That is indeed quite an impressive roster. Many thanks for your efforts, Steve. I'll be watching tomorrow.

Perhaps low expectations are preferable to ones so high that the hopes cannot possibly be reached by one conference. Still, the idea of getting the ball rolling so the next administration can hit the ground running sounds like a good one - presuming of course that we elect a President who isn't a hawk. 

“The healthy man does not torture others — generally it is the tortured who turn into torturers.” ~~ C. G. Jung

Excellent point - nothing would be more likely to ensure peace than an extremely generous offer on the part of the Israelis, as your cited article states quite persuasively.

In order for the Palestinian people to ‘let go’ of all the bitterness and resentment they feel now and start having positive feelings of friendliness for the Israelis, it is absolutely essential that they be able to walk away from the negotiations table feeling as though they had won a tremendous victory. They need to end up with a settlement that is so incredibly generous, and so filled with face-saving Israeli [and American] concessions, they won’t be able to contain their joy at their good fortune. They need to feel as though they have won a great victory and their Muslim sympathizers around the world need to see that the Palestinians are delighted with their good fortune.

Perhaps the rise of Hamas has finally convinced the Israelis that the time is now.

P.S. The C-Span program is running now as I write this (I'm multi-tasking) and it's looking like a great discussion so far. 

“The healthy man does not torture others — generally it is the tortured who turn into torturers.” ~~ C. G. Jung

The roster of signatories is indeed impressive. However, the letter doesn't say much more than that the sun rises in the East and sets in the West.

It is mythical that Rice will bring about a peace agreement. It will only occur in an agreement, perhaps behind the scenes, between the Israelis and the Palestinians pushed by their fellow Arabs. This has been the history of every Arab Israeli agreement.

Daniel A. Greenbaum

Insider sources? Dude, today I received a mailer from "The Israel Project" that has the darned date on it. If that's inside info, then how come some K Street lobbying outfit knew about it with enough time to send out a mailer that would arrive a week before? Not saying this detracts from your analysis, but what gives? If the date hasn't been publically announced, why are these lobbyists shouting about it?

thosethingswesay.blogspot.com

On the other hand, these two passages strike me as quite dubious:

"It’s your choice, Israel. Endless war, with the likelihood of nuclear devastation in the future, or a true and lasting peace with your neighbors. What will the Israeli people get for the high price they might ultimately have to pay? Only their “Right to Exist” from the only people who can legitimately grant them that right, the people who used to own the land before Israel’s founding fathers took it from them at gunpoint. Yes, the Palestinians will be willing to grant the Israelis the right to inhabit and rule the land they once owned, but only if they feel as though they have been handsomely compensated for it."

To say that it's "Israel's choice" whether they suffer endless war and "nuclear devastation," is simply wrong. For one thing, it says, quite directly, that should Israel suffer nuclear devastation, it would simply have brought it on itself. And those who perpetrated a second Holocaust? Oh well, shit happens. 60 million Muslims can't be wrong, can they?

To suggest that the Palestinians--or anyone else, for that matter--can "grant" Israel the right to exist is, well, it would take a while to deconstruct this wrong-headed statement.

Second, to suggest that the Palestinians owned all the land, and the Jews took it away at gunpoint, is also factually wrong. The Jews had SOME right to SOME of the land. However, it has largely been the Palestinian view (until, say, 1988) and the Arab view that the Jews had NO right to ANY of the land. And they tried to enforce this view at gunpoint--but without success. Had they succeeded, "Israel" would have gone down in history as just one of those "what ifs," of no more note than any number of post-WWII scrimmishes.

"All of the hatred that half the world currently feels toward Israel would come to an end. The Israeli people may feel as though their founding fathers achieved a great thing when they resurrected the state of Israel from the dustbin of history, but they really haven’t achieved a thing, yet. How about impressing the world with a dramatic and historically unprecedented move to change the deeply resentful feelings that your current enemies have toward you? How about giving the children of Israel a future that is cleansed of their fear of annihilation?"

They haven't achieved "a thing, yet"? This is such a cockeyed statement one hardly knows how to respond. Israel is clearly one of the most remarkable achievements of the 20th century. In fact, I would have to say that it has no parallel.

All that said, I can see trying "extreme generosity." But changing the "deeply resentful feelings" of the Palestinians is something the Palestinians will have to do themselves. Any settlement, no matter how "generous" can be rejected. And we've learned how the definition of generosity can be different from person to person.

Moreover, some concessions that might put a smile on Palestinian faces will not be accepted by Israel, e.g., right of return to Israel proper. So if that is what it takes to put a smile on their faces, then it isn't likely to happen, and it won't be Israel's fault.

Peter said:

To say that it's "Israel's choice" whether they suffer endless war and "nuclear devastation," is simply wrong. For one thing, it says, quite directly, that should Israel suffer nuclear devastation, it would simply have brought it on itself.

But Israel does have a choice: continue the occupation or end the occupation. I know that differing views are put forth on what part the occupation plays in the violence against Israel, but whatever one's view, it's safe to say that to the extent that the occupation is what drives the violence, then cessation of the occupation reduces the chances of violence against Israel.

To suggest that the Palestinians--or anyone else, for that matter--can "grant" Israel the right to exist is, well, it would take a while to deconstruct this wrong-headed statement.

I think the Palestinian granting to Israel of the "right to exist" is roughly equivalent to a Palestinian recognition of Israel. Seen in that light, it's not so bad, is it?

All that said, I can see trying "extreme generosity." But changing the "deeply resentful feelings" of the Palestinians is something the Palestinians will have to do themselves.

Peter, can you really not see that the occupation is the major source of those "deeply resentful feelings," and that it is only Israel's actions that can begin to turn that around? To expect those "deeply resentful feelings" to abate in the absence of any progress toward final status and while the occupation continues is to be in denial, imho. 

“The healthy man does not torture others — generally it is the tortured who turn into torturers.” ~~ C. G. Jung

I do believe that the occupation IS a major source of resentful feelings and the conflict

There will be no peace agreement as long as the settlements are being expanded and the occupation continues. Everyone knows that. The settlement expansion is going on as I write, yes new houses for Jews only being built on Westbank land owned by Palestians. There has been absolutely no indication that Israel is willing to or even can stop the expansion. And we aren't even talking about the occupation and existing settlements yet.

Are the Israelis ready to deal with this problem. Most likely no. What is their big contribution to these talks in the past week. One is a new demand that the PLO must recognize not only the State of Israel but that it's Jewish essence. Two, the knesset has just made it more difficult for any Israeli government to give up East Jerusalem settlements. With signals like this any optimistic yearnings for Annapolis sound like witting delusions.

Yeah, right, this administration is totally dedicated to peace in the ME.

Let's see...kissing cousins with the Saudi royal family; now there are a great bunch of democracy fanatics!

Overseeing an ethnic cleansing in Iraq. Great PR there for winning hearts and minds on the Arab street.

Calling for democratic elections in the ME and, following a Hamas victory, defying all their own rhetoric by shunning the new government and starving out those who voted for them.

Backing the Israeli's in a misguided attack on Lebanon. That worked out so well!

Playing muppeteer to Musharraf and helping to hide nukes from fanatics when we can't even hide our own. Score another one for democracy!

Ratcheting up tensions even further by threatening attacks on Iran. How dare they behave as arrogantly as Bush?

I can hardly wait for the grand finale in Annapolis!

Davai, I THINK I made the point you're making here.

I think the point is that this is a long-standing conflict that has evolved over time.

So, Israel can't do anything about resentment over Tel Aviv--and that's basically what I said.

Read the whole post before responding.

"On another hand the end of occupation will most likely result in creating a failed state few miles from major Israeli cities that will be used as the base for daily attack on millions of Israelis."

The plan, as I understand it, and such as it is, is for negotiations to result in a working state whose launch would be heavily supported financially by the international community.

So, it's not merely an end to the occupation, but the beginning of a working state. Clearly the Palestinians will have to work hard and work in good faith towards this end, as will the Israelis.

Hamas will have to be included in some way, or neutralized, or a disgruntled Hamas could tear the whole thing apart, regardless of what most people on both sides want.

If Palestine becomes a failed state and a launching pad for terrorist attacks on Israel, Israel will have to respond. But this possibility is not a reason for not trying. Most Palestinians appear to want a state of their own, and they deserve one, if this word can be used, despite the risks.

So if failure will make them the likely losers, and they are still willing to try for a state, then Israel should be willing to try for a state, too.

The plan, as I understand it, and such as it is, is for negotiations to result in a working state whose launch would be heavily supported financially by the international community.

If Palestine becomes a failed state and a launching pad for terrorist attacks on Israel, Israel will have to respond

But this possibility is not a reason for not trying

Most Palestinians appear to want a state of their own, and they deserve one, if this word can be used, despite the risks.

Bruce,

If you think that the status quo is not an impediment to peace, then so be it

I'm not sure you're being responsive to what I wrote, Davai.

I agree that money is the least of the worries--it will be forthcoming if the right conditions exist and has been in the past.

Israel has a right to respond militarily to military or terrorist attacks. I guess the issue is...are the attacks manageable ad hoc events...is the Palestinian government trying to bring them under control...or is the whole situation out of control. Any secure state is able to absorb SOME terrorism without unleashing overwhelming force, simply because it's counterproductive and immoral to do otherwise.

For example, if Israel and Palestine are on a basically productive track and a terrorist act occurs...you don't mount a full-scale invasion and throw away all of the progress you've made.

Not sure how your comment about Iraq and Bush responds to what I said. My point is that the possibility of failure is not a reason for not trying to establish a Palestinian state. "Trying" doesn't mean (to me) "not thinking about what you're doing, how, and why." The Iraq invasion doesn't define, or redefine, the meaning of "try."

I agree with your last sentence and is a good reason for Israel to try and help the Palestinian people establish a functioning state.

How do you feel about the expanding settlements?

Should they continue to expand?

Or should Israel halt the expansion?

probably true, d, and we all know what that means.

Excellent!

Think you're right about intervention being needed, but it will not happen without Israel's invite. What country would risk it absent Israeli blessing?

Well, if there is no credible plan, how can you be a two-stater?

That would mean you believe in something that you also believe can't come about.

Again, it's not simply the end of occupation. It has to be a "two part" move: one part end occupation; one part working to build a working democracy, government, economy...in Palestine.

I'm not an expert in nation building, and it's not easily done, I'm sure.

A change of heart and working in good faith are keys to making it work. BUT I'm sure there are concrete things that can be done that will help people change their hearts and create good faith. It doesn't have to happen all at once, as if by a miracle.

I don't keep a file of ready links...

From b'tselem, the Israeli human rights organization, for your linking pleasure:

• Settlements
• The Separation Wall
• East Jerusalem

(There's a lot more info in the sidebars to the right of each page.)

It looks like you've caught on to the old say-you're-for-a-two-state-solution-but-then-mention-all-the-reasons-it-won't-work trick. "No partner," "the Palestinians aren't ready" and "we need to maintain the occupation to ensure Israeli security" are just variations on this theme.

In the meantime, the settlements continue unabated, while the hawkish Israelis and their U.S. counterparts repeatedly focus our attention on Palestinian failure to meet the Road Map responsibilites (halting of settlements was the Israeli responsibility).

“The healthy man does not torture others — generally it is the tortured who turn into torturers.” ~~ C. G. Jung

I advocate that it's in long term interest of Israel to move all settlers ourside the fence, around 100K back to Israel, but I understand that doing this is a huge task (remember Gaza) that doesn't provide to Israel any immidiate benefits, only long term.

But there seems to be credible reporting that new settlements are cropping up and existing settlements are growing outward. New land is being appropriated, according to the reports.

See my answers above.

It doesn't mean Tel Aviv. It may mean that to some Palestinians and other Arabs

duplicate

I'm a two-stater because 1) it's fair and right, and 2) the outlines of such a solution have been known for a while. So the outlines of a credible plan exist. It's not the plan; it's the execution and the will to execute that's in question.

What the plan takes is the will to see it through...and through the inevitable problems and outbursts of violence. This is one place where I believe in "staying the course."

The will on both sides, obviously.

Both sides will have to give up some cherished "goals." The Palestinians can't have Haifa. They can't have a bi-national state, unless the Israelis agree to it, which they aren't likely to. Arabs in general will have to give up this "devil worship" with regard to the Jewish state.

Israel has to give up the dream of Greater Israel and ever-expanding settlements. Per Howard and Lally's comments on another thread, the Israelis will have to give up the idea that they can subdue the Palestinians militarily or settle the matter unilaterally, i.e., without negotiations. At a minimum, this stance will keep them on unfriendly terms with their neighbors and proximate neighbors. It will also continue to generate at least some international hostility toward them.

A low-grade conflict with periods of intense fighting is NOT the way to realize the true potential of Israel as a home for Jews or anything else.

Israel can already provide security for its citizens. The Palestinians have a tougher problem. But if they truly want a state, they will have to figure it out...and have the will to implement it. The problem, in my view, isn't the plan, or the details of the plan, it's the WILL to put it into action. Once the will is there, many things are possible from within the Palestinian people and their Arab brothers and sisters.

Frankly, if they could admit it to themselves, they should copy Israel, not in the military sense which has run its course, but in the organizational sense. Israel wasn't built on the dream of subduing another people; it was built on the dream of a homeland for Jews. A positive vision. That's what the Palestinians should focus on, IMO.

Israel has to give up the dream of Greater Israel and ever-expanding settlements

Israelis will have to give up the idea that they can subdue the Palestinians militarily or settle the matter unilaterally, i.e., without negotiations.

Israel can already provide security for its citizens.

That's what the Palestinians should focus on, IMO.

THe bottom line is , Israel won Second Intifada and currently security is acceptable. Israel will never withdraw from the West Bank unless there is a way to provide for security of Israel NEXT DAY after Israel leaves West Bank. It's a reality.

I don't think anybody has an answer how to achieve this.
THerefore I think that the right approach is to decouple the issue of final status negoniations with issue of the end of militsry control.

Israel and Palestinians should decide on all issues right now. After that everybody know where Israel ends and Palestinians state begins.
After that with help of International community
and with security provided by Israel, nation building of Palestinian state can begin.
It could take another 10 years when Israel Military leaves West Bank.

davai: I won't even bother with much of what you wrote, as it's all been effectively refuted by others (repeatedly). But when you say this:

After that with help of International community and with security provided by Israel, nation building of Palestinian state can begin.It could take another 10 years when Israel Military leaves West Bank.

Surely you must realize that's a recipe for continued violence. The only hope for the more extreme elements within Palestinian society to be co-opted by the moderates is if the moderates can deliver a complete withdrawal by Israel from the occupied territories. Your plan essentially amounts to a circular argument: Israel says it can't withdraw because of security concerns, but the thing that continues to drive the violence is the occupation itself (think: Iraq war). If the Israelis continue a military presence in Palestinian territory, without doubt there will be continued violence and when your ten years has gone by, the Israelis will only use that as a justification to extend the military control for another 10 years.

I agree there needs to be some sort of security arrangement, but for peace to take hold, the Palestinians need to be in control of their own territory.

“The healthy man does not torture others — generally it is the tortured who turn into torturers.” ~~ C. G. Jung

I agree there needs to be some sort of security arrangement,

Your plan essentially amounts to a circular argument

"Think you're right about intervention being needed, but it will not happen without Israel's invite."

Months ago, there was an idea floated by some Israelis that Jordanian troops could be used to establish security in the WB. That idea was slapped down hard (in public) by the Jordanian king. Since his regime is supported/propped up by US, Israel and his secret police rather than his subjects, putting Jordanian soldiers into the region would be politically precarious. The "Hashemite Dumpling" can be useful in other ways having to do with securing the common border with an eventual Palestinian "state".

If things proceed in the WB as is currently envisioned, the Fatah forces will be formed into a cohesive military organization with the elements of rogue militias expunged, co-opted, jailed, etc. The IDF and ShinBet are partners in these efforts as is the US taxpayer. The eventual Palestinian military/police forces are to be used for internal security purposes only as the Palestinian "state" will not be allowed to have a military equipped for offensive or defensive purposes.

Gaza is another problem altogether. Israeli reservists back from operations there speak (with admiration) of how Hamas has so quickly morphed into a well equipped, disciplined, tactical fighting "army" that is unlike any Palestinian "gangs" they've confronted in the past. If it's true as claimed, that Hamas has been armed and trained by Iran and Hezbollah, an IDF incursion is expected to result in heavy casualties all around.

(IMO, Iran would be the source of weaponry and equipment and Hezbollah would provide the training as no external enemy organization knows the IDF better than they do. Hamas fighters, like Hezbollah during the stupid summer war, will willingly fight to their deaths. That factor, as acknowledged by the Israeli military, makes them extremely formidable)

At some point in the future, one could speculate that the Fatah followers might join forces with the IDF in seizing control of Gaza. The latest plan envisions the IDF remaining in Gaza for a month or so post-defeat of Hamas.

Another scenario posits establishing relations with Hamas as they are, if enabled, seen by some to be the entity best suited to deal with halting the firing of rockets and now, missiles into Israel.

It's hard to envision any foriegn intervention under the present circumstances. What country would be nuts enough to send their soldiers into those cauldrons?........

Nevermind.

Davai.

Sharon's stubborn refusal to deal with the Palestinians re the Gaza withdrawl did cause many of the problems we see today altho leaving the IDF to run things there wouldn't have worked in the long run, either.

It was a fatal flaw.

I wonder if Sharon's contempt for the Palestinians blinded him to the possibilities of Hamas' eventual rout of Fatah; despite the arms and support given to Dahlan and his gangs by US, Jordan and allegedly, Egypt.

Sharon had quite a different perspective of Hezbollah as well he should have.

It would work better if they got this land immediately after the agreement is concluded. No future dreams.

The "immediate benefits" are that it can say it is living up to its agreement and working to bring a Palestinian state into existence.

Given the terms of this debate, that IS an immediate benefit.

And if what everyone says is true--that the settlements produce the anger that leads to violence--then curtailing settlements, etc., SHOULD lead to less violence against Israel.

Or at least we can test this hypothesis.

I know, you're going to say that it's been tested before and it failed. However, each time it is tried, the situation is different. Different time. Different players. Different political forces.

That's why seemingly intractable conflicts--say in North Ireland--"suddenly" get resolved, while "the solution" was known, and presumably attainable, long ago. Things change. Sometimes the piling up of a dreary history convinces the parties to finally "give in" to a solution they could have had before.

"One day" I turned on the radio and Catholic and Protestant leaders were standing side by side PRAISING each other as great statesmen! What had changed? No one had switched religions. Northern Ireland hadn't floated off and attached itself to England or Wales.

Of course, someone can list the reasons. But still, it's a bit of a mystery. Except that they kept trying...and eventually succeeded.

But security can't be the only immediate benefit sought. It's got to be a two-way street. Same for the other side.

"On another hand..."

So monkeys do type, after all?

"as careful as in Lebanon"

Yeah, that was careful. With an UTMOST care one could estimate civilian losses as low as 500 (most estimates were closer to 1000, but the most CAREFUL estimates were lower).

There are many ways to describe this misbegotten campaign, but CAREFUL is highly original. Most inept campaign in history of Israel, perhaps, but careful?

Perhaps if IDF targetted actual positions of Hezbollah rather than wrecking havoc all over Lebanon results would be better. Perhaps if IDF could spend more time training for battle, rather than policing West Bank with hundreds upon hundreds of checkpoints...

In any case, tactics of IDF are so careful that it would make more sense for civilians to hide behind armed fighters than vice versa. So the argument that terrorist could use civilians as shields is rather thin.

http://blogs.tnr.com/tnr/blogs/the_spine/archive/2007/11/21/gunning-for-annapolis.aspx

The second in by Noah Pollak in today's Contentions. He makes the point that the "engagers" are almost has-beens. They are also hortatory rather than analytic.

Anyway, they want Israel and the U.S. to engage with Hamas. But, as Pollak points out, Hamas is not really for Palestine. It's for the establishment of an Islamic Caliphate.

So what, pray tell, do people like Daniel Levy and Robert Malley propose is up for negotiation with Hamas? In the face of both Hamas’s plainly stated antipathy to diplomacy, in addition to decades of concrete experience of the same, would it not behoove Levy and Malley to pay special attention to this particular aspect of engaging Hamas? Shouldn’t an explanation about the contours of, and prospects for, a successful pursuit of diplomacy with Hamas indeed be the very first thing to which Levy and Malley set themselves?

Blessed are the peacemakers, indeed, especially when they can't find peace to make.

Why would Marwan Barghouti do any better that Dahlan?

It appears, though, that some factions of Hamas HAVE been ready to negotiate. Whether in good faith or as a ruse, I don't know. But exploiting and widening any divisions within Hamas would seem to be one goal for engaging. In any event, does Israel LOSE anything for TRYING? Trying and testing doesn't mean giving in to demands. It merely means sitting down. In fact, Yossi Beilin says in todays Wapo, November 23, that this is happening through third parties. He worries, as should we, about Hamas's ability to destroy whatever might happen at Annapolis and any agreement between Abbas and Olmert.

Yes, I cliam ownership to this ptoposal, however I don't see that anybody in position of influence advocate something like this.

Therefore, people who want Palestinians to continue to sing song of holy war will do everything in their power to make sure that life doesn't get better for the Palestinians.
There was no powerful player in Northern Ireland who had any interest in continuation of conflict.In case of I/P there was Egypt, USSR and now Iran. They all didn't or don't care about Palestinians, but use them as a weapon in they (proxy) wars.

Write to Olmert.

Why not show HOW what you read didn't prove you wrong.

Otherwise, it sounds like you had a quick read and nothing jumped out at you, so you dismissed the information out of hand.

If someone takes the time to give you a link, take some time with it and be prepared to be enlightened.

Sometimes, I think, you're going so fast, you don't take time to ponder.

Since your English isn't perfect, taking this time seems particular important.

And the same sort of change of heart could take place between the I-P

I'm sorry but Israel doesn't have to show genuine concern for the Palestinian people, they are enemies. US didn't show genuine concern for Japanise or German people until Japanise or German people accepted unconditional surrender.

However, Israel does show some concern for the Palestinian people, at least bigger concern that any other Arab countries or Palestinian leadership.
Anyway, thank you for discussion.

I'm sorry but Israeli are not going to accept the risk of trying to ride out the rough and violent episodes. I'm not sure if you have friend and relatives in Israel. I have. I still remember how they survived and how they felt during Second Intifada. Israeli are not going to accept any additional risk to their security. It's just reality and I don't blame them for this. We are having strange discussion. We are in general agreement, however, when I read each of your points I can't help but notice that they don't seems to be correct or supported by facts.

True, however, if your close relative has some medical condition that is not immediatly life-threating, you'll want to examine very carefully
all your options and you might not take risk of accepting some high risk solution that because we just need to do something. BTW, there is a reason why your relatives are hawks, they want to see their chldren come back alive today after bus trip to the school. They are not going to take chances after what they went thru during Second Intifada. Maybe there are other reasons too. You should know better

When we occupied Germany and Japan we treated them even better

If the poster to whom you referred glossed much more, things would be blinding, other than if he were not from the Dark Side of the Force...well, maybe from the gloomy side. There was a definite US policy of treating prisoners well, not merely for Geneva Convention or humanitarian reasons, but because it made military sense. The Japanese, in particular, not only had a code of death rather than surrender; they pushed civilians to kill themselves with horror stories about Americans. One of the best-known stories comes from the Battle of Saipan. In ground warfare, the Germans and Italians were a bit more likely to surrender if they believed they would not be tortured; it was common practice, in all the theaters including the Pacific, to use captured prisoners to give loudspeaker broadcasts to their comrades, to assure them they were not being ill-treated.

The Japanese were more complex, and I don't deny that some apparent bodies were shot again, because an apparently dead soldier might be holding a grenade to "take one with him". On the other hand, since the Japanese ethic was such that no training was given for what was considered the impossible status of being a POW, a Japanese, perhaps who had been captured while unconscious, tended to be extremely cooperative, believing they were dead to their society so might as well fit into their new ones.

Other techniques to get Japanese to surrender rather than be killed came into extensive use on Okinawa, techniques which came about from more cultural understanding (some learned from prisoners) and from the greater availability of linguists.

There probably was a difference in the way US treated the more fanatical SS in Germany, especially when they were found near atrocities, than the regular German soldier. Again, the general doctrine was that if you could get someone to surrender, neither of you would get killed in a fight the death.

I'm amused about that poster's sarcastic response about "nuking", for several reasons. First, the reality was that they were not well understood. I'd say that the average civilian knows the effects of nuclear weapons better than many of the people in the Manhattan Project -- or, in an unfortunate number of cases, believes they are informed when actually misinformed.

Second, there was strong reason to believe that an invasion would be needed, with tens of millions of casualties when both sides were continued. The Hiroshima bomb, with some minor technical details simplified, was aimed at the headquarters for the defense of southern Japan. It's not a matter of conjecture: Hirohito specifically intervened after the bombings, and their acceptance of the Potsdam declaration specifically mentioned them. Further, the reality was that the fire-bombing of Tokyo was far more lethal.

Third, the US has very few tactical nuclear weapons any longer, for reasons including that there are conventional weapons that accomplish the same mission without as major a political risk as nuclear weapons, and actually may accomplish the military goal more efficiently. Some of the advanced conventional weapons used by Israel replace tactical nuclear weapons in the US inventory, but, of course, they aren't all that humanitarian when used on targets for which they were not designed. For all of Davai's denial, M26 rockets cause immediate death plus continuing danger in the area, just as much or more than would a small tactical nuclear weapon.

As to alleged discrimination during the war, I might ask if anyone recognizes the ethnicity of the names Nimitz and Eisenhower. The US has had an Army Chief of Staff named Eric Shinseki; has there been an equivalent IDF officer named, oh, Muhammad Turabi?

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

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

As to alleged discrimination during the war

Yes, there were internment camps that had no legal basis, partially due to hysteria in California, as good a place as any for it. Those camps were wrong, but distinguished Americans came out of them, not through a chimney.

Further, before you lock in on one admittedly wrong decision, talk to the survivors of the most decorated unit (of its size) in the US Army, the 442nd Regimental Team. Some discrimination against it was recently remedied by presenting some of the Medals of Honor that were earned.

The Navy had a fairly poor record, but I'm rather proud that an inlaw of mine, a white Southerner out of a family that regarded the Klan as liberals, trained the men that first filed the 99th Pursuit Squadron, which then became part of the 332nd Fighter Group.

No country is without discrimination in war. Nevertheless, the US recognized it, even at the time, and there were protests. A couple of years after the war, Truman desegregated the military.

Any time you want to match the record of the US, in correcting discrimination, against Israel, I recommend you think first before giving off one of your tu quoque protests about poor little defenseless, non-nuclear Israel, just sitting there practicing passive resistance.

I'm not interested in wasting my time discussing with you anything when you in such a state of mind.

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

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

Howard, for once, you agreed that you were wrong, there was not "alleged discrimination",
there was "discrimination". However, you still are unable not combine your acknowledment with personal attacks. But at least you accepted that you were wrong. It's a good first step. Good job.

Now you are doing bad job, Howard. I guess you still can't stand the fact that your were wrong, you got mad again. Take care, relax and try to enjoy the rest of your day. Keep in touch.
- Davai

Tom,

It's hard for me to see how this is responsive to Davai.

I don't think Davai was referring to prisoners of war, but to war itself.

Fire bombing Dresden and nuking Japan hardly seems to be treating them well or better.

Your comment about land needs to be unpacked a bit. Country borders often move a bit after a war. Certainly they did after WWI and a bit after WWII, too, I believe. So it's not clear what you mean.

If you're not referring to "the occupation," but to the founding of Israel itself, I would argue that SOME of the land was properly in Jewish hands. Which is to say, not ALL of the land was owned by Palestinians. Though it was the Palestinian and Arab view that NONE of the land could be set aside for a Jewish state.

So whence the heartache ever since? Certainly the Arabs have contributed to this heartache in big, big ways. After all, as far as Israel was concerned, there could have been a Palestinian state as far back as the 1940s.

We can get into a discussion about whether the Zionist project was right, fair, or even necessary for Jewish survival. But given the Jews' increasingly dire situation from the mid-1800s up to the Holocaust, including being turned back from entering other countries, such as the US and Canada, it's hard, IMO, to gainsay the Zionists too much. History seemed to be proving them right in the most horrific ways.

Where was the Western or North or South American country who said, "We'll take all the Jews and give them safe haven from now until forever"?

Reasonable people can, and should, disagree. But a very reasonable case can be made for the founding of Israel as a reasonable response to the situation Jews found themselves in. To constantly blame a country that is a mere speck in the Middle East, both in terms of people and geography, for the heartache of the region strikes me as an unlikely hypothesis. If you have 6 million Israelis and 60 million Arabs, at least SOME of the heartache is due them.

Sure, take precautions. Yes. But keep moving forward.

But my key point is...divide and conquer.

In addition to "trying," they need to try smarter.

Where divisions exist within Hamas, they should be exploited in order to isolate extremists and move the process forward.

I'm not an expert in the minutae of the conflict, but it SEEMS that Israel's actions often embolden the extremists...give them fodder...and drive moderates TOWARD them.

They also raise the hackles of the international community. Even America is learning that we need the international community largely on our side. Israel does, too.

I guarantee...if the I/P is ever truly resolved...the numbers of Jews making aliyah will jump. The violence keeps people away and drives people out. My cousin, a wealthy man and big time supporter of Israel, often travels there and volunteers for the army, so that soldiers don't have to be used for administrative tasks. He brings his son, too. But he stays away when the violence spikes.

It's in Israel's interest to bring this to an end.

Perhaps he meant a fine distinction of that sort---I meant that we treated those people well even as we fought their soldiers and government. Once we overran a position there was not the heavy hand the Germans exhibited after occupation, and we did occupy parts before surrender.

And we did give in to some demonizing, more of the Japanese that Germans (Nips and Krauts), but never institutionalized such views. I think we can distinguish our manner of war in WW II from the internal family feud that is Palestine.

I don't acknowledge history justifying the Zionists. The safest place is right here, and the strongest defenders of Jewish religious pratice are Democrats. It is not liberals and Democrats that foster distrust of Jewish accomplishment. In any case, we have constitutional guarantees that Israel would never extend to other religions in their land. We feel that to protect one you must protect all.

I am sympathetic to Israel, admire its ambition and accomplishments, and am a natural cousin, being from English Christian stock. So I am not naturally sympathetic to Palestinians, Islam gives me the creeps, ane veiled women no fun to watch walking down the street. Still, when my cousins act inhumanely (understandably, perhaps), I can't accept it.

Still, when my cousins act inhumanely (understandably, perhaps),

Unfortunately, in case of Israel the critisism is not put in perspective.

If walking to the holliest Jewish place by an opposition leader, can cause Palestinians to blow Israeli children into pieces, than there is no peace is possible.

A politician is trying to score political points.
What's the shock.

Bulldozing houses is not inhumane. For example
in Battle of Jenin during second Intifada infantry and operations armored bulldozers were used to decrease Palestinian casualties. No other country would use such tactic and risk lifes of own people in such curcumstances, they would just blow whole place from the air if they could. See Dresden, Hirosima, or Falugia.

Please explain me what you mean, give me an example when powerful side, with greater freedom of choice, made the first move. What kind of move? In 2000 Barak made first move, that resulted in Clinton plan, however, Palestinians didn't accept it.

I do hear Israel's detractors paint her as the weak one unabled to win a war against few hundred Hisbolla fighters in 30 days, so I'm not sure that Israel holds the cards.

uprooting olive groves is inhumane

Hopeless is right---you twist every point, adding "blowing up children" to what started as street protests. These were supressed, and bombs came rather later. You're beyond discussion, with too blinkered and parochial a view.

Taking my own advice, 'Bye.

I'm sorry Tom, but Second Intifada was planned in advanced and bombs did come very soon and not by themselves, they were planned very well and paid very well.

It's in Israel's interest to bring this to an end.

but it SEEMS that Israel's actions often embolden the extremists

Hey Howard,

This conversation has taken so many twists and turns, I'm sort of getting lost. It's hard to keep the line straight. We got confused as to whether "treating them well" referred to prisoners of war or various forms of bombing and other military action, etc. And, of course, I always defer to you in matters military.

I will say this only. Based on my reading, it was pretty clear to folks back then that the atom bomb was no ordinary weapon and was going to cause a whole lot more devastation, such that it would convince the Japanese to surrender without the invasion.

That's my understanding.

So, in a way, it was considered more humane, i.e., it would lead to fewer deaths than would otherwise occur if further fighting and an invasion had to take place.

On the other hand, I don't think they were innocent of the probable effects of an atom bomb. Certainly, many folks, including Einstein, yes? had warned about them. So yes, we know more now. But surely they knew, or suspected, a lot back then.

The details about the Dresden bombing are interesting. But the Russians's request and the fact that some raids were justified and some weren't doesn't really take away from the immorality of the result, does it? Just because the Russians ask for it doesn't mean it's moral to do it is what I'm suggesting.

I'm asking questions, not coming to a conclusion here.

Let me give some backstory with the Japanese, which will give me a better way to explain.I'll address Dresden in another post.

We had essentially no human intelligence in Japan, so we didn't know at least one nuance. GWB's "Axis of Evil" has caused us problems, but so did FDR's "Unconditional Surrender", which was mostly a throwaway line. As policy, however, it kept the US from talking seriously to the German Resistance, because they expected that if they overthrew Hitler, that they would have some negotiating room.

One of the many things we didn't fully understand is that the US victory at Saipan, ending in July 1944, led immediately to the fall of the Tojo government, and the start of a peace movement. You see, Saipan was, unbeknownst to us, the first break in what the Japanese regarded as the inner defense perimeter. There were a number of senior civilian and naval (Navy and Army were bitter enemies) officials that, at that point, accepted the war was lost.

The Army fanatics, however, were quite willing to fight to the last Japanese civilian, but their key issue was the preservation of the monarchy, which, to them, meant preservation of the "national polity". I only speak enough Japanese to order dinner and introduce myself, but, after much study of English documents and some long talks with Japanese, have at least some idea what they mean by "polity", as well as a few different usages such as "sincerity".

Remember, Shinto is animist. Everything has spirit (or "mana" as some anthropologists call it). The Emperor wasn't exactly a god, but had the most mana. If he was deposed, it would be as if Japan had lost its ...soul??

So, as long as the policy was Unconditional Surrender, which did not preserve the monarchy, the Army could hold onto its position of fighting to the end. In their mindset, every Japanese including the emperor could die fighting or by suicide, but the polity would be preserved.

There was a glimmering about the peace faction around May 1945 (the bombs were dropped in August). A US naval captain named Ellis Zacharias, captains being pretty low ranking in national terms, was an acknowledged Japanese expert, and was making broadcasts to them. The response to one of them, in late May, used a Japanese honorific (Zacharias-kun, rather than (Zacharias-san), indicating great respect. It suggested there were some people in Japan that might be willing to start a dialogue, but, even to this day, it's not a sure thing. Still, as long as unconditional surrender did not guarantee "preservation of the national polity", nothing would happen.

Moving on, when the Potsdam Declaration was announced in July, the Japanese picked an unfortunate word in their response: they would treat it with mokusatsu. Like many words in Japanese, it's ambiguous. It could mean, as it was interpreted on our side, that they would "kill it with silence"; that it wasn't worth considering. The word could also mean either something like our "let's table it", or that they would thoughtfully study it.

Again only with hindsight, if the Allies had indicated that there was any flexibility about preserving the monarchy, they might have been willing to start negotiating, but that was the deal-breaker.

The US had done a nuclear test in New Mexico in July, so had some idea of effects. There were still a lot of unknown things that both the attacks and atmospheric testing would tell over the next years. Einstein was not involved in the experimental work. There was a group of seven scientists that formed a protest committee, and there was some talk of demonstrating the bomb on an uninhabited island -- but what if it failed?

The Allied Perception

So, the Allies, in good faith, assumed the Japanese were rejecting the Declaration. There was active planning for a ground invasion of southern Japan in November -- and the headquarters of the southern defense forces waqs Hiroshima Castle.

There is a lot of variation in the casualty estimates, but suggesting killed and wounded in the millions or tens of millions, with both sides, is not out of the question. The Japanese didn't have much in the way of a regular military, but they had very large numbers of suicide attack forces, some of types we hadn't seen yet. The kamikaze attacks at Okinawa were bad, but these would have been much worse. At Okinawa, they went for warships, especially carriers. In the invasion defense, they had made a rather radical change, and the troop transports would have been the primary targets.

With what we knew, we definitely didn't want to invade. If we had known somewhat more of the politics and the criticality of the Emperor, we might have moved further, but there really was no way to know.

So, July ended, and the nuclear strike orders went out for early August. Four cities had been largely spared for bombing, so the effects could be measured. Secretary Stimson took Kyoto, the ancient capital, off the list as a treasure of humanity. Hiroshima, with its 2nd General Army HQ, became the prime target. I'd note that the casualties at Hiroshima were less than the casualties from the earlier fire raids on Tokyo.

There was no diplomatic response of significance after Hiroshima, although there was much internal discussion. Only one other bomb was immediately available, and the decision was to drop another one, to prove to Japan it wasn't a one-off. More were being made, and nine had been scheduled to use in support of the November invasion. Kokura was actually the second target, but was covered by clouds and they diverted to Nagasaki. Weather wasn't much better there, but they made a radar drop aimed at a steel plant and an arsenal. Casualties were less than at Hiroshima because these targets were in a bowl of hills.

There was much intrigue, and a deadlocked Cabinet. The Emperor, although a behind-the-scenes influence, had never before directly intervened, but broke the tie -- well, his was the only vote that counted, and said to accept the Potsdam Declaration.

Even then, the offer was conditional on one thing and one thing only: the preservation of the monarchy. The Allies accepted that one condition, rather than continuing to insist on unconditional surrender.

Hirohito's Rescript to the nation specifically referenced a new and terrible weapon; he was probably the most scientifically literate of the WWII leaders and understood the effects. Japan didn't know we had no more bombs available at least for weeks, but, after Nagasaki, they couldn't know if we had more ready.

So, there is every reason to believe that the bombs caused the breakthrough. Now, if the two sides had communicated better, and if they had understood the deal-breaker, perhaps serious negotiations might have started in June or July. The conditions wanted by the hard-liners in the Army would not have been acceptable (no occupation, try their own war criminals, etc.). It's anyone's guess if negotiations would have gone anywhere, but they were a lost opportunity. Even if the US had known, after Hiroshima, to offer preservation of the monarchy, Nagasaki might not have been needed -- but no one knew.



I can honestly say I would much rather have been at ground zero in Hiroshima, than roasted in Tokyo. It still puzzles me, unless the person making the statement doesn't know what happened in Tokyo, why the nuclear weapons were considered more cruel. A substantial number of the nuclear weapons victims died instantly.

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

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

Russian

Well, no one knows what the future will bring...even if we think we're staying in one place, in fact, we're not. Time moves forward and carries us with it.

Also, we DO know where we want to go: two states whose borders are already known roughly. Not all people want to go there, but I would say a majority do (based on what I've read, BK notwithstanding).

The two-state solution has the big advantage of at least appearing to be fair to the vast majority of people in the region and outside of it. Two people; each one gets a state. The fighting stops because the issue has been settled. Ayalon's brief plan.

The 2002 Saudi proposal still seems to be alive in some form. Annapolis is happening with senior Saudis attending, I read.

So I think it's a mischaracterization to say we're in the wilderness with "no clue" where we are. Will there be unforeseen things that happen? Yes. Regardless of what we do or don't do.

I don't think anyone is asking Israel to walk off a cliff or step off a ledge with her eyes closed and her neck bared to her enemies. Take risks? Yes. But calculated ones. Isn't that what she's ALWAYS done?