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.

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

Yes, we do agree on the framework.

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.

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

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."

"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.

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

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.

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.

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

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

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

But really, what would be so bad about a state for both Arabs and Jews?

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?

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.

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]

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

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...

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

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

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

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]

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.

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

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

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

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

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?

Let's say that the same type of rockets that Hamas is using from Gaza.

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?

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

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

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.

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.

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?

"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.

I don't follow internal Indian policy closely.

I propose that you're an asshole.

Removing settlers behind the fence but keeping military control...

That's still occupation according to international law and doesn't solve anything.

You also keep referring to withdrawing Israeli settlers to "behind the fence" as if that's the border. But it's not - that's one of the things that negotiation is supposed to resolve - and the route of the fence causes additional Palestinian suffering and economic deprivation because it cuts through their villages and separates them from their agricultural lands - all to try to seize as much land as possible for Israel. Your "solution" just perpetuates the 30-year-old problem, and would likely lead to an escalation of violence rather than the reduction you claim. All Palestinians - not just Hamas - would have nothing left to lose under your plan.

Before arguing with me about this, I suggest that you read the b'tselem articles that I posted several threads back, but which you either didn't bother to read, or simply ignored.

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

I expect Abbas to do exactly what Arafat did last time around. Walk out.

No, let's not assume that

Oh golly, oh gee, does that mean you think there's no point in discussions here and you might go away?

You see, Davai, it's rather a running joke how you begin a discussion not with anything that might actually require you to defend a position, but, instead, you draw from the methods of the Organs of State Security and start asking question after question, of the general form "and when did you quit beating your wife." When the questions deal with anything that actually has real parameters and boundary conditions, such as actual weapons and military doctrine, you throw out ill-considered questions.

You appear to find it most annoying when your literal question is answered in detail and it doesn't give you the answer you were setting up, so you go off with a new set of questions. I suppose that if people would patiently answer you, show you the illogic of your questions, you might -- and I consider this not to be certain -- you might actually ask loaded questions which, if answered, would give you the answer you want the very first time! On the other paw, since the answers you want are transparently propagandistic and prejudiced, there isn't a great probability many will play with you.

So, in this case, since you didn't get to set the rules and keep changing them until reality fit your preconceptions, you now huffle off and say you won't play any more. Huffle huffle huffle.

--
Howard

Ernest was an elephant, a great big fellow,
Leonard was a lion with a six foot tail,
George was a goat, and his beard was yellow,
And James was a very small snail.

Leonard had a stall, and a great big strong one,
Earnest had a manger, and its walls were thick,
George found a pen, but I think it was the wrong one,
And James sat down on a brick

Earnest started trumpeting, and cracked his manger,
Leonard started roaring, and shivered his stall,
James gave a huffle of a snail in danger
And nobody heard him at all.

Earnest started trumpeting and raised such a rumpus,
Leonard started roaring and trying to kick,
James went on a journey with the goats new compass
And he reached the end of his brick.

Ernest was an elephant and very well intentioned,
Leonard was a lion with a brave new tail,
George was a goat, as I think I have mentioned,
but James was only a snail.

[A.A. Milne, "The Four Friends"]

Reply at the end

It would be quite wrong of me to call you an asshole, and I did not. While you may be content to take command of the English language and lead it into suicidal charges, I have too much respect for the language to use it inappropriately. Calling you an asshole would be inappropriate, since the human anus has at least one useful purpose.

We don't have arguments, at least in the intellectual sense, which implies some level of equality. At some point, when I am patiently showing you the illogic of your ways, you consistently announce that you won't discuss any more, and then claim you have won the argument. Would a player simply getting up and leaving a chess game in play be consider a winner, or more likely a loser by forfeit.

Do not think that I have the slightest respect for you. I do not engage you for that reason. Rather, it is a situation where you appear to be mildly convincing about some of your absurdities, or that you have lied so blatantly that I cannot let it stand.

We have never had a meaningful argument, so it is moot to say you have won a thing. Actually, some of your inaccuracies do serve a value in presenting the facts in matters in which you flounder, so, perhaps, you have a minimal use and do qualify as an anus, after all. For that reason, I dedicate this song to you.

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

"Some cause happiness wherever they go; others, whenever they go" [Oscar Wilde]

Get over this.

I agree that Jewish zealots on the right and on the left are a minority of our community.
Jewish zealots on the Right don't want to change anything, Jewish zealots on the Left blame Israel for everything.

Not funny and rude. You can do better. Try again, my dearest friend Howard.

Howard,

Rather than using the word "asshole", I personally prefer "posterior opening of the alimentary canal."

Davai: The Man Who Makes Liberals Appreciate Tancredo, Dobbs and Buchanan

Sounds too long:
Howard, posterior opening of the alimentary canal.
Davai, not posterior opening of the alimentary canal.

Del

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 anymore.

As part of the occupation of Iraq, the First Battle of Fallujah, codenamed Operation Vigilant Resolve was an unsuccessful attempt by the United States Military to capture the city of Fallujah in April 2004.

The chief catalyst for the operation was the highly-publicized killing and mutilation of four Blackwater private military contractors,[5] and the killing of 5 U.S. soldiers in Habbaniya a few days earlier.[6]

On April 1, Brigadier General Mark Kimmitt, deputy director of operations for the US military in Iraq, promised an "overwhelming" response to the Blackwater deaths, stating "We will pacify that city,"
In the opening days, it was reported that up to a third of the civilian population had fled the city

The siege forced the closing of Fallujah's two main hospitals, Fallujah General Hospital and the Jordanian Hospital, which were re-opened during the ceasefire on April 9.[35]

... As a consequence, much-needed humanitarian relief which had been held up by the fighting and blockade finally managed to enter the city,

The U.S. attacks were taking a great toll on civilians as well as the insurgents
At this point, it was estimated that 600 Iraqis had been killed, at least half of whom were non-combatants
Critics of the battle have contended that it contravened the Fourth Geneva Convention, by the use of unguided munitions targeting civilian population centres

petermschwartz52,

To be sure, they want to balance out Washington's role in all this, but I found it to be a good development. What do you make of it?

If MJ can resist the temptation to play the troll game and actually start to take his blogging seriously, I would look forward to his assessment of the Moscow proposal too.

What the fuck is wrong with you, MJ?  Is this the level of discourse (for lack of a better word) that you really want to enable beneath your own byline?  Please get a grip.

Bruce, It's your "teacher".
Would you like such a teacher for your children?

Zionista is bent out of shape because a racist idiot BUT A FELLOW JEW is being ridiculed.
Watch your language, too. Odd that someone who dubs herself ZIONISTA is the one person who uses the f-word around here. Yech.

Bruce,
Here is an example of a student of your "teacher". You children can be exactly like Sean, if they follow your "teacher".

1-They are home.
2-If you paid attention you'd know that radicalism in British Muslim communities is fed by the disaffected adolescent children of fully assimilated parents.
3- Europe has not tried to assimilate its immigrants. Jus sanguinis is still the rule in society if not in law.
4- I live in Queens NY where 46% of the population is foreign born.
They're all becoming Americanized too, quickly and well. But they're changing the country too, which is good. Still, Jus sanguinis is more foreign to this country, even at its worst, than they are. "White" is a very broad category.
Your ignorance of the world feeds your blindness about the middle east, (and vice-versa).

There are more problems in Europe, but the Europeans are more to blame than anyone.
There are problems in the middle east, but along with all the corruption in the arab states, Israel is right at the center. And remember, MJR argued that Arab democracy will be bad for Israel. And hasn't that been the argument all along?
Paranoia, defended by racist arguments.

I'm not going to play with Davai's twisting and lies. Even assuming Wikipedia is authoritative, I suggest that anyone who believes that Davai is being accurate, on such things as when the major damage occurred (See Second Battle of Fallujah), actually look at the three Battle of Fallujah articles there, perhaps at some links, and decide for yourself who is twisting history.

It should be obvious that whenever Davai is given a very specific response, he abruptly changes the subject to something quite different where he can regain, in his limited grasp, control. That often manifests itself as a barrage of loaded questions, a declaration he has won the argument, or much hand-waving.

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

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

The Jews are a distinct historic people connected with a specific territory for 4000 years. The Palestinians are not. Although there is an Arab people that are called "Palestinians", such a thing did not exist before 1948, when the Arabs rejected the name "Palestinian". Then , the word "Palestinian" meant "Jew".
Time for a pop-quiz....Let's say you are a speechwriter for Abbas. You want to tie your current leader to great Palestinians of history. Give me some names of great Palestinians of the past (one condition--you can't do like Arafat and claim Jesus was a "Palestinian"....if you asked him who he was and where he lived he would say "A Jew from Galilee and Judea")

I still don't understand what your point.
Do you support two state solution or not, do you advocate "the right of return" or not?

Hi Peter, just saw your nice note. I enjoyed doing the show. Moyers is a great man and it was a privilege to be interviewed by him.

I think the Russian involvement might be a good thing. As Daniel Levy points out. Olmert wants to be pressured by the US (so he can tell his coalition partners that he has no choice but to dismantle settlements, etc) but Bush (Abrams) won't do it. So Russia and the EU both help Olmert by leaning on him. We'll see.

Never get too optimistic about the Middle East!

It's really as simple as this: if Israel makes an all-out effort to turn the New Palestine into the most economically advanced and prosperous of all Arab states, then it will succeed in obtaining a peaceful and happy future for itself.

Iran's 'problem' with Israel would automatically disappear if the Palestinians were happy with the price that they got for the land they sold to the Israelis.

Rose-colored glasses...
Putin is returning Russia to the status of an authoritarian state. Russia's economic improvement in recent years is largely due to the big increase in the price of oil. In order to maintain a high price for oil, it is in Putin's interest that there be ongoing turmoil in the Middle East. Do you seriously think that he wants Arab/Israeli peace under those conditions?

Please specify what I said that was "absurd".

Question for the non-negotiators---How's that occupation working out for you?

I think it's hard to argue rationally that the Palestinian people--a small group--deserve a country and that Jews--a small group--do not.

If Israel was a dictatorship like Syria or Iraq under Saddam, Jews could run a country being a small minority.
I don't think that it makes any difference whether the Palestinian people are a people or not.

I agree that Arabs lived in Eretz Israel before 1948. This does not mean that they had a unique national identity. The only people who have lived in Eretz Israel since ancient times who have a unique national identity are the Jews. Now, the question is, since I oppose the "2-state solution" and "territories for peace" (which would never bring peace as more and more people, including Tony Blair are beginning to realize, at least under current conditions), the question then becomes what to do about the Arabs living in Judea/Samaria and Gaza. I have stated in the past, that Judea/Samaria should become a condominium under joint Israeli/Jewish-Arab rule with Israeli law applying to the Jews living there and Arab rule to the Arabs in conjuction with the Arab state east of the Jordan River currently called "The Kingdom of Jordan", although it may eventually come under the rule of someone else other than the current Hashemite monarchy. If and when the security situation improves, the Israeli military presence can be greatly reduced and the roadblocks opened and free passage can be granted to Arabs not just in Judea/Samaria but also into Israel proper. This was the situation before Oslo in 1993 which imported Arafat and his terrorist gangs to Israel which destroyed the lives of the Palestinians, economically and politically in addition to murdering or wounding of thousands of Israelis. However, Israel must have the preeminent role in security in these territories under current conditions.

I did point to it, and you ignored it, I can only assume deliberately. The major damage that "flattened" Fallujah was in November, again according to Wikipedia.

When I say you are a liar, I do not consider that a personal insult. I consider it a reasonably precise description, as well as statements about your twisting material out of context, and making unilateral statement that you won an argument. Such statements come, in general, after you have gone through several iterations of rephrasing your originally imprecise point until there is almost nothing there. The remaining shreds are sufficiently inaccurate that there is no simple way to refute them.

As far as personal insults, I believe that one of the things I have established here, over a substantial period of time, that I have a hard-earned knowledge of military and intelligence topics. Not all of this came from libraries. Yesterday, however, you claimed I was a geek who played computer games and was unfamiliar with what real countries did. When I responded with military history to approximately 400 BCE, you changed the subject.

You make frequent references to my bringing up military trivia, when the details of the military equipment and tactics, such as what I consider to be war crimes in Lebanon, are at the heart of the matter. When I mention war crimes, you may or may not try further insults, but you almost invariably go into a tu quoque defense of Israel.

Pot, kettle, black. If you do not like the responses you get in an unmoderated forum, you can leave. I can suggest that you drop personal insults, but apparently you feel there is a need for them, since you use them frequently.

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

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

I am not your friend. I do not want to be your friend. Friendship is a precious thing that I do not consider lightly.

I am not here to engage in sport with you. In general, I ignore many of your statements, until they go into outright lies or flagrant manipulation.

My dear non friend, my comment that you rated 0 was not a lie or flagrant manipulation. But even if you think so, still don't rate our discussion, leave it to other, don't behave foolishly.

I ignore many of your statements, until

I can suggest that you drop personal insults, but apparently you feel there is a need for them, since you use them frequently

When I responded with military history to approximately 400 BCE, you changed the subject.

The major damage that "flattened" Fallujah was in November, again according to Wikipedia.

However, the real life example that I provided suggested that a US response to killing and capturing of US soldiers would possible be as trong as response of Israel to Hesbolla capturing and killing Israeli soldiers, and human toll of innocent civilians could be also very high and possible war crimes could be commited and cluster bombs could be used.
On 9 November, CNN Correspondent Karl Penhaul reported the use of cluster bombs in the offensive

bar.

re "Russia's economic improvement ....."

Putin is diversifying. He is involved in setting up some weapons deals with the Saudis who are getting tired of congresscritters and American policies that determine what countries in the ME are allowed to have in their arsenals:

" If the deal is completed, it would be the first ever supply of Russian weapons to Saudi Arabia, which is one of the world's largest arms importers. The kingdom's allocations for the purpose are estimated between $12 and $17 billion. Traditionally the contracts were distributed between the United States and European suppliers.

Russian observers linked the Saudi interest in Russian weapons with a change in the kingdom's political priorities and the difficulties it faces after September 11 terrorist attacks, masterminded and performed mostly by Saudi citizens. This year, the U.S. Congress turned down a Saudi request for the purchase of a large batch of American weapons, a move that was seen to be the result of pressure from the pro-Israel lobby. After this, Saudi Arabia started signaling it could turn to Russia for weapons purchases - many statements on this subject were made during Vladimir Putin's visit to Riyadh in February. In August, chief Saudi negotiator on arms purchases Prince Bandar bin Sultan visited Russia for a meeting with top Russian officials and arms exporters.

The current Russia-Saudi talks also included negotiations on Russia's aspirations to join the WTO."
http://mnweekly.ru/news/20071129/55293750.html

Oops.

Ironically, Israel didn't have so much of a problem with the recent proposed Saudi arms deal but some of her bestest American friends do.

Yet another of the endless examples of ignorant fearful fools in the US of A making the situation worse.

Golems golems everywhere!

Sorry, you are also telling a "terminological inexactitude". The Jews ACCEPTED the 1947 partition lines, the Arabs didn't and declared a jihad dedicated to slaughtering the Jewish population within those lines. The Jewish population in the Palestinian-defined areas was either massacred or driven out, TO THE LAST PERSON. It was the Arabs who announced they would slaughter the Jewish population. Azzam Pasha, Secretary of the Arab League said "it would be a massacre like those of the Mongols or Crusades". Fortunately, the Jihad was defeated, and most, BUT NOT ALL the Arabs within the Jewish-controlled zone fled or was expelled as a result of the fighting, i.e. the aggression THEY started, and they, like the Germans who were expelled from Pomerania, Silesia, East Prussia and the Sudetenland due to Germany's aggression against the USSR, Poland and Czechoslovakia, have no right to go back to the homes they forfeited.
Enough with your revisionist history.
Your nonsense about the Palestinians "wanting an open and democratic society" is truly bizarre. The Mufti (Palestinian leader in the 1920's and 30's), Amin AL-Husseini ran a terror regime that was despised by a lot of the Arab population, he and his terror gangs killed and robbed at will. DEMOCRACY?-don't make me laugh.

My motivation in stating that there never was an Arab geopolitical entity called "Palestine" (named by Roman Emperor Hadrian for a long-extinct tribe called "the Philistines" in order to eradicate the existing name of the country -"Judea") is to point out the fact that there never was an Arab country called Palestine, and this explains why there is no real Palestinian national identity among the Arabs of the country which is directly related to the obvious fact that they can't set up a cooperative civil society, as Tony Blair has pointed out. It is a fact that every Arab who calls himself a Palestinian does have something in common-they hate Israel, but then so do the Sunnis and Shias slaughtering each other in Iraq and so do the various groups at each other's throats in Lebanon, so simply hating Jews is not enough to create a national identity.

However, there was no country called Palestine,
there were no people called Palestinians, like there was a country called France and people called French. As somebody recently mentioned in a different discussion, division Arabs in various countries is a very recent phenonimum and it's not completed yet as we see in Iraq.
Bar didn't raised this issue, but he set the record straight. The same way if somebody tells that MLK gave all the speeches for free, it would not be racist to set the record straight (assuming that he got money for his speeches).
In general, I have some problems when some facts deems to be politically incorrect, or some questions considered to be "loaded" and so on.

"This man is dangerous."

My thoughts exactly, John. And the Goebbles reference is apt. I thought it was especially telling when the program showed Hagee really toning down his rhetoric when speaking publicly or to governmental representatives, but those clips were juxtaposed against what he said when speaking about Israel to his faithful - a completely different thing. He actually said that the Roadmap is "biblically flawed!"

And he's pressing hard for U.S. military action against Iran, too. Jeez.

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

what's significant isn't so much the content of the statement, but the motive and purpose behind the statement.

I agree with you, Purple State, but bar isn't doing so hot in the content department either. When he made similar claims some time ago, I pointed out that Herotodus, the Greek historian, used the term "Palestine" in the fifth century BCE. Some historians believe his early references to the people of Palestine refer to the Philistines, a people distinct from the Jews, others think that Herotodus' references to "Palestinians" included Jews. But nobody except a most ideological rightwing Israel supporter would be likely to say that in any period, the term "Palestinian" referred primarily to Jewish residents of Palestine.

Of course, bar will come back to say that the Palestinian claims to the land are less valid because they didn't identify themselves as Palestinians prior to...well, he says WWII, but I think it was much earlier. But if the Palestinian's ancestors lived in the area for millenia (and they did), why should it matter what they called themselves? Why should we allow ideological propaganda to determine the criteria?

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

Stating the fact that before 1948 there was never a political identity called "Palestinian" and that it is a modern construct invented to oppose Israel is not racist.  It is just a fact.

However, it is also irrelevant.  Whether or not there was a Palestinian identity in history, the simple fact is that there is one now.  To the extent  that other Arabs refer to themselves as Jordanian, Qatari, Libyan or Moroccan, the Arabs who live in Israel and the surrounding territories refer to themselves as Palestinian.  That's the reality that must be dealt with.  Even most Israelis will tell you that Arafat, despite a decades-long record of failure in just about everything, did succeed in one thing, and that is forging a Palestinian national identity.  It is not legitimized by history, but then nationalism as a political force is a relatively new phenomenon in any case. 

Resisting this reality serves no purpose in my opinion. 

Brad, I agree with everything you say, except I would clarify that Palestinian national identity is indeed legitimized by history--it's just a very recent history.

Stating a fact isn't racist. But what Bar K is doing is giving an irrelevant fact larger significance than it deserves--not in the interest of truth, but in an attempt to discredit a group he dislikes and deny them any legitimacy. It is the act of making the statement and the motive behind the making of the statement, not the statement itself, that is racist.

Davai:

Today is my daughter Noa's first birthday and we just had a wonderful time with family and friends. The only thing I will say is that if my soulmate Zionista is upset then so too am I. Over the past year Zionista has earned my unwavering respect and admiration and I am proud to stand with him/her.

Bruce

Yeah, right. Putin is responsible for the Iraq War Crime.

Stupid behavoir? You mean not accepted ethnic cleansing and the confiscation of Palestinian land without resistance? You are utterly deluded.

Your comment shows how little you understand Palestinians. Try reading a book written by one of them, instead of Zionist propaganda.

Not really,only for Chechen War Crimes.

Which had zero effect on the price of oil. So much for your historical overlay.

Mythbuster, I'll explain, because I really do believe what I said. Davai gets attacked a lot and his incessant chirping can be irritating to use a word someone else used. But I think he sees the I-P conflict as a power struggle, pure and simple. I rarely hear him making general statements about Arab or Jewish "character." I think he sees this as a land dispute between two squatters. He doesn't care to say one group is better than the other. One just won in his mind and the other lost. I can respect that. It's not racist and it's honest. It's sort of primitive--the basest kind of might-makes-right justice. But then, might-makes-right has always been a basic element of all human cultures and history. We all share that. Davai understands this and accepts it. Maybe he should try to become more "enlightened," but I can't condemn his as a racist for adopting a position humans have adopted for millenia.

He also doesn't try to deny the existence of the Palestinians. And if he denies their claims, it's only on the basis that they lost a war.

Your point is well-taken. Unlike many, he doesn't peddle many of the racist arguments that prolifferate here. I guess was surprised that you used the phrase "racist" at all in light of Davai's comments which do reflect his understanding of I-P as a nationalist struggle. While I completely disagree with him--except our belief that the roadmap is backward, i.e., final status agreement must occur first--I don't like to assert someone is bigoted unless they actually make a bigoted remark.

There's a valuable point in there. It is likely the case that conflict of a certain level keeps the strong guys in power. So you have to hope the Palestinian street loses confidence in the leadership and allows for lessening of tension. 

This applies here, too, of course. If the US used a lighter touch in the world generally, there might be less crap flying. Maybe you remember how everyone breathed a little easier after some new accord was negotiated between US and USSR. Even the evil capitalists/communists could see reason.

Gee, it might even work for Israel. A deal today might be better than waiting around.

MB--I was defending Davai against someone else's charge that he was a racist. I didn't think it was fair.

Here is an excerpt from Barry Rubin's column in the Jerusalem Post explaining well why Annapolis was a joke, why MJ doesn't know what he is talking about and why there is no possibility of there being signed peace agreements for ending the Arab/Israeli conflict. Before some of you begin ad hominem attacks on the Post, just remember that MJ writes for them, too.

---------------------------------------

The Region: Annapolis - One cheer, one yawn, one cynical shrug

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Barry Rubin , THE JERUSALEM POST Dec. 2, 2007

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Before the Annapolis meeting, some said the operation would save the patient; others said that it would kill the patient. In fact, the patient is exactly the same but the doctors had a hell of a big party and congratulated themselves on doing a terrific job.

We'll end the conflict by December 2008, says President George Bush. We want to make peace and get along, say Israel and the Palestinian Authority (PA) The Western media cheers it as a big success since everyone showed up and said the right words; nobody walked out or hurled insults. It's enough to make you believe that peace is at hand.

But there is a huge gap between Western and Middle Eastern reactions to the meeting. While the former celebrates, the latter knows better than to expect anything.

It is not surprising that Western would-be mediators cannot end a conflict when they do not understand why it exists. Neither the Arab-Israeli nor the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is based on a misunderstanding, Israeli intransigence, or a gap that can be closed by well-meaning but ignorant conflict managers.

The reason the issue persists is twofold. First, the Palestinians and a very large portion of their fellow Arabs still want and expect total victory. They do not seek compromise because they do not really want a two-state solution, at least not as more than a temporary stage leading to Israel's disappearance from the map.

Thus, while there is endless talk about Israeli concessions and commitments, virtually nothing is said about what is required from the other side. Why? Because they will not give anything, and pointing that out too explicitly shows there is no chance of real progress.

Second, Arab politics needs the conflict's continuation. Incumbent regimes require it to provide a scapegoat so they can mobilize support for themselves and use it as an excuse to explain away their own multiple failures. The Islamist oppositions need it as a slogan in their pursuit of power. Fatah is in the first category; Hamas in the second.

Consequently, any analysis that piously blames each side equally is incapable of comprehending Middle East politics. Yet peace brokers believe their effectiveness requires a dishonesty that ensures their own failure. They pretend intransigence, terrorism, and incitement comes from both parties.

The future is easily predictable: endless talks; no agreement. The only progress will be from the comforting illusions of vague speeches like those made at Annapolis.

This will have little effect on the ground. Attempts to attack Israel will be made daily, including by Fatah members who may get US training but reject an end to the conflict or even resettling Palestinian refugees in a West Bank-Gaza Palestinian state. The PA will arrest almost nobody and hold no one in jail very long. Anti-Israel incitement will continue.

Indeed, the day after the conference ended, PA television ran multiple times a film showing Israel being transformed into an Arab Palestine. What is amazing is not that the PA makes inadequate attempts to preach peace and compromise but that it makes no effort at all in that direction.

Consider just one element in Bush's new framework which is being touted as a major advance. The US will judge of whether Palestinians and Israelis are meeting their commitments. This sounds tough and decisive. But it is not at all new.

During two previous periods, US policy put itself in a similar position. The first was in the 1988-1990 period, when the White House - under Congressional pressure - had to certify that the PLO was stopping terrorism in order to continue dialogue with that organization. As a result, the State Department, charged with this mission, repeatedly ignored PLO attacks by the simple expedient of saying they were not carried out by the PLO but by groups which just happened to be members of the PLO. Only when a major foiled terrorist attack was praised by PLO leaders did the US have to end the dialogue.

The second example was the 1994-2000 peace process. The PA usually made no serious attempt to stop terror attacks from areas it controlled nor did it arrest or punish those responsible. It is hard to find a single PA media program or speech made internally that urged conciliation.

On the contrary, incitement took place daily. But the US had to remain either silent or, at most, equally blame both sides, in order to keep the process going.

As sole judge this time the US will never say the PA is not meeting its commitments by publicly denouncing the scandal of continued incitement, pitifully minimal anti-terrorist effort and massive corruption. After all, to show the PA breaks all its commitments to a tremendous degree would be to demonstrate that the peace process cannot work. It would also anger Arabs, who would charge that the US is pro-Israel and not an even-handed mediator. Oh, and by the way, this policy of avoiding facing up to Palestinian non-compliance will also render the US incapable of bringing real progress.

The administration's public goal is peace but its real one is to keep talks going until it leaves office. The Israeli public is well aware of this fact. According to polls, while 53 percent supported the Annapolis conference's goals, only 17% thought the meeting a "success," while 42% called it a "failure." They don't, however, expect any serious pressure or major concessions from Washington either.

----
cut rest of article

Peter:

You write:

"Davai is irritating.

Davai can be wrong-headed in what he says.

But can you really point to comments that are racist?"

You're a good man and I can tell you that your decision to post here was a real boost to me personally. Sometimes it can be really frustrating and seemingly futile to post about Israel; indeed some alleged lefties at the Cafe seem to take the position that if you choose to spend precious time posting about Israel then you are not a real corn casseroled, artery-clogged American. This is one of those times I'm feeling spent so I think I'm going to take a wee break to catch my breath. Some parting observations:

Last week we had two major events, one macro and one in our own little cubbyhole at the Cafe. We had the Annapolis conference and we had MJ Rosenberg on a major television news program. So what do we get? We get MJ Rosenberg, a nationally recognized spokesperson on matters concerning Israel, calling davai racist and even questioning his bona fides because he left the totalitarian Soviet Union for the United States rather than to Israel. It's nonsense and its downright offensive to the dozens of Jews I know from the Soviet Union who love this country at least as much as MJ does (if not more because MJ has grown up in this free country like most of us and unlike davai who grew up in a totalitarian state).

Now davai has not and does not get a pass from me by any stretch of the imagination. He's contentious and posts too much and can be offensive. And his obsession with MJ (and his never-ending colloquies with Howard (sorry Howard)) can just ruin a thread. But that is ultimately a management issue and davai is no more racist than some of the faux populists and other alleged lefties who spew the same talking point drivel on here day in and day out. So I'm taking a little breather, call it a Hannukah hiatus, from playing the role of one of the house zionists around here.

Zionista was absolutely correct to challenge MJ's poisonous and stifling barbs at davai, and MJ is particularly wrong for ignoring Zionista, who is a long-time and regular poster. I am becoming less and less convinced, and it hurts me to say this, that MJ takes this forum as seriously as many of us do (and when I say many I mean folks who take all different positions on the I-P conflict). If I'm correct, and I hope I'm wrong, then MJ is blowing a unique opportunity to address a very diverse and intelligent group of posters.

But thanks Peter for not being afraid to swim against the tide at times. I will continue to read every word you write.

Bruce

Thank you, Tom. I, too, am leaning to the pox on both houses, and I don't especially like that position. As you may know, for business reasons, I've been learning more about commercial fishing than I thought I'd ever want to know. At sea, there are internationally accepted "Rules of the Road". Normally, there are certain rules, based on relative vessel position, that gives the right of way to one.

There are a number of exceptions, based on safety. If you are, say, a medium-sized fishing vessel, and you have the right of way on either a pure sailboat or a supertanker, you give way, because they are the "burdened vessel" - less maneuverable and less options.

I-P is something like that. It's not a right-wrong thing to say Israel might have more options. I need to spend some intense time with maps, and people might be surprised to see me suggest some Israeli military moves that might seem regressive, but are stabilizing. In like manner, I might suggest others where Israel may give up an apparent advantage to get a much stronger defensible position.

I am sick of people that insist on exceptionalism for either of the I-P groups. I look forward to a situation where both are treated fairly, but also being understood that the US doesn't have the sort of alliance with Israel that it does with Britain.

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

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

Howard,

Is it possible, I wonder, to speak of US-Israeli relations as we might speak of US-anyNation relations, without wandering off into threads of Zionism-must-be-supported, Rapturists, you-are-an-anti-semite if you don't give Israel a blank check, and Israel does not get a free pass on WMD proliferation (and disarming is out of the question)?

I also wonder about our potential for a genuinely valuable discussion about US-Israeli relations and the US role in the Middle East peace process, and whether any such discussion is possible without wandering off into threads of Zionism is fascism, Israel is South Africa with a Hebrew accent, Jews are strictly a religious community with no legitimate national character and Israel is a racist-colonial-imperialist theocracy usurping Palestinian land in the Arab World, and that Arab and Jewish national self-determination in the former British Palestine Mandate is mutually exclusive....

How do you (anyone is free to answer this question) view an American disengagement from the Arab/Israeli conflict playing out? Say that the US reduces arms sales and implements cuts in aid (Israel doesn't need the economic aid, it is given for political reasons and I, for one, would welcome it being eliminated, but regarding the Palestinians, it is another question). Would this tend to stabilize or destablize the situation? Would a full-scale war become more or less likely? How would the this affect Arab relations with the United States?

Careful mythbuster.  Advocating the notion of national identity tends to get one cast out from among the circle of progressive brotherhood.  That's how it works for Jews, anyway.

Thank you. These are some excellent questions.

Let me answer on a couple of levels. If there were a symbolic cut in support, or certain Israeli symbolic actions, I think that could be stabilizing in the region.

When I say symbolic cut, I am talking of weapons that are relatively more offensive in nature. OTOH, I think something could be put together that the US were providing some rocket defense capability (some experimental, some not), the US and Israel were restarting their work on rocket defense, some simple passive protection were implemented with publicity, and more sensors were provided that actually might spot rockets being prepared for launch, or give fast and accurate (with minimum collateral damage) respons.

On Israel's part, or possibly with a joint declaration of certain US actions, I believe that acknowledging its nuclear arsenal, coupled with US announcements of things that both reduce the possibility of accidents and ensure a stabilizing second-strike capability, would help. I'd like to see a joint diplomatic effort, perhaps coupled with some symbolic reduction, by India, Israel, and Pakistan, with as much US and other declaratory power support, enter the NPT as declared nuclear nations, with a long-term commitment to arms reduction. Again, I'd offer positive control and weapons hardening technology to all three countries, which is right on the edge, but I think on the legitimate edge, of providing nuclear technology. In any event, since these would be declared powers, the transfer rules become moot.

The effect of some of these things may be to reduce tensions, especially with Iran. Realistically, the Palestinians aren't going to be able to launch a full-scale war. This may be counterintuitive, but if they received larger rockets and missiles, those are actually easier to shoot down. Supplying missiles that the Palestinians could not build gives a smoking gun.

I would explore putting some sensors in the Palestinian areas, that actually might help any Palestinian security organizations that are trying to get control of their fringe groups. There are devices that can localize rifle shots, much less rocket launches. I think it would be of immense symbolic value if the Palestinian authorities were seen to stop a few attacks. The sensor feeds would go, in real time, to the Palestinians, Israelis, whoever builds them (US and/or UK), and perhaps a multinational observer group. These things can be made pretty tamperproof, and, if necessary, with automatic defenses or a defense force.

As far as the US, it won't make a night-and-day difference, but it would take away some propaganda. The more the US is seen to be generally cooperating -- as in providing better controls to a nation like Pakistan, or sniper detectors and urban paramilitary police equipment to Palestine, I think would be the better -- yet would be no major risk to Israel.

Since Israel makes its own cluster munitions anyway, a public declaration that the US will stop supplying them is more symbolic. It would be a positive step if Israel were to agree to destroy certain cluster munitions (e.g., the M26 rocket they have), and replace them with safer, non-cluster, guided munitions like the XM31. The US is converting its M26 and M30 rockets to the XM31.

Actually, I'd encourage, if they aren't available to Israel, some defensive radars and antimissile/rocket/aircraft gear being made available. The most critical US supply for Israel is aircraft and spare parts, so if some ground weapons were stopped, it would be symbolic but not really a major loss for Israel.

By all means, the joint and Israeli-only anti-rocket projects need to be restarted, and possibly accelerated.
--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

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

might sound convincing to a nonspecialist.

I don't know how to keep the semi-trolls of "everything Israel does is justified", "Israel can't be criticized because there are worse countries,"

Your point about Davai is well taken. I shall attempt to avoid engaging him at all, although I might ask for help or an exception, perhaps offline to specific people, when he is bringing up factually wrong material that might sound convincing to a nonspecialist

Howard,

In other words, are the Zionist aspects really crucial to the discussion, or can the discussion be of a tense politicomilitary situation?

Honestly, I don't see how.  Militarily, perhaps; but issues of national rights and aspirations are the very core of the political dispute.  I believe the problem with the overall discussion is that so many who involve themselves in it are way too convinced of their own presumptions, and at the expense of all necessary curiosity and reason, which prohibits the establishment of any good faith.  To far too many of us Zionism means racism, Palestinian means terrorism, and Jews and Arabs are "semites" (if either or both are allowed their respective national identities at all).

I also tend to see a strange sub-debate whereby the conflict is approached as a proxy war over the historical narrative between the left and right (this appears more evident in the UK and US), to the point where Jews-Zionism-Israel presumably emanate purely from the right of the political spectrum and Arab-Palestine-resistance from the left.  I submit that these are profoundly counterproductive simplifications, but are nevertheless vividly exemplified by specific events like the UN's racism conference in Durban, South Africa, in September, 2001.

Yes, I'm for double standards, for example, if
Hesbolla during last war was trying to kill every Israeli civilian they could, it doesn't mean that Israel could the same.
If Hamas in Gaza is trying to kill every Israeli civilian they could, it doesn't mean that Israel could the same. So, yes, in this sense I'm exceptionalist.

In microcosm, this seems to be a replay of the larger dispute. There are issues of security between Palestine and Israel, with Palestine not exactly a "failed state" but not a self-sufficient one. There are issues of security between Israel and neighboring, or reasonably close, Muslim states (the Arab League hardly includes Iran, and the farther Maghreb states aren't militarily significant).

Why is it necessary to pose this other than a matter of security agreements between nations? Would it truly make a difference if one nation's majority worshipped Satan or Baal (let's assume any sacrifices are symbolic)?

As a hypothetical but more realistic scenario, if the King of Saudi Arabia came before the Knesset, formally shared bread and salt, and promised

...as long as the sun shines upon the earth;
as long as the waters flow;
as long as the grass grows green, peace will last.

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

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

I think Hezbollah wanted to take some prisoners as bargaining chips to get back some of hundreds of Lebanese in Isreali jails. You also failed to mention that Israel was beseiging Gaza at the time and killed about 100 Palestinians in the lead up to the "kidnapping" of the two precious IDF soldiers.

Thanks for letting me fill in the facts a bit. I'm sure it was an oversight on your part.

Israel is not the party in the dispute that is hung up on divine authority.

1. I recognize this is factional, but is not the claim to "Judea and Samaria" based on religious doctrine?
2. We have gone around and around on defining the Jewish people religiously. Are you now saying that the claim of Zionists to this particular piece of earth has no relation to religious principles or ... perhaps "divine" is the wrong word ... but the historical linkage of Jews to this soil? If history is the only justification, then some American Indians may start working on nuclear weapons of their own, since they can make a fair if nontechnological claim of genocidal need for land.

--
Howard

Serbia has strong historical claims on Kossovo, it's not going to help Serbia or Serbians in Kossovo.
While US didn't attack Godless Communism directly, it did everything it could to destroy Godless Communism.

Palestinians who took part in the hostilities and were killed by Israeli security forces 1378 + 55 Palestinians who did not take part in the hostilities and were killed by Israeli security forces ( not including the objects of targeted killings). 2038 + 5

hcberkowitz said:

We have gone around and around on defining the Jewish people religiously. Are you now saying that the claim of Zionists to this particular piece of earth has no relation to religious principles or ... perhaps "divine" is the wrong word ... but the historical linkage of Jews to this soil?

At this point, I am totally frustrated with Zionist definitions, which, depending on the phase of the moon and in which direction the speaker is facing, is or is not Jewish, or is Jewish but the Arabs need to understand that Israel is not claiming religious reasons for the association of the "Jewish people" with Israel.

Howard, I keep it simple;

Jewish means Religious

Israeli means Nationality.

I don't know why anyone would make it complicated, but as you suggest, some certainly do.

You keep saying "the Jewish state" is not based on religion, but the Arabs appear to assume it is.

You're getting warmer, Howard.  Remember that history does not happen all at once, civilizations do not evolve overnight, and that historical periodization is not often enough an exact science.

When ancient Israel and Judea were erradicated and the Jews were effectively dispersed, the rabbinate eventually emerged in the role of government-in-exile -- or by about the 10th century CE.  The kehilla system in particlar came to solidify this role in medieval Europe.  Sephardic and Mizrachi Jews adjusted to different socio-political environments in a slightly less formal manner in the same period, and with a greater emphasis on the national components of Jewish identity than religious emphasis among the Ashkenazim.  There were even tensions within the rabbinate over the approach to rabbinic law, for example, regarding the predominance of the Babylonian Talmud or the Jerusalem (Palestinian) Talmud.

So, the historical connection of the Jews to Israel remains, while the approach to the Jewish religious establishment varies through time and place.  There is alot of history to deal with, and the mix of relgion and politics worked its magic on all western societies throughout the development of what we refer to now as modernity.  It wasn't only Jews who came to reject increasing elements among the religious orthodoxy, but particular attention should be paid to the attitudes of Jews toward the idea of messianic redemption.  Where rabbinic authorities prohibited Jews from implementing national movements in Israel without benefit of messianic redemption, fewer and fewer Jewish thinkers and emerging leaders respected the prohibition.  

Understand that there were non-Zionist Jewish autonomous movements within the modern European nationalist milieu.  But they had all eventually been discredited, and as statelessness proved itself to be less tolerable (and ultimately fatal), Zionism reached the sensibilities of more and more Jews.  Among the survivors, that is.

As far as I know, the archaeological record supports the existence of Jewish kingdoms in ancient Israel, and the historical record supports the existence of Sura, Pumbedita and other ancient rabbinic academies.  Enlighten me.

Howard,

I have Jewish ancestry (and my mother was an atheist, so that is quite arguable theologically), then they have a rule chain that I must be Jewish, and, if I must be Jewish, I must be a Zionist.

Why is that supposed to be your problem and not theirs?

Israel can be Norse reincarnationist for all its people want, but don't assume guilt on the part of people that distinguish between Judaism and Zionism.

You are clearly talking way past me now.  Otherwise, where am I putting any guilt on you or anyone else?  In fact, I could find it credible to argue that Zionism itself distinguishes from Judaism in its humanistic orientation -- rejecting the rabbinic prohibition against Jews setting up political shop in Israel independent of messianic redemption.  Scripturally speaking, Jews had to be hanging around and doing their thing in order for God to have "chosen" them, right?  So, we were here before the God stuff and we will be here after the God stuff -- a Jewish people independent of the religion of Judaism -- right?  A Jewish state surely doesn't require a rabbinic law opposed to its very existence, right? 

So, don't worry Howard.  You are not required to come along for the ride any more than the good folks at Naturei Karta.  Feel free to tell "them" I said so.

I guess Howard, my dearest friend, can't help yourself and have to communicate with me by giving me your feedback/rating 0
I appreciate it.
Regards
Yours
Davai

Howard,

Unless this is Wonderland, you do believe God created Man? That the first Jewish man was presumably Abraham, or perhaps Moses? If not, who was?

Who knows?  And what difference does it make?  ("Wonderland"...?)  The Scriptures (Torah, Prophetic Lit and Wisdom Lit) and the Mishna are all good poetry.  I would even argue that much of it is an account of history -- in the sense that folklore can be an account of history, from the Mabinogian to "John Brown's Body."  But it deserves a necessarily multidisciplinary approach, and not a purely or strictly theological one.

Likewise, just because there is general disagreement over the nature of Jewish history between the rabbis and Zionists, neither forfeits their membeship in the tribe (Am Yisrael).  Further, if you want to reject whatever share of Jewish heritage you may have inherited, no posse will come chasing after you (feel free to toss your B'nai B'rith fundraising appeals in the recycling bin; or better yet, fill out the form at the post office that stops your junk mail).

Believe me, I understand and fully appreciate that alot of people have a hard time wrapping their heads around the idea that Jews are more than only a religious community.  But that's the way it is, and I am never going to pound it into your, JohnW1141's, or anyone else's, head.  There is much more than Herzl available for a genuinely inquisitive person to read, including, but not limited to, Moses Hess, Arthur Hertzberg, Aaron D. Gordon, Asher (Ahad Ha'am) Ginsberg, Bernard Lazare, Hannah Arendt, Mordechai Kaplan....

Really and truly I am not being sarcastic, but I'm trying to understand why there should be a very close relationship between the US and Israel....

I favor alliances between the US and any nation that will ally with it.

hcberkowitz said:

I can suggest that you drop personal insults, but apparently you feel there is a need for them, since you use them frequently.

Howard, why do you think people resort to insults?

See below with full margins.

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

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

Tell me, is it the Democrat Party or the Izzies that the Pals dislike? A good starting point, I suspect, in any fair discussion, is to use the names people call themselves.

I've never heard anyone self-identified as Palestinian refer to himself as Pallie or Pal. Have you?

Seriously, the US is beginning to recognize that disparaging terms for cobelligerents or even enemies tends not to win a peace.

As a sincere request, I would appreciate you being more specific when you refer to "Arabs". I doubt it's terribly relevant what some of the Maghreb or Horn of Africa Arabs think. The Iranians certainly aren't Arabs, and are playing a role. If there are problems with the treaties with Egypt, I honestly would like to know what they are and what needs to be done. Are Druze and Kurds monolithic in this?

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

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

On December 4, 2007 - 10:21am hcberkowitz said:

The more you explain, the less I understand who is defined to be the "Jewish people", who are the Jewish people who are Zionists, and under what conditions one can be a:

Atheist who is somehow Jewish and is a Zionist
Religious Jew who is not a Zionist
Religious Jew who is a Zionist
Zionist who is not Jewish, and I'll exclude people trying to use Jews, such as the Rapturists. Think Orde Wingate.

On December 3, 2007 - 7:46pm hcberkowitz said:

At this point, I am totally frustrated with Zionist definitions, which, depending on the phase of the moon and in which direction the speaker is facing, is or is not Jewish, or is Jewish but the Arabs need to understand that Israel is not claiming religious reasons for the association of the "Jewish people" with Israel.

Howard, until you get it figured out follow my solution:

Jewish means Religious

Israeli means Nationality.

Zionist means hybrid :-)

When Jews were persecuted, the definition was never an issue, nobody said that we can't persecute the Jewish people, because we can’t come up with a good logical definition of the Jewish people.
Suddenly, when the Jewish people built a Jewish state, we hear, wait a minute, you can’t do this, let’s first come up with the definition of “the Jewish people”.

Uprated (sorry Howard).  I actually thought this was funny in a dark kind of way.

and I may never need to see your writing again.

"and there are starting to be more analytical ones from places such as the Army War College Strategic Studies Institute."
I'm sure there are going to be a lot of analytical ones in Israel.

Incidentally, the Nazis had several quite specific definitions of Jews, different ones for general persecution and such things as "taint" for SS membership.

All kind of persecutors of Jews had own definitions or idea who belongs to the "Jewish people"
For example, people who put the following:
"When we moved into Beverly Hills as boys in 1937, houses and apartments for rent would hang signs which read, 'No Colored, Jews or Dogs Allowed.
somehow knew who Jews were even without going to long discussion about Bible, Kind David and so on.

Howard,

It may be that American public opinion will continue to give essentially blank checks to Israel, but it is also possible that people like myself -- I can't speak for John -- will, unless the reasons are much more clear, will tend to push for distancing Israel from US foreign policy.

Perhaps.  I prefer to discuss the issues to the best of my abilities, rather than make any predictions.  Of course, you have a profound advantage over me with your interest and expertise in military matters, which seems to be the direction you prefer to go in this conversation.  I conclude declaring my own inclination toward sustained and improved relations between the US and all regional states that are willing to open diplomatic exchange, commercial trade and cultural, scientific and educational intercourse with each other.

Finally, per your aside, I believe JohnW1141 would be delighted were you to speak for him.  Note his high marks you earn with your comments, while mine draw only insipid heckling.  It's nearly comic -- like having your very own Renfield.

Bright Solstice to you, Howard; Merry Christmas, JohnW1141; and Chanuka sameach, Yidlach.

While it does have pagan roots, "Bright Blessings" seems to be one of the most neutral statements of good will that I know.

Of course there are reasons for cultural, scientific, and educational relations with Israel.

It is the appearance of US sponsorship of Israel's military actions that gives me the greatest problem; I have an ugly picture of a Lebanese having a fragment removed that is marked "Made in USA". The nuclear declaration issue is not quite as high, and again, I don't see what Israeli secrecy achieves. I would be delighted if Israel simply said "We announce we have nuclear weapons. Some of those weapons are protected in a way that no matter what an enemy does to us, there will be retaliation." That statement, I believe, would be stabilizing, especially if the US then responded (ideally to Pakistan and India at the same time) that it was offering technology to avoid accidental war.
--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

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

I rarely give marks of any kind, but when I do give high marks I give them where they're deserved, usually to one who posts what appears to me to be an objective opinion on a contentious subject.

By the way, the "insipid heckling" you see is not there, its in your interpretation.

Zionista.

"I actually thought this was funny in a dark kind of way."

In a similar vein.....

I ran accross this on Arutz Sheva's site this am and immediately thought of Davai:

"IDF Seeks Stand-Up Comedians

(IsraelNN.com) The IDF has decided to create a position for stand-up comedians in the Education Corp. The army has already enlisted young men and women as band members, actors, and magicians to provide entertainment for troops.

Only two soldiers will be accepted as comedians in the initial stage of the program. The two will need to have experience and to pass an audition. The first IDF stand-up show is reportedly scheduled for next summer."

One day when the Palestinians will be free of the settler trash. As American power ebbs in the ME, that day draws nearer.

There are so many historical errors in your post, it's hard to know where to start. To compare the Zionists with Gandhi is the ultimate act of chutzpah: Did Gandhi level hundreds of villages?

Keep smoking what you're smoking: It's easier than learning the truth.

Hmm... We should get a a few wiki editors on board and change "Israel" to "Brooklyn" or "Palm Beach" and we may all be onto something...

I would defend to the death Israel's right to exist but not at the cost of Palestinian right to life, property, and freedom from oppression.

that there are people among the Israelis who are just as radical

It's a tough problem. What do you do with a monster who send Palestinian children to blow themself among Israeli children, and then this monster is hiding in an apatment building? I hope, mythbuster that at least we agree that he was a monster deserving to die.

I'd have to dig out the links, but there was a fairly extensive article in Field Artillery magazine (recently renamed Fires) about US response to harassing rocket and mortar fire. There are new sensors for localizing them so there can either be a precision strike or an infantry response. Wikipedia links don't always take you to the right section, but click on the Rocket Launch Spotter entry in the table of contents. Some links in there will also crossreference to UK and US countermortar sensors, both acoustic and radar.

Ironically, I just found some Israeli enhancements to AN/TPQ-36/37 counterbattery radar. Now, when you have radars (and presumably other sensors, like the Israeli Purple Hawk) that can tell you the Point of Origination (PO of a rocket before it hits, and you can have counterfire heading downrange for that point, again while the rocket is still incoming, I find it a little "radical" to use area-effect weapons around the POO. Those are area-effect weapons that leave an effective minefield. That's one of the things I mean about being proportional.

While shooting down an individual small rocket needs one of the systems that were in sole or joint Israeli development, for which I believe development has stopped, I suspect our Avenger system could shoot down the larger rockets.

Of course, some noisy individual apparently considers it evil for anyone to have nuclear weapons, and to use them under any circumstances, because they are eeeevil. Personally, I'd rather have been at ground zero in Hiroshima than in the firestorm at Tokyo.

-
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

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

Show me where Gerlz ordered the Partition.

What is this, children saying "Did not!","Did too!"? You raised this as an example of other occupations and problems associated with their ending, I guess.

For the record, many Muslims are addened by the loss of comity and the bloodshed of Partition, notably Salman Rushdie in "Shalimar".

'Bye.

deleted (like 400 villages)

here you go, armchair private:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel_and_nuclear_weapons

Doctrine Israel's nuclear doctrine is shaped by its lack of strategic depth: a subsonic fighter jet could cross in four minutes the 40 nautical miles from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea. It additionally relies on a reservist-based military which magnifies civilian and military losses in its small population. Israel tries to compensate for these weaknesses by emphasising intelligence, manoeuverability and firepower.[75]

As a result, its strategy is based on the premise that it cannot afford to lose a single war, and thus must prevent them by maintaining deterrence, including the option of preemption. If these steps are insufficient, it seeks to prevent escalation and determine a quick and decisive war outside of its borders.[75]

Strategically, Israel's long-range missiles, nuclear capable aircraft, and possibly its submarines present an effective second strike deterrence against unconventional and conventional attack, and if Israel's defences fail and its population centres be threatened, the Samson Option, an all out attack against an adversary, would be employed. Its nuclear arsenal can also be used tactically.[75]

Although nuclear weapons are viewed as the ultimate guarantor of Israeli security, as early as the 1960s the country has avoided building its military around them, instead pursuing absolute conventional superiority so as to forestall a last resort nuclear engagement.[75]

According to historian Avner Cohen, Israel first articulated an official policy on the use of nuclear weapons in 1966, which revolved around four "red lines" that could lead to a nuclear response:[76]

1. A successful Arab military penetration into populated areas within Israel's post-1949 (pre-1967) borders.
2. The destruction of the Israeli Air Force.
3. The exposure of Israeli cities to massive and devastating air attacks or to possible chemical or biological attacks.
4. The use of nuclear weapons against Israeli territory.

Looks like a lot of latitude to me--once, the Israelis were trusted (not by choice) that they would act wisely with their nukes. Today, we cannot be so sure of that.

Is there anybody now advocate to use nuclear weapons under any circumstances, leave alone in circumstances they were used in Hiroshima ?

This what I mean armchair general. It's not the issue to detect PO. The issue is what to do with PO when it's located next to school or appartment building.

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

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

You guess correctly: you don't understand. In your scenario were several ways there might be no civilian casualties, other ways that the risk would be low, and yet others that would be slaughter. You don't understand the questions you are asking well enough to recognize what, variously, are Essential Items of Information and choices among weapons systems.

Instead, you respond with another loaded question that doesn't speak to any of the trivial details you didn't address -- such as date and time.

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

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

The problem is not that I avoid the answers. The problem here is that you want to oversimplify both the questions and the answers.

You have a habit of dismissing anything that doesn't interest you as "trivial", such as "details" or "US Army manuals". Apparently, it doesn't occur to you that the day and time is significant in knowing whether a school would be occupied or not.

A thorough plan has an extensive range of contingencies and branches. For example, if a truck was observed, by any of an assortment of sensors, speeding away from the point of origin of a rocket, there are pros and cons to attacking it. By not attacking it, and tracking it, it just might take you back to the rocket ammunition supply dump, which is truly what you want to hit.

There are easily a dozen kinds of sensor that will give useful or complementary information about the rocket tactics. The more you know, the better you can counter it.

If you do decide to attack it, there are options that might let you capture prisoners for interrogation, or, if it appeared to be heading for another fire mission, to turn it into a fireball.

In the latest US Army combat reorganization, easily 20 percent of a combat brigade is devoted not to making things go boom, but to intelligence, surveillance, reconnaissance, and target acquisition. There is a reason for that, partially to know the best place to attack something, and with what weapon, to minimize civilian casualties.

You are correct. You don't have a plan, you are unqualified to judge a plan, you have no idea what goes into preparing one, but you are more than willing to demand oversimplifications, perhaps even more simplistic than does George W. Bush. You remind me of Schwarzkopf's assessment of Saddam: "He is neither a strategist, nor is he schooled in the operational art, nor is he a tactician, nor is he a general, nor is he a soldier. Other than that, he's a great military man."

--
Howard

"When the pin is pulled, Mr. Grenade is no longer your friend."

More seriously, no tactical plan survives contact with the enemy. It is the mark of military art that everyone involved knows there is a constantly changing range of option, which are the least bad for the situation, and what you are trying to accomplish.

As the rest of readers here. So what are you doing here, for who are you writing?

Did I ever pretend to be strategist, or schooled in the operational art, or a tactician, or a general, or a soldier?

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

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