Obama meets Netanyahu
I’ve read eight articles so far on today’s meeting between Obama and Israeli PM Netanyahu, and I’m convinced that none of the authors knows much of anything about what will happen.
You might say that’s always been true of the Middle East, and most particularly of the Israel/Palestine situation. But it’s especially true right now, because of two wild cards: President Obama and the leaders of Iran.
Netanyahu is more of a known quality, a hardliner on the issue of Israel’s survival against the threat posed by the Palestinians and their supporters on one hand and a potentially nuclear Iran on the other:
A senior aide to Netanyahu, national security adviser Uzi Arad, suggested the Israeli leader might not yield to pressure from Obama for a two-state solution to the Middle East conflict. He also seemed to hint that Israel might consider military action against Iran when he said there was a “sense of urgency” in Israel over the Iranian nuclear threat.
Obama is his usual shifting self. It’s not so much that he’s a blank slate; it’s that he’s given out such a variety of mixed messages, and has changed his tune on so many other things, that there’s no telling which way he’ll jump. However, the preponderance of evidence points in the ominous Jimmy Carteresque direction:
For 30 years, Israel has not had to deal with as difficult—sometimes even hostile—a U.S. administration as the Carter one. I [Yehuda Ben-Meir] can personally attest to the brutal style and blatant threats that characterized the relationship between Jimmy Carter and Menachem Begin. Indeed, Carter is someone whose beginnings can be seen in the way he has ended up.
The Obama White House, meanwhile, has been accepting and welcoming of those who spent years arguing that American foreign policy has been enslaved to Israel’s interests and is influenced by the Jewish lobby, but were unable to get a foot in the door during the Reagan, Clinton and Bush administrations.
But Obama has previously surprised his Left flank by changing his tune on such matters as the treatment of terrorists and their legal rights. So I don’t consider it outside the realm of possibility that he will be more Israel-friendly than seems likely. I also don’t consider it outside the realm of possibility that he will be even less Israel-friendly than seems likely.
As for Iran, our policy towards that country rests entirely on an analysis of whether its leaders are guided by any remaining pragmatism, or whether they are following the dictates of religious and cultural fanaticism, rampant anti-Semitism, and demonization of the state of Israel. Their rhetoric certainly indicates the latter; they don’t call Israel the “little Satan” for nothing.
How deep is Obama’s belief that Iran can be reasoned with? How far is he willing to go, how patient is he willing to be, how much is he willing to risk, to find out? And how much time is Netanyahu willing to give Obama before he takes matters into his own hands to stop Iran from acting out on what appears to be an existential threat to Israel’s existence?
Anyone who offers an answer to any of these questions right now is only guessing, I’m afraid. So I’m not even going to try.
Maybe I’m being a little naé¯ve or simplistic here but it seems to me that Netanyahu has one central, supreme obligation and one obligation only, and that is to assure the survival of Israel.
Since for many years now religious and government officials from the highest levels to the lowest in Iran have repeatedly called for the obliteration of Israel, and Iran has backed this up with it’s major support for Islamic terrorism, including backing for Israel’s terrorist Muslim neighbors, and since Iran is close to acquiring nuclear weapons and the missile systems to deliver them, if Israel has any chance at all of attacking and significantly delaying or destroying Iran’s nuclear weapons capabilities, it must do so. As for negotiations, they have all failed, and are a waste of time that only allows Iran to string naé¯ve and timorous Western “unbelievers” along, all the while allowing Iran to get closer and closer to achieving a nuclear weapons capability.
No matter how he must fudge or dance around what he has to do, Natanyahu should not yield Obama an inch on this imperative of Israel’s national survival, particularly given Obama’s background–his Muslim paternal family, his early Muslim education, the evidence that virulently anti-Jewish Khalid al-Mansur, close financial adviser to Saudi Prince Alwaleed bin Talal helped to get Obama into Harvard Law and apparently raised part or all of his tuition (http://tinyurl.com/ouvtac), Obama’s 20 years attendance at the Rev. Jeremiah Wrights virulently anti-white and anti-Jew church, and Obama’s long and intimate friendships with many Jew hating Muslims, such as Edward Said and “ex-PLO operative” Rashid Khalidi–which background, in my opinion, makes Obama, at worst, a crypto-Muslim and at best, very likely biased in favor of Muslims and against Jews.
Regardless of what happens between President Obama and PM Netanyahu, I fear the Israelis will eventually walk into a trap with the Europeans as part of a false sense of security. From an article by Caroline Glick at the Jewish World Review :
“A poll carried out by the Konrad Adenauer foundation last month showed that a whopping 69 percent of Israelis, and 76 percent of Israeli Jews would like for Israel to join the European Union. Sixty percent to Israelis have a favorable view of the EU.”
Meanwhile…”A 2003 Pew survey of 15 EU countries showed that 59 percent of Europeans consider Israel the greatest threat to world peace. A poll taken in Germany the following year showed that 68 percent of Germans believe that Israel is pursuing a war of extermination against the Palestinians and 51 percent said that there is no difference in principle between Israel’s treatment of the Palestinians and German treatment of Jews during the Holocaust…..From Germany to France, Belgium, England, Holland, Sweden, Norway and beyond, Jewish kindergartens and day schools, restaurants and groceries have been firebombed and vandalized. The desecration of Jewish cemeteries and synagogues has become an almost routine occurrence. Jewish leaders from Norway to Germany to Britain to France have warned community members not to wear kippot or Stars of David in public. Rabbis have been beaten all over the continent.”
from article here :
http://jewishworldreview.com/0509/glick051509.php3
I do wish to add one comment about the Jewish world review article I linked to above. The writer seems to still think of Europe as “Christian”, but if Marc Steyn of “America Alone” is telling the truth, Western Europe would be more adequately described as “secular with vestigeses of Christianity”. ( not his quote, but what I gather from his writing.)
Jews, even Israelis, seem to have a peculiar propensity for denial, and, ultimately, self-destruction. My impression is that a majority of American Jews don’t any longer give a fig for Israel. And the large pseudopacifist cohort of Israelis that still believe in dialog with the enemy is simply mind-boggling.
Israel hangs on to life by virtue of a rather small cadre of folks like Netanyahu, the Air Force, and its entrepeneurs. Copaxone, an important drug for MS, is an Israeli product.
If I were Israeli, I’d have emigrated long ago.
And to bargain for one’s survival with Obama is surely nauseating. No backers, none, for the only democratic and very tiny country in the MidEast. Ugh.
Samantha Power. Zbigniew Brezhinsky, Susan Rice, and Jim Jones. All of these people want Israel GONE. All, in one way or another, strongly favor the Arabs against the Jews.
George Soros, the real power behind the throne, wants Israel gone.
I don’t buy the logic that Obonga will do the unexpected. He says stupid shit sometimes just for misdirection. He has not said anything public about how our government is now bare knuckling Israel, and says the usual pablum of diplomatic niceties. It’s all for show. The real Obonga and the real policy, behind closed doors is likely to induce Netanyahu to be red in the face and shouting at Obonga and his advisers.
The worst people are in charge now. Strictly speaking, neo, you are correct that none of us knows exactly what is going to happen. That doesn’t mean we cannot make an educated guess about where Obonga’s biases are.
Israel needs to gear up for war. It’s coming.
Quite a lot of Europe is Christian despite what Mark Steyn says. The political structures tend to be secular. Israel as a member of the EU is not discussed even in the wildest dreams of those who want to extend that noxious institution to encompass half the world. That’s a complete non-starter. I don’t know why anybody asks the Israelis. Presumably they know that this is not on the cards and can answer reasonably favourably.
I always thought Britain was the Little Satan, as America’s close ally.
jon,
There is little surprising in the German view about Israel’s danger to world peace. You only need to watch their TV news to see what a one-sided picture they get. I caught just a bit of today’s coverage on the meeting. It was useless: Obama supports a 2-state solution, Netanyahu is open to a 2-state solution; more settlements are being built. This is typical of the depth of info that gets to the average person. Put this on top of a mentality that says war is bad and dialogue is good, and you get emotion-based opinion. Amnesty, Human Rights Watch, Greenpeace, etc. are seen as bearers of the ultimate truth, and the effectiveness and honesty of the UN are never questioned. It is pathetic.
jon baker Says:
I suppose that’s psychologically comfortable for the Germans.
Israel needs to gear up for war. It’s coming.
there are several things building… each a piece of the puzzle, some influence each other but people dont think so.
the georgia issue and isreal and iran is such a thing…
isreal is not going anywhere. without isreal, safe destabilization at the expense of a secondary productive entity (makes products not just raw materials), is just the thing to keep milking.
the plan as i see it still remains the same, despite everyone turning on every burner in the kitchen to stop it. some serious moves have been made including a few coupes, a bunch of assasinations, and other things.
iran does not have a nuclear weapon yet. isreal is not really scared that iran will actually use a nuclear weapon, thats not the issue thats never the issue as it is not a valid look at the situtation, but its good for consumption.
a nuclear bomb does nothing offensively, and even crazy people who want power want to stay alive to enjoy it and keep using it. so other than nations like the US, russia, etc… nuclear bombs are not war fighting items.
they are keys.
iraq could be taken over by military force. why? it did not hold a key that removed that as an option. nuclear weapons remove the option of being taken over by direct nuclear conflict, and makes every altercation limited and never able to actually close.
the ONLY way to then get regime change of any real sort is the subversion and redirection of the populaiton through the games that do this that no one thinks is being done to them. (isnt it funny how the left here likes gays and the left over there where the source is still hates them? so when we have that kind of state, what do you think will happen?)
that is you cant destabilize and seek a coupe, or any really funky way… the only thing you can do is move through the culture and then put your people in their political office till you have enough that you have control of it… regular war is no longer an option.
as i have said before, they are the only land bridge between the major supplier of destabilizing weaponry and explosives as well as experience for sale.
the problems are still around that bridge. isreal does not want them to have nukes in that once that happens, then the destabilizing ability becomes in perpetuity.
now things are in a more precarious position since the current president is not a fan of isreal and more of a fan of helping the door stay open forever. (the US does not keel leadership and secrets enough any more to change that regime through subversion, unlike russia, and china etc).
at some point they are going to see attacking that point to sustain the situation as also life preserving. the alternative is no end to being whittled down unendingly.
the other problem is that the arguments for consumption do not make the valid play seem valid. which is the problem that bush was in.
fear of an attack by nukes to isreal is not enough or believable enough any more to let it justify pre-emptive attack on iran who the left in the US has sided with.
the more nuanced discussino would never survive being brought up by the yellers and other forces. so really the situation is they either have friends in the US and UK that tempers the situation if something happens or they are going to go it alone and they are going to just weather the noise (as no retaliation will happen other than noise).
so there really isnt anything mysterious here to talk about other than whether obama will actually work towards a end benificial to the west or to what he is phile to..
i will say that he will put them in the bad position and they will be forced to act. and since he is not supporting them it will not be as clean and such as otherwise.
russia is also a wild card here… they are very close freinds with iran and so this is their interests and we tend to ignore them… we shouldnt. because its way too easy for them to set up isreal and escalate the animosity by losing people in any altercation. (which was why bush didnt go after iran first which might have seemed the first thing to do).
its going to get interesting…
I don’t know how I’d feel if I were a member of a race that various other races have literally been trying to wipe from the face of the earth for thousands of years. I don’t think I would doubt what anyone was saying – like Iran – with the experience the Jews have had.
Obama is a different person with every individual, and every crowd he is with. Who is Obama? Seriously.
Helen,
Are you saying the French President’s push for a Mediterranean Union did not include Israel?
Obama is used to dealing with INTERNAL US policy *discussions*.
Israel, OTOH, is FOREIGN policy politics at it’s most convoluted.
Obama has no clue what to do other than pursue the policies that were so chic and acceptable within his fundraising party circles.
The reason for this tendency is simple – he’s not regularly exposed to ideas that run counter to leftist dogma and he’s not used to having to reconcile two opposing viewpoints.
So, when he tries to push Israel into accepting a “2 party state”, he’s only pushing the idea that his cocktail party hosts regularly promoted as an excellent idea (with nary a contrary opinion to be found!).
Talk about living in a bubble!
Netanyahu, however, is a far more experienced, intelligent, and tough politician who knows how to deal with foreign policy issues.
He knows this president doesn’t have Israel’s back and doesn’t have a clue, and he knows that Israel once again stands alone.
Regardless of pacifists within Israel itself, I have a feeling that Netanyahu will carry out his duties and do what is necessary to protect Israel – even if this means shutting down Iran’s nuclear weapons program with a well placed bunker buster bomb.
Obama is possibly about to find out that pushing Israel to do what he wants is far different than pushing a private US company or a US state into doing what he wants….
I agree with Scottie’s assessment of the Obama foreign policy and the reasons behind it. Barack is an essentially shallow person, intellectually and emotionally.
Isreal is the only strategic foothold we have in the ME and it has always been in our interests to have Israel as a buffer between us and some real hostile, fanatics.
Israel’s main problem is not Iran or the Palestinians, it is Obama’s own virulent anti-Semitism. For more than 20 years, he sat in the pews and listened to the appalling anti-Jewish hate speech since Hitler and Himmler. He did so because he agrees with Wright. Obama’s ideas about Jews and Israel are essentially the same as Hamas’.
As I understand it, disabling, much less destroying Iran’s nuclear weapons program will not be easy; there are likely one or more secret efforts paralleling, and probably more advanced, than the effort that Iran displays to compliant IAEA inspectors and the news media. I have also read that, unlike the situation when Israel successfully destroyed Iraq’s Osirak reactor in June of 1981, Israel is now faced with a multiplicity (dozens, perhaps hundreds) of deliberately dispersed, hidden targets–many of them underground and bunkered–it has to hit, not just one very visible reactor complex as in 1981.
The U.S. is capable of doing this job if it wanted to, and could help Israel with technical assistance so that they could have a better chance of accomplishing this objective, if we wanted to help, but the U.S. doing the job or helping Israel to do it–on the sly or in the open–has zero chance under Obama. So, I wonder if Israel, given the limited resources it has–in January 2009 the Bush administration denied Israel some “bunker buster” bombs they wanted (http://tinyurl.com/olpper)– has good intel on and can cover all of the most critical targets with some reasonable assurance of destroying them? It seems to me that in this existential crisis, however small the chances of complete success, Israel has to wager everything it has on such an attack. I would expect that Israeli commandos are already in place in Iran, or will be in place shortly, to direct, help out with, and monitor such an attack.
Wolla Dolbo – we may hope so.
Obama has strayed from key leftist wishes with respect to some key terror issues, however I think that is due to tactical political considerations; a terror attack upon the US, particularly one that is tied to an Obama decision, is something he simply can’t afford at this time (or in the near future).
Right now Obama has a huge agenda to push, and he can’t let that get sidtracked by a terrorist attack, particularly one that “evil” Bush policy would have prevented.
I don’t think that the actions of Iran/Palestinians/Israelis force the same political calculus upon Obama, hence he is free do do as he wishes.
Neo is correct that Obama has given so many mixed messages about the Middle East (and most everything else as well) that it’s impossible to say where his Israel policy will settle.
I assume that Obama is, by his leftist nature, basically hostile to Israel but constrained by political realities. So it depends on how much his advisers have impressed upon Obama the importance of strong support of the US-Israel alliance. I don’t expect much from his close advisers like Samantha Powers on this score so it really comes down to the military and whatever remains of pro-Israel Democrats.
In the meantime take a trip down memory lane to another Obama campaign story that got squelched in which Obama attends a festive gathering of Bill Ayers and pro-Palestinians honoring Rashid Khalidi, successor to Edward Said and former mouthpiece for Yasser Arafat.
So, when he tries to push Israel into accepting a “2 party state” [sic], he’s only pushing the idea that his cocktail party hosts regularly promoted as an excellent idea (with nary a contrary opinion to be found!).
Talk about living in a bubble!
I’m curious. What are the alternatives to the two state solution?
Near as I can tell, Israel’s alternatives to a two state solution are:
– the expulsion under threat of force or murder of Palestinians currently living under Israeli rule, or
– the integration of Palestinians into the Israeli political structure, with or without the rights of citizens, or
– some combination of the two.
Am I missing anything?
curious,
An argument could be made that the “2 state solution” has been tried in Gaza.
It didn’t turn out too well, with Hamas throwing Fatah supporters off roofs, gaining complete control over Gaza, becoming so radicalized that even Egypt completely shut down their side of the border with Gaza until the only humanitarian aid was coming in through ISRAELI checkpoints(!) – and then Hamas proceeded to use Gaza as a launching site for rockets into Israel.
Bear in mind, this is all Arab on Arab violence – Israel was not party to it, though it did end up suffering the results which is why it finally invaded.
After all of that, does dividing Israel into 2 states sound like that good of an idea?????
Really, does it?
curious,
One other lil thang.
Arabs have been living in Israel since it’s inception. As of today, Israel has not launched into a policy of genocide to rid Israeli territory of Arabs who live there legitimately.
Palestinians, on the other hand, pretty much DO have control over the West Bank and Gaza – and it seems to have only encouraged violence.
Culturally, I’d have to say it seems Palestinians seem incapable of responsible self rule.
When parents are willing to strap bombs to their own kids, name their children after “martyrs” who blow themselves up on school buses full of Israeli children, and are unwilling to negotiate a peaceful settlement even when they are given 90% or more of what they are demanding – it’s clear there is a problem and it’s not on the Israeli side.
An argument could be made that the “2 state solution” has been tried in Gaza.
It’s a bad argument. Israel certainly withdrew its settlers and soldiers from Gaza, but continues to control the territory’s airspace, coastline, borders, water supply, etc. Another important point: if Gaza is really to be considered independent of Israel, then the blockade of Gaza would be an act of war under international law, which would tend to make Hamas rockets less an act of terrorism and more an act of war, and we’re probably not all cool with that, right? So, at the risk of creating too much of a tangent here: no, Gaza is not really any kind of second state.
After all of that, does dividing Israel into 2 states sound like that good of an idea?????
Again, not really clear where you’re headed with this. The territories that most everyone agrees would be part of a Palestinian state, were one to be created, are the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. Israel did annex East Jerusalem but has not made a claim to either the West Bank or Gaza as parts of its territory (and hence it has no internationally recognized borders, by anyone, and has never claimed official borders). So, except for the maximalist fantasies of some in Hamas and except for the Palestinian claim to some or all of East Jerusalem, a two-state solution would not involve the loss of any territory by Israel. It can’t lose what it never claimed.
Palestinians, on the other hand, pretty much DO have control over the West Bank and Gaza – and it seems to have only encouraged violence.
Under the Oslo Accords, which are still in effect and still enforced at least in the West Bank; the Palestinian Authority parliament can pass no law without approval by Israel; Israeli forces can enter Palestinian-governed areas at will, Israel continues to control airspace, borders, water, etc.; and so on. Large sections of the West Bank are off-limits to Palstinians (both the settlements and the large security zone to the east of the territory). Travel between the sections that are controlled by Palestinians is restricted and controlled by Israelis. Etc., etc., etc.
My point is not to make a moral judgement, but to point out how silly this argument is.
Arabs have been living in Israel since it’s inception. As of today, Israel has not launched into a policy of genocide to rid Israeli territory of Arabs who live there legitimately.
This is true, and directly relevant to my point.
As I understand the situation, the Israelis have three options, broadly defined:
– First, the two state solution. The West Bank and Gaza Strip become part of an independent Palestinian state, with some land swaps but largely along the lines of the 1967 ceasefire lines. Maybe some or all of East Jerusalem goes to Palestine. Obviously, lots of details to be worked out, but things like a demilitarized Palestine are usually part of this. This is exactly what Bush proposed in the Roadmap.
– Second, some sort of expulsion of the Palestinians. If Israel wants to keep the land but doesn’t want the people, it has to get rid of them through violence or some threat of violence. This is one version of a one-state solution.
– Third, the integration of the West Bank and Gaza into Israel. Israel already governs Israel+the territories, but so far hasn’t claimed the territories. This would involve a direct claim, and is the other version of the one-state solution.
Here’s why the last two really don’t make any sense. First, Israel is really unlikely to commit genocide or large-scale ethnic cleansing any time soon, both because of its immorality and because of the tremendous costs Israel would incurr. So, very probably not going to happen.
Second, keeping the territories and the Palestinians presents two subsidiary options: full integration and partial integration. Israel could offer the Palestinians citizenship in a unitary state. But, it probably won’t, as this would destroy Israel’s identity as a state for Jews. Or, it could make official the situation it has now, in which it governs Palestinians (not Palestinian citizens of Israel, but non-citizen residents of the West Bank and Gaza) but does not give them any political rights in Israel. But then Israel would sort of officially stop being a democracy, right? That presents all sorts of costs of its own.
My point in raising the genocide, etc, issues is this: to point out the lack of alternatives. Israel’s not going to commit ethnic cleansing, right? So something has to be done with the Palestinians. Give them voting rights? Goodbye Israel as we know it. Continue to govern them but deny them voting rights? Goodbye Israel as we know it. That leaves…
…an independent Palestinian state. I just don’t know what alternatives there are.
curious wrote, “Am I missing anything?”
Yes.
Isreal has Arab’s in parliament and Arab citizens.
To which you write about Israel controls the airspace, etc.
When was there EVER a Palestine? Never. It’s always been land controlled by another ‘state’. The airspace, land, water is controlled by the government of Israel.
It would be akin to Floridians saying, “we are mad that the United States controls our air space and water and land and so we are going to terrorize you.” (Even though Florida has Representatives and Senators).
And then when the United States takes controlling measures to protect people in bordering states people cry foul and say you are being to controlling.
Well… Palestininans need to renounce terror and then neigbors won’t feel compelled to protect themselves as they’ve been doing.
Your arguments hold very little historical perspective or water.
After all of that, does dividing Israel into 2 states sound like that good of an idea?????
Let me put this another way: if your premise is that the West Bank and Gaza Strip are part of Israel already, and that creating an independent Palestinian state would necessarily involve “dividing Israel into 2,” wouldn’t this make Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza non-citizen subjects of the Israeli state?
If this were the case, then a) Israel denies voting rights to almost half of its population, b) Israel couldn’t really be considered a democracy, and c) Palestinian violence would make significantly more sense.
I mean, Americans celebrate their colonial ancestors who rebelled over stamp and tea taxes, as they lacked representation in the legislative body that imposed those taxes. If Palestinians are unrepresented subjects of Israel, why should we be surprised that they, too, rebel?
It would be akin to Floridians saying, “we are mad that the United States controls our air space and water and land and so we are going to terrorize you.” (Even though Florida has Representatives and Senators).
This is a bit silly, as Florida did at one point wage treasonous war against the legally constituted government of the United States, even though Floridians were citizens of the United States and all (adult white males) in Florida were represented in that government.
When was there EVER a Palestine? Never. It’s always been land controlled by another ’state’. The airspace, land, water is controlled by the government of Israel.
This is a bit of a moot point, no? After all, every state currently in existence did not exist before it was created.
Should we go back to that Florida situation Curious 🙂
That would be silly. You silly boy.
Should we create a Palestine out of whole cloth to reward them for their terrorism?
That would be sillier. You silly boy! 🙂
When was there EVER a Palestine? Never. It’s always been land controlled by another ’state’. The airspace, land, water is controlled by the government of Israel.
Another point: yes, the land, airspace, water, etc, are controlled by Israel. But, they key here is: that land is inhabited by people Israel does not recognize as its citizens. That’s sort of important, no?
My point is: Israel either needs to expell them (commit ethnic cleansing or genocide), rule over them (apartheid), incorporate them (become a binational state), or grant them independence (remain a democratic state for Jews). Are there other options out there?
Should we create a Palestine out of whole cloth to reward them for their terrorism?
Like the British rewarded the treasonous Americans by creating an independent state “out of whole cloth” where none had existed before?
You silly boy.
Sexism.
Anyway, arguing against a Palestinian state is fine, but only insofar as you’re willing to deal with the consequences of not creating a Palestinian state. Which, as I’ve identified, are: genocide/ethnic cleansing, binationalism, or apartheid. Right? Or does anyone think those are not Israel’s alternatives to creating a Palestinian state? Is there another option of which I have not thought? I’d like to hear it.
No. Somebody has to deal with the consequences of policies of terror.
Nobody has to deal with the consequences of ‘not’ creating a Palestinian state.
Some people need to evolve.
Terror is not an option. That is the option you should hear.
Nobody has to deal with the consequences of ‘not’ creating a Palestinian state.
Dodge. Keeping the territories and the Palestinians has implications for Israel. Saying “terrorism is bad” doesn’t make the Palestinians go away. If you care about Israel, as opposed to fetishizing it, you’d actually think through the implications of these scenarios. Unless Israel allows the creation of an independent Palestinian state, it governs the Palestinians. They’re Israel’s problem. They either become citizens of a binational state, subjects of an apartheid state, or victims of ethnic cleansing. Or, citizens of an independent state. What else is there?
Nobody’s trying to make Palestinians go away. That’s a strawman argument. Felt good for you to type it but doesn’t address anything anybody is saying.
What we are trying to make “go away” is terror.
It isn’t acceptable.
The scenario of accepting and rewarding terror is what we’ve all thought through. It’s unacceptable.
Evolve.
curious
Yes, and all those Palis that Hamas killed and tortured were Israel’s fault. It was Israel’s fault that the Palis destroyed the greenhouses.
The Gaza sewage flood was Israel’s fault, because even though there were plans and funds for improving the system, international groups refused to work in an area where Hamas launched rockets, and Israel fired back. Israel, by firing back in self defense , prevented work on the sewage system. If Israel had not dfeended itself, work could have proceeded on the sewage systemn. And it is Israel’s fault that “the Palestinian authorities who got metal from Israel to improve the sewage system used it for weapons to attack Israel.”
More curious statements:
YOUR point is rather silly when you ignore the reason for the restrictions on freedom of movement: the suicide bombings etc.
Nobody’s trying to make Palestinians go away.
True that. So what does Israel do with them?
Continue to rule over them?
Incorporate them?
Expel them?
What? You simply have not answered my question, which makes me think that (as I suspected) there is no other answer.
What you’re doing, as I’ve noticed others do before, is pretend that there are tremendous consequences to Palestinian statehood but no consequences to non-statehood. But there are lots of consequences! Even if Israel does nothing different from what it’s doing now, there are consequences! You understand this, no?
Gringo. You get it. It’s about the terror.
Curious.
To answer your question honestly.
The first things first.
Terror needs to be stopped, renounced and not employed.
It is at that time relationships can be repaired (through time) and changes can be made.
It’s a horrible situation that you are demanding changes to now.
Terror must stop.
Then doors open..
Just like when I pass another certification test as I did last year. More doors opened.
Doors do not open when you terrorize. They close.
Yes, and all those Palis that Hamas killed and tortured were Israel’s fault. It was Israel’s fault that the Palis destroyed the greenhouses.
Who wants to talk about strawmen now?
Anyway, like I said, I’m going to try really hard to avoid being dragged into a tangential argument over the status of Gaza. It’s not an independent state. Israel is certainly not responsible for Hamas’ crimes against other Palestinians*, but to pretend that Israel does not control Gaza is silly. Or can you think of an independent state, which could serve as an example, that resembles Gaza in terms of sovereignty?
YOUR point is rather silly when you ignore the reason for the restrictions on freedom of movement: the suicide bombings etc.
And the Palestinians say that the suicide bombings are in response to the restrictions on freedom. My point: I’m not even going to talk, in this discussion, about why the restrictions are there. The roadblocks and checkpoints are in place. They exist, they’re there. And, as a result, the West Bank cannot really be considered to be controlled by Palestinians. If you can’t travel from one town to the other without the permission of soldiers of another country, you are not the citizen of anything resembling a sovereign polity.
You get it. It’s about the terror.
Ok, let’s try this.
Let’s say, for the sake of the argument, that I agree with all of this 100%: the Palestinians are 100% responsible, and the occupation of the West Bank and continued control of Gaza exist solely for Israel’s security. Israel is entirely innocent and Palestinians entirely guilty. If the Palestinians renounced terrorism, then Israel could withdraw, but until then, they can’t because that would reward terrorism. I agree with everything I have just written totally, for the sake of argument.
ALL THAT SAID, what happens if the Palestinians don’t renounce terrorism? We have just established conditions for a Palestinian state (end of terrorism) but I assess that the chances of these conditions being met are very low.
What does Israel do?
Does it continue doing exactly what it has been doing? ie, rule over Palestinians who have no political rights in the state that governs them?
Does it grant the Palestinians political representation, not in an independent Palestinian state but in Israel?
Does it expel the Palestinians?
Or does it do something else of which I have not thought?
If there’s something else, I’m interested to know what it is, because I can’t think of another option, and all of those options are so unattractive to Israel that I am left with an independent Palestinian state as the least-unattractive option.
Curious asked, “ALL THAT SAID, what happens if the Palestinians don’t renounce terrorism?”
Sucks don’t it. They control their own destiny yet they don’t want to !!!
And BTW, everybody is working towards an independent state. There are more issues involved though. 94% of what Arafat wanted was offered.
He refused.
Sucks don’t it. They control their own destiny yet they don’t want to !!!
Right. I conceded this, for the sake of argument. The Palestinians 100% control their own destiny and, for some strange reason, don’t want independence. We don’t need to talk about this anymore.
SOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO: for the ten millionth time, what does Israel do about this?
You got the answer. You choose to ignore it.
Israel can only give 100%.
It cannot give into terror. That would be giving more than 100%.
Palestinian people need to sacrifice and stop the terror.
Choose to ignore the answer if you want. It is the answer.
Choose to ignore the answer if you want. It is the answer.
Um….
I’m going to admit that I’m not really following you, so please spell it out for me. What is Israel going to do?
If Israel cannot give in to terrorism, it will not permit the creation of a Palestinian state, right? Right. We agree on that, for the sake of argument. So it’s simply not an option so long as the Palestinians use terrorism, for the sake of argument. It will not happen.
Which leaves….
What? What is this answer of which you speak?
Will Israel expell the Palestinians, rule over them as an apartheid state, or integrate them into a binational state? None of these is very attractive. Is there another choice?
Curious: I do not see a good end, as the Palestinians are in no mood for compromising. Nor, as this 1961 Atlantic Monthly article shows, have many ever been in the mood for compromise.
for the ten millionth time, what does Israel do about this?
give them the crappy land that they are wailing about, seal off the border as tight as east and west germany were, dont hire their workers or grant visas, and thats probably a good start.
if your damned if you do and damned if you dont, doing only then depends on what benifits you as to which gets done.
wallo dabo,
as far as locating things in iran
i would say go here and put your thinking cap on 🙂
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutrino_detector
“background suppression”
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutrino
curious — I concur with Bak, art, and Gringo. This is not mysterious. There is nothing Israel can do aside from continuing to exist. It’s up to the Palis and Arabs to decide finally that they can live with Israel.
But they won’t for now and for some time into the future, until modernity and prosperity eat the ground out from beneath backward, supremacist Islamism or — and I’m very sorry to even mention the possibility — until large portions of the Middle East are turned to glass.
Qur’anic injunction and Sharia Law require that no land conquered by jihad and added to dar al Islam be ceded to dar al Harb. Therefore, Israel’s existence will never be accepted by the Arab and Muslim world. In fact, the entire Ummah is required to wage war to take it back.
I am not making this up. It is right there in the Islamic texts, and it is a wonder that our “educated” policy and political elites in the West seem unaware of their existence.
FredHJR–It is, indeed there, as any one who takes the trouble to read the Qur’an, the Hadiths and Sira can see and verify, and this is the reason that the Saudis have spent hundreds of millions of dollars in a concerted effort of over forty years duration to buy up enough experts in the West–academics, writers and journalists–so that these “employees” can create and maintain an alternative universe in which these facts are never alluded to; “experts” telling us that, having read and studied these texts–to save us from having to do so ourselves–they can assure us that no such material is in them and/or the texts don’t really mean what they plainly say.
Listen to most of the MSM, read Professor Esposito or the very popular Karen Armstrong, and such distressing things are just not mentioned; there is a reason for this.
And I concur with Fred.
This is the way Islam is set up. Those liberals, such as Obama and other Demorats, in a rush to ask What Have We Done to Deserve This? as a response to 9-11 have not been paying attention or making any effort to educate themselves. They didn’t notice, for instance, Bin Laden in his appearance after 9-11 raving about the humiliation of Andalusia, which was the loss of Moorish Spain before America had even been discovered.
Other than surrendering to Islam, there is nothing the United States can do to assuage such a “wound.” Likewise Israel.
At best we can play for time and hope Islam reforms itself, but other than that we are locked in an existential struggle in which only one side or the other can prevail.
It would be nice if the West would finally come to grips with this unpleasant truth, but there is little chance of that while American, European, and Israeli liberals are around flagellating themselves for our so-called sins against the Islamic world.
Well well well…I see this conversation went downhill after I left yesterday!
curious,
Your arguments are shallow.
For instance, you wail about Israel blockading Gaza – yet you ignore the border that Gaza shares with Egypt. Egypt has a tighter border with Gaza than Israel does!
If Egypt chose, they could relax their border immediately and Israel wouldn’t do a thing about it.
You claim that Israel completely controls Gaza and the West Bank, yet simultaneously ignore the terrorist attacks that originate from those territories into Israel proper. Doesn’t sound like a lot of control to me.
Along those same lines, the Palestinians likewise held their very own elections. These were not Israeli elections.
Again, no control there.
Hamas won, and it was all downhill from there as they ramped up violence originating from Gaza.
Doesn’t sound like Israel controlled that election, and it doesn’t sound like they controlled Gaza very well for rockets to start being launched from that territory!
After all of this, you still defend the idea that Palestinians should have a nation of their own. That would be like giving a child who throws a violent temper tantrum and injures their playmates what the child wants to appease them and quiet them down.
And as with a child, it won’t work because you are teaching them that acting violently without provocation works, and what works will be done again.
This is assured as Hamas has never renounced the idea that Israel should be destroyed. Give them their own recognized state and they would STILL attack Israel – only they’d be doing it with the added advantage of being able to claim diplomatic status in the UN.
How would anyone like living next door to someone who thinks they should be killed and their home burned down?
One last thing, then I have a real life to get back to.
The reference to Florida and “treason”.
First of all, Florida and it’s citizens never committed treason. Treason is defined at least partly as an attempt to overthrow a government to which one owes allegience.
This was not the case in the US Civil War.
The states that seceded never attempted to overthrow the federal government, only to leave the union. This is why no leader of the Confederacy was ever charged with treason after they lost the Civil War.
Attempts to equate the murderous terrorist actions of the Palestinians against innocent civilians with leaders of either the US Civil War or the American Revolution fall flat pretty quickly when you look at the facts.
give them the crappy land that they are wailing about, seal off the border as tight as east and west germany were, dont hire their workers or grant visas, and thats probably a good start.
Of all the crazy things you have written, this is probably the least crazy.
Qur’anic injunction and Sharia Law require that no land conquered by jihad and added to dar al Islam be ceded to dar al Harb.
And Leviticus says to stone to death people who work on the Sabath, and Jesus told Christians to give away all their property and that divorce is impossible in the eyes of God. We don’t often hold Jews and Christians accountable for this stuff, do we?
No, of course not, because humans are humans and not computers that must faithfully execute programming. Certainly, there are Muslims for whom the worst parts of the Qur’an are inerrant truth, just as there are Jews and Christians who treat the worst parts of their holy books as absolutely true and right. But, and this is a big tangent, the fact that there are words written in a holy text, any holy text, does not necessarily have any bearing in the beliefs or actions of people who claim to adhere to those holy texts. That’s all I’ll say on this: this line of argument is pretty weak AND is really irrelevant to the issue under discussion.
you ignore the border that Gaza shares with Egypt. Egypt has a tighter border with Gaza than Israel does!
It’s true that Egypt participates in the blockade of Gaza, as the Egyptian government hates and fears Hamas probably more than even Israel. But, again, this is pretty irrelevant as all it does is confirm what I have said about Gaza’s status as a non-sovereign state.
You claim that Israel completely controls Gaza and the West Bank, yet simultaneously ignore the terrorist attacks that originate from those territories into Israel proper. Doesn’t sound like a lot of control to me.
This is a bit silly. The 9/11 attacks were planned and originated in part in Hamburg, yet we don’t deny that Germany “completely controls” the city. Perhaps this is my fault, as I should have said something “sovereignty” as opposed to control. Obviously, no state controls the behavior of all its citizens and subjects completely at all times, but that doesn’t negate its sovereignty. Israel, at the moment, exercises de facto sovereignty over Gaza, even if it doesn’t control the behavior of every Palestinian living there completely at all times.
Palestinians likewise held their very own elections. These were not Israeli elections.
This is true and still irrelevant. As I pointed out, the Oslo Accords, still in effect in the West Bank, severely limit the authority of the Palestinian parliament. The holding of elections does not imply the exercise of sovereignty or independence any more than municipal elections in Fresno or student elections at a high school in Hoboken.
First of all, Florida and it’s citizens never committed treason. Treason is defined at least partly as an attempt to overthrow a government to which one owes allegience.
If taking up arms against the legally constituted and democratically elected government of the state is not treason, then the word has lost any useful meaning. That it was done primarily in defense of slavery is just icing on the cake. Next, please.
every time isreal tightens the border like a neighbor the oppressor oppressed dialectic is wheeled out.
egypt is not as economically vibrant as isreal. so keeping people out, is not an issue of oppressor oppressed dialectics.
both are oppressed peoples and they can do this to each other as they are EQUAL.
but isreal is mostly white, and they are considered an oppressor group. this means that they have no other option but to lay down and die. if they close their borders its bacause they dont want to share their wealth. and so on.
Scottie, we are not shallow…
we understand the dielectics that are at play here taht are governing their thoughts and so make their behavior.
if you dont know that this decisison system is in play then its you who are being simple as all your reasonaing as to why things are wrong are fantasy.
they are using hegelian dialectical reasoning and oppressor oppressed stuff to control the sitution.
basically this works beacuse isreal is not evil. you will ever see this dialiectic being used on a person or state that IS what they claim it to be!!!!
why?
because the good state or person does not want to be seen as evil when they are actually good. so they will try to play this futile game. which is what you dont realize your describing.
they will try to navigate the situation pretending that they can be seen as the good guys. but the dialectic says that when an oppressor is good, its not out of goodness its preservation. so any kind of action, no matter what from their side, is an eveil and foments more against them.
now if they were really evil tey would do waht i said above.
if your damned if you do and damned if you dont, doing only then depends on what benifits you as to which gets done.
this is why i said if they recognize this, and they actually wanted to make the right play, then damn it all, acept your not liked. and then wall off the damn place and let them SAY THE SAME THINGS ABOUT YOU FOR IT AS THEY SAY WHEN YOUR NOT DOIGN IT….
so the best thing they can do is say screw it. be evil, knock all the others out of the park.
take gaza… eject the people. if complaints about it, tell them tahts what they are blamed for anyway, and if they have to pay the tab they might as well eat the meal.
anyone else, pound them.
ya want to know the end result?
nothing… isreal will take over its neighbors, and its new neighbors will start to crow… it will look their way and they will praise allah and start to live in peace.
they have nukes, they cant lose a ground war…
the others dont havce nukes, they cant win a ground war…
they cant win the dialiectical game of heads i win tails i lose.
so change the game.
[edited for length by neo-neocon]
FredHjr states in reply to curious:
We get the following curious reply:
When the Hamas Covenant cites the Koran and Sharia left and right, I would venture to say that the words in the “holy text” have a definite influence on the “beliefs and actions” of Hamas.
More curious statements.
Is it? READ THE HAMAS COVENANT, and then inform us how weak and irrelevant FredHjr’s “line of argument” is.
Is it? READ THE HAMAS COVENANT, and then inform us how weak and irrelevant FredHjr’s “line of argument” is.
Here’s why it’s irrelevant:
I have already conceded, for the sake of argument, that the Palestinians are 100% guilty for the current situation, that the only reason the occupation exists is because of Palestinian terrorism, and so forth. The motivations, etc., of the Palestinians are no longer part of the discussion. Move on, please.
The point I have been trying to make, apparently unsuccessfully, is this:
If Israel continues to hold the Palestinian Territories, it will commit suicide.
Here is why:
If Israel continues to rule over the Palestinians and continues to deny them political rights with the polity ruled by the Israeli government, then Israel will become an apartheid state. It will consist of a Jewish minority (with some Muslim Arabs), with full political rights, ruling over a Palestinian majority with few or no political rights.
If Israel continues to rule over the Palestinians and grants them some or full political rights, Israel stops being a state for Jews and becomes a binational state.
If Israel continues to rule over the territory but expels the Palestinians, it becomes an ethnic cleansing/genocidal state.
In any of these cases, Israel stops being Israel. It will have become something else. It will have stopped being a democracy, or it will have stopped being a state for Jews, or it will have become a moral monster. As being a democratic state for Jews built specifically in response to genocide, any one of these cases would change Israel into something that is not Israel.
So, let me sum up: not allowing the creation of a Palestinian state and withdrawing from the territories would seem to guarantee Israel’s suicide.
Unless, as I have asked hopefully, anyone here can suggest a case in which Israel continues to rule over the Palestinians but does not commit suicide?
So Israel is an ethnic-cleansing, genocidal state. They’re still alive.
If that’s the choice, I vote for Israel to stay alive.
To say that the world would then think ill of them is a hoot. Can’t get much worse and they’re still here.
Point is, if you’re going to throw somebody to the crocodile, or the wolves, so as to be eaten last, it eases the conscience if you can convince yourself he’s really a bad guy.
As I said of another issue, there is no more to it.
(Shakes head wondering how long it was BEFORE neo edited it for length……)
curious,
It’s interesting that every point I made above that undermines your claims, you simply resort to ignoring or dismissing it without rebuttal.
For instance, Egypt’s position regarding Gaza.
You condemn Israel, yet ignore that Egypt takes a far harder line position than Israel does regarding Gaza. You ignore that fundamental fact entirely except to say it reinforces the claim of Israel exercising soverienty over Gaza – which is laughable.
Regarding claims of the 9-11 attacks “originating” in Germany – there is a fundamental difference that you are studiously ignoring.
While the attacks may have been at least partially planned in Germany, the planes themselves took off from US airports. Likewise, the rocket attacks are not only being planned in Gaza – they are being launched from Gaza!
Big difference you take great lengths to ignore.
Then there is your completely ignoring the fact that Palestinians hold their own elections, have their own parliament, and have their own elected officials and their own government – dismissing it as nothing more than an elaborate version of a student election????
If the election were un-important, why did Fatah members end up thrown off roofs and why did the goverment of Gaza not only allow but support rockets being fired into Israel.
That’s some student body at work there!
You claim Israel exercises “de facto soverienty” over Gaza, yet then wail over the “blockade”. Generally, blockades are imposed over enemy territories, not “soveriegn territory” the state has control over.
Which is it you’re claiming?
Last item – treason. You obviously could use a dictionary as you have no idea what the term means.
Bet ya spent the last 8 years accusing Bush of treason too. If so, it would seem reasonable that at some point you would have at least bothered to read the definition rather than simply assume you know what the meaning is.
Historically speaking, none of the Confederate leaders were charged with treason – and there was a very good reason for this. Federal officials were very concerned that even after being victorious they would not have been able to make the charges stick if it went before the US Supreme Court.
So, in addition to needing a dictionary, I’d also suggest you pick up a history book down at your local college student book store rather than simply regurgitate what you were spoon fed.
It’s interesting that every point I made above that undermines your claims, you simply resort to ignoring or dismissing it without rebuttal.
Ok, I’ll try to address them to your satisfaction.
You condemn Israel, yet ignore that Egypt takes a far harder line position than Israel does regarding Gaza.
Actually, I have studiously avoided condemning anyone except the Palestinians who, for the sake of argument, I have conceded are 100% to blame for every problem.
You ignore that fundamental fact entirely except to say it reinforces the claim of Israel exercising soverienty over Gaza – which is laughable.
No, I have said that it reinforces the claim that Gaza does not represent anything like a “second state.”
While the attacks may have been at least partially planned in Germany, the planes themselves took off from US airports.
I’m surprised you would argue this line, because this is exactly my point. Israel does not need to prevent every terrorist attack originating in Gaza to be said to control or exercise sovereignty over Gaza. Otherwise, the U.S. could not be said to exercise sovereignty over, say, New York City, since a terrorist attack was launched from there. Since we can probably agree that the U.S. controls or exercises sovereignty over New York, we should also be able to, at least, agree that Israel’s failure to prevent every terrorist attack from Gaza is not proof of Israel’s lack of control or sovereignty over Gaza.
Then there is your completely ignoring the fact that Palestinians hold their own elections, have their own parliament, and have their own elected officials and their own government.
I am not ignoring the Palestinian elections, which are of course of great importance in many regards. My point has never been that Palestinian elections are irrelevant in of themselves, but rather that they are irrelevant to the (tangential) issue of whether Palestinians are already sovereign and independent. The holding of Palestinian elections, while important, does not signify or grant independence or sovereignty to the Palestinians any more than gubernatorial or state senate elections in Florida grant the state independence and sovereignty.
You claim Israel exercises “de facto soverienty” over Gaza, yet then wail over the “blockade”. Generally, blockades are imposed over enemy territories, not “soveriegn territory” the state has control over.
I don’t really think I can be said to have wailed over anything. I’ve attempted, for the most part, to maintain a clinical and dispassionate tone. No, I don’t think the blockade was a very good thing. I think it has been tremendously costly to innocent (and yes, most are innocent) Palestinians, has not achieved its goals, and has, in fact, worked against Israel’s strategic interests. That said, it’s true that blockades are typically imposed against enemy states. I would think, however, that the plethora of examples available to us of states blockading their own citizens — in Sudan, in Zimbabwe, in Iraq under Saddam, in Burma, for example — demonstrates that this is not always the case. But, if it were — if Israel were blockading not territory over which it exercises sovereignty, but instead a separate state — then Hamas’ rockets would be a weapon of war and not terrorism. Unless you are willing to declare that Hamas is no longer a terrorist organization but instead a legitimate combatant in a war, I can’t really understand how you’re willing to argue that Gaza is, in any way, independent and sovereign.
Bet ya spent the last 8 years accusing Bush of treason too.
No. I may have disagreed with many of the policies he pursued or implemented, but, as many Republicans are suddenly finding, policy disagreements with the president do not necessarily imply treason by either side.
Historically speaking, none of the Confederate leaders were charged with treason – and there was a very good reason for this. Federal officials were very concerned that even after being victorious they would not have been able to make the charges stick if it went before the US Supreme Court.
Really? As I understood it, the decision not to try them for treason depended largely on the desire to reincorporate Confederate states into the union as quickly as possible, which necessitated a certain amount of papering over the issue of treason.
read the definition
Well, just to make sure, I went ahead and did just this. Here’s how Article III, Section 3 defines treason:
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.
Seems pretty clear on the whole “levying war against the United States” part.
Again, all of that was pretty heavily tangential. My point, again, is this:
Even if you believe that Israel is being forced into the position of preventing the creation of an independent Palestinian state, you must address the consequences of this position for Israel. Those consequences are, as far as I can tell, the end of Israel as a democratic state for Jews.
(The whole genocide thing is something of a non-issue. No, I don’t think Israel is genocidal and I sincerely doubt it ever would be. I was just trying to be thorough in imagining every possible option for Israel if it maintains the status quo of preventing the creation of a Palestinian state. The two more likely options are: to become a binational state, or to become an apartheid state. I doubt Israel wants to be either.)
curious,
One more history lesson and then I’m off again….apologies to our hostess for going off track slightly.
Treason is attempting to overthrow a government to which one owes allegience.
Prior to 1861, citizens considered themselves loyal to the state first and the federal government second, which was the case from the end of the American Revolution up to the Civil War.
The “levying war” and “aid and comfort” to the enemy would remain contingent upon the definition of treason itself. The US Constitution did not define/redefine the meaning of treason so much as it defined actions upon which a charge of treason could be based.
Levying war and/or providing aid and comfort to the enemy in an attempt to overthrow the US government WOULD qualify as treason, and be consistent with the accepted definition of the word as well as the wording of the US Constitution.
Since the Southern States never attempted to overthrow the US government, only leave it, then the definition of treason was not satisfied.
“Papering over” was not an issue. During the Reconstruction Period of the post Civil War era, the US military appointed everyone from the county sheriff up to the state governor.
The South was militarily occupied.
Northern carpetbaggers had free reign to do as they wished – which generally meant stripping the South of anything left that was of any value.
Southerners were left even poorer when *back taxes* were assessed for the years of the Civil War, and immediate payment was demanded in US currency of which the average Southerner had none. So, they lost their land as well.
The actions of that era resulted in widespread poverty across the South for generations to come.
If there had ever been an environment that would have allowed the US government to try former Confederate officials of treason, that would have been it and no “papering over” was required.
The problem for anyone of that era wanting to try anyone for treason was a legal one, not a public opinion issue.
But this discussion DOES raise an interesting point. Since Hamas manifestly pronounces they wish to destroy Israel, under your analogy does this make their actions treasonous?
Just “curious”, Curious,
Since Israel has only occupied the West Bank and Gaza Strip since June ’67, who was preventing the Palestineans from independence and soverignty between ’48 and ’67? What, pray tell, were Palestineans doing with their time for those 19 some odd years?
Treason is attempting to overthrow a government to which one owes allegience.
Ok, this is very tangential, and I doubt we’re going to agree on this, since you seem dead-set on defending treason against a legally constituted, democratically elected government in order to defend the right of some people to own other people, so this is the last thing I’ll say on the subject and then won’t address it again.
I have never understood treason to mean, solely, an attempt to overthrow a government to which one owes allegiance. Rather, I have always understood it to mean any serious act of disloyalty to the legally constitute government of one’s state, including but not limited to attempts to overthrow said government. This is why, for example, the Rosenbergs were executed for treason, though they did not attempt to overthrow the government of the U.S.
Prior to 1861, citizens considered themselves loyal to the state first and the federal government second, which was the case from the end of the American Revolution up to the Civil War.
I think the Constitution is pretty clear. It does not define treason as levying war against the governments of the several states, it defines treason as the levying of war against the government of the United States. There is just one such government of the United States, and when southerners took up arms against it, regardless of whether they were primarily or secondarily loyal to the U.S. government, they committed treason. They did not simply attempt to leave the Union; they attempted to destroy the Union. More specifically, they did so in order to defend the institution of chattel slavery, first and foremost.
I expect that you will disagree heartily, but that’s ok. For me, that’s the end of the story. Treason is levying war against the government of the United States, that’s just what they did, and that’s that. End of conversation on my end.
Since Israel has only occupied the West Bank and Gaza Strip since June ‘67, who was preventing the Palestineans from independence and soverignty between ‘48 and ‘67? What, pray tell, were Palestineans doing with their time for those 19 some odd years?
It’s true that neither Egypt nor Jordan fostered the creation of an independent Palestinian state. In fact, the Palestinians were nicely dicked over by Nasser, who fostered Palestinian militant movements in order to further his own pan-Arab agenda, with little interest in creating an independent Palestine.
All that said, what’s your point? Is this supposed to be some sort of “gotcha” that negates everything else I’ve written? Does it relieve Israel of its burden to say that Arab states once faced the same problem? No, of course not. Israel controls the territories and the Palestinians. It has to do something with the Palestinians, right? Regardless of how they got there, who did what to them first, etc, etc, etc, Israel has to do something with the Palestinians.
It can kill them and drive them out (genocide/ethnic cleansing). It can grant them full political rights (binationalism). Or it can continue to rule over them, as it does now, while denying them political rights (apartheid). Any of these is, in my opinion, suicidal for the Israeli state. Fortunately, majorities of both Palestinians AND Israelis agree, responding in public opinion polls in favor of a two-state solution. Unfortunately, some actors on both sides benefit from the status quo and, as such, maintain the status quo that both spells doom for Israel and prohibits the creation of an independent Palestinian state.
Sigh….at no time did the South ever attempt to overthrow the government.
If you have a verifiable fact otherwise – as opposed to the South simply leaving the union (which is NOT overthrowing the US government), then I’d be happy to read it.
Otherwise, you are simply blowing hot air….
Oh, I promised I wouldn’t do this, and will probably regret it, but…
Maybe I wasn’t clear enough?
“at no time did the South ever attempt to overthrow the government.”
This is true, and irrelevant. I never made the claim that the south attempted to overthrow the government. I argued that the south levied war against the government – exactly the Constitution’s definition of treason.
This is why I am able to cite the example of the Rosenbergs, executed for treason for passing along nuclear secrets as spies to the Soviets. Neither of them attempted to overthrow the U.S. government. Perhaps you think they were innocent of treason?
“the South simply leaving the union”
I don’t think you can call the bloodiest war in U.S. history “simple.” It’s not like they said “toodles!” and waved goodbye; they waged a war.
Again, the Constitution:
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them
What was the Army of Northern Virginia doing other than waging war against the United States?
OK! I hereby swear that, no matter how badly you misread what I have written or how stupid your response, I will not reply on this subject again.
curious,
I guess that’s another promise the left made they didn’t keep…
Again, I explained the context for the treason reference in the US Constitution – perhaps you should go back and read it once more. It’s pretty clear. They didn’t redefine treason, they simply defined the actions that would be grounds for the accusation of treason – there is still that troublesome overthrowing the government thing you are ignoring.
If you doubt that simply waging war is insufficient grounds for accusations of treason, consider the 2nd amendment. It was specifically written in to give the states and the people the martial power to fight the central government.
If your position were correct, there would be an inconsistency in the logic behind the US Constitution. The guys who wrote it were smart enough not to do that.
If instead you try to claim the amendment simply changed something in the constitution, then the final word still remains the 2nd amendment.
It’s funny watching you corkscrew your way into that hole.
As for the war itself, the north was the aggressor. The Army of Northern Virginia was called that because it generally remained in Virginia. It didn’t try to invade the north and conquer it and overthrow the US government – which would have been treason.
Had Lincoln allowed the South to leave peacefully, there would have been no war.
“They didn’t redefine treason, they simply defined the actions that would be grounds for the accusation of treason.”
LOL. “They didn’t define treason, they just established what the word treason means.”
“If your position were correct, there would be an inconsistency in the logic behind the US Constitution.”
Yeah, no guys who would ever create something like the 3/5 compromise would ever contradict themselves.
“As for the war itself, the north was the aggressor.”
South shot first.
“It didn’t try to invade the north”
Except for that time when they, you know, invaded the north.
“Had Lincoln allowed the South to leave peacefully, there would have been no war.”
Had southerners not picked up guns and fired them at U.S. soldiers so they could continue owning black people, there would have been no war.
snark,
Yet another one who apparently never cracked a history book.
Suppose you have a US military force that attempts to impose martial law on a US city? Such an act is blatantly illegal, but there are precedents in US history for this event occurring.
According to you, any resistance by the people to such an imposition of martial law would be treasonous as you ignore the whole *overthrowing the government* component that is generally accepted as treason.
See how fast your argument falls apart?
Regarding your last statement, you do realize that slavery – you know, the topic you claim was the reason Southerners “picked up guns and fired them at U.S. soldiers” – was not actually stopped as a legal practice in the US until passage of the 13th Amendment on December 6, 1865.
At the time of the amendment’s passage, slavery was still legal in Delaware and Kentucky – 2 states that fought on the side of the US in the Civil War.
There is also the issue of timing of this amendment.
Lee surrendered to Grant on April 9, 1865. So it took the US government 8 months from the end of the war to actually pass the amendment at a time when the northern states were in complete control of the government.
That position also ignores that throughout the years of the Civil War, slavery was still legal in states supporting the US government aside from the 2 previously mentioned states.
The Emancipation Proclaimation doesn’t provide cover for this claim either, as it didn’t actually free a single slave.
It applied only to states that were part of the Confederacy – over which Lincoln had no power to enforce his proclaimation.
There are also legal arguments that he didn’t have the power to make this proclaimation at all – which is a moot point since it was only aimed at states within the Confederacy and not at slave holding states still in the Union.
That position likewise ignores that only passage of the 13th amendment was enough to force Grant to free his own slaves.
Grant of course being a slave owner as well as the general who led the US army during the Civil War and who later became president himself.
So essentially you are arguing that the South initiated a war to defend a practice that was legal, and continued to be legal, throughout territories on both sides of the conflict and was not actually prohibited until long after the war itself had ended.
And for what it’s worth, I’m still wondering if *curious* has an answer yet as to whether or not Palestinians could be considered treasonous under his previously stated positions….
Curious.
You could have won Dancing with The Stars.
Nice dodge wrt the Paleos and 48-67. Jordan illegally annexed what is now the West Bank.
The POINT is that nobody gave a rat’s ass about the Paleos’ rights until they became useful to bash Israel.
Got it? I know you do. But now you know everybody else knows, too.
The problem is that the Paleos’ leaders insist on a one-state solution, and that means the end of Israel. The Israelis object.
What you seem to miss is that other people are allowed to know stuff in addition to the smoke you’re peddling.
Jordan illegally annexed what is now the West Bank.
This is true, and irrelevant. Israel controls the West Bank now and, as a result, must deal with the consequences.
The POINT is that nobody gave a rat’s ass about the Paleos’ rights until they became useful to bash Israel.
This is true, and speaks very poorly of the various dictators who have ruled virtually every Arab state, and most (but a shrinking number of) Muslim states, for decades. Ok, so we have established that bad dictators are bad. Beyond that, this point is irrelevant. It does not matter if anyone cared. My point has never been about who cares and does not care; it has always been about the consequences for Israel of maintaining the status quo, consequences the existence of which most people here have studiously avoided acknowledging.
Paleos
Is there a reason to refer to Palestinians as Palis or Paleos? I’m genuinely curious about this one. “Palis” I understand could, in theory, be shorthand for a pretty long word, but Paleos? This is sort of like referring to Obama as “Obonga” or whatever you people are calling him this day. Do you think that you are, in some way, really sticking it to people like me when you refer to them as Paleos? Do you think you’re sticking it to actual Palestinians? Do you, as I suspect, use it instead to signal to likeminded folks that you care so little for them that you can’t be bothered referring to them by their actual name? If I had to bet, I’d put money on the last.
The problem is that the Paleos’ leaders insist on a one-state solution, and that means the end of Israel.
Fatah’s leadership accepted years ago the two-state solution, as had (until the last election) Israel’s leadership. Furthermore, Israel has committed itself to a two-state solution through the various accords it has signed. Israel should be held accountable to those accords, much as any sovereign state is held accountable for the various treaties and accords it signs, even if its government changes through elections. Note that one of the requirements for U.S. recognition of a Palestinian unity government is that Hamas agree to abide by all accords signed by the Palestinian National Authority; there’s no reason we shouldn’t expect the same from Israel.
The Israelis object.
A minority of Israelis object. Thanks to Israel’s electoral system, they’re currently in charge. But large majorities of Israelis indicate through public opinion polls their support for a two-state solution.
What you seem to miss is that other people are allowed to know stuff in addition to the smoke you’re peddling.
None of this has been smoke. Let me restate, just so we’re clear: to me, it appears that preventing the creation of a Palestinian state equals suicide for Israel. If there is another scenario than binationalism, apartheid, or genocide that you can imagine resulting from the maintenance of the status quo, I’m really interested in hearing it.
“paleos” because of the primitive views they have. Such as a museum celebrating the Sbarro’s bombing, complete to simulated viscera on the walls.
Destroying the greenhouses.
Believing in the most illogical nonsense.
Point about nobody giving a rat’s ass 48-67 is not the dictators. It was the self-appointed Professionally Incredibly Wonderful such as yourself who didn’t give a rat’s ass, either. More the point than the buttheads in the ME.
Israel “objects” to being destroyed, not to a two-state solution.
Fatah isn’t in charge.
Hamas and Hezbollah will do the work that Fatah wants done while presenting itself as the moderates.
Ever notice that every Israeli concession demanded is a tactical advantage to the Arabs’ military plans? Sure. We all did. It’s just that some folks, cough, aren’t going to admit it.
IMO, the only thing you have going for you is that, under the solution in which Israel survives, Israel isn’t Israel any longer. Which his not the same as being dead. Really. Even if true.
Curious,
I recognize your argument. It actually comes directly from Thomas Friedman’s “From Beirut to Jerusalem”. I enjoyed it a great deal, and I understand your points, but I have several problems to address.
First of all, I think that we are arguing in the past about Israel “controlling” Gaza or the West Bank. Ariel Sharon unilaterally withdrew Israelis from the Gaza strip and the West Bank almost 7 years ago! If you look at a map of Israel, the West Bank and Gaza are conspicuously absent from the shaded area. If by “control” you mean that Israel watches its borders or retaliates when it is attacked, then you are correct. But for that matter, every country “controls” its neighbors by maintaining its borders and being geographically located over strategic resources and locations. Technically, Sharon followed Friedman’s advice on the issue.
Second, Israel can bear no responsibility for the failure of the Palestinians to organize their government. The fallout between Hamas and Fatah should prove this, unless you are a conspiracy theorist. As such, the lack of an actual Palestinian state makes it unlikely that it can control the water, the air, or any other outside strategic location even if Israel were to secede control.
If the Palestinians lay down their weapons and commit to peace for a decade or two, Israel will no longer be a Jewish state because the demographics will shift in favor of the Palestinians. You need to take a dim view of the Israelis to think that they will commit mass murder or mass deportation to prevent that. This is why Sharon wanted the Palestinians to have their own territories that they could make their own states. They wouldn’t be his problem anymore. The two-state, or even three-state solution is very possible, but there is a lack of political will among the Palestinians as they want more than just Gaza or the West Bank.
The Arab Israelis are also a growing problem for the Jewish Israelis. I think eventually Israel will cease to be if the Arab Israelis overpopulate the the Jews.
In short, unless you think the Israelis are blood-sucking vampires, because of demographic trends, I expect Israel will no longer be a Jewish state in 50 to 100 years either because of the Arab Israelis or because the Palestinians lay down their weapons.
Although you say that you are conceding that the Palestinians are 100% responsible, the way that you argue suggests that you are not taking that assumption into account. Do you really care about the answer to the question?
Oz.
Ref yr last graf:
He’s making a quite common argument.
“Arabs are nuts. They’re murderous, insane, illogical, irrational nutcases. There’s no talking to them. They want to destroy Israel and the Jews and there’s no way to talk them out of it.
The only people we can get to concede anything are the Israelis, so they have to do it.”
This is not a new argument, although most folks don’t actually articulate it. It is, however, at the bottom of a number of policy prescriptions for the ME. If this is the fundamental proposition behind Curious’ argument, I wouldn’t be surprised. It could be worse, though.
“It’s true that neither Egypt nor Jordan fostered the creation of an independent Palestinian state. In fact, the Palestinians were nicely dicked over by Nasser, who fostered Palestinian militant movements in order to further his own pan-Arab agenda, with little interest in creating an independent Palestine.”
“Regardless of how they got there, who did what to them first, etc, etc, etc, Israel has to do something with the Palestinians.”
Apparently the point is lost on you. At what point is the situation the Palestineans are in the responsibility of the Palestineans? During those 19 years, was there any resistance to the “illegal” occupation of Jordan, or being “dicked” by Nasser? Or, were they willing to be armed by these players, and stand with them against Israel, instead of using that time to establish an independent Palestinean state, with the promise that it could all be theirs once the Jews were wiped out, or “pushed into the sea”?
Chief Joseph of the Nez Perce once said “I will fight no more, forever”. Emperor Hirohito said the Japanese people must “endure the unendurable”. Germany had to prove itself for over 45 years before allied occupation was removed in the ’90’s. Only when the Palestineans themselves want peace will there be peace. It’s not Israel’s decision to make. Period.