Olmert and Abbas Go For It

Ehud Olmert can no longer be dismissed as “His Accidency,” a small-time politician who achieved the top job only because his larger-than-life predecessor was struck down. At Annapolis, Olmert looked every inch the prime minister of his country, successor to David Ben-Gurion and Yitzhak Rabin.

I think Olmert’s transformation began when he decided that his goal as prime minister was not merely to stay in office (in itself no easy task) but to actually try to end the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Like Rabin, he seems less interested in playing “gotcha” with the Palestinians than in reaching an accommodation with them.

Who can say how long this will last?

Already, some Israelis are saying that Israel need not fulfill its obligations under phase 1 of the Roadmap until the Palestinians have fulfilled theirs. If Israel sticks to that interpretation, the process will be stillborn. In fact, the genius of the Roadmap is that it requires Israel and the Palestinians to act simultaneously. It does not permit either side to duck its commitments by saying the other guy has to go first. The timing of the Roadmap is parallel, not sequential, and that is the only way it can succeed. Olmert surely knows that.

My guess is that Olmert is not going to evade his obligations, and not because the Bush administration won’t let him. In fact, President Bush is unlikely to make Olmert do anything Olmert doesn’t want to do, despite Rice’s determination to achieve an agreement within a year. (White House neo-cons, despite the Iraq debacle, still have enough juice to prevent Rice from playing the honest broker role she aspires to. On the Palestinian issue and the occupation, they are more Catholic than the Pope.)

The pressure on Olmert will have to come from within Olmert himself. It will.

On Wednesday, Olmert told Yedioth Achronoth journalists Nahum Barnea and Shimon Shiffer that the “status quo is a disaster.” Even “back in the interview I gave Yedioth Achronoth in December 2003, I said, if we don’t do something, we will lose the possibility of the existence of two states. We will be an apartheid state. Jewish organizations in America will be the first to come out against us because they will say they cannot support a state that does not support democracy and equal voting rights for all its residents.”

Who is going to apologize to Jimmy Carter for attacks against him for invoking apartheid, now that Olmert has also done so. And he does so in precisely the same context, not that Israel is an apartheid regime but that permanent occupation would create one.

More to the point is that neither the American people nor any imaginable American President would generously aid an Israel that keeps millions of people disenfranchised and under permanent occupation.

From Israel’s point of view it is very good news that the Palestinian people are demanding only the right to statehood in 22 percent of historic Palestine rather than simply demanding “one man, one vote.” Imagine if the Palestinians petitioned for Israeli citizenship rather than their own separate state. All that talk about Israel being recognized “as a Jewish state” would be moot as Israel became binational or, as Olmert suggests, another apartheid regime.

Olmert is determined not to allow that to happen. He is a right-wing pragmatist, not a left-wing idealist. He wants Israel to get rid of the territories because retention of them will undo the Jewish state’s Jewish identity. In their hearts plenty of leftists could live with a democratic binational Israel so long as it is secure. Not Olmert. He is an old Herut man, a Jabotinskyite, and his Israel has to be Jewish.

The fear he expresses in the interview is precisely what will impel him toward peace. To his credit, Olmert also seems to have developed a genuine empathy with Mahmoud Abbas and an understanding of Palestinian suffering. He is now a man on a mission. Like Rabin, and unlike Barak, he approaches the Palestinian leadership not as an emperor relates to the natives but with respect.

Nevertheless, the Annapolis process is not much more than the Roadmap plus. The plus is the all-important monitoring mechanism, by which Americans, Israelis, and Palestinians decide together if the two sides are living up to their commitments. In its original incarnation there was no such mechanism, leaving the two sides to point fingers at each other while the death toll mounted.

Will the enforcement mechanism (led by General James Jones) actually work? It should because it did once before.

Back in 1996-1997, the Oslo process was collapsing due, in large part, to the wave of terror launched by Hamas to undermine both the peace process and Yasir Arafat. The wave of terror had one singular success. It caused the surprise defeat of Shimon Peres, who had succeeded the assassinated Yitzhak Rabin. Hamas and its allies wanted Netanyahu to win because they hoped he would abandon Oslo; and a slight majority of Israeli voters chose Netanyahu because they thought he could end the terrorism.

But Netanyahu understood that he couldn’t do it alone or even in cooperation with the Palestinians. Netanyahu needed the United States to help.

Here is what the the CIA’s main official on the ground told me about U.S. involvement and how it evolved in 1997 and after.

“The Israelis turned to us and requested that we act as a go-between. . . . This was basically an admission that they could not do their job. . . . For a number of months, we became the go-between.

“We’d hear ‘Go tell those people such and such.’ Literally, they were having no conversations. Both sides were talking to us but they were not talking to each other.”

But Dennis Ross and other key policymakers wanted the Israelis and Palestinians to start dealing directly with each other. Neither side was comfortable with that because there was simply no trust.

“Somebody suggested that the Israelis and Palestinians talk to each other, but in the presence of the Americans. So we started these trilateral meetings in which I chaired meetings with the Shin Bet and the IDF, and all the Palestinians. These meetings were pretty rocky. They shouted at each other but they resumed the dialogue. They went off in corners and whispered to each other.”

Within a few months, the American presence was superfluous. Although the CIA was in the room, the two sides worked seamlessly together to produce a security plan that almost completely eradicated terrorism.

During the next three years—from the fall of 1997 until the autumn of 2000, after the failure of the Camp David summit—not a single Israeli civilian was killed in a suicide bombing (in contrast to the hundreds killed previously).

CIA-brokered security cooperation was so successful that, following action by Yasir Arafat to thwart a massive attack on Tel Aviv, Prime Minister Netanyahu personally called the Palestinian leader to thank him and commend the Palestinian forces for their repeated vigorous actions against Hamas and Islamic Jihad.

There is no reason to think that it can’t happen again. Contrary to all the propaganda, CIA-monitored Israeli-Palestinian security cooperation gave Israel the three safest years in its history. Ask any Israeli, or anyone who visited Israel, what 1999 felt like.

And then look at what the last seven years have been. If you don’t understand that ending the occupation and achieving peace with the Palestinians is better, you are no friend of Israel. No way.


Comments (288)

avatar

Again, the only chance that real peace will be achieved is if the Israelis and Americans resort to Extreme Generosity. Can a right-winger like Olmert take the process in that direction?

avatar

MJ: The Roadmap is backward. While a final deal will require the transformation of Hamas, the PFLP, and Islamic Jihad, among others, into pure political parties with no military arm, that can only happen when the Palestinians have something to protect, i.e, an agreement. If you look at Michael Collins's career, it is instructive. After the Free State Treaty was signed, Michael did put down an IRA rebellion and used force against his own people. He didn't do to help England. He did it to protect the Irish Free State. If the Palestinians end all resistence to the Occupation up front, then any agreement they enter into actually SUPPORTS the occupation by transferring security obligation to the Palestinians and lessoning the burden to Israel of its settlements in Palestine. That's why final status, borders, Jerusalem, refugees, etc., have to be negotated first.

avatar
Who is going to apologize to Jimmy Carter for attacks against him for invoking apartheid, now that Olmert has also done so.
I made the same argument long time ago in tpmcafe. See, MJ, I don't need an order from anybody to think independently. Apparteid can't be answer to this challenge.I'm afraid, this is what you propose. I'm not agains occupation of West Bank for security reasons, but I'm agains apparteid in West Bank. However,I don’t think that Carter deserves any apology. His book was badly written with a many factual mistakes and omissions and misleading assertions.
And then look at what the last seven years have been.
It was terrible time until Sharon saved the country by crashing Second Intifada, building a fence and restoring security.
If you don’t understand that ending the occupation and achieving peace with the Palestinians is better, you are no friend of Israel. No way.
I wish you can change your mind set and stop using "If you don’t understand .... you are Enemy of the People". In any case it's better to be rich and healthy than poor and sick. If you don't understand this you are not only not a friend of Israel, you are moron.
avatar

I've replied to your proposal but you never responded.

avatar

See, we are in total agreement. It's exactly what I advocated here for a long time.
1. Final status.
2. Removing settlers.
3. Building Palestinian state.
4. Ending military control.

avatar

Yes, we do agree on the framework.

avatar

mj your optimism is almost infectious. I hope you are right but I remain cynical. It was very interesting that he almost used the word 'apartheid' to describe what Israel would become if the two state solution failed.

avatar

Not all settlers will be resettled, just those that are not close to old Israel.

There will be some issues that will linger no matter what is done. That's fine as long as these issues are not major issues. Gaza may be a huge obstacle since it is controlled by Hamas and is not part of the game.

Those that see a solution in terms of perfect or none will have to grow up and understand that an independent Palestinian state with huge money influx from the West and may be the East might be as far as it goes initially. And that is not a small fit; it removes Israelis from the newly established state, it helps the suffering Palestinians recover and start a normal life.

Let's keep our fingers crossed, enemies of even that are many and everywhere.

avatar
Olmert can manage to bring the Israeli populace along.
This is an easy task. The real question is if Abbas can bring the Palestinian populace along. If they still dream about "the right of return" no peace is possible. I hope nobody has any illusions that even a single Palestinian will be allowed to "return".
avatar

I was surprised by Olmert's acknowledgment of Palestinian suffering in his Annapolis speech - I thought it was an historic moment - and now this. I share some of syvanen's cynicism - hopes have been raised only to be dashed so many times now, and there are so many potential pitfalls - but I sincerely hope your optimism is warranted, MJ. And that Olmert can manage to bring the Israeli populace along.

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

Thanks, Davai

avatar

Yeah. He's such a great man

Prime minister Ehud Olmert today raised the spectre of the disintegration of the state of Israel unless a two-state solution with the Palestinians could be reached.
Drawing a parallel with the last days of the apartheid regime in South Africa he warned: "If the day comes when the two-state solution collapses, and we face a South African-style struggle for equal voting rights (with Palestinians) ... then, as soon as that happens, the state of Israel is finished."
Today's warning came in an interview with Haaretz newspaper.
The remarks were published after Olmert and the Palestinian president, Mahmoud Abbas, this week agreed at a US-sponsored peace conference to resume negotiations on the creation of a Palestinian state for the first time in seven years.
Israel is sensitive to any comparison to formerly apartheid South Africa, but Olmert has aired such views before. When he was deputy prime minister under Ariel Sharon four years ago, he favoured a withdrawal from most of the territories taken in the 1967 war that would leave Israel with a "maximum" number of Israelis and a "minimum" of Palestinians.
Olmert also warned about the loss of support of the Jewish diaspora once the question became framed in terms of one man, one vote.
"The Jewish organisations, which were our power base in America, will be the first to come out against us," Olmert told Haaretz, "because they will say they cannot support a state that does not support democracy and equal voting rights for all its residents."

avatar

This analysis has the same flaw that most discussions of the conflict have when they come from the left.  That is, they implicitly assume that Israel is the only actor in this play and the Palestinians are just bystanders.

The title of this post is "Olmert and Abbas Go for It"  Yet the entire piece is about Olmert.  The whole analysis is about the effect of Olmert's decisions and whether Olmert has transformed and why Olmert is making this decision.

Nowhere is there anything about Abbas.  And in fact there is never anything about Abbas or the Palestinians or the Arab states in MJ's posts.  Leftists like him keep talking about "achieving peace with the Palestinians" but never say how negotiations and concessions will bring about the change of mindset in the Arab world that is the only guarantor of true peace.  They don't talk about those things because they can't.

They think that Israel needs to press on with negotiations and concessions regardless of whether it leads to peace or not. Some think that the occupation is bad for Israel, period.  Others think that the occupation is just evil.  If removing the occupation results in peace, then so much the better, but removing the occupation is a good idea regardless of whether peace ensues or not. 

Their problem is that they know that this position has virtually no appeal to most supporters of Israel.  Most supporters of Israel will support concessions if they lead to peace but will not support them if they don't.  So the left has to peddle the fantasy that negotiations are about "achieving peace" to maintain and build public support.  But it's nothing but pure cynicism in the end.

Of course there are also many who are just naive and think the grand ceremony on the White House lawn with handshakes and smiles will be the end of the confict. 

I can't decide whether MJ is naive or cynical.  I guess in the end I'd lean towards cynical.

avatar

"Olmert also seems to have developed a genuine empathy with Mahmoud Abbas and an understanding of Palestinian suffering."

"An understanding of Palestinian suffering"? In what sense does Olmert understand Palestinian suffering? Does he think it works?

This is a huge pile of nonsense in view of the fact that the Israeli seige on Gazan civilians is an ongoing effort by various branches of Israel's government.

Good job, idiots. Your most formidable foe is more so and eliminating Hamas influence would allow the spread of the salifist ideology in the IDF-fertilized muck of Gaza. Fools.

Watching Gaza tends to make one have one's doubts about the values claimed by democratic regimes who are mum on this subject.

avatar

MJ: I just finished watching the Moyers program on Christians United for Israel. Scary stuff. I hope you're right and they won't be able to influence the process negatively, but that letter to their conference from Bush is a cause for concern.

Thanks to Moyers for bringing the information to PBS and to you and Ron Sidel for appearing. I was so happy to hear Sidel say that most U.S. Christian Evangelicals aren't at all as extreme as CUFI, and about the letter he and many of the more moderate Evangelical leaders wrote in support of the two-state solution.

A mea culpa: I realize I haven't been careful enough in talking about Evangelicals and their relationship to Israel, and when I speak of their influence in the future, I'm going to try to make certain I don't paint all Evangelicals with the Hagee brush.

It was a great discussion, MJ - your passion for Israel is palpable.

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

avatar

Given Olmert's political weakness in Israel, I doubt if he can bring anyone along.

avatar

Yes, the creation of a Palestinian state may be becoming more important to the Israelis than to the Palestinians. As time goes by, the Palestinians have less and less incentive to agree to a minimal Palestinian state because the facts on the ground (the large Arab population combined with the dispersed Jewish settlements that make it difficult for Israel to disentangle itself from the Palestinian areas) may give the Palestinians rights to the whole state. Sharon realized this transition was taking place and believed the time was optimal to offer the Palestinians a minimal state. But Sharon may have been too late. The time for this solution may well be past. The one-state solution that Olmert so fears may be inevitable.

But really, what would be so bad about a state for both Arabs and Jews? Isn't that basically the American solution? A state for everyone, regardless of race, ethnicity, or religion. Isn't this what we as Americans stand for?

avatar

Wordie,

I saw the program too. Watching Hagee make that speech about pre emptive strikes against Iran I thought to myself;

"This man is dangerous."

Some tume back the History Channel showed real film of Goebbles addressing an auditorium of Germans, and they stood and applauded as if in a mania, this came back to me as I watched Hagee and his audience.

avatar

You did really well last night on Moyer's journal, R.J., very impressive.

avatar

It's remarkable isn't it, the similarity? And what Hagee's followers are applauding is the infliction of massive, unthinkable suffering on their fellow human beings.

We Americans stand for that, and I'd prefer US foreign policy to reward such approaches. Some societies have other systems that work either better or worse. For example, Singapore is fairly authoritarian, but it seems to be a comfortable sort for the people under it.

Israel is quite another matter. There has been, for a long time, a running argument here about "Jewish identity". I regard it as religious and an individual choice. Others, such as Zionista, have argued thoughtfully for a much broader definition, with which I disagree heartily but is internally consistent given certain assumptions.

For those who want to see a state with Jewish identity, which they often equate to Irish or German identity, a one-state model is rather frightening, because Arab birth rates are such that they will eventually predominate. Germany has its problems with immigration, but they are neither as rigorous as defining German identity or as threatened by a growing internal population. Germany has a limited right of return, which I believe is like Ireland's: you must be able to document at least one grandparent who was born in a territory that was German (Irish) at the time.

While I need to check the specific rules of Israel, my sense is that they are much more liberal for self-identified Jewish immigrants, and much more restrictive for people who identify as non-Jewish.

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

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

avatar

lally: When I read your post last night I thought you were being too pessimistic, but the morning news is that yesterday, the U.S. withdrew from consideration at the U.N. the Mideast Peace Resolution, apparently at Israel's urging.

Diplomats said Israel, a close U.S. ally, did not want a resolution, which would bring the Security Council into the fledgling negotiations with the Palestinians. The diplomats, speaking on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the issue, said Khalilzad introduced the draft resolution without getting broad support from the Israelis, Palestinians and the Bush administration.

"It's not the proper venue," Israel's deputy ambassador Daniel Carmon said after Friday's council meeting. "We feel that the appreciation of Annapolis has other means of being expressed than in a resolution.

"We were not the only ones to object," Carmon said.

He added that the Americans had told the Israelis that the Palestinians also objected.

Abbas, speaking to reporters in the Tunisian capital, Tunis, said Friday that while he didn't know the details of the draft resolution it was a sign of the seriousness of the United States, which he also perceived at the Annapolis conference.

"This means, if what we have learned is verified, that there are serious steps that speak to the existence of an American position supporting the negotiations," Abbas said.

Wolff said the United States realized that "the focus, we all realized again, should be placed and remain on Annapolis and the understanding that was reached there."

"It's a momentous decision ... and rather than dilute from that and in respect to both parties in terms of what they thought would be most helpful, we reached a conclusion that it would be best to withdraw it," Wolff said.

And, predictably, Hamas responded:

GAZA, Dec. 1 (Xinhua) -- Hamas on Saturday said the U.S. withdrawal of a draft resolution it presented to the UN Security Council concerning the relaunch of the Israeli-Palestinian peace talks was an indication of its unseriousness in the matter.

"The U.S. is unserious... it absolutely supports the Israeli occupation in a way that makes the counting on the biased and unfair U.S. stance strange," Hamas spokesman Sami Abu Zuhri told reporters in Gaza.

On Friday, the United States withdrawn a draft resolution it presented to the UN Security Council endorsing the results of recently-held Annapolis conference which set Dec. 12 as the date to resume Israeli-Palestinian talks on creating a Palestinian statehood.

Some local reports said that the withdrawal decision was to satisfy Israel which rejects a UN role in the Middle East peace negotiations.

"The American response to the Israeli occupation and the withdrawing of the draft resolution are a new proof that Annapolis meeting is failing and the U.S. administration was unserious," AbuZuhri said.

"The Israeli military escalation against the Palestinian people is the only fruit that came from Annapolis meeting," Abu Zuhri said, vowing that his organization will "continue its project of resistance against Israel."

Early on Saturday morning, Israeli missiles killed five fighters from the Islamic Hamas movement which rules the Gaza Strip, in Khan Younis city in the north of the strip.

Stupid, stupid, stupid. This action has probably undone much of the goodwill that was projected at Annapolis, and the extremists can use it to sow doubts. It didn't even take the administration a week to screw up.

But there are also reports that the Israeli High Court has delayed the plans to stop electricity to Gaza, so at least that's a somewhat positive step. 

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

avatar

Wordie:

"Stupid, stupid, stupid. This action has probably undone much of the goodwill that was projected at Annapolis, and the extremists can use it to sow doubts. It didn't even take the administration a week to screw up."

I agree that the United States, in a diplomatic sense, acted with absolute and extraordinary imprudence by first offering and then withdrawing the Security Council Resolution. Clearly, as reflected in the piece you cite to concerning the reaction of Hamas, such a clumsy diplomatic maneuver gives fodder to those who claim that Annapolis is a farce.

It appears, however, from the first article you cite that both the Israelis and the Palestinians opposed the introduction of the Security Council resolution (although there is no direct Palestinian confirmation), and I have to tell you that from a negotiating perspective I believe that the introduction was, at best, extremely ill-timed, especially since it was done without first consulting with the two principal parties to the negotiations. Annapolis, if it was anything, gives a broad, albeit not entirely complete international imprimatur for negotiations between the Israelis and Palestinians to proceed. Now, if it has any chance of working, you have to let the Israelis and Palestinians have a go at it.

The toothpaste is out of the tube and the bargaing table is set. . .again. There will be time later and it will be necessary for others, including in my view the voices now reflected in political Hamas, to chime in on what will be. As in this case, the continued missteps of the Bush Administration in the diplomatic realm has and will continue to make things that much more difficult. But it is what it is. The real measure of success or failure will emerge from the proverbial smoke-filled room.

Bruce

avatar
Early on Saturday morning, Israeli missiles killed five fighters from the Islamic Hamas movement which rules the Gaza Strip, in Khan Younis city in the north of the strip.
Stupid, stupid, stupid. This action has probably undone much of the goodwill
Very interesting approach. According to some, Israel can earn goodwill only when it allow terrorists to kill Israeli children.

THANKS. I appreciate it.

Thanks, Bev. That Hagee is somethin else!!!

yeah, brad, everyone who knows me is taken by how cynical I am.
you aren't though. you are the opposite. utterly credulous. like a 1930's stalinist who gets the line from party hq and swallows it whole. i admire that.

avatar
But really, what would be so bad about a state for both Arabs and Jews?
But really, what would be so bad about a state just for Arabs, anywhere, that you can point to and say it's a nice state? It would not be bad, it would be great.

Also, what would be so bad about a state for both Czechs and Slovakian, Russian and Ukrainians, Serbs and Croatians, Pakistan and India, a bridge between New York and London? The answer is nothing wrong. So, what's your point?

avatar

Too bad TPM Cafe software doesn't offer a rating number for missing the point. 

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

avatar

I understand where MJ is coming from.
You can look at Palestinins as orphan child who had a very hard childhood. This child learned how to use tantrums (terrorism) to get an attention. You can’t expect this child to improve on his own, so there is no point ask him to do something. He is not really a responsible party. It only makes sense to talk to responsible adults how have custody of this child. MJ thinks that if this child get all the freedom, magically he’ll grow up to be a responsible adult. Obviously, MJ is wrong. On another hand, something has to change, because a status quo is hard for a child it’s hard for a guardian. It would be nice to find another guardian but nobody wants to take such responsibility.
Disclaimer, Any analogy including this is not exact.

avatar

So what's you point?
What should Israel do with terrorists/freedom fighters while negitiating with Abbas? Let them fight Israel and don't respond and don't try to prevent?

The first point is that it isn't possible to give a rational answer to an emotionally loaded, detail-free comment such as asking if they should kill Israeli children. Are you speaking of a specific incident? If so, who appeared to be firing it? What were the casualties?

Second, yes, sometimes you do accept casualties without massive retaliation. If you are ever in Maryland, go to the National Cryptologic Museum, in a public area just outside NSA Headquarters. There is a memorial area with three airplanes, all shot down by Communist nations while collecting electronic and communications intelligence. Those three are representative of quite a few others.

Especially among military personnel, yes, you accept some casualties to avoid a larger war. Tell me, if it is rational to have a major military intervention because one side has captured a few soldiers, what should the US response have been to the Israeli attack on the USS Liberty?

The US Sixth Fleet would take casualties in doing it, but I would be confident that had they been ordered to retaliate, the relevant Israeli naval bases would be smoking ruins. IIRC, at least some of the attackers came from Haifa. Precision guided munitions were very rare at the time, and the Sixth Fleet may not have had any. An errant bomb, or an Israeli antiaircraft missile, could well have landed in a civilian area.

The US made some very bad tactical errors in sending an unescorted and essentially unarmed intelligence ship into a war zone. Three years or so earlier, electronic information gathering against North Vietnam was done by pairs of detroyers, with air support on immediate call. Their electronic capture gear was less extensive than on the Liberty, but if the US had needed that capability in the Gulf of Tonkin, that ship would have had a strong escort.

Nevertheless, Israel attacked a US Navy vessel, and the US did not retaliate. North Korea attacked and captured the USS Pueblo, and the US did not retaliate. What if the US followed Israeli doctrine in both cases?

What, Davai, would have happened next if the US destroyed the Haifa naval base as retaliation for the Liberty incident? That retaliation would have been more focused than the attacks by Israel in response to a much less serious incident. 34 Americans died and 173 were injured in that attack. Is that more of a justification to blast the base from which the attackers were known to have come, as opposed to the capture of fewer than 5 soldiers?

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

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

avatar

MJ I just watched the Moyers show online and I was very impressed by you and Mr. Sider. I was raised as a southern baptist so I guess technically I'm an evangelical but I'm not the nutjob wishing for end times type of evangelical. This nutjob Hagee is a scary person. Sadly my local NBC affiliate airs his "sermons" every Sunday,and I keep the tv on mute until it's over as I can't stand the guy or his rhetoric. I agree with you and several other posters that the only way Israel will see peace in the mideast is the two state solution. In the book Imperial Hubris the author stated that most of our problems in the mideast are due to the United States "Israel right or wrong" policy. I hope that we continue to see progress between Israel and Palestine toward peace.

avatar

It appears, however, from the first article you cite that both the Israelis and the Palestinians opposed the introduction of the Security Council resolution...

If you read the comments by Abbas that I posted in the news article (apparently made before the withdrawal), it sure sounds as if as late as Friday, he had no objections, and was seeing the UN resolution as confirmation of the Bush administration's seriousness.

I see what you're saying about the process, but perception is everything and this sends, at minimum, a mixed message to the Arab world about the seriousness of the negotiations, thus potentially undermining needed support. Once the resolution was on the table, it was a very bad move to withdraw it.

The claim that the Palestinians opposed it too appears to be no more than a CYA move; even the Haaretz article on the topic says that the U.S. withdrew it due to Israeli objections. Maybe, as lally suspects, the Israelis aren't as serious about peace as they claim to be. 

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

avatar

1. If US had thought that Israel would continue to attack US ships, I'm sure US wouldn't wait for another attack.
2. Your another question is what would be US reaction if Mexico allowed Venezuela and Iran to create a Hezbollah style group in border areas with US and that group constantly harasses US border guards and one day capture five border guards and killed another five.
It’s hard to image, but there would be hell to pay.
3. What would be reaction of US to every day indiscriminate firing rockets on San Diego from Mexico? I don't know for sure, but again there would be hell to pay.

avatar

I'm sorry for not responding; I'm dealing with severe time constraints...

Let me ask you this question, what’s your plan B?
You say that that just might work. What if this doesn’t work ?
Look at Lebanon Afghanistan, Pakistan, Syria and on and on and on.
You see failed states or dictatorships in Muslim world.
What are the chances that future Palestinian state would be any different?
Why would not Lebanese mind own business and build a peaceful prosperous state instead of fighting each other and Israel?

If it does not work, then Israel would find itself surrounded by enemies---just as it is today---but it will have gained a great deal more sympathy from the rest of the world. I have very little sympathy for the Israel of today, but if an extraordinarly generous offer like the one I've proposed were rejected by a significant number of Palestinian young men (like >10%), then I would be wondering if we weren't actually dealing with psychosis. But there really shouldn't be much doubt about the likelihood of success if the whole thing is approached in the right way.

It will be important to encourage the Palestinian people to view the extreme generosity settlement as a supreme victory for the Palestinian People, one that they can celebrate for days in the street. The key is to get the pride thing going for the young males. Let Hamas take ownership of the deal, and let them parade around as if their steadfastness made the wonderful outcome possible. This is where the Israelis need to be clever. You want that to happen because it magnifies the chances of success dramatically. Let them take ownership of it.

Israel wins anyway, because it finally gets the peace it wanted and it gets to keep its historical land and it finally has the whole world admiring the Israeli people for their incredible display of good will (and not just Amercan politicians and Christian Armageddonists).

If you just hand tons of cash over to the Palestinians, the result would not be very favorable. Rampant inflation would simply waste away their good fortune. Hand them a nice chunk of cash, perhaps available over a period of time, but give them real things whenever possible. Valuable infrastructure, goods, and services should be made available at reasonable prices. The Israeli economy would boom like never before.

The Israelis should try to flood the New Palestine with helpers and advisors and enablers. They should be visable in a helpful role. You see, the Palestinians won't be hating the Israelis anymore. They will not feel humiliated and ashamed. And behind their smiles, they'll also be feeling some sincere gratitude toward the Israelis for making a joyful peace possible. They may not actually want to say it at first, but it will be there. You guys don't know what you're missing.

Guess that's all I have time for now...

avatar

"Maybe, as lally suspects, the Israelis aren't as serious about peace as they claim to be."

Maybe you and lally are right that the Israelis might not be serious about negotiations. I'm not here to argue the contrary, or to question the bona fides of the Palestinians. My principal point was plainly and remains about the negotiations process. I guess I believed that was a critical point to make in this discussion frankly. But if you're right that this could be all about the Israelis having no interest in good faith negotiations then of course the process would not matter and what I thought was critical becomes irrelevant.

avatar

3. What would be reaction of US to every day indiscriminate firing rockets on San Diego from Mexico? I don't know for sure, but again there would be hell to pay.

Of course there's no reason for the Mexicans to fire rockets at us because we aren't occupying their country, building American settlements on their land, controlling their borders, assassinating their leaders, or withholding their tax money.

1. That wasn't my question, was it? Are you saying Israel never, ever retaliates unless it is convinced another attack will come from the same source?

I will ask it again: if Israel took a significant number of dead and wounded and had a ship almost sunk, by Syrian vessels operating out of Latakia, are you saying that Israel would hit that base only if it thought a second attack would come from there?

2. I think this is a hypothetical question, but it is so twisted that I'm not sure what you are asking.

3. Rockets from San Diego? First, tell me specifically what kind of rockets, and where they are landing. I can tell you quite specifically about the reaction to rocket fire in Iraq, which is one hell of a lot more precise and controlled than what Israel is doing.

Of course, if Israel hadn't stopped joint development of the Nautilus (former MTHEL) laser defense against rockets, and its own development based on the Swiss Oerlikon 35mm gun system, both countries might have better active defenses.

Passive defenses have their role as well. Most light artillery rockets fired as singles tend to be low trajectory. High chain-link fence, or a modern variation on WWII style barrage balloons, might be a fairly effective passive defense.

I could very well see the US demanding to put launch sensors in Mexico, perhaps in a joint center, and take counteraction if the Mexicans did not. The equivalent is something I have repeatedly suggested for Israel: get the settlers out of the settlements NOW, and put military observation posts, or at least unmanned launch sensors, in their place.

I would have to study the geography and patterns of rocket fire to make specific recommendations, but if there were a problem with rockets put on ramps and fired by timers, I'd consider a variety of sensors to try to spot them before launch, and engage them with fairly precise weapons, such as guns or missiles on a UCAV after spotting by a electro-optical surveillance UAV. I certainly wouldn't rule out, again if I had a good idea of where the groups firing were headquartered or have weapons dumps, using direct action by special operations forces. A couple of Raufoss rounds from a Barrett .50 rifle will do interesting things to a rocket in a truck.


--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

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

avatar

You didn'r really answer my questions:

You see failed states or dictatorships in Muslim world. What are the chances that future Palestinian state would be any different? Why would not Lebanese mind own business and build a peaceful prosperous state instead of fighting each other and Israel?

If it does not work, then Israel would find itself surrounded by enemies---just as it is today---but it will have gained a great deal more sympathy from the rest of the world.

First of all, it might sounds silly for you but there is a difference between being nine mile wide country and being 100 miles wide country.
Second, Israel is not going to gain sympathy from Iran, and I'm not sure how your sympathy will help Israel if Israel would find itself surrounded by enemies. that can fire all over the country from the short distance.

avatar

You must be kidding. What's San Diego if not American settlement on their land.
In any case, Israel doesn't build settlements on Lebanise land.

avatar

In any case, Israel doesn't build settlements on Lebanise land.

Don't overlook the refugee camps in Lebanon for the Palestinian Arabs Israel won't let return. In their own way, these too are Israeli settlements.

avatar
I will ask it again: if Israel took a significant number of dead and wounded and had a ship almost sunk, by Syrian vessels operating out of Latakia, are you saying that Israel would hit that base only if it thought a second attack would come from there?
Yes, If Syria and Israel were friendly nations and Israel had reasons to believe that was an isolated incidend, I doubt that Israel would hit back.
2. I think this is a hypothetical question, but it is so twisted that I'm not sure what you are asking.
Everything that we discuss is hypothetical. In any case, there are some groups in Mexico that at war with central goverment. If one of such group would get support from Venezuela and start to harass US border guards and one day capture 5 border guards and killed another five what would be US reaction?
3. Rockets from San Diego? First, tell me specifically what kind of rockets, and where they are landing. I can tell you quite specifically about the reaction to rocket fire in Iraq, which is one hell of a lot more precise and controlled than what Israel is doing
Not from San Diego, to San Diego. Let's say that the same type of rockets that Hamas is using from Gaza.
The equivalent is something I have repeatedly suggested for Israel: get the settlers out of the settlements NOW, and put military observation posts, or at least unmanned launch sensors, in their place.
There are no settlers in Gaza. Are you suggesting that Israel should re-occupy Gaza and put military observation posts, and unmanned launch sensors there?
avatar

It's realy own way. Therefore the war will continue until 10 millions Arabs get permission to return to Israel.
I got your point. Israel will have to do whatever it have to do to protect itself.

avatar

I hope nobody has any illusions that even a single Palestinian will be allowed to "return".

Indeed, what are they thinking--in Israel, this 'right' is for 'Jews only.'

First of all, it might sounds silly for you but there is a difference between being nine mile wide country and being 100 miles wide country.
Grofaz, and Stalin almost as strongly, used to tell their generals that once taken, they could not retreat one step. Now, this was especially silly on the German-Russian front, given all the room for maneuver.
With modern weapons, or even older ones, it may very well be that a nine-mile-wide strip cannot be defended. Dien Bien Phu was, IIRC, 3-5 miles wide at the narrowest, and the Viet Minh used light artillery brought in mostly by physical laborers.
You could, of course, create a 30 mile or so boundary zone, clear all life from it, mine it, and cover it with artillery. Within that zone, you could put radars and such to give you warning another 30 or so miles out.
Doing so would certainly take you out of unguided rocket, but not missile, range. That is a problem, isn't it? It may be that a declared Zionist state cannot exist in that area, or you can hold off until the Rapturists are right about Armageddon.
This is not a theoretical position, but one that might be all too real.

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

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

avatar

The point davai is that multiethnic states are the model and have been for most of the post-war era. One could even argue that for civilized people at least, they have always been the model. And you don't know much about the breakup of Czechoslovakia if you're using that to defend your point.

Perhaps it would be better if all the immigrants from Europe's former colonial territories went home. I don't think so. Perhaps we should bring back segregation and Marcus Garvey. And, davai, what's the Muslim population Of India?

I will not defend in the modern era the racial definition of a state, in theory or in practice. I will not defend it for the US and I will not defend it for Germany and I will not defend it for Israel, though Israel was founded on that logic. You will do so, and so will Josh Marshall, MJ Rosenberg and Ehud Olmert. Your claims that Palestinians and Egyptians and Syrians are all Arabs is based on the same racial logic; cultural difference mean noting. Try using that logic to resolve border disputes in South America.
For the rest of you read the interview and know what you're defending if you defend the morality of Olmert and his policies.

Thanks, Kathy.
It was very valuable to me to hear from Dr. Sider that the Hagee types are a minority of evangelicals.
Similarly, the Jewish zealots are a minority of our community.
Praise God for that!
MJ

avatar

Well, actually no Davai. Ten million Arabs don't have to be allowed to return to Israel. For there to be a reasonable chance of peace, however, there may need to be an accomodation more generous to the Palestinians than what the Israelis are now offering and less generous than what the Palestinians are demanding. That's all. No reason to run to one extreme or the other. But starting the negotiations with the condition that the return of even a single Arab will not be allowed is really the same as ending the negotiations.

Stay that rigid, and you have a handbook of how to protect yourself. It's called "History of Masada".

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

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

avatar

MJ, I understand you're up for an Emmy for that performance. :-)

avatar

Kathy,

The Hagee gang support the State of Israel because without it there can be no Rapture.

The Hagee loonies believe there must be a steady State of Isreal before they can be transported up to Heaven when End of Days arrives.

The item not publicized much about these good Christian folk is that on the Day of the Rapture if Jews haven't converted to Christianity and accepted Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior then they will be condemned to eternal damnation, burning in hell for eternity.

The bottom line is, Hagee's support of Israel isn't altruistic, its self serving.

avatar

So how many Arabs should be allowed to move to Israel?

avatar

Don't know . . . that seems to be a topic for negotiation. I assume fewer the more alternative compensation is provided for them.

avatar

I know there are an awful lot of Jews who live in Israel, but what exactly is it, exactly, that makes Israel "Jewish"?
Or does anything Israel might do become "Jewish" by default?

Israel does whatever it does due to the exigencies of the position they have put themselves in, and the things they wish to accomplish.

If what Israel does is "Jewish", we Jews are in a lot of trouble.

So Judaism is a religion of colonial projects, opression, dispossesion and illegal occupation?

It is an afront to Jews everywhere, I hope, and an insult to every Jew who has suffered for their religion.

avatar

The answer will be 0. Get over this. Accept the partition of British mandate into Jewish and Arab state and move on.

avatar

It's better for Israel if somebody support Israel for self serving reasons, than hate Israel for self serving reasons.

avatar

As you can see from my first comment in this post, I don't propose for Israel to be rigid.

avatar
And, davai, what's the Muslim population Of India?
Actually, you brought a good point. In the same time as there was a partition of British Mandate in Palestine, there was a partition of British Colony in India.
7,226,000 Muslims went to Pakistan from India while 7,249,000 Hindus and Sikhs moved to India from Pakistan immediately after partition. About 11.2 million or 78% of the population transfer took place in the west, with Punjab accounting for most of it; 5.3 million Muslims moved from India to West Punjab in Pakistan, 3.4 million Hindus and Sikhs moved from Pakistan to East Punjab in India; elsewhere in the west 1.2 million moved in each direction to and from Sind.[citation needed] "With the tragic legacy of an uncertain future, a young refugee sits on the walls of Purana Qila, transformed into a vast refugee camp in Delhi." Margaret Bourke-White, 1947 A crowd of Muslims at the Old Fort (Purana Qila) in Delhi, which had been converted into a vast camp for Muslim refugees waiting to be transported to Pakistan. Manchester Guardian, 27 September 1947.The newly formed governments were completely unequipped to deal with migrations of such staggering magnitude, and massive violence and slaughter occurred on both sides of the border. Estimates of the number of deaths range around roughly 500,000, with low estimates at 200,000 and high estimates at 1,000,000.[5]
Now, India is a democratic country with Muslim minority and Pakistan is semi failing dictatorship. The only difference with Israel is that India is much bigger country and there are no hopes of destroying India.
I will not defend it for Israel, though Israel was founded on that logic.

If you don't think that "it would be better if all the immigrants from Europe's former colonial territories went home", what do you propose?
Also, don't forget about Jewish refugies from Arab countries.

avatar

I don't think he gets the line from party hq, he is asking questions that you have no answers.

avatar

Howard, as you probably understand every mile makes a diffrence. Demilitarized Sinai, Golans, West Bank under Israeli military control makes defending Israel possible.

If one of such group would get support from Venezuela and start to harass US border guards and one day capture 5 border guards and killed another five what would be US reaction?
For that level of casualty, which is less than encountered in gunfights with assorted drug gangs and escorts to illegal immigrants, a diplomatic protest to Mexico, and then a serious sit-down meeting between Mexico and the US to decide on a joint solution.
Let's say that the same type of rockets that Hamas is using from Gaza.
Again, I'd need maps, but, as I remember, it's quite flat. Set up (terrain is important) AN/TPQ-36 (maybe -37) and/or MPQ-64 radars covering the area of fire, the Marine electro-optical Rocket Launch Spotter coupled with UTAMS acoustic locators, with real-time communications to Mexican ground and air patrols in the area. Mexico might very well consent to UAVs over the area, with video feeds to both sides.
Depending on the altitude, it may be possible to deploy aerostats with nets on the border. That's not an overnight development, but it could be worked out.
Mexican forces, perhaps with some technical assistance, should be able to locate the firers. It would also depend on whether the rockets were fired manually or on timers. If the former, a jointly controlled UCAV that could engage with .50 caliber machine guns or Hellfire missiles. If the latter, a temporary approach might be to see if the M1097 Humvee Avenger will engage a rocket that small, and, if so, to deploy a line of them.
Ground patrols, either Mexican or joint, would probably get shoot-to-kill orders on sighting rocket teams, using a mixture of sniper rifles, with Barrett .50 against rockets and vehicles, and something lighter against personnel.
Single Qassams are just not enough of a threat to counter with artillery. I think people would be more worried about them starting brushfires than blowing anything up. There are probably more people killed by gang warfare in San Diego than a few Qassams would manage; they are rather light weapons.
Given it took me about 15 minutes to come up with a basic approach, which could be operational in a few weeks, is it any clearer why I don't think the IDF is serious about defense? RLS/UTAMS is, incidentally, operational for base defense in Afghanistan, where they are apt to return fire with medium mortars or artillery. The population is denser in Iraq, so they tend to go with infantry and helicopters to avoid collateral damage. The GRADs are actually preferable, as they are bigger and easier to hit than a Qassam.
There are no settlers in Gaza. Are you suggesting that Israel should re-occupy Gaza and put military observation posts, and unmanned launch sensors there?
I need to get a better map of where the rocket attacks are hitting a 9 mile wide strip of Israel, or you are referring to two different places. A 9 mile wide strip is indefensible. If this is the situation with respect to Gaza, either Israel has to pull back or move in, with all the consequences of either option. Without specific analysis of the terrain, a rough estimate of a defensible buffer zone against Qassams is around 12 miles, and 25 miles against GRADs. -- Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

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

avatar
a diplomatic protest to Mexico, and then a serious sit-down meeting between Mexico
You are assuming that a Mexican goverment control the insergents. What if weak Mexican goverment have no control of border area with US and such groups are controled by Venezuela.
Mexican forces, perhaps with some technical assistance, should be able to locate the firers.
Again, let's assume that Mexican goverment have no control of border area with US and such groups are controled by Venezuela. See Pakistan Afganistan border area, or parts of Columbia for SOMEWHAT similar situation.
The population is denser in Iraq, so they tend to go with infantry and helicopters to avoid collateral damage
This is what Israel does against Hamas in Gaza, however, it can't stop all the attacks against cities in the South of Israel.
There are probably more people killed by gang warfare in San Diego than a few Qassams would manage; they are rather light weapons.
So what, there are more people killed in fires every years than in 911 attacks, many more in gang warfare or autoaccidents, medical errors and so on. But somehow, after a small 911 terrorist act, US went to war and invaded 2 countries with full support of American people. This is why it's called terrorism because it causes fear far beyond real demage. So, don't expect from Israel to be much more "rational" than from American people.
avatar

FYI, Maybe Israel should be afront to Jews everywhere, but it's not the case. Most of the Jews around the world as well many non Jews support of Israel and are proud of Israel.

It was one of my better roles!!

avatar

I've brought this up multiple times and you've evaded the question every time without fail. 

Answer the question: How will negotiations ending the occupation lead to peace?  What is the evidence that Israeli concessions will lead to a change in the Arab mindset.  Please note this is NOT an argument for maintaining the status quo.  It is an argument about trying to be realistic about what strategy Israel should take to overturn the status quo.

If you really believe that getting land and signing a treaty will lead the Palestinians to give up their goal of destroying Israel, then say so.  If you are not sure what the Palestinians will do, but think Israel needs to end its occupation regardless, then say so.

Just stop saying NOTHING about this crucial issue.

You are assuming that a Mexican government control the insurgents. What if weak Mexican government have no control of border area with US and such groups are controlled by Venezuela.
Again, let's assume that Mexican goverment have no control of border area with US and such groups are controled by Venezuela. See Pakistan Afganistan border area, or parts of Columbia for SOMEWHAT similar situation.
No, let's not assume that. You asked questions, and I answered them, but you don't like the answers. Next time, think before typing.
So what, there are more people killed in fires every years than in 911 attacks, many more in gang warfare or auto accidents, medical errors and so on.
It is interesting to see how you respond with "so what" to the deaths of your now-fellow citizens.
But somehow, after a small 911 terrorist act, US went to war and invaded 2 countries with full support of American people.
Afghanistan was a rational response, but do not ask me to defend the invasion of Iraq; I never supported the ideas. It should be fairly obvious that the Administration lied to the American public about Iraq having anything to do with 9/11.
This is why it's called terrorism because it causes fear far beyond real demage. So, don't expect from Israel to be much more "rational" than from American people.
Well, I might point out that if the US system was parliamentary as is Israel's, the 2006 elections would have caused the government to fall.
So, you are saying the Israeli government is as honest and rational as the Bush Administration. Tell me, what would you say if you wanted to show disapproval of the Israeli government?
Davai, you asked me questions about a specific tactical situation that you defined. I even asked you some specific questions about the rockets, and you gave answers. That they were fairly silly answers became apparent.
So, you tried to change the tactical picture, but I'm not playing that game. You apparently don't like the answers you got, which were very specific. OTOH, I did give a number of answers that did not require invading Mexico/Gaza, which specifically involved active countermeasures to the rockets themselves. Israel was in joint development, with the US, of a system even more effective than what I described, but it stopped that work, as well as the work on Skyguard.
Now, given that I could cite US equipment, some of which Israel has, that could give countermeasures, why do you think I am not very impressed with the performance of the IDF to date? While I'd be extremely hesitant to give more long-range offensive weapons to the little boys of the IDF, who haven't demonstrated they can use them responsibly, I doubt the US would object to providing RLS or Avenger to Israel. Israel already has either AN/TPQ-36, -37, or both. If Israel doesn't have the AN/MPQ-64, or the FAAD C3I system to link radars to Avengers, I don't see that as a problem.
Consider engaging brain before putting typing fingers into gear, or perhaps not trying to tell me the IDF is on top of things. -- Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

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

avatar
If one of such group would get support from Venezuela and start to harass US border guards and one day capture 5 border guards and killed another five what would be US reaction?
Howard, Actually we know the answer. When 5 contractors were killed in Iraq, US leveled a nearby city. So, please don't tell me about American military manuals anyumore.
avatar

I can't speak for MJ, but I have been saying that the two-state solution as presently conceived (which includes ending the occupation, giving the Palestinians some fraction of the West Bank and Gaza, etc., etc.) will not create peace because it will not be enough to satisfy the Palestinians and will therefore not end their resistance and therefore not provide security to Israel. The question then becomes: "What alternative will work?" Or maybe even more important prior to that question, "Does anyone have the will to find an alternative?"

I suspect that the new peace process will come down to a take-it-or-leave it proposition from Israel to the Palestinians. And, if it comes to that, I expect Abbas to do exactly what Arafat did last time around. Walk out.

No one knows what the alternative solution that would work is--or even if one exists. That will require substantial work. And even if the two sides can find a solution that seems as if it has potential to work, there will never be a guarantee in advance. The future is too hard to predict. So an end to the stalemate will require great willingness to find a solution, great work to create one, and great courage to proceed despite immeasurable risks.

Maybe it will happen.

In the meantime, a lot of meaningless drivel will be written over and over again (and I don't exclude this).

avatar

"Now, India is a democratic country with Muslim minority"
... and you're a supporter of the BJP.

"If you don't think that "it would be better if all the immigrants from Europe's former colonial territories went home", what do you propose?"

I propose that you're an asshole.

Want to try some specifics, Davai? I think I know what you have in mind, and it may not fly.

However, "we" do not know the answer. You have yet to pose a coherent question, although you can certainly wallow in the emotive loaded question.

I suspect you are misremembering when four, not five, American contractors were killed, and their bodies exhibited, in March 2004. There was urban fighting after that, for about a month, which ended with an agreement that Iraqi forces would keep order in Fallujah.

I'm not defending the legitimacy of either the Iraqi government or the US presence, but what most people refer to as the major fighting in Fallujah was in November 2004.

Of course, if one were to listen to a Big Lie propagandist like you, Davai, one might assume that the US, immediately after the bodies were discovered, ordered large-scale bomhing and shelling of the city. If one were to listen to you, no American soldiers were at risk in either April or November, and no Iraqi troops were involved in the Second Battle of Fallujah.

Was that a wise battle? That's a hard question. It did achieve some of its tactical objectives, but there is the fundamental question of what the US was trying to accomplish.

Nevertheless, Davai, there was no cause and effect, and, as is often the case, you are caught lying when you argue something else and look silly. I notice you aren't commenting on my observation that the IDF is dealing foolishly with the rocket problem, that there would be ways to deal with it, but the geography created by Israel may not be defensible.

To what irrelevant topic would you like to try to divert the conversation at this time?


So, please don't tell me about American military manuals anyumore.

I have yet to tell you about a single American military manual, Davai. Why would I bother, since I can confidently expect you to misunderstand them? If I were in a room with you and you held a firearm, that would be a frightening experience, since I don't know whether I'd be safer if you aimed at me or not. Your level of military knowledge suggests that you may not definitively know the end of the weapon from which the bullet comes.
--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

It takes a village to make an idiot.