument'?
November 16, 2007 6:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
MJ,
tmp still has your old headline:
M.J. Rosenberg thinks Capitol Hill orthodoxy on Israel is slipping.
--David Kurtz
Let them know.
November 16, 2007 6:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hi Andrew,
I'll try.
I would like to ask you about journalistic standards of tmpcafe.
The headline of the first version of the MJ’post was “Capitol Hill Orthodoxy on Israel Slipping” He created impression that Ackerman’s letter was some kind of victory ove AIPAC.
I pointed out that AIPAC supported this letter proving that the first version of MJ post was misleading. Then MJ changed the headline and added new comments without without acknowledging the change Do you approve such actions?
November 16, 2007 6:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
November 16, 2007 6:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
You missed my point. I wasn't making an argument but simply relating an answer to a question similar to the one you posed.
November 16, 2007 6:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thank you MJ for clarifying that about what was once Palestine and Arab. So my ancestors who were (and the current generation is) Jewish, don't count? They've lived for all of our history in the Yaffa area, but that's irrelevant? Because the Arabs who are now known as Palestinians also have lived there for probably the same length of time? And what about the stories in the fictional works know as the Bible and Torah who ascribe the Hebrew tribes living in that area long ago. Totally fictional, no? Never happened obviously. Likud propaganda in your view?
If what you say is the real truth and all the area was Palestinian Arab back then, why then let any Jews stay there? They have no right to be there at all. Tel Aviv, Jerusalem, Yaffa, all Arab cities stolen by the Jews. Kick them all out and however it's done is right and justified. Yes, sir.
November 16, 2007 6:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
What in God's name are you talking about? I don't know about where your ancestors lived. But I do know that Palestinians and Jews both lived in what now consists of Israel and the West Bank. They did not live in Jordan.
And that was your original point, that Jordan is Palestine. It isn't.
As for the Torah and Bible being works of history, who could argue with that? God only wrote non-fiction.
November 16, 2007 7:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sure, Californians live in California, they don't live in Oregon or Nevada. So, what's your point?
In any case, Israel is a tiny coastal strip (10-15 miles at the narrow point, 60 -80 miles the widest point) plus desert Negev. I think people don’t understand how small Israel really is.
November 16, 2007 7:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
The critics misunderstand your importance davai. You're very useful to Mr Rosenberg. Your fascism gives him cover to pursue his more moderate racist policies. And you forget he's already come out against Arab democracy. His support for Abbas is just continuing that logic.
And I've read nothing on this site about what the Israelis are doing in Gaza.
November 16, 2007 8:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hi Seth,
From your point of view, why I'm an fascist but
Mr Rosenberg is only moderate racist?
November 16, 2007 8:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Dear Colore Oscuro, Wordie, leftAhead, Andrew Weakland
You rated my comment 0 and 1.
I’m guessing you don’t like my comment at all, however you seems have no problem with ugly personal attack on Rahm Emauel by this jerk, Sean. BTW Rahm Emauel was one of the leaders of Democratic Party, most responsible for the Democratic victory in 2006. I understand your reasons, so I’m not surprised.
But I’m still waiting for MJ Sister Souljah moment. Will he ever have a courage to say to his so called supporters, such as Sean, that they are not his supporters or will MJ have a courage to say that they are real base of his support and is proud to have Sean as his supporter.
November 16, 2007 11:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
I troll-rated you because your major activity here is attacking, rightly or wrongly, MJ's position. I believe it is fair to say that most posters here don't really care about your opinion of MJ, but will form their own opinion of MJ based on the way they will read MJ's points.
I say this only to say that I will continue to troll rate any attack on MJ, not because I am defending MJ, but because you have long ago made your point. You are not going to change and MJ is not going to change.
Reporters shouting "do you have a comment" or "will you resign" do not add clarity after the fortieth or so time they say the same thing and get the same non-answer. Are you willing to move on in discussion of the subject of these threads, or is your major action to be your one-sided feud with MJ?
--
Howard
*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]
November 16, 2007 11:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
My point MJ is in 1947 the Arabs were offered more than 50% of the land we're talking about, and refused the offer saying they wanted it all, and to prove their point attacking in an attempt to get it all. Or do you think the Jews started that war just like they did start 1956, 1967, 1973 (oops, bad call), and 1982?
Also please take a look at the Palestinian internal polls, most of which seem to me to be good and accurate and not propaganda tools like some US polls. Whatever are we going to do about the fairly substantial group who not only do not accept the existence of Israel but will never accept it. Yes, there are also a smaller number of Israeli's who feel that all Palestinian must go, but I think the history of Israel proves that at some point point they will fight their own terror groups and beat them. There's a reason that no Son of the Stern Gang and no Son of Irgun exists in Israel and hasn't for a long time. And no, please don't tell me their role is played by the IDF or the Golani Brigade of the IDF or something like that. If you think the IDF is a terrorist organization that's fine with me. Idiotic in my opinion, but fine. But there is a difference between terror that is part of the government and terror that is uncontrolled like the militias in Iraq. Calling the Revolutionary Guards or whatever of Iran or its Quds Force a terrorist group is equally idiotic. They're, like the IDF, agents of their government, which can be good or bad.
One last point. Howard in a comment close to this one has indicated he will troll rate disagreements with you. Nice. Although he says he's not defending you. You might tell him something that Justice Robert Jackson wrote in 1943 (I think): "Effort to coerce uniformity of opinion lead only to the uniformity of the graveyard."
November 17, 2007 5:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
Fluffy said:
Your statement presents the Israel-centric view of what happened, which isn't an accurate picture. The British had promised the Arabs a state for all the inhabitants of Palestine - both arab and Jewish - but they reneged, and that ultimately led to a exclusively Jewish state being created and the nakkba. Is it really so surprising that the Arabs objected?
Your statement about "sons" of Irgun or the Stern gang is quite curious. What occupation is it that they would be fighting today, exactly? The fact that there were terrorist groups fighting to create the state of Israel, just as there are now similar groups fighting to create a Palestinian state ought to make you re-evaluate.
While I can't speak for Howard, I've been downrating those comments of davai's that consist of nothing more than attacks on M.J. I do so because they fill up the thread with meaningless nonsense rather than because I wish to defend M.J. It's not a disagreement over opinion, because generally davai isn't posting anything of substance, only an attack.
“The healthy man does not torture others — generally it is the tortured who turn into torturers.” ~~ C. G. Jung
November 17, 2007 7:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
After reading all of the posts I've come to the conclusion that the area that is now Israel, including the West Bank and Gaza, should be renamed IsraPales and all inhabitants should be equal and should be called Israpalesians.
November 17, 2007 7:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
I suggest you reread what I said, because you seem to be misinterpreting two things:
For whatever reason, you didn't address these criticisms to me, when your problem is with me. You directed them to MJ, as if he is my leader in some way. He's not. I don't believe in the Zionist ideology, but I'm certainly willing to recognize Israel as a real and significant country. Not supporting Zionism as such, I suspect, would establish just a leeeetle difference between my positions and MJ's.
Zionista and I have had a number of discussions where we disagreed, but I hope we each clarified our positions, even to ourselves. She made a point about the unusual commitment of the US to a mixed society, and correctly pointed out that many countries are much more religiously or ethnically selective. That helped me clarify that I am most willing to see the US support countries that want that culture, although the relationship with any country needs to be evaluated in terms of quite a few features of its relationship with the US.
--
Howard
*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]
November 17, 2007 7:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
Let me first tell what would make me happy.
If Clinton plan could be implemented I would very happy.
If newly Palestinian state would be stable functioned state that was able and willing to prevent any terrorist activities from it’s territories and would not be used as a base for Iran or other enemies of Israel. , that would be great.
However, no matter what Abbas is willing to tell you today, the chances that future Palestinian state will be such state are very remote.
Therefore I don’t know what to do. One of possibilities is to move 100K Israeli who live outside the fence back to Israel, therefore completing separating of West Bank from Israel, and use US reconstruction of Japan as an example, slowly build Palestinian state over next 20 year. Another possibility is for Jordan to take over West Bank and Gaza.
November 17, 2007 7:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
Sounds like a great idea. I think this should be a first step. I've come to the conclusion that the area that's now Israel, Turkey, Syria, Egypt, Iraq, Balkans, and etc should be renamed
Ottoman Empire and all inhabitants should be equal and should be called ottomanians.
While we there, I've come to the conclusion that the area that is now India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, should be renamed IndiaPakistanBangladesh, and all inhabitants should be equal and should be called IndiaPakistanBangladeshians.
November 17, 2007 8:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
November 17, 2007 8:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
November 17, 2007 8:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
Do you think Davai's thought patterns could be set to music. They are quite interesting in a weird way. I guess he's trying to be arch but comes off as Jughead.
November 17, 2007 8:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
syvanen,
No, I am not wrong. At the time of the March Arab League Summit in Riyadh, Ha'aretz reported that, at best, Hamas leadership was prepared to adopt a policy of ambiguity toward the initiative. Further,
Meanwhile, the Palestine Center for Policy and Survey Research reports ongoing trends in diminishing support among the Palestinian electorate for Hamas and increasing support for Fatah:
syvanen,
I really don't. I appreciate that it would be an easier position for you to argue against, but you will just have to stretch your intellectual capacities this time.
November 17, 2007 8:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
--
Howard
*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]
November 17, 2007 8:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
Are you saying Arabs never lived anywhere?
or maybe
Arabs all lived in Oklahoma until Israel was created then the Okie Arabs moved to Israel?
November 17, 2007 8:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
November 17, 2007 8:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
MJ, I see you are regurgitating the same falsehoods that I refuted in the past, but I will repeat them here for the sake of new readers..
There NEVER was an Arab geopolitical entity called "Palestine". The Arabs don't even have an Arabic name for the country. Palestine is a corruption of a Roman name given by Emperor Hadrian in order to eradicate the Jewish identity of the country which had been called "Judea". They named the country after a long extinct ethnic group who were the "Philistines". There never was a political border along the Jordan River that gave any sort of different ethno-political distinctions between people living on both sides of the Jordan River before 1922. This artificial was made by Churchill and the British, not the Arabs. Churchill gave something like 80% of what they called "Palestine" (i.e. the East Bank) to the Arabs. The Arabs rejected the term "Palestinians", preferring to call the area "Southern Syria". Before 1948, the term "Palestinian" mean "Jew", again, because the Arabs rejected the geopolitical entity called "Palestine" saying it was an artificial vivisection of the Arab world, done by the British and French.
The nation states of the Arab Middle are artificial creations of the European colonialists in the last 100 years, there really is no concept of "nationalism" in the Western sense, with the exception of Egypt. Of course, the Arab world is riven by tribalism, with much mutual divisiveness, but this is NOT based on geopolitical divisions which are of recent vintage. Before 1922 there was no "nationalistic" differences between the east and west side of the Jordan, the difference were tribal only, but these tribal difference also exist within the Arab societies existing in both the East and West Banks. However, the overridding religion and culture of the East and West Bank was Muslim and Arab, with some minorities. The concept of "Historic Palestine" IS TOTALLY ALIEN TO THE ARABS, it is a western, Christian concept.
November 17, 2007 8:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
Great points.
I should add that now PLO is using "Historic Palestine" and numbers 78% and 22% as their talking points to prove how unfair deal Arabs got.
November 17, 2007 8:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
Jordan is the MAJORITY OF "PALESTINE" territory. Churchill, by an artificial sweep of the pen in 1922 confined "Palestine" to the West bank only. The Balfour Declaration originally applied to the East Bank as well.
The Arabs never defined themselves as Palestinians. Jews have lived in the east bank throughout history. The reason there aren't any today is due to ethnic cleansing. Large numbers of Arabs today live in areas under Jewish rule, ZERO Jews live in historic Eretz Israel areas under Arab rule, they were either massacred or expelled. Jews lived in many places in Judea/Samaria before 1948.
In fact, the Arabs only arrived in this area in large numbers after the Arab conquest of the 7th century. They then proceeded to ethnically cleanse the Jews AND Christians out of the country by imposition of the discriminatory "dhimmi" laws.
November 17, 2007 8:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
There never was an historic place known as the United States of America either. So I guess I'm not really an American.
How odd for a Zionist to argue about other people's national myths.
It's okay for some kid in Great Neck, Long Island to claim a connection (deep, loving, entrenched) to a place 6000 miles away that he has only visied for a week and when the only place he can prove his ancestors came from is Poland or Russia,
But it's not okay for people who have lived nowhere else but Palestine to claim they are Palestinians.
November 17, 2007 8:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
In general, I'm not a manager of MJ, who should provide MJ with constructive critisism, we are not discussing a new RFC. There are different standards here set by a moderator.
November 17, 2007 8:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
Okay, so now you admit there is no such thing as "Historic Palestine", and the "Palestinians" started using this name in 1948. Fine.
November 17, 2007 8:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
November 17, 2007 9:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
November 17, 2007 9:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm glad you like John and my ideas.
Let's get started. IndiaPakistanBangladesh ahead!!!
November 17, 2007 9:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
hahha, Jughead, remember him? :-)
November 17, 2007 9:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
I wonder if Davai wears that hat!
November 17, 2007 11:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
I wonder if Davai wears that hat!
November 17, 2007 11:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
I may have come to one the roots of the problem!
I was talking to the daughter of a friend, she just graduated from a great college. She was saying that the Palestinian people are a "fiction."
I asked this blond American Jewish girl whose family came from Poland in 1910 or so. "So you think you have more of a connection to the land of Israel or Palestine than a Palestinian Arab who was born there and whose family has been there for a thousand years or more."
She not only said "yes." She said it was a stupid question because "everyone knows that land belongs to the Jews."
She is not religious at all. Everything she knows about Israel came from one of those free trips Jewish college kids get.
The good news is that, according to the latest polls, very few Jews feel that way, only a tiny minority of young American Jews feel that way.
But still.
November 17, 2007 11:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
MJ-prove your assertion that "most Jews don't feel that way" about what the girl said. I presume you know that the Balfour Declaration was given to the Jewish people by the Western world because they were well aware of the preeminent link of the Jewish people to Eretz Israel, and then reconfirmed by the League of Nations. Eretz Israel is recognized by the these declarations as "the National Home of the Jewish people". No mention of any "Palestinian people". UN Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338, which date as late as 1973 make no mention of any "Palestinian people".
I find it encouraging that young non-religious Jews feel attached to their people and land. Your guilt feelings (and this type of of Jewish reaction is nothing new) are not representative of world Jewry or the people of Israel. Your nonsensicle statement in a previous thread that "Israel is a pariah" simply shows how out of touch with reality you are. While it is true that the Arab/Muslim world hates Israel and is the preeminent source of antisemitism in the world, the rest of the world is generally neutral or even friendly to Israel and in awe of the achievements of Israel. A French President was elected easily who, during the election campaign, took an openly pro-Israel and pro-American line.
November 17, 2007 11:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hamas made some significant changes in their position during those talks. Of course they did not concede every point that the US and Israel were demanding but they did signal that they were willing to enter into negotiations. That was rejected by our side. By insisting that we will pick the Palestinian negotiators we are dooming any possible agreement with Abbas. Israel going from "there is no one to talk to" to excluding the democratically elected Palestinian representatives after picking "our" man to negotiate with is not much of an improvement.
There is one sliver of hope in these talks and that is that Rice has brought in the Saudis by promising them that once the talks begin Hamas will have an opening to join. If progressive proIsraeli forces in the US wish to help in this process I believe they should encourage that development. Your continued opposition to Hamas involvment will just play into the hands of those forces that see these talks as a means to delay and allow the occupation to continue indefinitely. The fact that AIPAC is not mounting a frontal assault against the talks probably means that they to agree with my assessment that nothing will be accomplished but more setbacks that will strenghthen the Likud forces here and in Israel.
November 17, 2007 11:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
Good. It nice to see for a change that you wonder about something. It's a good start.
But now I see doubts in you mind. See Howard, not everything is lost.I was afraid that you had mindset of the people described by famous Samisdat poet and bard Alexander Galich:
November 17, 2007 11:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
MJ cited "polls" as his evidence. Granted, he might have been a little more specific, but at least he cited some kind of evidence that can be checked.
After challenging him, you yourself provide no evidence at all for your contrary claims. Sorry, historical talk about the Balfour Declaration and UN resolutions, whatever truth it may have, proves nothing one way or the other about MJ's assertions about Jewish opinion.
November 17, 2007 11:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
the Palestinian people are not fiction. However, Palestinian people are very recent phenomenon. There was no country Palestine, there were no separate people called Palestinians until very recently.
Please, MJ, don't create more fiction.
There are very few Arabs how now live in Israel, West Bank or Gaza can claim that their family has been there for a thousand years or more.
On another hand, it doesn't matter. For resolution of I/P conflict it doesn't matter if majority of Arabs can can claim that their family has been there for a thousand years or only for 120 years.
November 17, 2007 12:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
November 17, 2007 12:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bingo!
You've just proven Howard's point more powerfully than he or anyone else could possibly do. You really cannot tell the difference between your random, scattershot attacks on MJ and reasoned disagreements with him on specific issues, which others, and even occasionally you, make. You can't tell the difference between good arguments and bad. To the rest of us not so blinded as you, the former are just noise, but the latter have some value.
November 17, 2007 12:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Reread MJ's post. It's quite clear what views he's talking about.
November 17, 2007 12:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
The polls MJ is referring to will show that a majority of Jews supposedly favor the unachievable "two-state solution". I am sure the large majority who say they are for this do so because it seems the "reasonable" course to follow. This is a far cry from his assertion that most Jews do not believe that the Jewish people have an ussailable claim to Eretz Israel. Of course, there is the problem of how to deal with the non-Jewish population, but this does not infer that they have "national rights". I mentioned Balfour because those who granted it (Britain and the League of Nations) viewed the Jews as having exclusive national rights in Eretz Israel, so it is not surprising if the majority of Jewish people feel the same.
Again, I admit that many Jews want to give the Palestinians a state, because they wrongly feel that the Palestinians want "self-determination". This is not a contradition to what I am saying. In the end, there will not be a Palestinian state becaue they Palestinians are not interested in "self-determination", they are interested in eradicating Israel. Ultimately, MJ is in the same boat as the rest of us he denounces at "Likudniks", "pro-settler", "religious fanatics" or whatever, because he does recognize the legitimacy of the Jewish settlement called "Tel Aviv", and even he says that the flight of the Arabs who attacked Israel in 1948 (the so-called "refugee problem") is irreversable, and all of this can only be justified by referring back to the historical fact of exclusive Jewish national rights in Eretz Israel. If a Jew has a right to live in Tel Aviv, then he has the right to live in Hevron or the other Jewish settlements in Judea/Samaria and if a Jew does NOT have the right to live in Judea/Samaria, then he DOESN'T have the right to live in Tel Aviv.
Again, I am fully aware that there is a large non-Jewish minority and ultimately, some sort of arrangement must be made for them, but this can happen only when the phony "two-state solution" is dropped and the Arabs realize that Israel is here to stay, and that will only happen when Israel stops making territorial concessions. Once the Arabs give up their dream of eradicating Israel and turn towards the desire for real peace, then good will will bring about a solution in which everyone benefits...but the longer the Arabs wait, the more they will endure self-inflicted suffering. Israel is pulling further and further ahead of the Arabs and the Arabs are falling further and further behind, socially, economically, politcally. It is time for them to wake up and turn towards peace instead of war.
November 17, 2007 12:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh please.
First, that AIPAC isn't opposing the letter really is a victory for Ackerman (we'll have to wait to see how it all turns out to know what's really up here).
And second, who cares if M.J. changed the title - what does it matter? And the post, in the tracker list, clearly is indicated as "updated."
So once again, it's much ado about nothing. Let's face it, you'll find a reason to quibble over anything that M.J. says, davai.
“The healthy man does not torture others — generally it is the tortured who turn into torturers.” ~~ C. G. Jung
November 17, 2007 12:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
A lengthy reply, but I notice that you do basically now admit the existence of the polls that MJ is talking about.
You then go on to brand the pollees as basically ignorant of the true facts as you see them.
Good luck with that.
But at least we've got you off of the public opinion argument, which, I agree with MJ you're in the process of losing.
November 17, 2007 12:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
duplicate
November 17, 2007 12:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bar,
They will never do. Greeks still dream of getting back Konstantinopol. Any possible solution? Remember, First, Arabs are not going anywhere. Second, At the end of the day, they have to get full voting rights in the country where they live if this country is Israel.It really doesn't matter how we got here. I don't care if Jews have or don't have the right to live in Tel Aviv or Judea/Samaria. I don't care about Balfour . I don't care if Arabs have "national rights". I don't want to hear word "fair"
The bottom line is Jews are not going anywhere, Arabs are not going anywhere.
You can have two state solution, one state solution, three state solution.
The Arab state can be independent, part of Jordan, or under military control of Israel.
November 17, 2007 12:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
MJ:
"The good news is that, according to the latest polls, very few Jews feel that way, only a tiny minority of young American Jews feel that way."
So why write about it? So you can get in the sandbox and be at same level that davai frequently is when he posts on your threads? To sell papers?
MJ, you're damned right that most American Jews recognize the national aspirations of the Palestinian people and their ties to the land, including their tangible loss of actual property through war and occupation. But the Jewish people also feel an historical bond to that same land, do they not? Is that not one of the principal realities that makes this issue such a difficult one to resolve.
You really think you help matters by mocking this blond girl or by mocking the historical connection that some snot-nosed kid in Great Neck might feel? My ancestors are principally from Eastern Europe too. Virtually all of them, with some notable exceptions, never stepped foot in the Land of Israel. Did they not feel a bond to the Land of Israel over the centuries MJ?
Is that your point MJ? If it is, then instead of mocking some hypothetical Jewish kid from Great Neck, or this girl you talked to rececntly, why don't you just come out and say that the Jewish people have no historical and material connection to the Land of Israel?
I love you MJ but you're toying with people's emotions again in a really counterproductive way. There are other more productive ways to recognize the legitimate rights of the Palestinian people.
Bruce
November 17, 2007 12:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
November 17, 2007 12:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
MJ is not a moderator, but a guest writer. A moderator is something else entirely. In either case, the decision on standards is that of Josh and Andrew's, not yours. Andrew recently asked you to cool the attacks. I'm willing to accept that sometimes you try to be gentle, but I will merely observe that humor is one of the most difficult things to use in a language and a culture with which you are not intimately familiar; I get honest surprise from Canadian friends when I tell topical humor about their politics, speaking a very similar language.
Sarcasm about RFCs, a process probably unfamiliar to most people here, is not likely to be informative in the discussion.
No, you aren't a manager of MJ. It is obvious you would like to be, but there are many disappointments in life.
I'm not a manager of MJ. Believe it or not, I don't always agree with MJ's positions or ways of expression. Nevertheless, I accept Josh's decision to have him as a guest. Either convince Josh to evict MJ or change his style, or, if you can't stand it, no one is keeping you at this blog.
--
Howard
*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]
November 17, 2007 12:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
November 17, 2007 12:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
We live in a free country. Some snot-nosed kid in Great Neck can feel connection with anything she wants. It's none of MJ's bussiness.
November 17, 2007 1:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
davai: Do you even realize that what you're posting is no more than propaganda? The idea that there were no Palestinians until just recently is just a modern version of the old Zionist myth of "a land without people for a people without a land," which was no more than a convenient fiction to justify the dispossession of those Arabs who lived in Palestine at the beginning of the Zionist movement.
Here's an excerpt from the wiki on "Palestinians":
Another good, albeit quite long, read on the topic is this article, "Palestine--The Suppression of an Idea," from Americans for Middle East Understanding.
“The healthy man does not torture others — generally it is the tortured who turn into torturers.” ~~ C. G. Jung
November 17, 2007 1:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
November 17, 2007 1:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bruce.
On October 31, 2007 - 7:14pm bslev said:
"My second daughter came back from a Birthright trip to Israel and told me that she had to deal with a great deal of propaganda when she was over there".
MJ wasn't "mocking the historical connection", if anything, he was mocking the kinds of inaccurate tripe taught to Jewish youngsters on trips such as the one your daughter experienced.
"why don't you just come out and say that the Jewish people have no historical and material connection to the Land of Israel?"
Why should you insist that MJ somehow believes in and should admit to holding some sort of radical position that you know damn well he doesn't?
"toying with people's emotions"
Come again?
November 17, 2007 1:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Not so few American Jews feels that way.My own family is full of people who think the Palestinians ought to be wiped out because of Biblical myth.
November 17, 2007 1:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Interesting that those Birthright trips are funded by the same guy who is funding a propaganda campaign to get us into a war with Iran.
I did one of those trips. Nonstop rightwing propaganda which produces kids just like the one MJR describes, racist fools.
November 17, 2007 1:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
What a crazy family. Now I understand why you who you are.
I've never met anybody here or in Israel "who think the Palestinians ought to be wiped out because of Biblical myth".
November 17, 2007 1:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Lally:
"Why should you insist that MJ somehow believes in and should admit to holding some sort of radical position that you know damn well he doesn't?"
My question was rhetorical. Of course I know that MJ doesn't believe that. The point of my post was and is that you can demonstrate the legitimate rights of the Palestinian people without using cheesy stereotypical metaphors.
I believe that that your reference to my own discussion about my daughter's experience is an example of another approach (if I recall I was seeking common ground with Sean and some of his feelings about my "tribal" tendencies).
And yes Lally, toying with emotions indeed.
Bruce
November 17, 2007 1:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
November 17, 2007 1:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
November 17, 2007 1:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
davai.
"Arabs in West Bank, Israel and Gaza didn't call themselfes Palestinians until very recent time."
Many Native Americans groups (in their own languages and among themselves) still don't call themselves by the names bestowed on them by the occupying colonists, either. Their names for themselves can be loosely translated as "The People", no matter what tribe or group they belong to.
So what? Names/labels are irrelevent in terms of their claims to their ancestral lands. Blood ties are what counts when determining bonefide membership in a tribe. Sound familiar?
November 17, 2007 1:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree with you. So what?
What's the point of this discussion?
What are trying to prove?
My point was that taking a tiny piece of Arab lands, call it historical Palestine, then use 78% 22% numbers to prove how bad deal Arabs got, makes no sense and doesn't help in resolving I/P conflict.
November 17, 2007 2:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
syvanen,
My what now...? If Hamas has reconsidered its radical rejection of an independent Palestine beside a secure Israel, and not instead of it, that would be great news. But you will have to show me where Hamas has expressed any interest in engaging Israel diplomatically. If you can't then don't make shit up, and certainly don't lay its intractible rejectionism at my feet.
In any event, as the Palestine Center for Policy and Survey Research study that I'd cited above reports, Hamas is losing the support of the Palestinian electorate. In'sh'Allah, its position eventually will be about as relevant to the process as your pessimism.
November 17, 2007 2:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Jezz, davai. You've spent months endlessly going after M.J. and now you're expanding to criticize the journalistic standards of TPM Cafe, too?
“The healthy man does not torture others — generally it is the tortured who turn into torturers.” ~~ C. G. Jung
November 17, 2007 2:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thank you very much, Wordie for using word "criticize".
November 17, 2007 2:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Has anything good ever come out of religion? Not as far as I'm concerned.
November 17, 2007 2:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
hahaha, remember Denny Dimwit and 'his' hat?
November 17, 2007 2:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bruce.
It doesn't matter what the discussion with Sean was about. The point is that your more informed/saavy daughter was subjected to and rejected damaging propaganda the blonde (cheesy ?) was too ready to swallow and disgorge.
So Bruce, you admit to "toying with emotions"/asking a loaded rhetorical question in order to make your own point?
November 17, 2007 2:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Time is the one thing that I can never get back.
When there is something specific, I do point it out. Overall, I accept MJ's writing for what it is, and also accept it is most unlikely that Josh is going to change it. I don't want to waste time arguing with something that isn't going to make any difference, which, I will admit, makes me wonder, at times, why I respond to you.
In fairness, Davai, you've said a few insightful things recently -- I think it's fair to say that you can add much more value when you are talking about the issues than about MJ. As a sincere suggestion, the most valuable posts tend to have some substantive content, rather than asking someone for more and more clarification.
--
Howard
*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]
November 17, 2007 3:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Lally:
"So Bruce, you admit to "toying with emotions"/asking a loaded rhetorical question in order to make your own point?"
Fair point. Duly noted.
Bruce
November 17, 2007 3:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Your point about identity groups that often have no name for themselves, in their language, than "the people", and perhaps, for others as in Japanese, gaijin (roughly "foreign barbarian").
The proverb "myself against my brother, my brother and I against the family, the family against the clan, the clan against the tribe, the tribe against the world", with many variants, runs through Arab culture. To address Davai's point, I think what we are trying to find is a formula in which tribal identities can fit.
Although Islam makes the distinction between the House of Struggle and the House of God, the reality is that there is much fragmentation. I see "Palestinian" as an identity, but not as strong an unifier as "Zionist". How can these different views be brought under one roof?
--
Howard
*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]
November 17, 2007 3:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Latest list of signers:
Ackerman
Boustany
Lantos
Alcee Hastings
Crowley
Rahall
James Moran
Ellison
McCollum
Capps
Blumenauer
Jackson
Honda
Frank
Doyle
Schiff
McGovern
Coble
Faleomavaega
Sestak
McNulty
Baird
David Price
Lee
Wynn
Farr
Melancon
Boswell
Cardoza
Costa
Boyd
Kaptur
Baldwin
Hodes
Holt
Doggett
Delahunt
Carnahan
Geoff Davis
Maloney
Schakowsky
Woolsey
Altmire
Hill
Fortenberry
Mike Thompson
Kucinich
Jackson-Lee
Gonzalez
Waxman
Van Hollen
Issa
Markey
Lahood
Pascrell
Conaway
Velazquez
Meeks
Olver
Alexander
McDermott
Chris Smith
Capuano
DeLauro
Dingell
Fattah
Conyers
Norton
Larson
Baker
Putnam
Jefferson
Stark
Kuhl
Susan Davis
Carney
Christopher Murphy
McNerney
Neal
Langevin
Gwen Moore
Sanford Bishop
Dennis Moore
Braley
Cohen
Larsen
Kennedy
Berman
Matheson
Rangel
Brad Miller
Adam Smith
Lynch
Bonner
Kildee
Hinojosa
Gilchrest
Wasserman Shultz
Sires
John Lewis
George Miller
Grijalva
Norm Dicks
Filner
David Scott
Scott Garrett
Pastor
Gillibrand
Tierney
Sarbanes
Arcuri
Diane Watson
Welch
LoBiondo
Carolyn McCarthy
Higgins
Julia Carson
Robert C. “Bobby” Scott
Corrine Brown
T. Allen
Payne
Michael Michaud
Hank Johnson
Inslee
Rodriguez
Tsongas
Solis
Courney
Loebsack
Bordallo
Ferguson
Stephanie Tubbs Jones
Sutton
Hall
Gutierrez
November 17, 2007 3:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Seder dinners, Christmas trees and chocolate Easter bunnies?
November 17, 2007 3:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thank you, MJ. You have described the blindness very well. I am amazed that some Zionists rely on phony history (e.g., Jordan is Palestine) instead of focusing on the reality that all nation-states have historical beginnings, were usually created in violence, and caused dispossession. Like America?
It should be enough that Israel, like every other nation, has a history. And, like every other nation, some parts are not pleasant. The point now is the try to solve the conflict, not--as some of your detractors do--claim Palestinians have no legitimate grievances.
November 17, 2007 3:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
November 17, 2007 3:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Can't you just see the uproar here if Fatah issued an peace letter and Hamas signed on and Davai posted and neglected to mention it, let alone announced it as a victory of Fateh over Hamas. This analogy gives inflated importance to AIPAC since the peace has to be made between the peoples, but once you reverse the players you can see the problem.
That you can, if you know how, track it is irrelvant: MJ had an obligation to play fair and reveal that AIPAC had signed on to the extent it has. He is also within his rights to THEN argue that nonetheless this is a defeat for AIPAC's preferred policies.
If we can't trust him to give us the facts, no post of his can be read without reading all the replies.
November 17, 2007 4:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
How much worse can it get?
Short answer: they found out.
War and Piece had a post about a Fatah extremist being on the phone while Hamas surrounded his house and ended up by slaughtering him and his family. He was screaming that he was not a Jew.
If you teach that it is alright to kill, it should come as no large surprise to you if you get killed.
Again, can't you just imagine the uproar if Israel taught its children similar things about Moslems to those the Arab children are taught about the Jews?
November 17, 2007 4:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
"But you will have to show me where Hamas has expressed any interest in engaging Israel diplomatically."
You already did in your paste above. Hamas stated that they would accept a Palestinian state outside the 1967 borders (ie the Westbank and Gaza). This along with the cease fire they agreed to were major changes in their original goals and created both space and time for negotiations.
I agree that life would be easier if Hamas dissappeared but they haven't; changes in their public support doesn't mean they have. Wishing it to be true will not make it so.
November 17, 2007 4:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
The court jester is actually making some sense here . . .
Davai is right that whether the Jews got to Israel by fair means or foul, they're there now and that's all that matters. It's just as true (and I think Davai is acknowledging this, though it's sometimes hard to tell amongst all the comedy) that when and how the Palestinians came into existence as an identifiable "people" makes no difference. They are there now and that's all that matters. The history at this point is relevant only to those trying to justify a particular point of view. In other words, the history is just a distraction from the problem at hand.
November 17, 2007 4:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Daviai frequently makes an attack asking MJ to make a logical distinction. MJ refuses to reply. The thread jumps in and attacks Davai for attacking MJ and usually misses the logic of what Davai is saying.
If you feel that Davai is wasting your time trying to call attention to what he sees as MJ's errors skip his posts and don't rate them.
November 17, 2007 4:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
"But you will have to show me where Hamas has expressed any interest in engaging Israel diplomatically."
You already did in your paste above. Hamas stated that they would accept a Palestinian state outside the 1967 borders (ie the Westbank and Gaza). This along with the cease fire they agreed to were major changes in their original goals and created both space and time for negotiations.
I agree that life would be easier if Hamas dissappeared but they haven't; changes in their public support doesn't mean they have. Wishing it to be true will not make it so.
November 17, 2007 4:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm not a strong believer that whoever squatted there first should determine who gets land except in the sense that all the alternatives seem rather worse. The question is how far back you go -- if it is immoral for Israel to have land that they conquered from the Palestinians, then is it also immoral for the Palestinians to have land that their ancestors stole from the Jews? How far back do you go?
Israel should demand a right of return for the Jews expelled from historic Eretz Israel amd for those massacred. These rights could be used to honorably offset the Palestinian right of return. If the Palestinians still dream of eradicating Israel as a Jewish state, this is nonobtainable. It would be a epic wrong for the world to allow the distruction of the sole state with a majority Jewish population when most religions have states where they are strongly predominate. If, on the other hand, the Palestinians simply what a recognition that a wrong was done them this recognizes that and also sets the rights of the Jews on the same level as the rights of the Arabs.
November 17, 2007 4:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
excuse the double post. Just an addendum: http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/922571.html
Sensible voices in Israel are also calling to include Hamas
November 17, 2007 5:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Is that the same PCPSR and Khalil Shikaki whose polls consistently showed that Hamas would be routed in 2006? The same Shikaki who promoted Barghouti’s release because he could defeat Hamas? Other polls show a different picture, though there doesn’t seem to be a majority support for any of the factions or leaders.
Of course, that is what you would expect in occupied territories that have been divided and set against each other. Palestinians in Gaza are being starved, squeezed and assaulted. The U.S. and Israel after failing in their coup against Hamas are doing everything possible to undermine it. Basically, the Palestinians have a gun to their head and are being asked who they will support now, Hamas who is bringing this suffering upon them or the conciliator, Abbas?
Regardless, Abbas has formed an illegitimate government. Wasn’t there a poll in early 2006, AKA an election, where Hamas was voted control of the Parliament? I don't think Hamas is the savior of Palestinians but they were freely elected and there is a long history of Israel isolating and delegitmizing Palestinian leaders that they could not co-opt.
November 17, 2007 5:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's hardly true, and, if taken in proper context, not true at all.
By this logic, "historic Palestine" doesn't include the Negev either. The Negev was just some random "Bedouin country"?
There is a truth that lies between the two fallacious statements: "Jordan is Palestine" and "Historically Palestinians didn't live on the East side of the Jordan".
I don't know what MJ meant by "historic Palestine". However, whenever I've seen the term "Palestine" in an old map of the Middle East, It has covered both sides of the Jordan.
November 17, 2007 5:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sure, this discussion gets a little shrill and puerile, but has anyone noticed the general approach here to the problems in Israel is infinitely more substantive than anything you'll hear in the mainstream TV media?
Which, by the way, could be summarized thus:
(crickets chirping)
I've heard the discussions IN ISRAEL have more substance and diversity of opinion than they do here in the US, and I wonder what the reason is for that.
November 17, 2007 5:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
You must be new here. This is one of MJ's most frequent themes and one he takes much abuse for.
November 17, 2007 6:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thank you. You got it.
November 17, 2007 6:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
What's "exclusively Jewish" about a state that has a population that is at least 20% not Jewish?
When Israel declared independence, there were clear and unambiguous statements that the country would be one for all of it's inhabitants and the the state would not discriminate based upon ethnicity or religion.
There is a big difference between a state that has a Jewish character and one that is "exclusively Jewish".
November 17, 2007 6:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
John1141,
Davai's comments could not really be interpreted to mean what you've asked.
He is asking what he is asking. The clear inference is that Arabs in that region have, at times, considered themselves to be one giant nation. There are many reasons to believe that, absent a Zionist movement and/or Western imperialistic partitioning of lands, Palestinian Arabs and Syrian Arabs and Jordanian Arabs would consider themselves to be one nation of people.
MJ made a strong statement (one that does not ring true to me) that Arabs on the West Bank of the Jordan River have historically distinguished themselves from Arabs on the East Bank side of the river.
It's not an area about which I have expertise, but it does seem questionable.
November 17, 2007 6:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
I've heard the discussions in India (about India) have more substance and diversity of opinion than they do here in the US, and I wonder what the reason is for that.
BTW,
I've heard the discussions in US (about US) have more substance and diversity of opinion than they do here in the in nytimes or in tpm and I wonder what the reason is for that.
Let me explain you:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kozma_Prutkov
November 17, 2007 6:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's not entirely a stereotype. People like this do exist and it's always bothered me.
Almost 30 years ago I attended my cousin's wedding. Much more devout than me, but that wasn't what bothered me. Seated after the wedding at a table full of my cousin's college friends, these kids with their Ivy League educations sat around discussing favorite pizza joints, restaurants and bars in Tel Aviv like it was Cambridge, Ithaca, or Ann Arbor. With not one drop of concern for who might have had to be pushed aside in order to make their holiday possible.
I can understand the anti-Arab mishagoss of some kicked-in-the-teeth Jews finally allowed to leave Russia and now living in some crappy house on the West Bank much more than I can understand the ignorance of such supposedly well-educated American Jews. Their sense of entitlement disturbed me then and it disturbs me now.
Even if there aren't that many of them.
November 17, 2007 6:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
--
Howard
*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]
November 17, 2007 6:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
November 17, 2007 6:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
November 17, 2007 6:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Do you have a concern for who might have had to be pushed aside in order to make for you to eat at your favorite pizza joints in Cambridge, Ithaca, or Ann Arbor?
November 17, 2007 6:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
AJM said:
I have to admit I got a big grin out of this statement. If davai neglected to mention anything, would anyone even notice? I don't think most people here rely on davai for information of any sort, so his failure to provide any bit of info is unlikely to cause an "uproar."
You're presuming the worst of M.J., but isn't it just possible that there was nothing really nefarious here at all?
“The healthy man does not torture others — generally it is the tortured who turn into torturers.” ~~ C. G. Jung
November 17, 2007 6:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Good try, Wordie, but no sigar.
1. THe article about AIPAC role was published 11/9/2007
Push for Annapolis summit triggers slew of Jewish lobbying efforts
By Ron Kampeas | Published 11/9/2007 | World News |
2. MJ implied that he played an insider role in this letter event. Therefore he must have known about AIPAC role directly. He didn't have to read newspapers to find out what was going on and he could share with us his knowledge honestly.
November 17, 2007 7:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
There's as much 'historic Palestine' as there is 'historic Israel.'
It's just a settler talking point.
November 17, 2007 7:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
There was never a historical Jewish state called Israel before, either, so your whole argument applies both ways.
In fact, one could deduce that the only reason that Israel is a state now is because there were more Jews than Arabs with political clout in Western Europe.
November 17, 2007 7:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Please provide us some historical maps showing this 'Eretz Israel,' country.
Oh wait, it only existed in the *minds* of Jews for thousands of years...
November 17, 2007 7:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
http://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/historical/israel_hist_1973.jpg
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land_of_Israel
November 17, 2007 7:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wrong place-
November 17, 2007 7:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wow. So expelling a people and appropriation of occupied lands is okay now. As long as colonists are successful in their ethnic cleansing, just claims are moot? Was that long Cold War we fought, freeing Eastern Europe from the USSR moot? I understand that in more primitive times there was no unified world opinion against violating human rights but I did think we had evolved some. Well, if that's the way things are now then I guess that torture,slavery, and any type of oppression are acceptable after the fact.
November 17, 2007 7:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
AJM.
Do you want stupid examples of the IDF engaged in some atrocity or another against innocent Palestinians in order to counter Laura Rozen's dubious and shamefully unsourced posting last of June? Would it be more impressive if the victim(s) were heard to scream that they aren't terrorists?
The original acount was writen by Charles Levinson, a young American with some fluency in Arabic (and other ME dialects), on his blog, "Conflict Blotter" on 6/11/07:
"Wow! Hamas has stormed the home of Jamal Abu Jideyan, general secretary of Fatah in Northern Gaza and an Al Aqsa Brigades commander, and assassinated him. About 20 minutes ago we were listening to Sawt Al Hurriya, a Palestinian radio station, as Jideyan’s brother called into the station frantic. Hamas militants had surrouned the family’s home in the Jabbaliya refugee camp and had fired 16 RPG rounds at the home, with 35 family members inside, he said. “They’re firing at us, firing RPGs, firing mortars. We’re not Jews,” he screamed into the telephone live on air, gun fire bursting in the background."
http://conflictblotter.com/2007/06/11/21/
Here's what Levinson wrote for the London Telegraph published on 6/13/07:
"Fatah’s commander in Northern Gaza Jamal Abu Jideyan, was dragged from his house late last night and shot 45 times in the streets.
His brother, who just minutes earlier had made an impassioned plea for mercy live on Palestinian radio, was also killed.
“They’re firing at us, firing RPGs, firing mortars. We’re not Jews,” the Fatah commander’s brother screamed into the telephone live on air, just minutes before Hamas bullets ended his life."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/06/12/wgaza312.xml
Here's yet another version with Levinson's byline:
"Jamal Abu Jideyan, another Fatah commander, was riddled with bullets as he lay in his hospital bed. His brother was also murdered."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/06/16/wgaza116.xml&page=1
BTW, I've been following Levinson's blog and other writings for months and like him. Unfortunately, he has no formal education relating to the profession of journalism which may partially explain the discrepencies in his accounts. IMO he was snookered as his writing generally strives for accuracy and he was headquartered in a Fatah-controlled compound.
Levinson's first person front-row reporting from Gaza during the Hamas takeover is riveting stuff as he chronicles the contradictory and confusing situation as it develops. Highly recommended.
If so inclined, start with the "Conflict Blotter" link posted above.
November 17, 2007 7:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
MJ, Please, Please have some DIGNITY.
what other TMP contributer will rate such comment 0?
Kozma Prutkov made a very good point. If you don't agree with him rate him 0.
When on an elephant cage you see a sign "bison" - do not trust your eyes."
November 17, 2007 8:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Your map link calls this land 'Palestine' before it is identified as 'Israel.'
Your historical link shows the Kingdom of David, who also happens to be a prophet in the Islamic tradition. So, as fellow 'people of the book,' it would seem to some that they also share some claim to this land.
Also, for extra credit, please explain why it was called the 'mandate of Palestine' and not the 'mandate of Israel.'
November 17, 2007 8:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
We can go back and forth forever. Meanwhile Palestinians will contunue to live in misery and Israel will continue to move forward.
There was no ethnic cleansing, there was exchange of people like in case of India and Pakistan. We can repeat a discussion about this with rehashing old arguments. I don't think you have new arguments, nether do I.
November 17, 2007 8:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Dear muslims, we gave you all the wisdom that you have. Can you please in return, let us have a peace in a tiny piece of land, probably 1/1000000000000000 of all your muslim land?
November 17, 2007 8:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
"So expelling a people and appropriation of occupied lands is okay now."
Not today. But it was only about a century back when the US was doing that to the American Indians. Sixty years back we purged the Germans from Prussia, Pomerania and the Sudetenland. And it was only fifteen years ago that the Krajina Serbs were driven out of their land in what is now recognized as Croatian land. Life is not fair. Why worry about past injustices against the Palestinians since these others are considered history? Let us find a solution to today's problem. And that is what to do with the Palestians that now live in Gaza and the Westbank.
November 17, 2007 8:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
First of all, I am not new here, and I generally applaud Mr. Rosenberg for taking a principled stand on a controversial issue while opening himself to spurious, ad hominem attacks.
Meanwhile, the situation in Palestine is also OUR problem and lies at the center of our entire Middle East policy, and, by extension, our standing as the lone world superpower.
So, if the Israelis are up to their eyes in it, we are up to our noses, thanks only to the Atlantic Ocean.
That distance also allows us to avoid a substantive discussion of the matter as well, in my opinion.
November 17, 2007 8:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
And if the whole world including Palestinians wiil adopt this point of view, the answer would be easy, the Clinton Plan.
November 17, 2007 8:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
November 17, 2007 8:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Correction, as 'People of the Book' it's *our* land. Can't you please in return learn how to share and play nicely with the other kids?
Thanks for clarifying this point--I think a large assumption of Ehretz Israel is that King David's people all evolved into Jews-convenient, no?
November 17, 2007 9:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
At this point Davai has posted 45 of the 145 posts in this thread. Is there any way to scrub this garbage; otherwise this is a very interesting place.
November 17, 2007 9:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
"and perhaps, for others as in Japanese, gaijin (roughly "foreign barbarian")."
Can't resist as per usual...oh well. Off to OTland we go.
A charming young Navajo once told me (with some bemusement) that the local natives called HIS people "head-bangers" or some such due to the favored Navajo way of killing.
Tribal identities can fit as there is a long history of accomodation and the present population of Jews who won't trade their Iranian identity for subsidized lifestyles in Israel. Any formula will most likely based on the experiences of those Israelis who have extensive dealings with Palestinians whether through their activism, businesses, military/security involvement, or professional concerns such as the dedicated and courageous Tel Aviv-based Physicans for Human Rights.
It's up to the Israelis and Palestinians to come up with a formula that works and I do believe I'm seeing more movement in that direction as more Israelis with great creds add their voices to those advocating talking to their enemies in Gaza, Syria and someday soon hopefully, Lebanon. I'm getting the impression that more and more Israelis are thinking that their American friends should kindly butt out of some aspects of their business.
Hopefully, I'm not having a wishful-thinking-based serial hallucinatory episodes here.
I doubt disaporaed Palestinians would see their unifying identity as any less strong than that of Zionists. They are Palestinians, always seperate and isolated wherever they've found themselves in the ME. It's truly shameful and the dreadful Lebanese are the worst of all their "hosts".
November 17, 2007 9:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bruce.
Salud.
November 17, 2007 9:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think the subjugation of Native Americans happened further back than that and was of a different order (a technologically advanced society overtaking and assimilating more primitive ones). But no injustice justifies another. Of course there have been invasions and ethnic cleansing in modern times but most have been opposed as when Iraq invaded a country it believed it had historical claims on. In cases where reconciliation has taken place after the fact, like So. Africa or Rwanda, it went hand in hand with truth commissions to correct the history and assess grievances.
I do think a deal has to be negotiated in the end between I-P. But to say that claims are moot because of “facts on the ground” or distance in time does not further negotiations, it prolongs a stand-off. Israel decided last week to halt settlement expansion. They did so because it would be hard to go into Annapolis with a straight face if the settlements were continuing. When the Annapolis photo-op is over, they will resume the illegal taking of Palestinian land that has gone on for sixty years. Creating a Palestinian state would naturally kill any further settlements and somehow I doubt that will happen any time soon.
Those who say, “Israel exists, let’s move on from there” are usually those who want the Palestinians to concede everything and Israel nothing (I'm not saying this is your position-obviously not). But any peace deal would have to take into account the “past history” of the conflict. Palestinians are still alive (or have sons and daughters) who own property in Israel. The I-P conflict is all about the past. Are their claims moot since they were driven out years ago? Are refugees to have no right to return because Israel has maintained an illegal occupation for forty years? There are close to five million refugees and more are outside of Gaza and the West Bank than inside. Should they be forgotten because they have been exiled for such a long time?
November 17, 2007 10:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
syvanen,
"Is there any way to scrub this garbage;"
No.
Davai is sort of the site pest when it comes to MJ's threads. But he is getting better and does exhibit a sense of humor every once in awhile.
November 17, 2007 10:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Please do, as well as all responses to my posts.
See what interesting will be left.
November 17, 2007 10:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
November 17, 2007 10:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ha ha, or so he'd have you believe! Honestly, you and Rahm are the only people pushing that one with a straight face.
November 17, 2007 10:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
"I think the subjugation of Native Americans happened further back than that and was of a different order (a technologically advanced society overtaking and assimilating more primitive ones)."
I live in the Sacramento Valley. In 1912 the 12$ bounty on each Indian scalp was rescinded in Sutter County. That was less than a century ago. In any case that is ancient history.
But I would say that one of the justifications of the subjugation of the Palestinian Arabs is that they were a technologically primitive society being over taken by a more advanced one. At least that is what many in the West would accept.
I guess my point is that historical arguments don't count for much. The Palestinians are a reality and that we should deal with that reality. In the present case the US has little influence on how the Israelis perceive their neighbors history. If Israelis disagree with us and decide to go to war enforce their own preceptions of reality I think the US should get out of the way and let the warring tribes work it out for themselves. I am getting bored with the historical arguments and I think the American people will eventually think that fighting ME wars over these questions is not in their interest.
November 17, 2007 11:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
So it doesn't matter how we got in Iraq, we're there now and that's all that matters?
November 18, 2007 4:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
John, it makes a huge difference how we got to Iraq for the purpose of ensuring that we don't make a similar mistake again. However, for the Iraqi people, at this point, what matters is correcting the mess we made. In my opinion, that means us leaving as quickly as possible, and spending billions of our tax dollars rebuilding the society we destroyed. George Bush and his administration should be sued for malpractice, since this Iraq mess they got us into will cost the US dearly for many, many decades to come.
November 18, 2007 4:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
Don, as I look at it the past really is past. Sure, some recompense for past wrongs would be good, but I don't think making up for the past is nearly as important as dealing with the present.
As I see it, in Israel proper and the areas more-or-less controlled by Israel (West Bank/Gaza or, if you prefer, Judea/Sumeria) there are approximately 11 million people, approximately half of them Jewish and approximately half of them Arab (Muslim mostly, but also Christian Arabs). The state of Israel is officially a Jewish state and this (I think understandably) creates a real problem for the half of the population that's Arab. The "separate but equal" solution established under Israeli law for the 1+ million Arabs who are actually Israeli citizens seems problematic at best to me, as do all separate but equal solutions, but at least these folks have the right to vote and basic rights. The limbo in which the remaining 4+ million Arabs live (and have lived for decades) is far worse. The question, in my mind, really boils down to how can a fair political solution be achieved for the 5+ million Arabs now living under Israeli control --and how can it be done as quickly as possible.
In my mind, the best solution, would be one that gives both the 5 or so million Jews and the 5 or so million Arabs equal rights to live in the land and equal status. That would be a one-state solution which treated Jews and Arabs exactly the same. The second best would be some kind of federation of two states that gave the two peoples the right of free movement through the entire area, but preserved some separate government for Jews and Arabs. The third best solution is a two-state solution. In the past, I thought the two-state solution was the most practical so I supported it. Increasingly, I think the two-state solution is impossible (too little is left for the Arabs, honestly, thanks to the settlement policy), so I think we are headed for some alternative. I think of the alternatives, the federation would be more likely than the one-state solution, because the Jews are not going to give up the Jewish state without a massive struggle and Jews and Arabs living together in one state seems very difficult (too much hatred and bitterness on the both sides and too much devotion to the idea of a Jewish state on one side and an Arab state without Jews on the other).
Once the situation between the parties actually living in Israel and the associated areas is solved, then we can proceed to figuring out what to do with people (Jews and Palestinian refugees) living outside the area who want to move to it. But to me, this is a secondary issue, far less important than the immediate situation in the area we are discussing.
November 18, 2007 4:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
One could easily debate your contention that the state does not discriminate (although I notice you actually referred only to the "statements" pledging that at the time). Just a few points: there are Israeli laws preventing Arabs from purchasing state land; services to the Arab sector are significantly lower than those provided to Jewish Israelis; the uppity Arabs leaders who recently proposed a more democratic approach were essentially declared by Shin Bet as enemies of the state.
But still, it's unambigously clear that there was Jewish exclusivity from the beginning; that was what the state was founded upon. If not, there would have been one state in Palestine, for all it's residents.
“The healthy man does not torture others — generally it is the tortured who turn into torturers.” ~~ C. G. Jung
November 18, 2007 5:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think you are on to something. I have been advocating something like this here.
November 18, 2007 5:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
Bar_K, I'm excited to hear this, because if someone with my views and yours can agree, we may really be able to achieve a solution that would work.
November 18, 2007 6:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'd scrub them if they could. On the other hand, Davai's incessant chatter raises my number of responses so high that it makes me look like I'm the most popular TPM writer. I'm not, but unless you go into the posts and see how many much are Davai's, you'd think I'm one hell of am amazing and provocative writer.
Thanks to Davai, I'll probably get some big offer of my own blog from TIME or something like that.
November 18, 2007 6:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'd scrub them if they could. On the other hand, Davai's incessant chatter raises my number of responses so high that it makes me look like I'm the most popular TPM writer. I'm not, but unless you go into the posts and see how many much are Davai's, you'd think I'm one hell of am amazing and provocative writer.
Thanks to Davai, I'll probably get some big offer of my own blog from TIME or something like that.
November 18, 2007 6:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
When Israel declared independence, there were clear and unambiguous statements that the country would be one for all of it's inhabitants and the the state would not discriminate based upon ethnicity or religion.
Clear, unambiguous statements made unilaterally by Jewish leaders without any representation or involvement of the Arab population. Also, clear unambiguous statements were made that Israel would be a Jewish state and a homeland for the Jews. The Arabs were, understandably, not happy with such a unilateral declaration about what the area they lived in would be.
Addendum. Just to clarify my position on this, I do think that it was good of the Jewish leaders to try to include Arabs in the Jewish state as equals. I also think, though, it took at great deal of denial not to recognize that Arabs could never be equal in a Jewish state and that making a unilateral declaration of a Jewish state was both unfair to the Arabs and provocative.
November 18, 2007 6:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
While it's true that davai is making some sense, as you note, the sense he has made has been so riddled with rightwing propaganda, that the sense is completely obscured. For instance, upthread he describes M.J.'s reference to "historic Palestine" thusly:
The history issue is a tricky one, but davai is trying to have it both ways: first throwing doubt into Palestinian claims to the land, but then saying that history doesn't matter.
“The healthy man does not torture others — generally it is the tortured who turn into torturers.” ~~ C. G. Jung
November 18, 2007 6:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
Wow...Only 45 out of 145 posts were his? davai is slipping! I've seen threads where the number of posts by davai approaches 50%.
“The healthy man does not torture others — generally it is the tortured who turn into torturers.” ~~ C. G. Jung
November 18, 2007 6:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
Davai is unemployed so attaching himself to MJR's posts is his life. Long ago he decided that being laughed at and ridiculed is better than no attention at all (as back in the USSR).
November 18, 2007 6:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
Purple,
I agree with you on Iraq, yet,
if you follow that line of thinking then why shouldn't it matter how the Palestinains or Jews got to Israel, the history of both peoples, so to speak?
From what I see historically, I think both people have equal claims to the area and that's what I think is driving the problem.
Hopefully some day the radicals on both sides will wither on the vine and rational people will find a solution.
November 18, 2007 6:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
Don Key,
If you have better polling, bring it.
The International Foundation for Election Systems reported,
More on the January 25, 2006, Palestinian elections here and here.
November 18, 2007 6:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
syvanen,
But without recognizing or accepting any stake in negotiating peace with Israel. Again, Hamas continues to exclude itself from the peace process, offering only a policy of ambiguity toward the Arab League initiative.
November 18, 2007 6:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
So is there any other confirmation of what was or was not said over the air?
If Jideyan's brother in fact said that he should not be fired at because he was not a Jew, this has a strong implication that he thought that Jews could be treated in that fashion.
What I am driving at is the prevailing position among the Arabs that Jewish life is not equal to other life. That reparations for the death of a Jew can be 2/3 of the price of a camel(my memory is not exact) while the reparations for the death of a fellow Moslem were much higher.
Yes, I am sure that most armies commit atrocities during the course of a war but there are differences.
It matters whether a country tries its lynch mobs or venerates them.
November 18, 2007 6:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
Wordie, I didn't threw doubt into Palestinian claims to the land.
I objected to the PLO and MJ method of using numbers.
They take a tiny piece of land in ME, declared it "Historical Palestine", then they show that Jews got 78% of that piece of land. So unfair.
Well, Jews got 100 % of Tel Aviv and Negev.
November 18, 2007 7:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
Not at all. Mostly you own to yourself by double posting your own comments.
November 18, 2007 7:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
Sean, why you such a angry pest?
Even if I was unemployed so what?
November 18, 2007 7:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm sorry but you don't really agree.
Just go next step and explore practical issues,
who is going to vote for whom, who is going to responsible for securiry, and so on.
For you, federation, really meean , one state solution that is totally unacceptable for 99% of Israelis, for Bar, federation realy mean some authonomy for Arabs in West Bank.
November 18, 2007 7:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
To John W:
I saw "No Country For Old Men" at AFI last night. It was pretty good. But it did leave me thinking that the good guys don't prevail. Look at this country since FDR's time. Pretty much all downhill. If you read Krugman's new book, you see that Eisenhower's economic views back in the 50's were far more advanced than any of the Dems today. Or even Nixon's views on health care.
So with even this country in such decline, it is hard to get very optimistic about the Middle East.
I honestly believe that if FDR, Truman or Ike came back and saw this country today, they'd puke!
I am referring not to the people but to the utterly corrupt political system.
November 18, 2007 7:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
MJ, why you such a moron!
In FDR, Truman or Ike time Black Man was not allowed to puke in the same place as a White Man,
Jews and Dogs were not allowed in the same places, women were totally discriminated against, and so on and on and on.
In term of "utterly corrupt political system" ,
you are totally ignorant of US history. How did you get in college?
You don't deserve to live in such a great country you live in.
November 18, 2007 7:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
MJ, are you kidding? Truman would be shocked at today's "corrupt political system"? Ever heard of the Pendergast political machine in Kansas City? They started Truman's career and stuffed the ballot box in order to get him elected Senator from Missouri in 1934. In the senate, he was a paraiah, FDR wouldn't have anything to do with him since everyone called him "The Senator from Pendergast". Now, I am actually an admirer of Truman, he was personally honest and because he was a hard worker in the Senate, he eventually earned the respect of everybody there, but he certainly was familiar with corruption.
Then, of course, there was Mayor Richard Daley's machine in Chicago that turned out the graveyard vote in Illinois to carry the state for your hero JFK which got him the election, along with LBJ's machine in Texas.
Regarding corruption, as it says in Kohelet (the Bible) "there is nothing new under the sun"!.
November 18, 2007 8:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, there was discrimination....but
During the war;
Ike/FDR = Tuskegee Airmen & Red Ball Express. Triple Nickles, all black Parachute unit, all black 366th Infantry Regiment...need I go on?
Truman; Officially desegregated US Military.
As to Jews, I had many Jews in my Regiment,
(who took delight in scorning German POWs with their Star of David, though it was a serious issue, it made the rest of us piss our pants laughing)and by the way, there were a number of Dog units in the Quartermaster, where I'm sure you could find a number of Jews.
If Women were totally discriminated how did my Mom get a job in Cramps Shipyard in Philly?
November 18, 2007 9:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
John,
I'm not saying that US was evil country at that point, I'm saying that US made a huge progress and now it's different much better country.
I think only MJ and Lott think
"We're proud of it. And if the rest of the country had followed our lead, we wouldn't have had all these problems over all these years, either." :-)
November 18, 2007 9:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well, if people would stop responding to him it would go higher.
I know, I know, I'm as guilty of this as anyone else.
November 18, 2007 9:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for the story. I heard that after World War I in both the US and British Armies, the high commands discovered that the common soldiers felt that the high-ranking brass didn't care about them, so in the Second World War, top generals made a point of talking to common soldiers, asking them about things like food, the mail and the such. I read once that Eisenhower, when addressing the men, would refer to the President, Secretary of War, and Chiefs of Staff as "the big shots" in order to communicate to the men that he was on their side. He was also an exception to the rule that says that generals make lousy Presidents.
November 18, 2007 9:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
MJ, Hope springs eternal.
MJ, I can say, factually, "I knew Ike, and today's Republicans are no Ike. "
I think Ike, perhaps Ford, were the only Republicans since FDR was President that I
might say didn't get my dander up, moreso Ike. The DLC isn't much better. Although Nixon was bad, I think the country started its decline with Reagan and I fault the Reagan Democrats for that cretin. Republican Presidents seemed to get worse, more destructive, after Ford.
A story I always tell about Ike;
After the war in Europe was over our Regiment was the honor guard at SHAEF in Frankfurt. Me and another guy had guard duty outside his office one day and Ike came out with Bedell "beetle" Smith. Though I was at attention, my eyes were looking left and I saw Ike telling "beetle", while looking at me: "And keep those paras out of my liquor cabinet." Apart from that, Ike was always sociable, always greeting us, asking us how we're doing..etc.
November 18, 2007 9:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
bar_
your post was readable until you left Truman, it then became irrelevant to the post you were replying to.
November 18, 2007 9:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
What "problems" were Lott referring to?
November 18, 2007 9:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
My point is that I don't agree with MJ's premise that "politics is more corrupt today than in the past". It has always been a problem, and I think there is actually less tolerance for it today than in the past, thanks to Watergate and other such revelations.
November 18, 2007 9:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
Where have you been last few years if you don't know what I was talking about?
http://archives.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/12/16/lott.controversy/index.html
November 18, 2007 9:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
Rated 0 for non-sensical argument, followed by vague reference, which could be applied to any subject.
Now, let me explain you:
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Talk:Mark_Twain
November 18, 2007 10:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
Be that as it may, Abbas and Fatah agreed to a shared government when they couldn't nullify the election with arguments like that. Still, I concede that Hamas support may be eroding, for reasons I submitted above. I don’t think there is a better poll, I just think these type of surveys under these conditions are skewed. A very similar poll by JMCC has similar numbers. But an analysis by EI shows why they are inaccurate:
The main problem comes in interpreting the numbers, though. Both polls show 40-43% of all Palestinians believe the Haniyeh/Hamas government should be kept or restored. Those and other numbers could be fronted to make a different case. In a more accurate survey, this would probably show a majority support for the Hanyeh government. Even if it didn’t, the system they have, as you explain, would restore Hamas control to a shared government. Mostly, polls show that Palestinians don’t trust any in their government very much and it is no wonder with the outside interference they get.
November 18, 2007 11:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
bar_,
I think politics today is, at a minimum, just as corrupt, probably worse than it was in the past, its just a different kind of corruption. When in the past was "K" Street not only so large, but so important? When in the past was Lobbying such a big part of a Politician's second career? Where is today's version of the Truman Committee to Investigate National Defense Programs?
As to crooked elections, stealing elections has become much more sophisticated and refined. Of course, unjustifiably taking so many of those black people off the voting roles in Florida was just old time blatant stealing.
Over the years money has become more pervasive in politics and that's why I think its probably more corrupt.
November 18, 2007 11:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
Answer the question.
November 18, 2007 11:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
I went to that site and got "Page not Found"
November 18, 2007 11:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
November 18, 2007 11:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
I agree that we have to deal with reality today but today’s reality is just a continuum of yesterday’s history. I have heard the arguments about how, not just Palestinians, but Arabs are barbaric and living in the Middle Ages. It is a clash of civilizations where they need to have our modern McCivilization and democracy imposed on them. There is just no way that the Zionist movement can be revised to fit the scenario of a modern society naturally edging out an older one. I think the U.S. has a lot of influence over how "the story is told." Some of the history of I-P is obscured and some interpretations are slanted by one side or the other but the general thrust of it is well known.
November 18, 2007 12:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm proud to have, as an inlaw, the late BG Noel Parrish, who was the training commander of the Tuskegee Airmen. We are trying to hook up with the Airmen, who are an ongoing organization.
It is a tradition of the Airmen that when his name is first mentioned at a meeting, there is a standing ovation. The Airmen know he was a white Southerner. They don't have some of the family background, such as his father considering the Klan to be racial liberals.
Recently, I learned that another inlaw (different wife), Commodore Ben Wyatt, worked with Raoul Wallenberg, while US Naval Attache to Spain, in running an "underground railroad" for Holocaust evaders. That was strictly in violation of his diplomatic status, but somehow, I don't mind.
It's worth remembering that in private, Truman's language about blacks and Jews was, to put it mildly, not PC. His actions spoke louder than his words.
My mother was a Chief Aviation Metalsmith running the airframe maintenance school at Pensacola. When the Korean War broke out, she was an inactive Navy reservist, but was involuntarily direct-commissioned into the Army, based on her GI bill training as a psychotherapist.
Yes, there was discrimination, but it could be complex. It took 60-odd years for Ben Salomon to be recognized with a posthumous Medal of Honor, but that appears to be much less that he was Jewish and much more that he was a medical officer who took over a (forbidden) machine gun on Saipan, standing a rear guard, from which he could not possibly have expected to survive, to cover the evacuation of his hospital. When they found his body, there were at least 24 wounds received while he was still alive, and there were 98 Japanese bodies in front of his position. Yeah, no one would trust him.
--
Howard
*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]
November 18, 2007 12:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
That is a great story. Thanks, JW
Being lectured by Davai about my country's history reminds me of Woody Allen's line that explaining a particular issue to some dolt was "like explaining alternate side of the street parking to a cranberry."
November 18, 2007 1:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Purple, I support any solution that is satisfactory to both parties (and an end to the occupation might be the right first step). But it won’t work with a representative who ignores the claims the refugees have stood firm for like right to return. The relevant history there is not ancient and is embedded in the conflict today.
Israel exists. Okay, what are its borders? Israel is a Jewish state. Okay, how can Arabs be equal in a Jewish state? I think even your scenarios have to take past grievances into account. A one-state solution would be great but I don’t think the views of the conflict or the definitions of Israel and Palestine by the Zionists will allow it (not to mention demographics). Two-state proposals have been floated as acceptable on both sides but the final negotiations are always thwarted (Devils and details).
Any solution would have to deal with the refugees. They can be ignored, of course, but that would not be a true resolution. The Palestinians are the only refugees where survivors are designated as refugees by the U.N. Descendents of refugees are considered refugees. Why would that be?
November 18, 2007 1:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
It varied with the individual. Patton was variously loved and hated, but definitely not hated when he relieved Fredendall. Bradley did have a common touch.
LTG JCH Lee, commanding the rear services in the European theater, had a personality such that he was widely called Jesus Christ Himself Lee.
Halsey was in a dark combat information center on his flagship, and an officer came in muttering "I wonder if that old SOB is in here", not knowing Halsey was standing next to him.
Halsey thundered, "who are you calling old?" Halsey was a charismatic leader, but historians argue if he had reached his level of incompetence. When it was time to accept the Japanese surrender in Tokyo Bay, Nimitz delegated the combat command to Spruance. It's probably fair to say that Nimitz loved Halsey and Spruance, but was also known to say that when he gave the fleet to Spruance, the job would get done and he'd get the fleet back. With Halsey, he was never sure. (mutters briefly about politics) Spruance never received his fifth star due to an enemy on Capitol Hill, and no one deserved it more.
Top commanders tend to be characters. Whatever one could say about MacArthur, and many had much to say, it's a libel to say that he ran away from the Phillipines; he had a direct order to do so. There are reliable reports that he seriously considered resigning his commission and fighting to the end as a common soldier. I've never heard of anyone near MacArthur in combat who suggested other than he was contemptuous of enemy fire.
MacArthur achieved much, and also caused a great deal of trouble. He would have been a magnificent soldier-king, perhaps 200 years earlier.
--
Howard
*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]
November 18, 2007 1:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ya gotta love Woody Allen :-)
In one movie he played a petty thief who meets a girl and he says "5 minutes after I fell in love with her I decided not to steal her purse." :-)
November 18, 2007 2:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Howard,
Lucian Truscott looked like my father.
I think Karl Malden played Omar Bradley in the movie Patton because Malden had a large nose. And Patton, if you hear him behind you, you would never guess it was Patton as he had a high pitched voice. His voice always reminded me of some guy who was in the movies, but I can't remember his name, he usually played a hayseed from the midwest.
November 18, 2007 2:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Howard,
:-) :-)
November 18, 2007 2:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
From photographs, Scott seemed to resemble Patton. Admittedly, Scott didn't look out of place as Mussolini.
--
Howard
*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]
November 18, 2007 2:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Once upon a time, there was something called 'The UN', or "United Nations". This
august and much-reveled body has somehow
become defunct and therefore reviled, with
OUR Congress now being expected to pick up the
slack. My personal wish is that all these
political groups from foreign countries would
instead band together around the UN concept,
resurrect it, make it functional, and get out
of our nations' capitol while they're at it.
Send em away with a smile, but send em away
nonetheless. All these people trying to
shake down our representatives have their
own money, their own governments, their
own resources to draw upon, and I just really
wish that they'd do it. They're going to have
to stand up, and start solving their own problems
eventually, the sooner OUR representatives show
em the light, AND the door, the better. Don't
go away mad, just go away. And, to clarify,
make that 'equal opportunity', don't single out
any one country, but make it broad-based.
How in the world will our Congress ever balance
the budget, otherwise, when our tax revenue
gets PERPETUALLY pumped into other nations'
economies? For my nickel, if that's globalization
then globalization is CANCELLED. That's my
ballots' worth. Hopefully people like Ron Paul
will bring that concept forward all the way
to the polling booth so that we, as americans,
will kind of be given the opportunity to help
that process along. No more foreign pandering
and patronage, get these countries to stand up
and deal on their own. Global welfare=global
dependency. Close the welfare office, please.
November 18, 2007 3:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
I enjoy TPM and MJ's posts. But it really, really, really is annoying to have to weed thru so many pointless posts from the usual suspects in an attept to root out the real conversation.
Would it be possible to simply create a folder (link) entitled "I hate MJ |------this------| much" and put all Davai's posts in there? Anyone interested in reading his posts would still be free to do so but it would also spare the rest of us from the aggony of scrolling thru them all. Whenever MJ posts anything dealing with Israel I find myself looking to see if 20 or fewer have posted yet. That low of a number suggests Davai hasn't jumped on yet and I will consider engaging. After that I find myself skipping the post entirely and often see: 200+ Posts (180+ new posts) It's taxing enough that the topic of Israel leads to maddeningly circular debates without also dealing with this sort of rubbish too.
/sigh
November 18, 2007 4:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
My son went on Birthright last spring. He's not a racist or a fool, unless being a strong Edwards supporter makes hime one in your thoroughly mindless worldview. In fact, just to show you how dumb your stereotyping is, Weinberg, my son and his college classmates who were on the trip are closer to Mr. Rosenberg's view of how to solve th I-P conflict that I am.
November 18, 2007 4:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
John, maybe I'll revise my original statement just a bit. The historical claims (and grievances) of both peoples aren't completely irrelevant and will need to be addressed at some point. But the historical claims pale in comparison to the present claims derived from the actual presence of 5+ million Jewish Israelis and 5+ million Arabs all living in this little strip of land. History too often becomes a distraction in this dispute--when compared with the actual presence of 11 million people, history really isn't all that significant in my mind. Justice for the people living there is what really matters.
Palestinian refugees, of course, aren't just history--they exist in many countries neighboring Israel as well as in Gaza and the West Bank. Their situation will need to be dealt with as well. While I think there would be justice in allowing them return to a Palestinian state and to Israel, this may no longer be practical. If not, some compensation will be in order. I will say, though, that the right kind of federation might make it possible for many refugees to return as citizens of Palestine but with access to the Israeli economy.
November 18, 2007 5:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Don, I agree that the situation of the refugees needs to be addressed. But, unfortunately, there is no perfect solution. As a practical matter, it will be very difficult to repatriate all of them. That likely means some form of compensation and resettlement elsewhere. Though bringing as many as possible back to Palestine and Israel would be a plus.
November 18, 2007 5:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
The devil will be in the details as always, Davai, but I doubt you can preserve the current status quo for ever either.
November 18, 2007 5:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
John,
An old favorite-Take the Money and Run- I just watched it yesterday for the first time in about thirty five years. Virgil: “And here I’m lying through my teeth. I mean I can’t tell Louise that I was in jail and that I rob and steal and never did an honest day’s work in my life ‘cause, you know, some people hold those things against you. After fifteen minutes, I wanted to marry her, and after a half hour, I completely gave up the idea of snatching her purse.”
November 18, 2007 5:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
November 18, 2007 6:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
November 18, 2007 6:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree with you. Why don't you write to Andrew Golis who runs the site. I have no control over what goes on here but Davai's presence is a pain in the ass. Unfortunately, the downside of the web is the appeal the internet has for the Davai's of the world.
November 18, 2007 7:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
November 18, 2007 7:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's possible to preserve the current status quo
for a very long time, but I don't think this is a good idea.
As I wrote before, I'm for two state solution.
Second, Arab state has to be built. Israel probably has to take responsibility for nation building of this state. Nobody else will.
November 18, 2007 7:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
If it reduces work, I have found the following system to be useful:
Falcon Codes
I have applied an Air Force method of efficiently expressing displeasure and comments, called the Falcon Code, at least to I-P threads. If you are a Naval Aviator, Falcon Codes are equivalent to Echo Charlie. Continual adjustment is typical.
1. the person named is an [anti-semite] [hater of Arabs]
2. you aren't complaining about Lower South Slobovia doing this; why are you picking on [Israel][Palestine]?
3. designated politician is defying [AIPAC] [CAIR] and will pay the US domestic penalty thereof.
4. There will never be peace with [Arabs][Israelis].
5. The weapons being used offer an immediate threat of [war crimes] [genocide].
6. What [person] said is garbage and irrelevant.
7. Country X presents an immediate threat to the existence of [Israel] [Palestine] and must be dealt with harshly
8. That was a silly comment.
9. Somewhere, a village is missing its idiot
10. [Person] diverted by asking a superfluous question, rather than addressing the substance of what was posted. If, for example, someone had a plan, would they not have posted it, or just waited shyly to be asked
11. Criticism of the nation-state of Israel represents bias against Jews of any citizenship. That there are Jews of other citizenship that have no special loyalty to Israel, as they find their religion and culture respected where they live, is irrelevant to the argument. Perhaps they are self-hating.
12. I don't care if you are making a relevant comment about the general topic of the thread; my purpose here is to attack the guest poster/member of the proletariat that I hate.
--
Howard
*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]
November 18, 2007 7:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Fair enough, Davai . . . let's just hope there's more progress in the next 20 years than there was in the last . . .
November 18, 2007 8:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Good start,
Please add
13. Criticism of people criticizing Israel, or the Lobby is an attack, an attempt to smear such people or an attempt to shut down a debate.
14. Any military action of Israel where Israel was not perfect is a war crime.
15. Denying antisemitism in obvious cases such as
"Jewish Nazi Harvard Professors"
16. Complaining that the Lobby prevents honest discussions about I/P issues instead of just discussing I/P issues.
November 18, 2007 9:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Let's try for #14: any action is a war crime, regardless of who does it, if it fails the test of the customary laws of land warfare or relevant treaties. Simply because it is ignored in some places does not give Israel, or any other country, a free pass. There is a concept in international law that points to situations where essentially every covered country ignores something such as the Kellogg-Briand accord, but those are rare.
"We, the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union..." isn't an expectation of a free pass. It means more work is needed. William Calley was a war criminal who was given a free pass for political reasons; that didn't make him any less a war criminal than Shiro Ishii.
Oh, I don't know about #15. There are certainly individuals who are fascistic/authoritarian, may be Jewish, and I suppose might be on the Harvard faculty. What would you have them called? Christian Communist Yale Lecturers? Alan Dershowitz, with his opinions on torture and Harvard appointment, comes fairly close.
--
Howard
*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]
November 18, 2007 9:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Rosenberg is unique. He's the only one I know of the official posters who's removed his own posts after getting hammered for them, essentially rewriting the record. He's made one or two racist comments and then pulled them, apologizing obliquely for them when he was called on it. Rosenberg is an ideologist, to the left of Davai certainly, but D. is right, victory is more important to him than honesty.
But if they believed in the same thing, D. wouldn't complain.
November 18, 2007 9:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
14.How about any action is a war time noncomplience, regardless of who does it, if it fails the test of the customary laws of land warfare or relevant treaties.
AS we discused before, in most if not all wars all sided were not in complience with some of the customary laws of land warfare or relevant treaties. Wich of such non compliences deserves to be called war crimes, major war crimes, minor work crimes is anoter issue.
15. If you are not antisemite, you say that such individual has fascistic/authoritarian tendencies.
GIven that you think it's OK to say that an individual has fascistic/authoritarian tendencies, I hope that we can agree that it's OK to say that an individual has antisemitic tendencies.
BTW, I don't agree with you about Alan Dershowitz, but I don't think we should argue this issue.
November 18, 2007 10:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Howard, I understand that US was a great country during WW2.
Still, MJ statement that:
is his most ridiculous statement I have read so far.
November 18, 2007 10:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
My uncle fought in Europe in WWII. He was a Jew in the US army, and he was treated like a white man in the US army.
"Jews and Dogs were not allowed in the same places,"
You're a bit confused.
November 18, 2007 10:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
http://www.onlyinamerica.info/NDOJA.shtml
http://www.ocnsignal.com/27APR2001.htm
http://www.sartre.org/Writings/Americansandtheirmyths.htm
http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/Articles/Jews%20Are%20Our%20Dogs.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_Dogs_Allowed
“ When we moved into Beverly Hills as boys in 1937, houses and apartments for rent would hang signs which read, 'No Colored, Jews or Dogs Allowed.' Of course all that changed after the war.
November 18, 2007 10:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Don,
YES! That's it hahahahahaaha :-)
November 19, 2007 6:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
davai,
to equate MJ with the racists of the south is warped.
Go away! Shoo!
Before I get involved in another back and forth with davai I'll shoot myself with a howitzer.
November 19, 2007 6:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
Dear John,
Obviously MJ is not racist, however Lott and MJ both like old good times (for different reasons)
MJ wrote:
Lott would agree with such statement. Isn't that funny?
I do equate MJ with you in a sense that you both seems to say to the facts you don't like "Go away! Shoo"In this sense yes, I do equate MJ with the racists of the south.
November 19, 2007 6:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
And his father, my grandfather, died in a military hospital, of TB, in 1930. I didn't say there was no antisemitism, but he didn't die in the Jewish ward.
What Rosenberg can't abide any more than you One State solution, but thanks to the occupation, it's already here.The Guardian
November 19, 2007 7:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
Why don't you try actually debating the people who don't agree with you instead of running away and calling them "a pain in the ass"? For someone who is always complaining about how the "Lobby" shuts down debate, you seem awfully unwilling to actually, you know, debate.
True, there is a lot of name-calling on both sides (and yes, I plead guilty to doing it as well) which doesn't foster debate. But I've tried rebutting you on the substance and most of the time you don't have anything to say in response. Instead I get called a "Likudnik" or "neocon" which, as anyone who knows me will tell you, is preposterous.
So let's stop the name-calling and debate on the merits. There are two worldviews of the I-P conflict and if you are so confident about yours, then you shouldn't be afraid to respond to skeptics.
November 19, 2007 7:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
Brad shows up. I've missed you, buddy.
November 19, 2007 7:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
November 19, 2007 7:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
See Brad, I was right.
November 19, 2007 8:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
Brad the Dad,
Remember where you are. Characterizations as "antisemitic" always stifle debate; characterizations of "neocon" or "Likudnik" stimulate the kind of circle jerk that passes for valuable debate.
November 19, 2007 8:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
Perhaps, Don Key. But I don't read the Jerusalem Center's data as revealing any remarkably different trends than Shikaki's. Meanwhile, electronicintifada's analysis is not likely to stray too far from Ali Abunima's vision of a singular Palestine that ends the assertion of Jewish national self-determination altogether. At this point I am only ready to concede that any interpretation of these numbers is supposition until the next round of Palestinian elections.
November 19, 2007 9:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
Purple,
too many people, too little land?
Yes, history DOES too often become a distraction.
I wonder in what year they will finally solve the problems.
November 19, 2007 9:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
I gave you the poor rating because you deserved it. Stop making cheap-shot one-liners to try and get attention. This is TPM cafe, not a cable news shouting contest. If you act like a pedantic little twit, you get rated as such, tough noogies.
November 19, 2007 9:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
I hope this is an indication of better dialogue to come. If we agree that we aren't speaking of all Harvard professors, but one very specific one, not generalizing, that's progress.
As to war crimes, there is a basic principle of international (and some national) law called tu quoque. Informally, that's Latin for "you too!". With one very specialized exception, the International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg explicitly rejected it as a defense for war crimes.
Merely because some other country's personnel commits a war crime does not mean another country's personnel have an excuse for what they did. Indeed, Israel or the US might be held to a higher standard, because their electronics let higher commanders have more situational awareness than Hizbollah.
There always can be special circumstances, and I'd like to share a story of someone of whom all should be proud, and how it took him 60 years to get justice. He happened to be Jewish, and there were some suggestions that the lack of justice was anti-semitic. In this case, investigations and persistent effort showed that there was a reason that had nothing to do with his religion -- and that his heroism properly deserved recognition.
There were American Jews during WWII that probably did not receive the Medal of Honor due to religious prejudice, and GWB recognized this hero as part of delayed recognition of Jewish Americans and Japanese Americans. Again, this was a little different.
Ben Salomon, prior to WWII, qualified as a US Army infantry officer. Afterwards, he went to dental school. When the war broke out, he was assigned to medical units, and his requests to transfer to infantry was refused -- there were a lot more people qualified for infantry than they were dentists, and, in battle, a dentist was qualified for forward surgical duty.
During the Battle of Saipan, in mid-1944, Salomon was serving as a battalion surgeon. The Japanese began to overrun his tent hospital, and they clearly weren't observing the Geneva convention. He used a pistol and rifle to kill several Japanese attacking patients.
It's legal, under the GC, for a person wearing the Red Cross to use "personal weapons" (rifle and pistol) in self-defense or in defense of patients. In this case, the Japanese kept coming, and the infantry-operated machine gun guarding the hospital went silent.
Salomon told others to evacuate the hospital, and he said he would give them time. Obviously knowing he had no chance to survive, he took over the machine gun, which is a "crew-served weapon" that medical personnel were not allowed, under the GC, to use.
The hospital was evacuated. When US forces retook the position, they found Capt. Ben Salomon dead at the machine gun. He had suffered numerous wounds, and forensics suggested he had received at least 24 when still alive. 98 Japanese bodies were still in front of his position.
Had he not been a medical officer, quite possibly of any religion, the Medal of Honor was obviously merited, and it was recommended. Senior officers, with regret, rejected the recommendation because it was a GC violation.
He had no family, but the University of Southern California dental school kept arguing. In 2002, the rules were overturned and a posthumous Medal of Honor issued for an action in 1944.
So, Davai, when you want to tell me that someone should get a free pass on a war crime, Salomon technically committed a war crime. I think his example is a good one for cases where a war crime can be overlooked because other people committed them as well.
Tell me, did anyone in the IDF attacking civilian installations in Lebanon, or effectively putting minefields in residential areas, deliberately sacrifice their life in the greater good?
--
Howard
*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]
November 19, 2007 9:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for sharing your anecdotal folk wisdom about 2/3 of a camel--please show us evidence of that happening anytime this century.
Meanwhile, the Israeli government has practiced this philosophy for years, killing magnitudes more of Palestinian and Lebanese civilians than Israelis killed by the other side.
Yes, I am sure that most armies commit atrocities during the course of a war but there are differences
Yes, some armies have a better PR staff to put a positive spin on their war crimes.
It matters whether a country tries its lynch mobs or venerates them.
Indeed.
November 19, 2007 9:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
I just came across an excellent series of articles on a blog by a fellow named "DaveM", who is an Ulster Protestant living in London who spent a year in Syria studying Arabic. He wrote a 9-part series on life in Syria and it is very illuminating. I urge everyone to read it...it will clarify a lot of the points I and others have been making here.
In part 7, he points out how the Syrian media (completely state-controlled) attributes all the evils of the world to "neocons" and the Jewish lobby. SEE, MJ, YOU ARE IN GOOD COMPANY....ASSAD AGREES WITH YOU!
http://hurryupharry.bloghouse.net/archives/2007/10/28/syrian_journal_part_7.php
NOTE: I am sorry but there seems to be a problem in doing "copy" of the URL but it works if you enter it by hand, or go to GOOGLE and look for "Davem" and "Syria". It is well worth the effort.
November 19, 2007 10:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
I wouldn't mind if you gave me poor rating as well as to Sean who wrote "Rahm actually served in the IDF but was too minuscule to be in a fighting unit" but you didn't
November 19, 2007 11:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
I would. I don't like when people think that I'm stupid and they can tell bullshit.
November 19, 2007 11:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
It's not too many people, however, due to welfare payments to Palestinin refugees, they have huge families, much bigger than in Egypt.
Obviously, Gaza can't sustain 10 kids per family, but a very few places can.
November 19, 2007 11:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
Correction: misplaced response.
Apologies.
November 19, 2007 11:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg didn't sentenced leaders of Nazi for same crimes that allies commited during the war.
If they did, that would not be justice, that would be revenge.
I agree that "you too!". is not a defense, on another hand selective prosecution is not a justice.
In WW2 US commited much more serious crimes that Ben Salomon's crime.
I'm not telling you that "someone should get a free pass on a war crime", I'm telling you that the punishment should fit the crime and should not be selective prosecution.
November 19, 2007 11:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
BTW, there were several micro-exhanges here that were not of circle jerk (whatever it means).
The problem is they happened in spite of MJ.
November 19, 2007 12:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Are you saying the US had a policy of committing war crimes in World War II? If so, what were they? I do know, for example, that they considered using poison gas against the Japanese in the island-hopping campaign, but this was rejected. The strategic bombing campaigns were not war crimes and nobody, including Goering, was indicted for this on the German side.
November 19, 2007 12:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think that Atomic bombings of Hiroshima was a war crime.
Some of that was war crimes but given that both sides did it, they just couldn't indicted for this Goering.November 19, 2007 12:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
bar.
I took a gander at the "illuminating" series you find so resonant with your own views of Syria and such.
The only portion of the stream-of-consciousness account (part 7) by the disdainful DaveM that relates to the Syrian media is as follows:
"So how to explain the failure of the Ba’ath project-- with its high unemployment, underinvestment, oppression, and intellectual stagnation? I think you know the answer to this one. That’s right. Blame it on the Jews.
For a bit of variety you can call them by different names-- Zionists, Neo-Cons, Neo-Imperialists, World Bankers, The Controllers of the Media and my personal favourite, The Malignant Murderers of the Prophets. It’s all there in the opinion pages of the three government run newspapers-- Tishreen, Ba’ath & Ath-Thawra."
I realise that you find such free-form opining just as compelling a form of "evidence" as actual quotes with links. But frankly, I'm surprised that you have yet to understand that your "standards", while compatable with those demanded by talkbackers on Arutz Sheva, are laughable to the wider world of internet chatting on these issues.
Here's a tip for you; start reading "Syria Comment" for discussions and heated arguments among real live Arabs (and others) about Syria.
Link:
http://www.joshualandis.com/blog/
You'll find plenty of criticism of Assad et al although I have to admit that few of the commenters can lay claim to the special POV of a Protestant boyo bigot from Ulster who spent a WHOLE YEAR (!!!!!!) in Syria learning Arabic from a Kurd.
November 19, 2007 12:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
No, but I will say that some of the British bombing did fall into the range of war crimes. There were individual US acts that might have been; the U-156 incident I describe below had legal complexities too involved to go into here.
If one started on strategic bombing, and were fair about it, the first defendant would have been Marshal of the Royal Air Force Sir Arthur Harris, which is one reason it was not pursued by the IMT. The legality arguments are complex, as well as the technical capabilities of the bombers.
By and large, German and British bombers in Europe could hit nothing smaller than a part of a city. At least in London, many of the German attacks were on the dock areas, which were surrounded by housing. Harris, however, insisted on a strategy called "dehousing", which specifically targeted residential areas of German industrial cities, rather than the industrial areas.
Harris was not privy to the ULTRA cryptanalysis of German communications, so his superior, Sir Charles Portal, could not tell him the reason he pleaded with Harris to attack German oil production, which was almost gone. Harris also tended to have Churchill's support, which I regret. Nevertheless, it was Harris' stated policy to kill and dehouse civilians in preference to other target systems; things like the precision raids by 617 Squadron are a special case.
US bombers in Europe carried a much smaller bombload than British bombers, had much more defensive armament, and had, for the time, a more accurate bombsight. As opposed to British area bombing at night, the US aircraft were better equipped to go after smaller targets, smaller defined as the size of a substantial factory.
Bombing Japan had some very different aspects. First, high-altitude winds there made the contemporary version of precision bombing impossible. Second, much more so than in Europe, Japan had small industrial facilities (and still do) scattered through residential areas.
Remember that the USSR was also one of the Allies, and no one wanted to open up Katyn Forest or other Soviet operations against Poland, or, for that matter, Finland.
The tu quoque defense that was supported was part of the indictment against Doenitz, who commanded German submarines in the earlier parts of the war, then the navy, then, to his surprise, was named as Hitler's successor for the last few days. Technically, it was a war crime for a submarine to attack civilian shipping and not make some attempts to assist the shipwrecked survivors.
Practically, the submarine that did this might be committing suicide. Two factors caused the charge of unrestricted submarine warfare against Doenitz to be dropped. First, Chester Nimitz, US Commander in Chief, Pacific and Pacific Ocean areas, sent a statement to the Tribunal that Doenitz's submarines had not done anything that US submarines had not, and indicated that it was technically impossible to assist survivors. In fact, it was routine practice for US submarines to machine-gun survivors of Japanese troop transports.
The other factor was the U-156 incident, also known as the Laconiaincident. The German submarine U-156 torpedoed the line Laconia. The submarine captain discovered, among other survivors, that there were 1500 Italian POWs in the water. He radioed, in clear, his position, the survivor count, and that he would not interfere with rescue operations by forces of any country. Soon afterwards, a US antisubmarine bomber spotted the four German submarines rescuing survivors, and attacked them. After this, Doenitz ordered no rescues were to be attempted.
--
Howard
*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]
November 19, 2007 12:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
I literally don't know what you mean by
Modifying any war crimes prosecutions are some difficult concepts of "military necessity" and of technical capability. The classic example of "military necessity" is a behind-the-lines patrol that captures enemy soldiers, can't take them along, and can't turn them loose for security reasons. In WWII, such prisoners often were killed. In Desert Storm, when similar situations arose with villagers, US Army Special Forces personnel called for their emergency evacuation, and fought with clearly military personnel attacking their position. In WWII, such evacuation was not an option.
In the case of the Israeli operation in Lebanon, there were several practices for which Israel cannot claim military necessity, and for which they had technical capabilities that gave them other alternatives.
First, there was an announced policy that the Lebanese civilian electrical power system would be attacked if the Lebanese government did not control Hizbollah. Now, it was perfectly correct for Israel to bomb the hell out of Beirut International Airport, since weapons were coming in there, and that didn't involve critical civilian services.
In Iraq and the Balkans, the US recognized that electrical power is needed for such things as water purification. The general policy in 1991 was to attack parts of the electrical system that both directly supported the air defense network, and were relatively easy to repair. Saddam chose not to make such repairs.
In the Balkans, the US had improved weapons that shorted out power lines with carbon filaments and caused blackouts, but no lasting damage.
Against Lebanon, however, Israel destroyed parts of the civilian electrical power system, which had no clear relationship to Hizbollah. Further, IDF interfered with Lebanese issues to clean up the oil spill, into the Mediterranean, from the bombed Jiyeh Power Station. Collective punishment is explicitly forbidden by Article 33 of the Fourth Geneva Convention, and the sustained attacks against the power systems were clearly ordered by the highest levels.
In a different area, specifically in violation of the agreements by which the US sold M270 Multiple Launch Rocket Systems, with M26 rockets bearing dual-purpose cluster bomblet warheads, Israel used them against Hizbollah rocket launch from populated areas. The M26 is being withdrawn from US service, as it has a high dud rate and effectively creates minefields.
Again, military necessity or lack of capability could not be claimed. The rockets involved were not out of range of US M109A5 155mm howitzers the US provided to Israel, and those cannon could have fired non-cluster M107 warheads, using rocket launcher position information from Firefinder radars. US doctrine would be to use the M107, not the M26.
Punishment to fit the crime? Take everyone in the IDF chain of command that ordered M26 use, and tell them to take a nice hike through the impact areas. This isn't selective; most NATO powers have gotten rid of these weapons, and the US is converting them to versions that do not endanger civilians to the same extent.
Israel even asked for emergency resupplies of M26 rockets during the Lebanon operation.
Incidentally, while a detailed comparison is complex, I would roughly compare the usual 6-rocket M26 salvo to have about 1600 times the destructive power of a 122mm GRAD rocket, assuming all bomblets explode.
Yeah, let the punishment fit the crime. Of course, when said officers get feet blown off, it would be far too dangerous to send an unarmored civilian ambulance for them -- which is what the Lebanese had.
--
Howard
*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]
November 19, 2007 12:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
See http://counterpunch.org/avnery11192007.html an article by Uri Avnery that makes it fairly clear why the Annapolis talks are probably going absolutely nowhere. Aipac didn't need to kill this project it appears it had no life to begin with.
November 19, 2007 12:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Not following the best practice doesn't mean war crime. Even if you think that Israel could use a diffrent practice against military targets that are trying to delibertly kill civilians in your country, it's not a war crime.
November 19, 2007 1:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Please point out things he says that are not true, i.e. that Syria is not really a totalitarian police state. He came as an outsider with little previous preconceptions and he speaks the language, unlike MJ who quotes English-language press releases given to western reporters and diplomants and views them as the "true" position of the regimes in question.
These articles were recommended by Middle East Analyst Barry Rubin in the Jerusalem Post.
November 19, 2007 1:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Apropos of the oil spill, try for a report from ReliefWeb I wouldn't be so hasty. The agreement dealt with not using the M270/M26 in populated areas, which the US considers a war crime, as do many other countries who have gotten rid of the M26.
I'm about to give up trying reason with you, as I seem to be mistaken about your making sense. The US doctrine was designed to avoid war crimes.
The M109A5 with M107 ammunitions, probably using radar coordinates from an AN/TPQ-36 counterbattery system, is considerably more accurate and has a smaller impact area than the M270 with M26. You obviously don't understand any of the details, but are just excusing Israel for what most Western countries, faced with the same situation, would consider a war crime.
Davai, go walk in the impact area and tell me that it's fine to do that. Of course, it might blow off your balls...if you have any, safe here in the US.
Oh--the violation of the US sales agreement would be sufficient, to me, that the US should not sell or give one round of ammunition, one spare part, or one bit of advice to Israel until there is an independent investigation of the misuse of weapons. The US might reconsider specific joint programs, such as MTHEL and Arrow, if Israel starts being serious about them.
Sorry, folks, for making the mistake that Davai had changed his spots. -- Howard
*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]
November 19, 2007 1:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Howard,
Can you point me to any case in history that something like this was considered a war crime?
THis case could be a real tribunal or a scholar discissing a war or anything else
November 19, 2007 2:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
bar.
I've already told you where to go if you want to get a more accurate picture that includes plenty of criticism and descriptions of life under Assad.
I'm not impressed with the type of informant that you and Barry Rubin find so compelling. Perhaps ya'll think that because your new friend employs charming "Irish" idioms, that annoying habit gives him super-dooper bone-ified credibility:
"writing this from the Arabian Gulf. They fucking love Saddam over here. he's like some sort of anti-Imperialist hero. Been trying to point out that he's not Alexander Dubceck - spelling I know- in Prague 1968 but a genocial maniac.
Then then accuse me of being a Zionist spy. So I have to take my knob out to prove otherwise.
Crazy place the Gulf)
Posted by: davem at March 14, 2006 08:10 AM"
November 19, 2007 3:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Do your own research. I'm sick and tired of you making statements reflexively defending Israel's excesses and, occasionally, challenging facts you obviously don't understand.
Since you ask, however, a substantial understanding would begin with the ethical concepts from Augustine of Hippo, Hugo Grotius, and Thomas Aquinas in Just War Theory, with special attention to the doctrine of proportional response. The Lieber Code during the American Civil War was a serious attempt at codification, including the jus in bello concept -- the fighting of just war, as opposed to the decision to start it -- which, in turn, led to the Hague and Geneva Conventions.
Besides the ethical and legal framework, to discuss this sort of thing means having a decent understanding of the technology on both sides. Here's a hint I wrote on how historical and modern armies locate and engage hostile rocket or cannon fires. Scroll down to "Counterbattery and Countersniper Location and Ranging", then follow the links to "counterartillery radar". There are plenty of footnotes.
If my cat scratches me, I don't hit him with an ax. If a rocket launcher the size of a pickup truck fires at one side, blowing up an area the size of a football field, and leaving it strewn with mines, is disproportionate. That's what firing half the rockets on a M270 will do. 644 grenade-sized bomblets per rocket, and the M270 fires up to 12 at once.
A smart fellow such as yourself should be able to find the online issues of the Strategic Studies Institute of the Army War College journal, Parameters. There tend to be graduate theses by military lawyers at most of the midcareer and senior war colleges.
There are assorted articles on how the US has been changing from MLRS M26 and M30 cluster rockets to unitary XM31 rockets, to reduce civilian collateral damage.
Israel's performance in Lebanon disgusts me, having blasted just about everything in sight except Hizbollah. IDF censorship is far worse than anything I've seen in the US, and there's damned too much US censorship to hide political embarrassment rather than actual military secrets. Is someone in the IDF stupid enough to think Hizbollah and Lebanon don't know what hit them? If so, he's wasted where he is. Have him defect to Iran, claim to be a nuclear scientist, and you need not worry about a bomb threat.
--
Howard
*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]
November 19, 2007 3:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
" IDF censorship is far worse than anything I've seen in the US,...."
Be prepared for it to get much worse as the latest stuff coming out from the Winograd Commission slams the exclusive handling of the info during the stupid summer war by the IDF. It seems there were leaks from military sources. Another report blames the Israeli print media for the disastrous ground invasion during the final negotiations for the ceasefire.
A fix has been put in place that has established a mechanism to deal with the media that is a combined effort of the Israeli government and the IDF in order to control the message more effectively.
As the still in place gag order on the whateveritwas on the Syrian somethingorother shows, this teaming up the State and military echelons makes this type of censorship very effective.
This article about IDF reservists' recent experiences fighting Hamas in Gaza; "The people we killed weren't terrorists, they were soldiers," included this interesting quote:
"The reserve officers accept both the method and their role of being in the advance force. "If these missions were left to the regular soldiers, like before the withdrawal from Lebanon, no one on the home front would understand what's happening in Gaza. Every reserve soldier who returns home from a month in Gaza says exactly what's going on there to the civilians around him," the officer says."
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/921630.html
All signs point to an IDF invasion in the near future and one wonders what the "reporting" of the action will be like. It's been well over a year since Israeli journalists have been allowed into Gaza despite the fact that it's far safer now than when Fatah was running the place.
November 19, 2007 4:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
AJM.
"So is there any other confirmation of what was or was not said over the air?"
No. The fact that Levinson dropped it from his reporting on Jideyn's death makes me think he may have begun to have some doubts. The first account was written on his second day back in Gaza after a six months or so absence.
November 19, 2007 4:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Howard,
I did, This article doesn't say as you claimed that Israel interfered with the cleanup.
Howard, walk in any impact area in in any war tell me that it's fine to do that.
November 19, 2007 6:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'll walk through an impact area that has been hit with several battalion fires (18 cannon each) of 155mm M107 howitzer shells, fuzed as would be most lethal against rocket crews -- as VT airburst. No worry. I would like hiking boots, because some of the fragments don't give good footing, and some will have sharp edges -- nothing that my Vibram soles won't handle.
I will not walk though an area that has been hit with M26 rocket fire, 644 submunitions per rocket, with up to 30+percent unexploded bomblets that will go off if hit with an ordinary foot.
There's only one thing different about us, when it comes to weaponry, hazard, and responsible use as much as one can be responsible in a war. I know what I'm talking about. You don't.
I suppose another difference is that I don't make excuses when my country uses excessive firepower for the tactical situation -- oh, I forget. Israel isn't actually your country. Other people will bleed for your wargasms.
--
Howard
*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]
November 19, 2007 6:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
November 19, 2007 6:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is the template for all Woody Allen jokes (which is by no means to say they're not funny):
November 19, 2007 6:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Howard,
You agree now that you were wrong claiming that
"IDF interfered with Lebanese issues to clean up the oil spill"
What about HIrosima? Was it a war crime?
In any case, I'm not arguing that Israel couldn't do any better, I arguing that this doesn't amount to war crime unless you want to trivilized war crimes, like calling evey conflict genozide.
November 19, 2007 6:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Israel refuses to give maps of it's mine fields in Lebanon.
You're all quibbliing over whether an occupying force is following the laws of war, ignoring the fact that it's an occupying force. The fact that it's there means that its breaking the law. How the locals respond to that is none of my business. They have the right to defend themselves by any means necessary."If I were an Arab leader, I would never sign an agreement with Israel. It is normal; we have taken their country. It is true God promised it to us, but how could that interest them? Our God is not theirs. There has been Anti - Semitism, the Nazis, Hitler, Auschwitz, but was that their fault ? They see but one thing: we have come and we have stolen their country. Why would they accept that?”
November 19, 2007 7:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
November 19, 2007 7:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Since you do seem to have trouble following my statements, is my description of your analysis as "bullshit" more helpful?
No, I do not consider the nuclear bombing of Hiroshima, in August 1945, a war crime. The principal target, from which the Aiming Point was slightly offset for technical reasons, was Hiroshima Castle, which was the headquarters for the defense of southern Japan. Operation CORONET, the invasion of southern Japan, was scheduled for November of the same year. Casualties (killed and wounded) for that invasion were projected to be, on both sides, as high as the tens of millions.
Had the nuclear weapons not forced the surrender, there might have been a considerably higher death toll. As you seem to have forgotten, this was a major conventional war that had been started by Japan.
The casualties in Hiroshima were less than those in the conventional incendiary bombings of Tokyo. In any event, the combined death tolls at both Hiroshima and Tokyo may well have been less than the number of Chinese killed by Japanese forces in retaliation for the Doolittle raid, and far less than the total number of civilians killed by Japan. It was not a disproportionate response.
With 20/20 hindsight, certain Japanese initiatives might have indicated that a peace movement began to form with the fall of Saipan, and then the Tojo government. Due to a number of factors, the unconditional surrender policy declared by FDR, and the unfortunate use of the ambiguous Japanese word mokusatsu, the war faction of the Japanese stayed in control--a tie vote in the Cabinet--until Hirohito broke the tie. His Rescript accepting the terms of the Potsdam Declaration, with the one contingency that the monarchy would be preserved, specifically mentioned the nuclear weapons, so it can hardly be claimed that did not affect his decision.
One civilian, shot without justification, is a war crime, according to any handbook of military law that I have seen. In the case of Lebanon, widespread use of cluster munitions, of a type known to create antipersonnel minefields, in residential areas was not trivial.
It was not trivial. Israel has made no offer to clear those fields.
The use of those particular weapons were neither the most effective means available to kill Hizbollah rocket crews, nor proportionate to the damage of the rockets Hizbollah was firing. Israel had many alternatives in weaponry, many more than Hizbollah.
War crime, Davai. War crime. To say calling Israeli actions in Lebanon trivializes the term "war crime" is as accurate as my calling you an expert in military affairs, or, for someone that merrily justifies overkill in a war in a country where he won't risk himself, brave.
If you want to be taken seriously, try learning something about international law, weapons, and being braver than George W. Bush, who wouldn't jeopardize his precious ass where better men died.
November 19, 2007 8:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Let me rephrase from legal theory and put it in terms you may understand. Augustinian just war theory is the most basic precedent on the subject. I say this to you as I would say it to the south end of a northbound camel who has overindulged in dried fruit and then drank his fill.
Apparently, you are so familiar with international law and precedent concerning war that you can dismiss the foundational thinking on the subject. Please elucidate further. You need not go back to Augustine; Grotius or even Lieber might do. I'm not trying to prove my point to you, Davai. I am establishing to anyone with sense that you are an ignorant coward who has an emotional need to be right, rather like a nasty eight year old.
With your inability to grasp technology, law, justice, and integrity, I could feed your head into a giant pencil sharpener and hammer you into the ground until you stuck there like an ugly tent peg -- and you still wouldn't get the point.
Like any immature child, you won't "get the point", regardless of any evidence given you, until you hear exactly what you already decided. Tell me, are you trying for a job in the office of the Vice President, or merely ethics advisor in the Office of the White House Council.
I shall not attempt to prove a point to you, because you wouldn't recognize the point of a 22 foot Macedonian pike rammed through your stomach. The appropriate comment, at this point, is
--
Howard
*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]
November 19, 2007 8:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Re anecdotal folk wisdom and centuries:
Lauara Blumenfeld's father was grazed by a bullet when a terrorist tried to kill him by shootin him in the head. Posing as a reporter she befirended his family and ultimately got them to see her father as human.
From the NYT April 7, 2002 review of her book Revenge: A Story of Hope"
"She went to the Iranian city of Qom to ask anAyatollah what would be owed if her make relative was grazed by a bullet. (With deductions for being Jewish and femlae, the answer is one-ninth of a camel."
Other reviews state that had her father been killed she would have been entitled to impose the death penalty of his killer.
I have not read her book and have not been able to find the piece I remember reading so I do not know if her right to impose the death penalty includes the deduction of being Jewish or if my memory has played me false on this point.
My basis point stands: the current Moslem position is that Jewish lives are less valuable than Moslem lives.
Do you doubt that if the Israelis laid down their arms they would be eradicated whereas if the Palestinians laid down their arms they would not only be left alone they would be helped?
November 19, 2007 8:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
November 19, 2007 9:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
November 19, 2007 9:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Howard, Please don't be nuts.
We are having discussions.
I guess you don't like my arguments. That's fine,
you can express your disagreement or just stop discussion, but leave leave to others to rate our arguments. Isn't this obvious?
Good night. Be a good sport.
November 19, 2007 9:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
As I bid you a troll-rated final farewell, it rather comforts me to know that you are as ignorant of WWII Japanese history as of most other things. The key Japanese military were absolutely unconcerned with civilian deaths; they encouraged mass civilian suicide at places such as Saipan. While there are conflicting stories on whether they truly expected civilians to die fighting using bamboo spears against Americans, there were large numbers of Japanese troops specifically intending to use suicide techniques against the invasion, with far more than all suicide bombers ever arrayed against Israel. The internal propaganda, however, did emphasize death rather than surrender, even for civilians, and only Hirohito's Rescript caused the population and military to cooperate with the surrender.
Nuclear weapons were used not to terrorize the population, but to send a message of a very new technique to the high command, Cabinet, and Throne. Unpleasant as that may have been, judging by the language of Hirohito's Rescript, the bombs delivered the desired message and broke the deadlock between the fight-to-the-death and the peace faction.
You are also as ignorant of nuclear weapons as of most other topics. From a low airburst such as in Hiroshima, and having considerably more knowledge of fallout than anyone in the US military did in 1945, I might wear a dust mask and shower afterwards, but I would have walked in that area, with less concern than I would after a radioisotope spill here -- and yes, I am trained as a radiation safety monitor. Oh, I'd be careful about eating and drinking, and I wouldn't want to spend days in the area, but I'd certainly rather walk at Ground Zero at Hiroshima (well, it was in the middle of a river, but the principle holds) than walk through a Lebanese neighborhood hit by a M26 and not demined. If a couple of weeks passed before my visiting Hiroshima, I'd be much safer -- and Lebanon would be just as deadly.
And no, I don't think Hizbollah started a war involving the Lebanese population. I believe that Hizbollah operated from Lebanon, and used harassing tactics, but not an all-out war, certainly not with the intensity that Israel used when it invaded Lebanon.
May you enjoy the fruits of your armchair cowardice, safe here in the US. It goes to show that we don't always make the best decisions about allowing people to immigrate, but maybe there was a side deal with Russia to get rid of a few nuclear weapons if we'd take you off their hands.
--
Howard
*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]
November 19, 2007 9:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
November 19, 2007 10:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Point no. 1-you are right about his use of profanities and the such, he could have done without them. However, what he says about Syrian society is correct, and correponds with the mentality of other societies that lived or live under totalitarian police state terror, such as the USSR. I particularly noted his observations about how supposedly "secular" and "moderate" states like Syria, Jordan and Egypt each ENCOURAGE the Islamic radical political movements, up to a point, in order to say to the US and Europe "see, you can't interfere with my corruption, repression, aggression, because if you do, I will get overthrown and THEY will get into power." Totally cynical.
Point no. 2- I looked up your pal, Joshua Landis. Although I have not had time to read things in depth, I at first noticed that he is in a University Department of "Peace Studies". This reminds me of when Goebbels referred to the Axis powers as "the peace-loving nations". The Communist Bloc also referred to itself at that. I notice an interview with "the Giraffe" Assad, and an article about Syrian Foreign policy that had the following gem:
------------------------------------------
Despite its Arabism, Syria has always been prepared to go against the grain of Arab alliances in what it perceives as the true interests of Arab causes. Syria had the honor of being the only Arab state to support revolutionary Iran against Saddam Hussain's barbarous Western-backed attack.
------------------------------------------
in other words, although you say there is comment that is critical of Assad, the site has a lot of propaganda, along with "high-level diplomacy", "Assad's view of regional developments", economic policy, etc. Nothing about what Davem talks about, i.e. the real life of the people.
Walter Duranty still lives (i.e. Apologists who safely live in the US and yet support corrupt tyrants and bloodthirsty dictators so long as they use "progressive" jargon.)
November 20, 2007 2:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
My comment was satire.
November 20, 2007 6:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
In fairness, "peace studies" or the "US Institute of Peace" (a quasi-governmental organization) can be a legitimate term. While I agree that the term can be used as it was used by Goebbels or Orwell, a serious organization of this type does research and training on conflict resolution and conflict avoidance. Obvious skills to teach are arbitration and mediation, with the challenges of doing this among tribes or groups that are killing one another.
The studies include methods to determine if, for example, an economic factor is at the bottom of the conflict. If so, there might be planning to get external financing for projects that could lead to a long-term solution, as well as temporary aid. Depending on local customs, mutual loan funds and the like might be constructed.
When there is local corruption but some honest people at higher levels, peace studies experts might train the government in methods for rooting out corruption and making the government responsive to the people. This was a large part of what Ramon Magsaysay did in the Phillipines.
Hypothetically, when a government cannot provide services and a group such as Hizbollah steps in to provide social services, the peace specialists might find ways to help that government offer services. Parallel police and military operations might be needed to protect the government workers from the previously dominant nongovernmental group.
Such concepts cannot operate until the sides are at least willing to explore the possibility of peace. Within "peace operations", there are "peacekeepers" who primarily observe, and "peace enforcers" that will use military power to stop groups disrupting the peace.
Nevertheless, this is not always "progressive jargon". The phrase has to be examined on a case-by-case basis.
--
Howard
*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]
November 20, 2007 8:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, Lebanon. I started there and I'll end there
---
update: No, I'll end here.
November 22, 2007 8:35 PM | Reply | Permalink