Sharon buries a stillborn peace plan

[Rhiannon12866]

Israeli opposition politicians and intellectuals and Palestinian former ministers have united to propose a comprehensive new peace plan to put an end to years of bloodshed and occupation.

The proposals, a first draft of which was completed in secrecy in Jordan last weekend, are being put forward by their authors to prove there is an alternative to continuing the slaughter of the past three years.

Although the Geneva Accords, as the new proposals have become known, have been rejected out of hand by Ariel Sharon's Israeli Government, there are hopes they can revitalise the debate in the Middle East.

They represent the first time in three years of suicide bombings, ambushes, assassinations and curfews, that senior figures from both sides have come forward to say there is another way.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/storydisplay.cfm?storyID=3528836&thesection=news&thesubsection=world

[DuctapeFatwa]

1. Geneva was also rejected by Palestine

The PA, who still doesn't understand that kissing ass like Hashemites is not going to get them the same dollar, may have signed off on it, but the right of return is not negotiable, as those who bothered to check the pertinent, (but naturally forbidden here :) websites last week will know.

[Rhiannon12866]

2. Is this part of the roadmap?

I thought I was up to speed on this, but it is so deliberately vague. This, to me, sounds like more than the Palestinians have been offered for a long time. I would think that both sides (the people, not the government) would agree to most anything if it could reliably secure a lasting peace. I almost posted another article, but I was afraid it was one of the type that you mention.:-)

[DuctapeFatwa]

3. A lasting peace, even if desired by busharon, will not come from another

so-called "accord" that is based on the false premise that the land is Israel's to give, that illegal settlements are anything but illegal settlements, and that the Palestinian people will collectively declare themselves and their children exceptions to the international law that grants refugees the right to return.

A lasting peace begins with immediate dismantling of ALL settlements, from the stupid little parked trailers surrounded by an IDF platoon to the huge sprawling developments the size of cities, with shining buildings and posh malls selling all the latest MaryKate n Ashley crop tops and lip gloss.

A lasting peace means that Israel chooses statehood for itself, and decides to comply with international law, 4th Geneva, and the 69 UN resolutions it is currently violating. That means right of return. That means that Israel recognizes Palestine's right to self-defense. And water. And back to the fundamental premise, Israel agrees to negotiate with Palestine about how much and what land Palestine will give to Israel.

But alas, a lasting peace also means decreased revenue for the pockets of the gunrunners and captains of Armani-suited corporate gunrunning, so as long as negotiations are held by people who have a stake in that, the idea of lasting peace ain't nuthin but shit.

[Rhiannon12866]

4. I agree with you and I think you know that

But I think that an end to the violence and the killing of innocents would be worth almost any concession, to both sides in this. This is the article that I thought of posting, but didn't think that the controversy it could ignite would be worth it. We cannot solve anything here, just come up with our own opinions and hopes, and mine are for a lasting peace. Maybe we are alone on this thread, but I sincerely doubt it. I sincerely hope it doesn't provoke anymore flame wars.:shrug:

http://www.cnionline.org/resources/factsheets/march02fsht.html

[DuctapeFatwa]

5. cool site!

And I see where you're coming from, but I think that after 55 years, Palestinians especially are just not having any more bullshit.

I don't say that because I think that Israelis necessarily want more bullshit, but because it is still possible for Israelis to work, go to school, etc, and while even one innocent death is one too many, there is too much disparity in the piles of negotiating chips at the table.

Once you reach a critical level of certainty that you are going to die whether you do what I want or not, I have lost a big chunk of chips.

Israel has no chips left.

Palestinians know that whether there are suicide bombings or not, their kids will continue to go starve, be shot, be kidnapped, tortured, beaten up, ad infinitum.

There is no more economy in Palestine, Child malnutrition has reached Congo levels, and a young black man in the US has a better chance of reaching the age of 25 without being murdered or locked up than a young man in Palestine.

Refugee camps in Lebanon contain the grandchildren of people who were ethnically cleansed from their homes in the Naqba.

Palestinians, in short, have nothing to lose.

Israelis, at least at this point, still do.

[The Magistrate]

6. The Problem, Mr. Fatwa

Is that it is precisely this rejectionism you seem to extol which has landed the people of Arab Palestine in their current circumstance. Even allowing, for the sake of argument, that there might be something to your view that Israeli rejection of peace is the root of the problem, it cannot be denied that there has been a rejection of peace from the political and radical leadership of the people of Arab Palestine. Put bluntly, this latter is less wise precisely because the polity of Arab Palestine lacks any real power to enforce its will.

It may make a ringing slogan to trumpet that "the right of return is not for sale", but it cannot be viewed as a serious policy, absent several armored divisions and tactical air wings of high caliber. Absent such, and military victory by them over the forces of Israel, it will never be accomplished. We both know such forces are not going to be made available to the people of Arab Palestine. It is essential in successful strategy to apportion ends to means, and not to seek what cannot be achieved with the means available.

Liquidation of claims to lost properties and livelihoods by cash settlement is the only solution to this matter that can be achieved. It may well fall short of the desires of some; it would probably prove satisfactory to most. Rejecting it only ensures the conflict will continue in its present form, with ever increasing dimunition of the prospects of the people of Arab Palestine. Clinging to the dream, and the maximalist demand, will only ensure there is nothing at the end.

[DuctapeFatwa]

7. I am proud to reject colonial-imperialism. Try it sometime.

Your comments are remarkably similar to Mr Bremer's recommendation that the Iraqi people submit to the will of the bush regime, not to mention various proclamations by assorted Israeli potentates over the decades.

In fact, forget US and Israel, you can mine the bloody, viscous entrail-dripping history of the entire little blip of the last few centuries of Euro-barbarism and without exception, each and every chieftain, emperor, even a couple of stray popes, have urged their prey to kneel and lick the boots of their flaxen masters, and in every case, the invitation has been declined.

I do not believe that the current monument to the powers of gluttony, Butcher of Beirut to you, is possessed of any magical power that will cause the Palestinians to start a new trend.

[Darranar]

8. The Zionists legally bought the land, somewhat at least...

the same case can't be made for the Americans.

The best and most realistic solution to the problem is a two-state solution in my opinion, with reperations for the Palestinians in trade for denaila of the right of return.

Perfect justice for all could well result in justice for none; the greatest good for the greatest number is the best taht any solution can do to be effective.

[Muddleoftheroad]

9. You condemn the Palestinians

To the ash heap of history.

Frankly, I glanced at the deal and have too many questions, especially about Jerusalem.

But don't worry, the Palestinian terror groups would never agree and that means no peace. So no pact.

[The Magistrate]

10. What A World You Live In, Sir

Imperialism is hardly a recent or a European invention, nor is their practice of it marked by an unparalleled cruelty and butchery. Arabic Islam was itself a practitioner when it had the chance, and fell to Turkic imperialism when it could no longer sustain itself. The Chinese certainly perfected the form; the Aztec and the Inca practiced it, so did the Bantu. In most instances, the conquered were indeed successfully forced into acquiesence, generally through extremes of brutality only glimpsed in modern times.

Fighting without hope of success is criminal folly, justifiable only in extraordinary circumstances, which are certainly not present in this matter. If you have any interest in the well-being of the people of Arab Palestine, you would recommend they gain peace on whatever terms can be had. If your interest in them is as a symbol in service of some ideal, that is another matter, but understand: life is damned hard on symbols, and only gets worse for the unfortunate flesh chosen to embody them.

[DuctapeFatwa]

11. Fighting without success is precisely what Israel is doing

The Middle East has been populated by Middle Easterners, of many faiths, for a considerably longer period of time than it has been blessed by the borsht bunch.

Alexander sought to conquer the people of Khurrasan, he succeeded only in sprinkling them here and there with colored eyes, which are really pretty.

England and Spain did their best to wipe out the indigenous people of the Americas, but a glance at almost any steet in any city of the US will serve as a testament that that effort also failed, on the contrary, within a generation or two, colored eyes will be quite a rarity on those streets, a boon for the decorative contact lens industry.

European invasion of ancient lands as an enterprise has not only found small favor with the invadees, but has not been in the best long term interest of the invaders.

If I were a paid consultant to the invaders, my professional recommendation would be that they abandon the practice in favor of more productive activity.

Now if you will excuse me, I find that your prose has once again inexplicably caused me a sudden notion for Cinnabuns.

I must try not to read your posts so much, or I will become fatter than Sharon!

[The Magistrate]

12. Permit Me, Sir, To Add A Little To Your Craving For Cinnamon

Alexander was little concerned by Khurrusan; the object was destruction of Persia, and occupation of the Nile delta. This was achieved, and the polity and culture imposed lasted for centuries: Jews were about the only rebels against it. All the dominant philosphies in both the Near East and the West came out of the Alexandrian polity.

Most of the casualties inflicted on indigenous populations in the Americas were inadvertant, and the result of diseases. the Spanish made no real attempt at extermination, for they needed the laborers: Spain had no intention of repopulating the area with Spaniards.

Europe benefited greatly from imperial exploitation, particularly in the early stages. It can hardly be said to have suffered by it, certainly. In the English occupation of India, they were indeed welcomed by many rulers, who felt they could be used against rival rulers: these people were not as good at that game as they thought they were, it turned out. Something similar occured in China: the last several decades of Ch'ing rule were largely owed to European presence.

Imperialism is literally as old as human government: all governments expand to the practical limit of their power to do so, and realize the practical limits only through the medium of weaponry.

[Name removed]

13. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Aidoneus]

14. *technically*,

The plagues brought with the invaders didn't need direct intent to spread. That there was a great deal of killin', plunder, and land theft that went along with it is undeniable and one of the more disgusting series of events in history, but probably a second fiddle to the natural inclinations of smallpox.

[The Magistrate]

16. Second Fiddle By Far, Sir

Barely a patch on the bloody garment of the conquest. The same was true of European wars at the time, and for long to come. Even in the mid nineteenth century, several times as many soldiers died from diseases of the camp and march as from wounds.

A most charming old book on the subject is "Rats And Lice In History", by a fellow named Zinn. It was written not long after World War One, and the man had obviously been a medical officer in that war and gotten damned tired of regulars. Dr. Diamond cites it in "Guns, Germs, And Steel", but it has long been a favorite of mine.

[bemildred]

27. Wonderful book, I recommend it too.

I still have a copy in a box somewhere.

[bemildred]

26. Mr. Magistrate is correct in that regard.

One of the reasons the land was "empty" was that it had
been recently "emptied" by smallpox. Even fairly progressive
historians now admit this is so. Not that the invaders
were reluctant to do a bit of killing if there was a prime
spot of land at hand or some need for slave labor. It seems
likely that Sen. Cortez and Sen. Pizarro would have had a much
tougher time of it without the aid of disease. This is not to
be taken as a defense of the European conquest or the methods
used.

The larger point, in which I do agree with you, is that colonial
ventures have in general faired much less well without some such
natural advantage, as opposed to mere conquest where the natives
are left to their own business as long as a suitable tribute is
paid. That latter was the Roman practice, and the Greeks for
the most part. Colonizing, in the modern sense, requires a large
population ready for export, hence is a relatively recent thing.
This is not to deny that there were little pockets of Greek and
Roman culture all over the place, just that the numbers were
small.

[bluesoul]

29. Hmm

Look Bemildred, I am European and I should then be delirious jumping on the bandwagon saying that it happened all unintentionally. Unfortunately our ancestors are responsible for their share of genocide, ethnic cleansing, killings just as much as others..

I will not run away from that fact ;)

[The Magistrate]

30. You May Enjoy Your Protestations Of Guilt, Then, Sir

There is no accounting for taste. These things have been the common acts of the human animal so long as it has been abroad on this earth: they mark the heritage of all complex cultures. As Mr. Twain put it once: "I know of nothing against him except that he is a human being: that ought to be enough to hang any man."

[bemildred]

31. I did not say that it was not "intentional".

Nor am I defending the Europeans treatment of the First Peoples.
I am well aware of American History. I'm saying the Europeans
had a good deal of "help" from natural causes, and that they would
have had less success without it, i.e. that the so-called superiority
of the whites really involved a good deal of luck.

[bemildred]

32. If you compare the European occupation of India or Africa

with the Americas, the differences in the success of the outsiders
in taking over, in the permanence and/or duration of the takeover,
are striking. That is the point. Even today India is mostly
filled with Indians and Africa is mostly filled with Africans, but
N. America is mostly filled with people of European descent. This
is no accident.

[The Magistrate]

34. Part Of My Point, Mr. Mildred

Is the difference of intent in these ventures. In India and Africa, as in South America, the intent was not the export of surplus population, but the exploitation of the native population. Further, in both India and Africa, there were diseases lethal to Europeans that the natives largely tolerated as endemic.

In the Americas, the great population centers were in Central and South America, not in North America. Though the latter was hardly empty, even before the ravages of disease, it was sparsely populated, as the low intensity agriculture and hunting-gathering cultures predominant there could not support any great density of inhabitation.

[bemildred]

36. Certainly so.

But is that "intent" a cause or an effect? It was the depopulated
land and the temperate climate that lead to the differing intent.
There were colonies of Europeans in India, Africa, and S. America,
but they always remained minorities, always remained less well
adapted than the natives. In N. America, Australia, a few other
places, because of depopulation by disease, and because of natural
adaptation to conditions of climate etc., they obtained the upper hand,
and it was to those places that the larger numbers of
displaced Europeans emigrated.

Edit: It is telling in this regard that the one large remaining
European population in Africa is in S. Africa, a temperate climate,
although always outnumbered by the natives, and that Argentina has
always been one of the most Europeanized of S. American countries.
This is not to say that pockets do not exist elsewhere, or have not,
the Kenya highlands, for example.

[The Magistrate]

39. True Enough, Sir

But differing domestic motivations at differing times in the colonizing homelands had their effect on policy as well. Mexico or Peru, for example, could have been just as easily repopulated by Spaniards as the Atlantic coast of North America was by Englishmen during the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. The Spanish crown did not want particularly to do this, and had no great press of burgeoning population, as did the English crown, to force its hand. The European population of Argentina was largely a nineteenth century phenomenon, and not particularly Spanish: people forget that the United States was hardly the sole destination of European emmigrants in that great shift of population westwards.

My only reason for going into this at any length is distaste for the comic-book sloganeerings trumpeted at times on the subject. At bottom, the colonization of the Americas was just a more recent example of a very old thing; the movement of people as a displacing horde, men, women, children and chattels all in a bunch. Except for a few early instances where there simply were no people in a land already, most places on this earth got their current inhabitants that way, only some thousands or hundreds of years ago.

[bemildred]

41. Agreed on the sloganeering. There are few peoples that

came by their present lands without displacing someone else,
the first peoples of the Americas and aboriginal Australians
seem to me to have the best case. The invasion of Europe by the
"barbarians" in Roman times was a rather successful colonization,
changing the entire demographic of Europe, and those that read
in history and anthropology will know of others.

For the most part I find the dividing of humans up into little
pidgeon holes based on culture and surface color etc. tedious.
We are all as alike as peas in a pod, and would do better to stop
wasting time on such issues. But I know I am being completely
"unrealistic", we do enjoy our squabbles and won't give them up
willingly.

Edit: I suppose I should add that what we know of the history of
the Americas before the Europeans came does not suggest that, on
the whole, they behaved much better or worse than one can find in
the history of Eurasia, in particular they seem to have been capable
of the same barbarities.

Edit: It is interesting, as you point out, that Argentina and
neighboring areas were quite popular with Germans, but that somewhat
plays to my point that it was the climate and land for the taking
that mattered in the outcome, and not solely government policy.

[Darranar]

42. Another unrealist here...

despite my support for tribal states in the case of oppresion, I am very much the globalist, and as tired as you are by those who seek to seperate the world's cultures into "good" and "evil".

[The Magistrate]

15. The Tremendous Die-Off From Disease, Mr. Fatwa

Was neither planned nor particularly intended. The microbes reached regions Europeans did not even suspect existed, long before a European set foot into them. It was indeed a tremendous thing, perhaps nine tenths of the population in some areas, and largely from diseases not even lethal to Europeans. There were, cerrtainly, by the nineteenth century, some deliberate attempts at spreading small-pox, but the great damage was done hundreds of years earlier. No one intended to give horses to the peoples of the high plains either, but it happened just the same. The study of history at any depth, Sir, is largely an immersion in the law of unintended consequences.

[bluesoul]

17. Unintended?

Unintended consequences? You must be kidding me! It was all done with great purpose to get rid of them. It seems to me that someone is looking for excuses for genocide against the Indians. Historical revisionism.... As though the "western civilization" hasn't done it's share of genocide, ethnic cleansing, killings, country nuking etc..

[DuctapeFatwa]

19. I am sure that someone will mention Holocaust deniers

at some point, something to the effect of, "that would be deleted so why are the deniers and defenders of the genocidal actions against American indigenous people allowed," so I will just go ahead and say my piece now.

I believe in freedom of speech, and I do not believe that anyone should be forced to keep their ignorance secret.

Like the General who gave verbal expression to popular American views that are expressed militarily every day, I believe that honesty is the best policy.

And in a way, it is a good sign when people argue that genocide attempts like that against the residents of this continent or the Holocaust never happened.

It shows that they don't think it was a good thing. In fact, they think it was such a bad thing that the only way they can cope with its implications is to deny it.

That is a step forward from applauding it, and every journey begins with a step.

[bluesoul]

20. Agreed

I agree with you DuctapeFatwa, I am all for freedom of speech, I just wanted to point out the obvious historical revisionism in such statements and lame excuses. The "It was just a coincidence, with unintentional consequences" type of BS... :puke:

[DuctapeFatwa]

21. LOL well, it is all they know to do

It is a step up from "they deserve to die and should all be killed," albeit a tiny one, but in its own way it is right up there with the great progress the species has made in the last few hundred years - as recently as a few centuries ago, people were tortured in the public square.

Today it is done behind closed doors.

Fewer people step up to argue the merits of bride burning in India, and as of 1920, women in the US can even vote.

baby steps are small, but you still have to praise the baby and encourage him to try another :))

[Darranar]

23. The Magistrate's correct here...

whether or not they would have cared had they known that they would have slaughtered Native Americans is debatable, but the epidemics of smallpox were not intentional. The Europeans at the time barely understood disease; how in the world could it have been?

[bluesoul]

24. Disagree

Based on many articles and books I have read about this, I am pretty sure they knew what and why they were doing it. No need to give them a pass on this Darranar..

[Darranar]

25. It was far too widespread...

for it to have been intentional. The sluaghter began and continued even before there was much of a European population in the "New" World.

Perhaps this is my supposedly "eurocentric" view of the world speaking again, but the fact is taht it's physically impossible for this to have been intentional.

[The Magistrate]

28. It Is Going A Little Much, Sir

To credit Cortez with Dr. Pastuer's germ theory. These people had no idea what disease was, how it was caused, how it was spread. Diseases like chicken-pox, that did not kill Europeans, were as lethal as small-pox in the Americas, as they were completely novel to the inhabitants. Typhus, too, seems to have been unknown in the Americas. The killing done by hand, by sword and arquebus, was very minor by comparison to the disease toll. In the Carribean, particularly the island now split between Haiti and Santo Domingo, survivors of disease were certainly worked to death in the hunt, largely futile, for gold, with the inhaibants being completely exterminated within a generation. This was recognized as bad for business, and was the occassion for inaugurating the large-scale trade in slaves from Africa. The Spanish purpose in colonization was not for resettlement of population, but exploitation of mineral and agricultural resources. This necessitated retention of a substantial native populace, and so the Spanish never intended extermination, and did not generally inflict it. In incidents of rebellion, certainly, districts were subject to massacre.

You really do not seem to know much about the period, which is understandable, and as it has been well said by someone: "It ain't what you don't know, it's what you know that ain't so."

[Rhiannon12866]

18. I guess my point in posting this article

was to point out that, while the governments fiddle, those affected have come up with a plan for peace, and are willing to make the concessions necessary to make peace. Because it isn't officially sanctioned, it probably will not fly. But it does provide a ray of hope.:shrug:

I agree with you that the Palestinians have certainly had it with all the machinations. They are in a terrible position and they live under unlivable conditions. I would think that the Israeli people would feel much the same. They aren't safe and are victims in this, as well, as has certainly been proven in recent weeks. If the Bush* administration had any sense, they would get behind this as a beginning to a viable peace plan, but they are beyond hope. My hope is that those who have come up with this plan continue to follow through. It is a beginning.:-)

[Rhiannon12866]

37. I agree with you and I think it's an international tragedy, much

greater than Iraq in its proportions. A couple of months ago, during a spike in the violence, there was a proposal to bring in international peacekeepers, but this was rejected by the Sharon government. Then, after that horrific bus bombing, that same government announced it would begin "targeted killings," not that it hadn't engaged in this before. When I heard that phrase my blood ran cold. How can such acts do anything but incite more violence?! And the result is more and greater reprisals and the spiral continues. I don't see why the Israeli people put up with it. They are less safe under such a policy.

[Darranar]

38. No, it's not much greater than Iraq...

as Aidoneous pointed out, the US has killed more innocent people in eight months then Israel has in three years.

[Rhiannon12866]

43. Perhaps my phrasing was misleading

I didn't mean in sheer numbers of the dead. On that score, I know that you are surely right. And the innocent dead are not only as a result of Bush*s illegal and bloody war, but also of 12 years of U.S.-led U.N. sanctions which deprived the Iraqis of necessities like food and medicine. The majority of those affected have been children. And we wonder why they hate us?

What I meant was the depth of the enmity and the history involved. This conflict has lasted for generations. It has to be stopped, for the good of the world and the region, but I fear it will still be making headlines when Bush*s misbegotten war in Iraq is long forgotten. I'm counting, you see, on a new administration.

[Darranar]

44. That is true n/t

[Muddleoftheroad]

45. Sanctions

Sorry, you can blame the U.S. all you want for the dumbass war, but don't blame them for the sanctions. The sanctions were a response to the Iraqi leadership's penchant for attacking their neighbors. They were given a bunch of things to do to comply with as a result and were damn awful about them.

NO nation has a right to free trade with another unwilling nation. Sanctions and embargos are legal ways nations express displeasure with one another.

[bluesoul]

47. Sanctions

You know what does sanctions did to Iraq Muddle, especially to hundreds of thousands of kids? And you call yourself a liberal...

[The Magistrate]

48. Mere Blather, Sir

Hussein could have, and should have, complied with United Nations directives early in the nineties: the responsibility for the suffering rests on him, and him alone.

It is worth noting that, since the invasion, spokespersons for Voices In The Wilderness have stated openly that Hussein's government, to their certain knowledge, with-held available medicines from hospitals for the purpose of producing dying patients for propaganda purposes.

[Darranar]

49. I disagree...

though Hussein's regime did indeed make little effort to stop it, the scarcity of food and various medicines was indeed a severe problem during the years of sanctions.

Blaming Hussein for the sanctions is like blaming Israel for the suicide bombings. Though their policies might have contributed to the action, they themselves did not commit it.

[The Magistrate]

50. It Does Not Seem So To Me, Sir

Hussein was told to do certain things by the United Nations Security Council, which also specified penalties for non-conformance. He did not do these things; the penalties were enforced. He had open to him the course of complying, and had he done so, the penalties would not have been enforced. If a man does not heed the order and warning from the police "Stop or I'll shoot!" and continues to run, he is indeed responsible for his being shot.

There is little room for doubt that the scarcity of drugs in hospitals was in great measure deliberately contrived by Hussein's regime, both by use of funds for other purposes than procuring medicines, and by with-holding medicines from wards. For large portions of the sanctions regime, medecines were not embargoed, and the efforts at smuggling, very skillfully executed, could just as easily have been turned to such purposes instead of weaponry.

My own view of sanctions, in general and in this case, is that are a poor and ineffective tool, mostly adopted to give an illusion of something being done. There is generally no reason to believe any amount of suffering among a dictator's people will influence his behavior, and never any to suppose there will be any difficulties experienced by the ruler and his elite cadres. The practical effect of sanctions is generally analogous to, every several weeks, firing a few missiles at maternity and geriatrics wards, and scatterring a few incendiaries about the poorer quarters of the large cities: honest men would do that, rather than pretend they were acting cleanly in producing a similar result by "nonviolent" means.

[Darranar]

51. Well, my view of sanctions is similar to yours...

I don't doubt that Hussein did several cruel things to his people during his regime; what I do doubt is that war, at least the way the occupant of the White House carried it out, was the neccesary step to take.

Reagrdless of Hussein's responsibility or lack thereof, sanctions were a crime against the people of Iraq, as much as randomly bombing parts of population centers would have been.

[The Magistrate]

52. We Are In Agreement Over The Invasion Of Iraq, Sir

As a question of strategy, it was blithering foolishness, but the worst of it is that the real reason for it was corruption of the political process in our own country, and the enrichment of cronies from the public purse.

[sushi]

53. I heard an Iraqi professor

in an interview saying that he's glad Saddam Hussein is gone but he didn't like the way he was disposed.

[sushi]

54. Isn't it amazing

that Hussein should have complied with United Nations directives while Israel ignores all UN resolutions and doesn't get penalised?

[Muddleoftheroad]

55. Hussein had an option

He had the choice given him by the UN -- to accept the decision or the sanctions.

[sushi]

57. I know

and he was bad to refuse to comply, but do we have to be nasty back?
Who suffers under sanctions? The people, and we know it. Sanctions are ugly! There are other ways to get rid of one person without punishing millions.

Anyway, it turns out that that one person didn't have the WMD that he was accused of having. In other words, neither the war nor the sanctions were necessary. What we needed was plenty of inspectors to keep an eye on him.

Actually, why shouldn't every country have WMD? I think everybody can have them or nobody should. If only a few have them they can bully and dominate. That's the problem now. Some people would say only the good ones should have them. Who judges who is good? And what makes you think the leader of a "good" country cannot turn ugly?

[Muddleoftheroad]

58. Naive

WMD are a bad fact of life. But spreading them around the world increases the chance of their use. Just look at India and Pakistan and see how close they have come to such a result.

The war was not necessary, the sanctions were. The sanctions were a direct result of his actions.

[Darranar]

59. What did the sanctions do?

[sushi]

73. I agree

WMD are bad. The world should get rid of them. As long as only some have them they can bully others. And a "good" leader, with WMD, can turn ugly!

[The Magistrate]

56. No Resolution Concerning Israel, Ma'am

Has ever specified penalties for non-compliance.

Most of them are mere boiler-plate concerning quite minor actions, that, again, let people pretend to be doing something to please their constituencies and polish their credentials, and so, having served that purpose by mere passage, are ignored even by their authors.

The only real directives, relating to the original refugee situation, and to the lands over-run in '67, specified that mutual negotiations were to determine the actions taken, and neither side was willing to enter into such negotiations.

[tinnypriv]

60. "Quite minor actions"

The main UN resolution against Saddam was for his invading of Kuwait.

Israel also had a virtually identical resolution against it for its invasion of Lebanon.

The former actually had the more credible pretext as well.

Also, the reason that no resolution against Israel has ever "specified penalties for non-compliance" is (as I'm sure you know), because the U.S. would veto any attempt to pass a resolution under Chpt 7 of the UN charter.

Doesn't change the fact that an analysis of empirical historical fact (rather than the whitewashed version) would conclude that if 1982-Israel were not a US ally, the resolutions against it would be much more detailed and harsh than they were against 1990-Iraq.

[The Magistrate]

61. Many Do Relate To Quite Minor Matters, Sir

Certainly by comparison to a framework for regional negotiation, or settling the matter of three quarter of a million refugees.

The Israeli invasion of Lebanon differs in some respects from Hussein's invasion of Kuwait: no acts of war were being levied against Iraq from Kuwaiti soil, for example, nor was a great portion of Kuwait occupied by a private and hostile power that had set at naught the authority of the Kuwaiti government where its gunmen roamed. Hussein certainly had some historical basis for the claim Kuwait is actually a province of Iraq, as its detachment from the old Ottoman jurisdiction was an irregular result of gun-boat diplomacy, and the Kuwaiti government was certainly behaving in an economically hostile manner towards Iraq, both in insistance on immediate repayment of war loans, and attempts to manipulate oil prices to reduce the ability of Iraq to readily repay same.

The Israeli invasion of Lebanon did come swiftly to be a vile venture indeed, and its condemnation by the United Nations was appropriate. Most attention in this matter has come to be focused on massacres carried out by Marionite Christian militias, but to my mind the major crime was the unrestricted bombardment of Beirut. That differed in no wise from the Syrian suppression at Homs, or the Serb reduction of Vukovar, and was unargueably a violation of the Geneva accords.

That the possibility of a U.S. veto does greatly condition what resolutions against Israel are passed by the Security Council is certainly true, but it remains also so that no resolution against Israel has specified consequences, and that is therefore the answer to why enforcement was mounted in one case, where such consequences were specified, and not in another. Whether or not that is just is a seperate question. The threat of permanent member veto has always greatly conditioned the actions of the Security Council, and generally in ways unenvisioned by those who contrived the organization, who imagined a war-time alliance of which all permanent members were part would persist into the future. Since the Soviet representative absented himself from early discussions on Korea, no resolution has ever passed the security council that would injure the interests or prospects of any permanent member, or any of their satillites. Thus the Soviets suppressed the Hungarian Revolution, and the Prague Spring, and the Chinese occupy Tibet, to name just a few examples, without so much as a pious noise off from the world body.

[tinnypriv]

62. I agree with your follow-up

That "many" UN/SC resolutions against Israel are for quite minor actions.

"Most" are them are however, not.

I would wager that at least a plurality of those resolutions concern one of the following:

Bombing of Tunis, capture of 1967 lands, invasion of Lebanon, occupation of Lebanon and WB, changing the demographics of Jerusalem, violation of the geneva conventions, aggression etc.

Certainly none of those are minor.

As for the two invasions, my point wasn't to say that they were the same but that the initial resolutions against them were virtually the same.

Therefore, the difference in the treatment afterward (silence, support and suppression of the facts on the one hand, immediate resort to violence on the other) is even more stark, as you correctly point out.

[The Magistrate]

63. My Apologies, Sir, For Mistaking Your Meaning

It had seemed to me you meant the invasions, not the resolutions, were similar.

Someone may do us the favor of summoning up the total list of resolutions on the topic, and we could come closer to settling the point. Some of the things you mention specifically do strike me as minor: most of the condemnations alleging Geneva violations or aggressions relate to things of petty scale, such as the liquidation of a Hamas operative, or some such, and many of these things do not strike me, at least, as either crimes or aggressions, but merely incidents in a continuing war between two peoples. Doubtless we will continue to view some of these things differently, just as we agree on some other matters in this conflict.

[tinnypriv]

64. Probably my mistake

I had to correct myself for lazy writing whilst talking to some fellow from Ben-Gurion Negev Uni the other day too.

As for the resolutions, you can call them up at http://domino.un.org but I really can't be bothered to do it myself. ;-)

[Violet_Crumble]

68. You might be interested in this...

It's a paper I found that discusses the Security Council and some of the Resolutions against Israel and goes into the behind-the-scenes stuff that goes on to get a Resolution happening. I thought it was pretty interesting...

http://www.ciaonet.org/isa/jud01/

As for whether a Resolution is binding or not, I'm interested in learning more about what it takes for a Resolution to happen. Are they written as binding resolutions at the draft stage? I kind of suspect that the permanent members would jettison any binding draft resolution before it saw the light of day, and in some cases the other members might prefer to see a non-binding Resolution appear rather than nothing at all...

Violet...

[sushi]

74. Exactly,

the US would veto anything in the UN that is against Israel.

[The Magistrate]

40. Here We Must Disagree Somewhat, Mem'Sahib

The most distinctive feature of this Levantine brouha is precisely its trifling character. Its fundamental unimportance makes it suitable for symbolism and scapegoating, distracting from more serious concerns.

Only a few millions out of the world's population of some five billions are directly concerned. No key resources or economic centers are directly concerned: between the Jordan and the sea there is no oil, no gold, no titanium or tungsten or chrome or uranium. For all the repute for violence it has acquired, it would surprise me very much to learn as many as 150,000 people had been killed in the whole course of conflict there, from 1920 to the present day. That is barely a rounding error in the tale of those eighty years throughout the globe. The original refugee population set adrift in 1948 was no more than two or three percent of the total of persons officially acknowledged as refugees in that year. Any one of us here could name a half dozen places in the world, without pausing for breath, where persons in far greater number are treated with far greater brutality, and subject to far greater deprivations, and exist with far greater curtailment to political rights and human liberties.

Concentration on this matter simply distracts. It gives Arab and Islamic authoritarians something to draw the anger of their misruled people away from themselves. It gives emotional radicals something to fulminate over, instead of actually working to organize against real plutocratic exploitation, both at home and abroad.

[Rhiannon12866]

69. I agree, Magistrate, that many more innocents may have been killed

in other venues. Most recently, in Iraq, for instance, the "collateral damage" has been horrific. So many children. But in this case, it is a legitimate government intentionally firing missiles into densely populated areas, knowing that innocents will undoubtedly be hit. How many innocent deaths are acceptable, in any case?:shrug:

[The Magistrate]

72. War Is A Hard Thing, My Friend

It is also a mutual thing, and absent a victory imposed by one party's power on the other, both parties must act to secure its end.

Each side maintains it would not attack the other if the other did not attack it; neither can really be expected to stop attacking the other before the other stops attacking it.

And so people continue to be killed, most of whom have no real part themselves in the conflict, and are not serving members of combatant forces. About half the people the Israelis kill are combatants; about a third of the people the Arab Palestinian irregulars kill are combatants. The question you ask, Mem'Sahib, must be asked of all participants in the grisely exercise: it cannot be addressed to just one side.

[Rhiannon12866]

76. I guess my point is, Magistrate, that this is not a traditional war

Missile strikes are killing civilians in more cases than the actual targets. I know that civilians die in wartime. But in these densely populated areas it seems like the casualties of bystanders is particularly likely. So many have been children. I guess my other point is that things just seem to be escalating, rather than following any semblance of the road map. How can "targeted killings" produce anything but more reprisals? If I can figure that out, so should those whose job it is to broker peace for populations who desperately want it.

[Jim Sagle]

22. At last we agree, Mr. Moriarty.

The right of return is not negotiable.

Buh-bye to peace until the Palestinians get it.

[Muddleoftheroad]

33. Nor is it negotiable for Israel

Peace will not occur till Palestinians give up this ridiculous idea.

[Sesquipedalian]

65. Apparently..

This particular idea is only ridiculous for one set of people you deem it worthy of.

I expect that you find nothing "ridiculous" at all in the notion of Jewish right of return while you condemn people forced into refugee camps through no fault of their own to live in squalor.

[Rhiannon12866]

66. Not only squalor, but under very dangerous circumstances

Of the 100 or so who were injured in yesterday's "targeted killings" in Gaza, I wonder how many were children.;(

[Muddleoftheroad]

67. Pragmatic

Israel is there. That is a fact. Unlike Hamas, Islamic Jihad and others, I don't seek to deny it or change it.

Given that fact, where do we go from here? Clearly, the right of return will not happen because that changes the basic fact of Israel. That means the Palestinian people need to be able to move on. If they can't, then they are doomed to be without a homeland.

[Rhiannon12866]

75. I thought one of the stipulations was reparations, in lieu of right of

return. This is surely better than nothing. And surely better than the continued bloodshed. It has gotten so bad that I cringe to hear the news. Shimon Peres has condemned the recent actions. He seems to have a cooler head and greater wisdom than those currently in charge of making decisions. As for the Palestinians, I fear they are ostensibly without a leader. I think this is a big part of the problem. Abbas was fine, but was in an untenable situation, as probably anyone else in that position would be right now. Someone needs to say enough is enough. Targeting killings just escalate the violence.

[tinnypriv]

35. You can forget it

The United States doesn't support the accords.

Therefore, they are irrelevant.

It doesn't matter what Ariel Sharon thinks, and blaming fat-boy is a cop out. The title and viewpoint of this article is trash.

This same media charade happened when the Saudis (-re) proposed their peace plan in 2002 (supported by 99% of the world, except for US-Israel).

The facts on the ground are that even the DOA Roadmap is in a "deep freeze" (copyright: Ben Caspit) until 2004. Unless somebody pressures the U.S. government, that will continue to be the case.

[sushi]

46. I'm not at all surprised

that Israel's PM rejects this peace plan. I think he doesn't really want a peace agreement because it clashes with his own plans for Israel. By rejecting every proposal for peace he hopes to postpone peace for as long as possible, and hopefully there will never be a Palestinian state. I think Israel's PM will only tolerate a Palestinian state on Israel's (his) terms, which, he knows, will definitely not be acceptable to the Palestinians. So he torpedoes every move for peace now.

[hossdiddy]

70. lies disproved

<i>Of the 100 or so who were injured in yesterday's "targeted killings" in Gaza, I wonder how many were children</i>


http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull&cid=1066715113718

I'm sure the PA will claim all of them, but the truth is 0

[Darranar]

71. Ah, Fair and balanced Jpost!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=124&topic_id=23639#23741

See the post focused on.