Obama to Haaretz: U.S. must help protect Israel from enemies

[oberliner]

WASHINGTON - U.S. Senator Barack Obama (Illinois), who is competing for the Democratic Party's presidential nomination, told Haaretz on Thursday that the United States should help protect Israel from its sworn enemies.

Obama intends to present his policy regarding Israel soon, and his staff has been drafting a speech.

"In my opinion, the special relationship between the United States and Israel obliges us to help it look for serious partners with whom it can make peace agreements.

At the same time, we must help Israel defend itself against those enemies that have sworn to destroy it," he said.

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/826665.html

[Colobo]

1. Israel is our ally, it's just that

We can't base our foreign policy on what Israeli hardliners want.

[PsN2Wind]

2. Israel receives ,what, about 3 billion a year from us??

We should have cut that money off when "our ally" was found to be using a portion of that money to pay Jonathan Pollard to spy on us, for them.

[The Magistrate]

3. This Is To Be Expected, Sir

Any other position would doom a contender for the Democratic Party's nomination for President The overwhelming preponderance of rank and file Democrats hold the views expressed above by Sen. Obama. They are also the views of the people of the country at large.

[Jim Sagle]

6. Maybe DU needs a spot of housecleaning. Just sayin'...

[Violet_Crumble]

11. There's a difference between support of Israel and blind, unbending support of everything it does...

Which is why I think people would be wise to wait and read Obama's policy about Israel before saying too much....

btw, as an example of why I think yr argument of popular opinion = what the Democrats should do isn't a good one is if the majority of Americans supported bombing the crap out of some other country and it's clearly not in the interests of the US or its people, I'd be hoping that Democratic politicians would have a spine and look beyond scoring easy votes and use their moral compass...

[The Magistrate]

19. In A Democracy, Ma'am

Politicians who advocate policies the great preponderance of the people do not support are excused the burdens of office, whatever the state of their spines....

[ClintonTyree]

30. The how would you explain the pResideny of George Bush?

Using your logic the man should be out on the streets looking for a new job. Sir.

[The Magistrate]

32. Short Answer, Sir

Something of a coup pitched in 2000.

In 2004, the wretch got a few more votes than his opponent. Since there are fixed terms in office here, one only need be just popular enough on a given Teusday in November....

[heidler1]

4. Israel did follow Bush's notion to bomb the shit out of Lebanon

and the Hezzballa. This was one of Bush's stupider ideas.

[dottym]

49. what makes you assume

it was bush's idea? israel has a right to defend itself.

[Tom Joad]

5. Israel needs to stop making so many enemies.

[The Magistrate]

7. That Is Rich, Mr. Joad

Since its declaration of sovereign existance was replied to with invasion across every border of the place....

[Kiouni]

8. Hey! Jimmy Carter told me that story was fake!

now your just getting me confused....:shrug:

[The Magistrate]

9. You Might Want To Provide A Citation For That, Sir

"Comedy is best left to professionals."

[Kiouni]

16. I apologize

I don't have his latest book with me but in it he tells of how in the 6 day war, Jordan was forced into it unlike how Israel represented it as Jordan harboring PLO terrorists. Regardless of which way you see it in his book Palestine: Peace not Apartheid he only states King Hussein's point of view and leaves out any response from Israel. While not directly presenting a bias toward Palestine he leaves does leave the reader (me) feeling like it was a one sided account. This was not meant to be an "inside" joke most of the reviews of his book point out this over-sight.

[The Magistrate]

18. Jordan Was Not A Particularly Willing Participant In That War, Sir

So a statement that King Hussein felt forced to it is not innaccurate or a distortion by any means.

[Violet_Crumble]

10. What'll confuse you even more...

..is that Mr. Magistrate neglected to mention that it was both the new Jewish state as well as the territory earmarked for the new Arab state that was invaded, and that Israel itself was one of the parties involved in invading what was to be the Arab state...

[Tom Joad]

13. The forced exodus of 700,000 people is also not the way to make friends.

[The Magistrate]

17. A War Of Peoples, Mr. Joad

In which each feels its survival at stake, will generally have unpleasant outcome for someone.

Nor had there been any great number of people driven from their homes at the time the invasion was commenced, though certainly some had departed for a variety of reasons during the early irregular fighting.

[Tom Joad]

21. "unpleasant outcome". Is that all it was?

[The Magistrate]

23. On The Twentieth Century Scale, Sir, Yes

That must find room for Chinese villagers in the way of the "Burn All, Loot All, Kill All" suppression campaigns, for the collectivization of the Ukraine and the Great Leap Forward, for the Hitlerite extermination efforts, the wracking of Leopold's Congo, and a variety of other items of horrific nature there is not time or need to list seperately. The great distinction, after all, is between the living and the dead....

"The dead know only it is better to be alive."

[Tom Joad]

34. Could it also have something to do with the fact that caring for the human rights of Palestinians

gets very little political traction here in the US, and in fact, is likely to do a politician great harm?

Isn't it about winning elections, that seems to be your main theme, Magi.

[msmcghee]

35. Far more likely that after 9/11 no politician . .

. . would gain traction from supporting human rights for terrorists - or those who could easily be characterized as terrorists by their political opponents.

I'm afraid that 70 years of swearing to destroy the state of Israel and the thousands of Israeli deaths that have resulted from that quest has turned out to be increasingly costly for those who have been pursuing that course rather than peace - and unfortunately, it is also increasingly costly for those who they claim to be fighting for.

Now, the interesting question for this forum is - how much are some absurd anti-imperialist narratives really worth to the far left who encourage Palestinians to fight back with primitive weapons against Israel's might and applaud them when they have any small success? I know you have nothing at risk here yourself. Your children won't have to face Israeli M16s when they throw those Molotov cocktails and rocks at them. You won't have to worry about Kassams landing on your kid's school. So, the question must be how many innocent Israeli and Palestinian lives are these beliefs of the far-left in some mythic Israeli / Western imperialism worth to you?

How many more innocent Israeli and Palestinian civilians will have to die before you can finally say it is wrong for Palestinian "freedom fighters" to attack Israeli civilians with rockets and suicide bombers, for you to condemn them and demand that they renounce that course and stop the attacks as the only possible first step toward peace in any rational world?

Or, will you continue to make excuses for them (and claim they are in the right, as some posts in this very thread do) and thereby encourage ever more Israeli and Palestinian deaths from your safe perch thousands of miles from the actual conflict - so you can show your friends how much you despise this "American / Israeli imperialism"?

Added on edit: If you really believe that American / Israeli imperialism must be opposed why advocate that a poorly armed impoverished people who have already lost almost everything in that Quixotic mission continue fighting on your behalf? Why not advocate that the poor Palestinians make the best of the situation for themselves and make peace with Israel - and find another outlet for your political visions?

[breakaleg]

36. You seem to be forgetting one major thing. Palestinians, regardless of their methods are

fighting on the right side of this thing and Israel (except in their own minds) are clearly in the wrong. So to ask a group of people to give up what they know is rightfully theirs so the big bully can take it all for themselves goes against human nature. It won't happen.

You are very creative in your use of language in how you defend these indefensible actions, but anyone with half a brain will see through those words in a heartbeat. Some may even find humor in them.

[msmcghee]

37. Well, so far your only argument . .

. . supporting your premise that the Palestinians are in the right and the Israelis are wrong is the casualty counts that result from the conflict. If the Palestinians manage to kill a sufficient number of Israelis in the future will you be switching sides?

[breakaleg]

39. Wrong again. My position is based on the fact that the occupation of the West Bank

is illegal. My pointing out of the numbers is simply to show that Israel is not the victim in this thing, as they profess to be, and their "defense" excuse is just that - an excuse.

[msmcghee]

40. I have seen the World Court opinion . .

. . that the wall is illegal. I have never seen the UN or any world body state that the occupation is illegal. In fact Res. 242 establishes its legality as well as a framework for its end - a framework that the Palestinians have rejected for forty years now.

[The Magistrate]

41. That, Ma'am, Is Quite True

Resolution 242 does direct the retirement of Israeli forces from land over-run in '67, but does so in conjunction with direction for the cessation of all states of belligerency, and recognition of the right of all countries in the region to exist safe from violence and threats of violence against their people. Any body committed today to levying violence against the state and people of Israel is not abiding by the directives of the Security Council. There is nothing illegal about Israel exercising a military occupation of the area in question, though there are some questions whether all the actions undertaken by Israel during the occupation are legal.

[Shaktimaan]

52. but doesn't the fighting far precede the occupation?

It isn't as if the occupation caused any aspect of the conflict. Nor has the occupation of other nations like egypt been an impediment to peace. Israel has been willing to trade land for peace in the past. In terms of the west bank, maybe not all the land though.

How is it that you figure Hebron to be an unjustified settlement? I am not in favor of continuing the settlements, but I fail to see how one could think that all of them are illegally stealing land. Unless you also felt that refugees of the nakba are not entitled to compensation or land either. Can't have both, can you?

[breakaleg]

53. ...

The occupation is the daily means through which Israel wields their power over the Palestinians. It has everything to do with the current conflict. It’s the reason why the Palestinians’ quality of life is what it is, why suicide bombers are created.

The mere fact that Israel made a conscious decision to create “facts on the ground” with respect to creating settlements as these large developed cities with all of the infrastructure to go with them, proves that they never had any plan to remove any of them. So, I see no parallet with Egypt. And the excuse they used to get around the law was that they were military bases. Many of them are not. So, this is a case of where the publicly stated policy is not the same as the “facts on the ground” so to speak. I don’t believe Israel will ever get rid of the settlements. When you say 'maybe not all' the land in the West bank, they have now taken over close to 42% of the West Bank and they expect to keep that in any peace agreement. Don't you think that's a little extreme? Should they rewarded for establishing these communities to the detriment of the Palestinians, to the point were it will be near impossible for there ever to be a viable Palestinian state?

Hebron, in the West Bank falls under the land designated to a Palestinian state. If you start quoting religious crap with me, I am out of this discussion. There is a very big distinction between owning a house in a country and living under the laws of that country. And owning a house in a country and then saying, that even though my house is in country X, I want it to be in country Y, so I’m declaring that it is.

I don’t see what “both” or two ways you are referring to. The refugees that fled should be allowed back into their homes and returned their rightfully owned land. And if they chose to live in the state of Israel, then that’s about all they can get. They don’t get to say that they want their house to part of Palestine even when it’s not located there.

Check this out, and then tell me what you think of the settlements.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-500411215492365617&q=genre%3Adocumentary+duration%3Along&hl=en

[Shaktimaan]

55. I'll check out the video tomorrow and comment then.

But I have a good understanding of what the settlements are like. I noticed that the video appears to focus on Revisionist Zionist philosophy as a metaphor for Israeli policy, even though Revisionism was rejected as a dominant plan. So I'm expecting a pretty biased video, but I am interested and will watch it.

Anyway, settlements... While I am not in favor of them and I think their existence is detrimental to Israel overall, I do understand that every single one does not fall under the same category of "totally unjustified and illegal," and I think it is important to acknowlege why to better understand the motives behind some of the settlers and their supporters.

Hebron is a great example. You say it falls under the land designated for a palestinian state. When was it designated as such? By whom? The arabs rejected the UN partition plan. No one recognized Jordan's occupation of the area. The fact is that it is undecided as to what belongs to whom right now. So it isn't Palestinian land yet, unless we are talking specifically about the land ceded to the PA under Oslo. That land, while mostly under occupation, clearly is to become Palestine.

Now, I see what you're saying about Hebron, correct me if I am wrong... You are saying it may have it's small Jewish population, but they should live in Palestine, under Palestinian rule, just as returning refugees will live in Israel, right? There's a problem there, as you know. While I am 100% in favor of your plan in theory, realistically there is little chance that Hebron under Palestinian control would be able to have a Jewish population or even retain any of the religious or historical sites/artifacts that tie Hebron's history to Judaism. Now, I am not talking about the bible here for justification. But the history and significance has to be considered. Hebron is the second most holy place in Judaism, and as such, religious Jews should have access and be able to continue the tradition of living there. You see, Hebron is different than other areas. It has a special significance/history and I think that religious sites of significance should be considered when determining borders for both religions.

Compare Hebron to Jerusalem. Clearly, Jerusalem should partially belong to Palestine for the same historic and religious reasons. East Jerusalem is still to be negotiated and the Palestinians should have control over part of it. Part of Hebron as well. But there is just no way that a population exchange of the kind you propose is feasable. Land can be exchanged, restitution can be made. But placing Hebron under Palestinian control guarantees the same treatment it received as under Jordan which is just not desirable.

You approach this as though the situation was arrived at neutrally, which is not the case. Unfortunately, the Palestinians have been on the losing end of many wars, all of them begun by them. This leaves them with less negotiating power in terms of their preferred borders. Sucks. But no one told them to reject every single opportunity, no matter how reasonable.

they have now taken over close to 42% of the West Bank and they expect to keep that in any peace agreement. Don't you think that's a little extreme?

sure, if it were true. but at camp david they didn't expect to keep 42%. not even close. It was 5% with 2 or 3% of Israel being traded in exchange. So, only 2 or 3%, not 42%.

It’s the reason why the Palestinians’ quality of life is what it is, why suicide bombers are created.

I would hold off on assuming why suicide bombers are created. If it were as simple as a quality of life issue then most suicide bombers would be poor, living in the worst conditions in Palestine. In truth, many are middle class, educated and relatively well off. Suicide bombing is just a tool, most of the bombers themselves are not desperate adults but easily influenced, younger ideologues. If the situation in refugee camps were so desperate, they would move into the houses Israel built for them.

[breakaleg]

61. What kind of state does Israel envision for the Palestinians?

Personally, I think they want them confined to ghettos until they die out, that is, unless they can force them to flee before they do.

But realistically, how many nations on this planet have little patches of land inside their neighbor's territory and maintain roads to access those patches of land and control their neighbor's borders? Keeping Hebron would mean exactly that.

Allowing 400 religious nut-cases and the thousands of soldiers it takes to "protect them" to subjugate a city of 150,000 (+) is completely insane. You tried to phrase it in terms of historical significance - nice try.

Think of it this way: Let's say I wanted to return to my ancestral home - Ireland. But not only did I want to live there, I wanted the state to give me a house that someone is already living in. And I didn't favor their laws or trust my neighbors, so I wanted to remain a citizen of my country and I wanted my government to protect me. Huh? That's about how much time I have for the Hebron claim.

The settlers of Hebron are utterly repulsive in their actions and treatment of those around them. Life must stop for an entire town, because they want to walk down the street alone.

And aren't many of these people from the US and other countries? Shame on them. And shame on any government that would coddle then and encourage them to behave as hoodlums.

As for the land in the West Bank. Israel ought not to be rewarded for building up their illegal settlements. And if they were to keep them, then a contiguous state for Palestinians would be impossible. So, it's less about the percentage of land that they receive in the end, but about the makeup of that land and if it's even possible.

Personally, I think it will take a long time, but these decisions will come back to haunt Israel at some point. Karma.

[Tom Joad]

42. MsM, Why do you bring up human rights for "terrorists" when i said human rights for Palestinians?

?????

[msmcghee]

43. You were discussing how "human rights for Palestinians" . .

. . would gain little traction in a political contest. I was pointing out that the reason for that is that it would be a perilous tactic for the proponent - who would easily be characterized by his or her opponent as proposing human rights for terrorists.

It is a line of vulnerability that would be available because of the image that Americans have of Palestinians - caused by the last several decades of TV images of Palestinians celebrating successful suicide bombings, the martyrdom of the bombers, the particularly damaging images etched into many Americans' minds of Palestinians celebrating the WTC 9/11 attacks, etc.

I am not necessarily claiming those images are completely objective - but they are the images that Americans have of Palestinians - and they are the images most Americans would likely consult when evaluating candidates for office. That's so obvious that I can almost imagine the TV ads now - "My opponent supports human rights for these Palestinians" as the screen shows clips of Palestinians celebrating successful terrorist attacks on the US and Israel - perhaps ending with the video of that cute five yo Palestinian girl saying how she wants to kill Jews when she grows up.

I'm hoping you were not implying with this question that I believe that all Palestinians are terrorists. I don't.

[Tom Joad]

45. politicians should support human rights for Palestinians, of course.

i can't imagine any disagreement there.

[msmcghee]

46. I support human rights for everyone . .

. . across the board - regardless of ethnicity, nationality, etc.

I support humans rights so much that it bothers me when some groups do things that deprive others of their human rights.

Consistent with my concern - I believe that using violence to attack and kill others in order to get your way rather than negotiating with them is the most egregious way to deprive people of their human rights.

I believe that those who attack others (not in defense) are the worst of criminals and should be treated as such by all peace loving people. They should never be supported because some happen to believe that the things they won't negotiate for are justified.

IMO there is no excuse for violence that's not in defense.

[Tom Joad]

47. Right, all violence against civilians, including Palestinian or Israeli

should be condemned.

[msmcghee]

48. While I generally agree, there is a fine distinction that . .

. . you seem to be avoiding. It is an area where I think we possibly disagree.

I do not condemn violence per se. I condemn offensive violence. It makes defensive violence necessary - and the attacker is therefore responsible as a matter of principle for all the death and suffering - including defensive violence - that results from the initial attack.

To be clear, if civilians on the attacker's side suffer harm as a result of that defense I blame the initiator of the offensive attack for that as well - as long as that harm was not intentionally directed at those civilians or was the result of legitimate defensive military objectives.

I give the clearly defensive party much leeway to determine for itself what is necessary both to stop the immediate attack and to assure that a future attack will be unlikely. When someone is attacked with deadly force they have the right to determine both the manner and the measure of their defense within broad limits IMO. If the attacker does not like the fairness of that proposition - they always have the option of peace.

I have tried to state my beliefs on this matter as clearly and honestly as I can.

Do you agree with me or not? If not, can you suggest another set of rules for nations to live by that will result in less harm to civilians over the long term.

[ProgressiveMuslim]

67. Your post reveals

that you really have no understanding of the nature of the Israeli occupation and the utter devastation it has caused in its 40 years.

thousands murdered
scores of thousands jailed
thousands tortured
thousands of students' education interrupted
thousands of closures
curfews
administrative detentions
families separated
poverty
joblessness


To struggle to live free is not a quixotic quest.

I stand in awe of Palestinians, who refuse to surrender their dignity after decades of living in conditions that cow our nation in a week.

I only hope that when faced with tyranny even a tenth as devastating, I could stand as firm.

[msmcghee]

68. An objective look at the actual facts of the matter . .

. . shows that it is not the occupation that is the source of the Palestinians' admittedly terrible conditions. It is Israel's efforts to stop attacks on Israel from the West Bank.

In the first few years after Israel occupied the WB - the Palestinian economy grew rapidly. Thousands of Palestinians were going the few short miles into Israel and back every day to take relatively good-paying jobs in the Israeli economy.

General health and longevity among Palestinians increased dramatically, infant mortality dropped, schools opened, education levels skyrocketed and several universities were created. Within two or three years Palestinians had as good or better living conditions and a safer society than average citizens in almost any Arab state around them.

That started to disappear at the same time Arafat successfully started organizing terrorist resistance against Israel in his openly admitted mission to rid the ME of Jews. As the years have passed the Palestinians' living conditions have gone down in direct proportion to the success of terrorist attacks from the WB on Israeli civilians.

The wall, the check points and the restrictions on movement are all defensive measures. There was none of this at first. I'm sure Israel would like nothing more than to send those soldiers home. But they are saving Israeli lives (and probably Palestinian lives as well) as the facts show without a doubt.

Again, it's not the occupation - it's the killing of Israelis, and the threat of that - that is the reason for the Palestinians' deplorable conditions.

[The Magistrate]

38. It Is, Mr. Joad, A Calculation Based On A Good Deal Of Studying History

In matters like this, there really is no substitute for simple arithmetic, and the unblinking eye of the Kodak, and surviving accounts by participants and other eye-witnesses. All these things enable a sense of scale and proportion to develop, in light of which comparative judgements can be made, and various instances ranked in right relation to one another. Even at the most detailed level, distinctions need to be made: if children are being killed, for example, wrapping them in blankets soaked in gasoline and setting the bundles on fire must rank somewhat worse than shooting them through the head.

It is certainly true that my leading interest is the rolling back of the power of the reactionary right in this country, which currently gathers under the Republican banner, and my conclusion from the present circumstrances that there is no vehicle by which this can be achieved save for the Democratic Party, and so my desire and object is success for the Democratic Party in national and state and local elections.

Surely you have no objection to this, Sir?

[The Magistrate]

14. It Is True, Ma'am

That some of the Arab states' armies came through land set aside as the Arab Zone, and that the erection of an Arab state on that ground was not their purpose.

It is also true that fighting was already underway on a serious scale between between Arab Palestinian and Zionist militias, and this had seen some fluctuations in areas reliably under control of both.

But none of that affects the fact of the planned invasion by a loose coallition of states set to go on the declaration of Israeli sovereignty, nor the banality of the bromide to which my off-hand coment was addressed.

[Tom Joad]

33. I am not sure what point you are making, but i suspect you have not read Carter's book.

Probably never even opened it.

Typical of his worst detractors.

[Tom Joad]

12. A million cluster bomblets in Lebanon, its not the way to make friends.

obama is expected to praise aipac and pass the ammo.

Edited to add: I sadly expect that he will, by the way.

[The Magistrate]

15. The War With Hezbollah, Mr. Joad

Can hardly be said to have made new enemies.

Nor would that have occured save for Hezbollah's policy of attacks from Lebanon across the Israeli border, culminating in the siezure of two Israeli soldiers.

[Tom Joad]

20. You don't think that many people of Lebanon don't hate Israel for what it did last Summer?

You gotta be kidding.

[The Magistrate]

22. How Many Liked Israel Before Last Summer, Sir?

Enduring hostilities, of long prior standing, dominate the situation.

[piesRsquare]

24. Hey Magistrate!

I like you...:loveya:

Shalom u'vrachot!

[Violet_Crumble]

62. I think that vote of approval speaks volumes of what the problem is in this forum n/t

[msmcghee]

64. What? Someone said something nice? n/t

[Violet_Crumble]

65. No, it wasn't that n/t

[Chulanowa]

25. I always found the Israeli solution to problems very confusing

It seems as if the leaders of Israel think they can force peace by killing lots of people, flattening cities, and declaring that they alone have a right to exist.

Did smashing up Beirut return those two soldiers?
Does building walls inside the Green Line make the Palestinians peaceful?
Does threatening unilateral attacks make iran's president shut hte hell up?

No, no, and no.

Contrary to the mindsets of right-wingers, and sad to say, more than a few here on the left, Israel cannot solve its problems by killing off the Arabs. Only dimplomacy will fix the problems in the middle east. To date, Israel has never tried this option, not really. All diplomatic attempts by Israel have been more like crazy demands on their neighbors, backed by US threats.

[azurnoir]

26. In fairness to Israel

They have successfully used diplomacy in the past, that is why things between Israel and Egypt have been relatively quiet for thirty years.

[The Magistrate]

28. And With Jordan As Well, Ma'am

When there are leaders who wish to end hostilities on both sides, then hostilities end.

Any claim that it is today only leaders of Israel who stand between peace and the people of the region is simply nonesense.

[The Magistrate]

27. That Is A Two Way Street, Sir

Did raiding the Israeli border gain anything of benefit to the people of Lebanon or the people of Arab Palestine?

Did launching the second intafada gain the people of Arab Palestine anything but a good deal of harm and the increased constriction of the security barrier?

Has the policy of rejectionism pressed by groups like Hamas and Hezbollah achieved the destruction of the state of Israel, and established any state of Arab Palestine?

You may supply the answers for yourself, but they are certainly obvious to me.

Are you, by the way, seriously suggesting Israeli policy amounts to, and has as its goal, "killing off the Arabs"?

[Chulanowa]

29. Don't get me wrong, I do agree

Diplomacy most definately is a two-way street.

The situations you and azurnoir speak of are not Israeli initiatives. They are initiatives by the president of Egypt and the king of Jordan, respectively, under pressure from and with the backing of Presidents Carter and Clinton, respectively. In all honesty this gives me hope for 2008's Democratic presidential winner. Maybe, just maybe, we'll see him or her press for and attain an Israeli / Syrian peace. That'd be a hell of a thing!

The problem is that Israel follows the Reagan / Bush method of Diplomacy. They make demands that must be met before talking is even considered. This is stupid when our politicians do it, and it's no less stupid when Israeli politicians do it. These pre-diplomacy demands are a huge stumbling block for achieving an Israeli / Palestinian peace, and are made even moreso because the demands made as a prerequisite are not only impossible, but would leave the Palestinians without anything at all to negotiate with.

The first demand is total disarming of the military factions of Palestine. The Palestinian Authority has neither the manpower nor the firepower to disarm groups like Hamas. If they had, these groups would have been disarmed already as they would be a threat to the power of the Palestinian Authority.

The second demand - recognition of Israel's "right to exist" runs across a couple problems. First off, this would make Israel the only nation on the face of the Earth with such a right - And they are not willing to extend this right back to the Palestinians. Secondly, Israel has no set eastern border. Is it the line drawn by the UN in 1947? Is it the Green Line? Is it the Jordan River? Thirdly, recognizing this right would entail recognizing Israeli ownership of the occupied lands - a proposition that runs directly counter to the whole point of the Palestinians engaging in negotiations in the first place!

The third demand is similar to the first - "an end to rocket attacks". Well, two things. First, no Israeli has yet to be killed in a rocket attack from either Hamas or Hezbollah. Secondly, there's the simple idiocy of how this can fall apart. Some yahoo with an RPG can completely screw up an attempt at peace between two governments?

Yes, it's a two way street. Unfortunately Israel is an 18 wheeler driving down the center of the road at the moment.

[The Magistrate]

31. In Other Words, Sir

When the leader of a neighboring state makes a genuine offer of peace to Israel, the desired item is obtained.

The condition that private militia bodies engaged in hostile actions against a state be quashed is not an unreasonable one: so long as a governing authority is unwilling or unable to do this, there really is little point in negoctiating with it, as it will be unable to deliver on any agreement for the cessation of hostilities.

The United Nations itself has affirmed the "right to exist" of Israel, as well as all other states in the region, in the second, and often overlooked element, of Resolution 242's directives:

"Termination of all claims or states of belligerency and respect for and acknowledgement of the sovereignty,
territorial integrity and political independence of every State in the area and their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force"

Certainly so long as militant bodies continue attacks against Israel, Israel has every right to employ its military forces to seek an end to such actions. You are mistaken to think these attacks have killed no one, but that is beside the point. One reason for their relative ineffectiveness is the military counter-measures maintained, which render correcting fire out of the question for the launch teams, and it remains the case that states have the right to defend their people and territory against armed attack across their borders.

[Chulanowa]

44. There's better ways

Terrorists are criminals, not military enemies. Using the military to fight terrorists is like using a stick of dynamite to kill a roach. This is just as true for Israel's military as it is for America's.

Israel clearly knows that the Palestinian Authority lacks the power to disarm the militia groups. This does not stop the demand. And meanwhile, Israeli and Palestinian civilians alike die, due to overreaction by the Israelis and inaction by the Palestinian Authority. I'm unaware of any joint police efforts between Israel and the PA to persue the actual terrorists, which seems like the obvious solution.

I'm aware of Resolution 242... Again, can you tell me where Israel's Eastern border is? Tehy have no recognized Eastern border. Makes it a little difficult to "live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries" if nobody knows where thouse boundaries are, don't you think?

And you're correct, I was mistaken about the rocket fatalities - Consider the source discarded :)

How many Palestinians die due to retaliation? Far, far, far more Palestinians have died in this conflict than Israelis. What's strange is that so many Americans think this is a great thing. I'm sad to say that even on DU, there seem to be lots of people who regard Palestinian life as being worth far, far less than Israeli life. By your support for military countermeasures, I have to guess you're among this crowd - the objective if using a military is to kill a lot of people. Militaries are for war. If Israel wants to stop terrorists, then it needs to take a more focused approach and work with the Palestinians.

Until then, lots of Israelis and lots more Palestinians are going to die.

[The Magistrate]

50. That Is Not a Meaningful Disinction, Sir

Do you imagine an assortment of beat cops are going to kick down a magic door and take some Hamas gunman down to the precinct house? In situations like this, military and police are interchangeable.

There are no joint efforts by the P.A. and the Israelis against 'actual terrorists', and will be none, since that would be viewed as collaboration with Israel against the cause, and consign any P.A. man who participated to speedy assassination by patriots.

The fact is that the peoples of Israel and Arab Palestine are at war, and have been for many decades. The latter being at a decided military disadvantage, their casualties are accordingly greater. Some might say that was a sound argument for the Arab Palestinian leadership to do everything it could to end the fighting they are on the losing end of.

[Chulanowa]

51. Then I presume you support the use of the US military

to knock down doors and destroy neighborhoods accused of "Terrorist activity". By definition, the Crips are a terrorist entity. Should we call in the troops to bomb South Central Los Angeles?

[The Magistrate]

56. If That Organization, Sir

Declared its purpose to be the destruction of the United States of America, and routinely engaged in attacks aimed at killing randomly targeted citizens of this country in advancement of that purpose, the use of military forces against its membership would be appropriate. As it is in fact a criminal conspiracy dedicated to drug-running and extortion, without any political coler, and the violence it indulges in is concerned only with the eradication or discipline of rival criminal groups and its own membership, use of military against it would not be appropriate, and in this country would be illegal. Many countries, of course, do not draw such distinctions: Italy, to take one example, employs a branch of its soldiery against the Mafia. Soldiers long pre-date policemen as an arm of society and the state, and have from the start been frequently employed in the enforcement of law and order internally.

Some of the implications of your position here have an odd ring. The likening of the various Arab Palestinian militant bodies to a widely despised criminal body may be passed over without further comment, but others items are worth some exploration. If you press this "criminal" metaphor, using it to maintain only ordinary Israeli police ought to be employed in dealing with these bodies, then you are in effect claiming the activities of the Arab Palestinian popuation are an internal Israeli matter, which amounts to saying the areas over-run by Israel in '67 are part of Israel and properly regarded as part of its sovereign entity. That necessarily follows from claiming the activities of persons there dedicated to attacking the Israeli state and its people should be regarded as, and dealt with as, as an internal matter of Israeli criminal law.

[Chulanowa]

57. Read harder

I said that the Israelis should work with the Palestinians in joint police operations to deal with these groups. Much as Auropean nations work with each other to deal with criminals that cause problems in multiple states, just as the United States and Mexico do. Just as Israel and Jordan do. See how this works? When two states have a common interest, it works best to work together to recolve the issue.

Terrorists are not a political entity. Use of military force against them is futile, because they have no political bindings. They are not a rival military - individual terrorists may surrender, but they cannot speak for the group as a whole. If tomorrow the head of the Hamas military wing called for an unconditional laying down of arms from his "troops", they would kill him and carry on as usual. The use of military force against such an entity simply encourages them. Military strikes are messy as hell. When you kill thirteen innocents because you think there might be a single terrorist nearby, that just encourages more people to take up arms to "avenge" those you just killed and dismissed as "collateral damage"

You can fight a guerilla force with your mlitary, sure. But don't expect to win. This is a lesson that hopefully Israel will learn soon - sixty years of futile waste of human life on both sides is quite long enough, don't you think? The only way to defeat a guerilla force is to remove their cause or undermine their popular base.

[Shaktimaan]

58. ...

Terrorists are not a political entity. Use of military force against them is futile, because they have no political bindings. They are not a rival military - individual terrorists may surrender, but they cannot speak for the group as a whole.

Of course they are a political entity. In fact, one could argue that they are entirely political. Hamas, Hezbollah, etc. have always used political means as well as military to achieve their goals. Hamas has been acting like the de-facto government of Gaza long before they were actually elected. They negotiate with Israel for release of prisoners, they have a leadership and hierarchy, and now they are even officially sanctioned via democratic elections. Hamas absolutely has spokepeople that represent the whole organization.

Compare this to individual terrorists, such as Baruch Goldberg or the Palestinian who attacked the empire state building in 97. These were individual acts unconnected to a political body. Remember the PLO was once just a terrorist organization too. No one would argue now though that Arafat was not a politician. Use of terror does not disqualify one from political motives nor does it excuse one from governmental responsabilities, especially if they are the elected government.

They most certainly are a rival military as well, just one that uses different means and strategies.

The use of military force against such an entity simply encourages them.

No, rewarding them for their actions does. Negotiation and appeasement under threat of terror drives more of the same. For a stellar example look at Gaza. The Palestinians credited Hamas with driving Israel out of Gaza, thus they upped their attacks and voted them in officially. Failed military strikes DO encourage terror, we are in agreement there. This past summer's escapade in Lebanon proves that easily. But successful military strikes do not encourage more terror, if anything, inaction does. Regardless, they are necessary to curb terrorist actions. It isn't as if there are police to do this job.

Even the UN refuses to abide by their Security Council resolutions and disarm Hezbollah. But then they are not the ones in danger, are they? So what's their motive?

[Chulanowa]

60. Interesting points

In fact the last time I read them was by a guy named "BushOrBust" who then followed up with shrill cries for mass nuclear annihilation of all the "towelheaded camelfuckers." Not saying you share the second sentiment mind, just that that's the context of the last time I saw your position.

No, terrorists are not a political entity. They are politically motivated, sure, but they are not an actual political entity. That is, they are not a state, they are not a government faction, they are not an organized military. They are a guerilla force. They operate differently from a conventional military - approaching them as if they were a state or military is futile. I would suggest you take a read of some Che Guevara, educate yourself about the nature of guerilla factions. Here ya go, have a free copy: http://social.chass.ncsu.edu/slatta/hi216/documents/che.htm

Going to the negotiating table is not "rewarding bad behavior". How much kool-aid have you gulped, man? We did not make enormous demands of the USSR when we went to the negotiations table with them - nor did they make demands of us as a prerequisite. The same thing in our war with the North Veitnamese - we went to the table with them even as war was tearing through the country. Negotiation is a tool you use to defuse a situation with an enemy. You do not demand that enemy first defuse the situation himself and THEN offer negotiations. That's idiotic.

It's a sad day when Bush' stance on foreign policy is espoused and defensed on DU.

[The Magistrate]

63. Not Going To Happen, Sir

It would be fine if it did, but any proposal for that from any Arab Palestinian political entity would be a signal for civil war to the knife, and any Arab Palestinian political leader who proposed it would be assassinated within a few weeks at most.

There are, unfortunately, problems without solutions....

[Shaktimaan]

54. yr facts are a little off sometimes

Hi. Just a few comments. It looks like you're painting the situation with a broad, "all-or-nothing" brush. There's room for subtlety here, no one is expecting anything that's unreasonable of the Palestinians.

declaring that they alone have a right to exist.
When did they declare this?

Does building walls inside the Green Line make the Palestinians peaceful?

No, but it did successfully prevent attacks which was the purpose. Who expected it to make the palestinians peaceful?

Only dimplomacy will fix the problems in the middle east. To date, Israel has never tried this option, not really.
Oslo? Camp David 2000? Taba? Madrid? Wye river? The Hebron agreement? There's a lot of diplomacy.

They make demands that must be met before talking is even considered. This is stupid when our politicians do it, and it's no less stupid when Israeli politicians do it.
Is it an unrealistic prerequisite to insist that the other party actually admit to desiring peace before holding peace talks? It honestly seems like a reasonable request to me.

These pre-diplomacy demands are a huge stumbling block for achieving an Israeli / Palestinian peace, and are made even moreso because the demands made as a prerequisite are not only impossible, but would leave the Palestinians without anything at all to negotiate with.
No one is demanding that Hamas disarm before negotiating. They always have the ability to restart attacks. It is critical that Israel is assured that any Palestinian government respect the treaties signed by the previous one. Otherwise, talks are pointless.

The first demand is total disarming of the military factions of Palestine. The Palestinian Authority has neither the manpower nor the firepower to disarm groups like Hamas. If they had, these groups would have been disarmed already as they would be a threat to the power of the Palestinian Authority.
Total disarmament has never been a prerequesite for talks. Oslo and camp david 2000 were held without disarming Hamas. A bigger issue is that the PA never attempted to disarm them after agreeing to it and even used the Oslo years to arm themselves in anticipation of a new intifada. Hamas gave Arafat a way to attack Israel off the books, so to speak. Nevertheless, Hamas IS the PA now. And Hamas certainly hasn't done much to disarm Hamas or uphold any other Oslo responsibility of theirs despite expecting Israel to meet all of their Oslo requirements.

And they are not willing to extend this right back to the Palestinians.
Of course they are. Needless to say, Israel is not attempting to destroy the Palestinians so it isn't very necessary. Israel has voiced a committment to a 2 state solution though. Hamas has not.

Thirdly, recognizing this right would entail recognizing Israeli ownership of the occupied lands
No it wouldn't. The PLO managed it just fine. It isn't all or nothing, everyone negotiating a mideast peace settlement is older than 12. They know how to explain themselves clearly. Read Oslo, it's a good example.

First, no Israeli has yet to be killed in a rocket attack from either Hamas or Hezbollah.
Woah. Untrue. More importantly is the fact that having hundreds of rockets raining on your town is not an acceptable way to live and Israel is right in not standing for it. Sure, Qassams rarely hit anyone. They are also becoming more sophisticated and as time goes on they will become as real of a threat as Katyushas are for northern Israelis.

Secondly, there's the simple idiocy of how this can fall apart. Some yahoo with an RPG can completely screw up an attempt at peace between two governments?
Well, sure. Look at Rabin. But if we were only talking about individuals it would be a different story. We aren't. Qassams are not made by bored 15 year olds, not are they launched by single yahoos. Rogue terrorists will always be a fact of life. They are not the ones screwing up the peace process at this point.

[Chulanowa]

59. Well, let's double-check

When did they declare this?
For much of the entire history of this conflict, it's been Israel's position that Palestinians have no right to exist - and the Israeli military has been every bit as vicious in enforcing this idea as Palestinian terrorists have been in enforcing the same idea regarding Israel. Only very recently has Israel accepted the idea of a two-state solution, but it still refuses to take any steps towards such a solution. Withdrawing from Gaza, only to expand into the West Bank is not "commitment fo a two-state solution".

Oslo? Camp David 2000? Taba? Madrid? Wye river? The Hebron agreement? There's a lot of diplomacy.
Oslo - Who made the first move? International parties. Neither Arafat nor Peres offered their hand out first.
Camp David - this too was organized by foreigners. President clinton was the mover and shaker here, not Israel or Palestine.
Taba - Another first move by President Clinton. Ariel Sharon refused to meet with Arafat, and Prime Minister Barak declared that the negotiations were non-binding for Israel
Madrid - again, the international community made the first move here. It was just a talk forum, and nothing was binding.
Wye River - once again, we see neither Israel nor Palestine making hte first move here. Israel declared that hte Palestinian Authority was not doing its part and thus abandoned the memorandum.
Hebron agreement - This one rings true, a joint effort that was simply overseen by the Us, that resulted in gains for both Palestine and Israel.

Is it an unrealistic prerequisite to insist that the other party actually admit to desiring peace before holding peace talks? It honestly seems like a reasonable request to me.
They've already said they want peace. What you - and Israel - are talking about is demanding the Palestinians agree to unconditional peace, before coming to the table to negotuiate a peace treaty... Which any idiot could tell you makes a peace treaty rather useless, right? And to be fair, Israel has shown it's "commitment to peace" just as thoroughly as Hamas has.

No one is demanding that Hamas disarm before negotiating. They always have the ability to restart attacks. It is critical that Israel is assured that any Palestinian government respect the treaties signed by the previous one. Otherwise, talks are pointless.
Actually in 2005 Ariel Sharon declared this to be a prerequisite to any further negotiations with Palestine. And it's very odd that historicly, it's been Israel that backs out of and breaks the agreements it agrees to, and then points to the strife that results as the Palestinians being responsable for it.

This also covers your next point, so, hopping that...

Of course they are. Needless to say, Israel is not attempting to destroy the Palestinians so it isn't very necessary. Israel has voiced a committment to a 2 state solution though. Hamas has not.
And the United States voised a desire for a free and peaceful Iraq in 2003... before invading and assfucking the country. Israel, so far, has not SHOWN a commitment to a two-state solution. There have been no talks, just demands, backed up by Israeli violation of Palestinian territory.
Oh and by the way, http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/5121164.stm - Hamas has indeed voiced support for a two-state solution. Granted they appear every bit as dedicated to the concept as Israel is.

<1>No it wouldn't. The PLO managed it just fine. It isn't all or nothing, everyone negotiating a mideast peace settlement is older than 12. They know how to explain themselves clearly. Read Oslo, it's a good example.<1>
If this right is recognized before borders are drawn, then yes, this is the exact result. Israel refuses to declare borders, but demands its right to exist be recognized and enforced. Where does Israel end?

Woah. Untrue. More importantly is the fact that having hundreds of rockets raining on your town is not an acceptable way to live and Israel is right in not standing for it. Sure, Qassams rarely hit anyone. They are also becoming more sophisticated and as time goes on they will become as real of a threat as Katyushas are for northern Israelis.
I already stood corrected and discarded the source.
Is living in mortal fear of the IDF somehow better living conditions? Israeli military strikes are pretty damn random, and definately far more fatal than anything perpetrated against Israel.

Well, sure. Look at Rabin. But if we were only talking about individuals it would be a different story. We aren't. Qassams are not made by bored 15 year olds, not are they launched by single yahoos. Rogue terrorists will always be a fact of life. They are not the ones screwing up the peace process at this point.
2005, Ariel Sharon threatens to cancel peace talks after the bombing of a nightclub in Tel Aviv that killed five, unless the Palestinian Authority "halts this terror". The peace efforts were between Israel and Palestine, and the people who claimed responsability was Islamic Jihad - a Syrian-based terror group. We know how much pull the Palestinian Authority has in Syria, after all, right? Hell of a note that peace talks can be ground to a halt by an acknowledged outside party that is nonetheless blamed on one of the parties negotiating peace.

[Shaktimaan]

69. you may want to triple check there.

For much of the entire history of this conflict, it's been Israel's position that Palestinians have no right to exist

OK, show me when this position was stated. Considering that 20% of Israel's citizens are Palestinian and Israel's declaration of independence calls on them to be a welcome part of the new nation I think you're just making stuff up.

the Israeli military has been every bit as vicious in enforcing this idea as Palestinian terrorists have been in enforcing the same idea regarding Israel.

The IDF has tried to kill as many Palestinians as possible? They're doing an awful job. Do the Palestinians who are soldiers in the IDF know about this policy? My God, someone should tell them.

Only very recently has Israel accepted the idea of a two-state solution

1937 is considered recently? That's when they accepted the Peel Plan, which the Palestinians rejected. Israel also accepted the UN Partition Plan in 1947 which was also rejected by the Palestinians. The next time a two state solution was even possible was when Jordan relinquished their claim to the West Bank and the PLO declared an independent state there in 1988. I remember Israel supported this plan as well officially soon after. So what are you referring to?

but it still refuses to take any steps towards such a solution

Israel engineered the creation of the Palestinian Authority, withdrew militarily from Gaza and the Jericho area transferring authority to the PA. The Interim Agreement on the West Bank and the Gaza Strip gave the Palestinians self-rule in Bethlehem, Hebron, Jenin, Nablus, Qalqilya, Ramallah, Tulkarm, and some 450 villages. Helped the Palestinians set up and administer free elections for their interim government. There was a transfer of authority from the IDF to the authorized Palestinians, concerning education and culture, health, social welfare, direct taxation, and tourism. Left the border between Gaza and Egypt to be administered by the PA and Egyptians. Collected and transferred tax receipts to the PA, funding their government. Established committees made up of representatives of both governments to administer shared resources like water, electricity, finance, energy, trade, labor, etc.

Oslo - Who made the first move? International parties. Neither Arafat nor Peres offered their hand out first.

No. Peres did. The Norwegian's acted as a go between for various reasons but Peres and Yossi Beilin were the ones to initiate the talks. Regardless, you seem to feel that diplomacy doesn't count unless neutral arbitrators aren't playing a substantial role in facilitating talks. Just because Carter made the first steps in achieving peace between Egypt and Israel it doesn't negate the diplomatic roles of Sadat or Begin. What you said was that Israel has never tried diplomacy. This conflict will almost always require extraneous intervention in peace negotiations. Just because Clinton was heavily involved in 2000 you think that Camp David no longer qualifies as "diplomacy?" Besides, there are plenty of examples of independent diplomatic attempts by Israel, such as 2002's Elon Peace Plan or 2003's Geneva Accord.

And to be fair, Israel has shown it's "commitment to peace" just as thoroughly as Hamas has.

Well, Israel signed the Oslo Accords and held up their end. Hamas rejected the Accords and increased suicide bombing attacks. Israel accepted the road map... Hamas, nope. Should I go on?

And it's very odd that historically, it's been Israel that backs out of and breaks the agreements it agrees to, and then points to the strife that results as the Palestinians being responsible for it.

OK, such as when? The Palestinians not only broke Oslo, they never fulfilled any of their responsibilities under it.

Hamas has indeed voiced support for a two-state solution.

No, they have not. Your link is 6 month old news. And it was refuted by Hamas 3 hours after the initial story broke. Hamas is dedicated to Israel's destruction.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/5122822.stm

Israel refuses to declare borders, but demands its right to exist be recognized and enforced. Where does Israel end?

It isn't that Israel "refuses" to declare borders, they have an agreement with the PA that Israel's borders are to be negotiated. Declaring borders unilaterally would be against the PA's interests. This isn't an issue for anyone but you. Not even Hamas is arguing that they can't recognize Israel because they don't know where it ends. Hamas can't recognize Israel because they oppose anything other than muslim rule over all of Palestine. They insist on Israel's destruction.

The PA and Israel both drafted Letters of Mutual Recognition. The fact that borders are undefined did not prove to be a handicap. But a refusal to accept the existence of a non-muslim state in Palestine IS a serious handicap. Until Hamas is able to recognize Israel's right to exist it is pointless to negotiate with them. You see, a peace process ultimately requires only one thing that is not negotiable under any circumstances. The desire to live in peace.

Israeli military strikes are pretty damn random

The IDF actually calls the house they are going to hit 10 minutes beforehand so the occupants can leave. They've been pulling off targeted assassinations against individuals from the air. I'd argue that they have the least random strikes than anyone. What random strikes against Palestinians are you talking about?

The peace efforts were between Israel and Palestine, and the people who claimed responsability was Islamic Jihad - a Syrian-based terror group. We know how much pull the Palestinian Authority has in Syria, after all, right?

You know the difference between Islamic Jihad and Palestinian Islamic Jihad, right? The latter attacked the nightclub and while their leader (who is Palestinian by the way) lives in Syria, PIJ is centered in Jenin and Hebron. It is a Palestinian group, Arafat was found to be funding them during the first intifada. The original Islamic Jihad

Ultimately though, they are not under the PA's control, you're right about that. But under Oslo, the PA's responsibilities are clear. They are obligated to do what they can to prevent terrorism. The issue is not over whether or not the PA could possibly stop PIJ attacks, it is that they never made any attempt to. Nor did they act on information Israel gave them as part of their joint police effort. When they did arrest militants, they were all released after a week or two without standing trial making it clear that their anti-terrorism efforts were strictly for show. And worst of all, they helped finance, organize and protect terrorists.

It's not about their ultimate success, it is about their intent. Hamas obviously had no intent on upholding Oslo's anti-terrorism clauses, they had no intent to adhere to any aspect of Oslo except for the areas that benefitted them, (which they clearly expected Israel to uphold.) PIJ was great for Hamas, they could declare a hudna and just allow PIJ to launch rockets at Israel or otherwise attack them, then claiming that Israel broke the peace when they responded. This is an old tactic. Arafat was using it decades ago by launching attacks on Israel from Lebanon through Jordan, relying on the Israel/Lebanon peace treaty to protect him from Israeli reprisals. It did for some time too. But once it became clear that Lebanon was never going to do anything to prevent cross-border attacks from the PLO they started conducting their own raids.

[lumpy]

71. People of many countries as well as Lebanon

have hatred for what Israel did last summer.

[ProgressiveMuslim]

66. What a disappintment.

Of all the mainstream candidates, I'd hoped Obama would recognize that Palestinians are not children of a lesser God.

Glad I didn't send that check yet.

[Megahurtz]

70. Yep. n/t