OT I know, but..
 

Having determined that Sharon is a dichead, you have decided that the entire government is not to be trusted under any circumstance

I alway though that dichead was spelled with a k..

I.E. your head is like a dick.

I'm not a gramer nazi by any means I am just interested..is this an Americanism or a net convention I don't know about.

anyhow.. Sharon is a dickhead

... and Jimmy Carter throws his hat in the ring.
 

Jimmy Carter made a very well-reasoned proposal; have a read in the <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2002/04/21/opinion/21CART.html">New York Times</a>.

Free registration required, or bypass that registration process right <a href="http://www.majcher.com/nytview.html">here</a>.

Interesting points:

* UN Resolution 242 (withdrawal of Israeli troops from Palestinian lands in exchange for full acceptance of Israel and Israel's right to live in peace) was accepted in 1978 by Prime Minister Menachem Begin and ratified by the Israeli Knesset.

* The US is giving Israel $10million every DAY. (That's only official financial aid, of course, exempting all military assistance...)

* Normal diplomatic efforts have failed. It is time for the United States, as the sole recognized intermediary, to consider more forceful action for peace. The rest of the world will welcome this leadership.

Is he right?

X.

tw wrote it that way, and I've been following him for fun. Sharon is a dickhead and a dichead.

It's amazing. Carter is more popular and respected now than he probably was when President.

First, is there a way that we can actually find out whether Israel used American weapons in Jenin?

This op-ed was just mentioned on Hardball tonight. I believe a man from the New York Sun was saying that we cannot stop aid to Israel b/c they are our ally in the War on Terror. I guess he does have one point--Israel is probably our only unconditional ally...besides maybe Britain (and now that we've probably pissed off a lot of Canadians).

Of course, I'm all for it--dry 'em out. If we DID do that, we would probably be labeled "anti-semitic." I could live with that...let 'em believe what they want. But IMO, I don't know if peace is truly possible anymore without using such a forceful tactic.

I don't think I'd call Israel an unconditional ally. As the world is presently arranging itself, Britain and Canada are our allies (hopefully conditional) and Israel is a client state. Israel has been using a lot of resources spying in and on the US, which is fine, they need to take care of themselves first, living as they do on the edge of destruction. However, I think we need to remember that this precludes them from ever being true allies of the US. They will work with us if its in their interest, as in the Gulf War, but they are in no position to follow our lead without condition. We could only wish our leaders would similiarly put america first (to use a loaded phrase).

As far as american weapons go, you'd have to pop over to Janes for confirmation but since much of our financial aid to Israel is predicated on them using using the money on US weapons systems, I'd assume that almost everything used in the Jenin assault was Made in USA and paid for by you and me. There is a growing movement of folks withholding their tax payments in protest and one organization I've read about is using the interest on accounts holding these withheld payments to pay for charity work in countries our taxes destroy.

This "anti-semitic" business has become quite an effective weapon in the US. I'd say that a lot of the conservative Republican support for Israel, when not related to wacko end-times religion, is based in fear of the label. I don't think you necessarily despise your Jewish neighbors if you see Sharon as a dic. (Maybe we should have a cellar glossary with prefered spellings) There is dark humor in this situation if you look in the right places. Have you seen Hillary repositioning herself? hilarious
Of course this has the potential of blowing up in my face this summer on our family vacation.... but of course I'd never say anything provocative. ;)

Re: ... and Jimmy Carter throws his hat in the ring.
 

And since there isn't any pro quo to that quid, it's a dead letter. If Israel were to pull back all troops and all settlers to its 1967 boundaries would the Arab world

a) Accept that Israel had a right to exist and leave them in peace if not harmony or

b) Use their now-stronger tactical position to continue launching both terroristic and conventional attacks against Israel?

Hint: anyone that believes a) probably also believes in Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy.

What forceful action, specifically?

Well... we could start by suspending financial assistance and loan guarantees to the Israelis. That'd get their attention.

Re: Re: ... and Jimmy Carter throws his hat in the ring.
 

Seeing how 'a' was the whole point of the Saudi peace plan proposed by the Arab League a few weeks ago - which was ridiculed and flat out rejected without discussion by Israel - you just proved the point.

You can of course sit there and continue to claim that Israel needs to butcher people to ensure its security. That's fine. That's the attitude that is condemning the Middle East to permanent warfare and murder.

After all, that's exactly how to protect yourself from having your enemies hate you and intensify their war against you: fight as viciously as you can.

No offense, but this is fallacious. There is a sizeable (VERY sizeable) majority in the Arab world that is VERY keen on a peaceful return to the 1967 borders. Sure, many of them do want to see Israel and the Jews destroyed - but only because they are occupying the lands the Palestinians see as rightfully theirs. Without the USSR fighting an ideological war, supplying the Arabs with weapons and intelligence data, the Arabs are ludicrously outclassed in terms of military ability; everybody knows this. Once the major issue is settled, there are many different ways to ensure security, first and foremost being the stationing of UN troops in the area, second being that of a heavily secured border, many other alternatives coming to mind. The problem is that Conservative Israelis refuse to give up what they believe is rightfully their ancestral holy homeland, including Jerusalem. That's why this is going on: the more they aggravate the Palestinians, the more radical the Palestinians will get (out of sheer desperation), and the more publicity Israel will get as the US media publishes images of the horrific 'homicide bombings' every day.

When Israel launches a major 'anti-terrorist' offensive, and refuses to allow the press to see what's actually going on, the people who had to see the images of the 'homicide bombings' will nod and say 'Good for them. The Israelis aren't putting up with this violent Muslim shit anymore. First the Romans, then the Nazis, then the Muslims. Enough is enough!'

This is so absurd.

X.

Re: Re: Re: ... and Jimmy Carter throws his hat in the ring.
 

All that proves is that Israel doesn't believe in the tooth fairy.

It's a bad alternative, but it beats surrendering any day of the week. Certainly Israel has often fought in counterproductive ways, but to just hand over everything in exchange for a promise which won't be honored would be more counterproductive.

Re: Re: Re: Re: ... and Jimmy Carter throws his hat in the ring.
 

You didn't actually provide any sources, arguments, evidence, or proof that this would clearly be how the Palestinians would act.

I argued that since the results of implementing UN Resolution 242 is what the vast majority of Palestinians want, and what the cause of their suicidal struggle is, they would become significantly less radical and less willing to sacrifice their homeland and lives again since they would have achieved their primary objective. The vast majority of Palestinians are only radicalized because they believe that Israel is unjustly occupying their homeland; the radicals would be marginalized if they regained what they believe is their. Sure, some would continue to fight for the removal of all Jews from the Middle East, but for most Palestinians this would be sufficient reason to - if necessary, violently - oppress those radical minorities as to not risk the greater achievement.

This not without precedent: the moderate Provisional IRA in Northern Ireland started attacking and often brutally oppressing the more radical and violent splinter groups and individuals in Northern Ireland in the late 1990s in order to prevent those radicals from risking the achievements of the IRA/Sinn Fein that have given them a lot of concessions (including the setting free of many convicted IRA members).

Or, to be very clear: the small radical splinter groups will be suppressed by the majority, if necessary by death. The majority will be silent and support the moderates, since risking the achievement (the reclaiming of the West Bank) would be a return to 35+ years of misery and desperation that led the Palestinian people to disaster after disaster.

That was my point. I believe I have reasoned it through fairly logically and provided backup from previous similar situations. Could you please point out flaws in the argument rather than invoking the tooth fairy, please?


Why would implementing an UN resolution seeking to bring peace to the region be surrender? Why is this 'handing over everything', when handing over some land for - perceivably - peace is the best home for peace in the Middle East? How can you know it won't be honoured when the Arab League is unanimously backing it, knowing that Israel and the US' wrath if not kept would be devastating? You argue that it wouldn't be kept - in the longer statement above I tried to demonstrate how it is in the best interest of the Palestinians to keep it. Again - could you please point out where I'm wrong? I have studied the region in some depth as part of a postgraduate University course; I am genuinely interested to see if there is any better hope for peace, since the fairly unanimous belief of Political Science at this point is that a land-for-peace deal, under whatever details (and necessary, probably military, protection), is the only realistic hope for the Middle East, short of annihilation of either the entire Arab or Jewish races in the region.

I may of course be wrong, but the choices so far are a land-for-peace(and full recognition of borders and right of existence) deal, or a continued bloody stalemate costing the lives of primarily civilians on both sides. (With Palestinian casualties outnumbering Israeli casualties by roughly 3.5:1, I believe)

Opinions?

X.

Xug -

not to take sides here, but I want to ask a question.

What does conceding land to the Palestinians get for Israel? Is it not true that if Israel gives up the West Bank, Gaza Strip and Golan Heights, it shows that it can be bullied by suicide bombers? What is to stop the extremist Palestinians from continuing suicide bombing to get even more (such as the removal of Israel)? I know you say that other Palestinians will fight them - er, in theory, anyway. Hopefully, anyway. Logically, anyway.

Palestinians (or roughly 80% of them, anyway) have shown that they don't support logical tactics or maneuvers - they support the killing of innocent civilians with human bombs.

What to do now? If Israel gives in, what is to stop the Palestinian extremists from demanding (and working toward) more?

Peace. It is fairly likely that the majority of Palestinians will not support any further attacks once their major aim of restoring their homeland has been reached. I explained that reasoning above, and why/how it would most likely be enforced by the Palestinians themselves.

Right now, a land-for-peace deal is the only hope for the Middle East. I am very, very keen to hear any alternatives.

it's time to drop the macho posturing. Nobody in Britain or Northern Ireland believes that Britain gave in to the IRA bombers, yet agreements have been reached there, and comparative peace and tranquility (relatively speaking) have come to Eire. Yet for decades people yelled that we mustn't give in to the IRA bullies; strangely enough, co-operation was reached, and trust was built. Don't forget - like the Palestinian radicals, like Hamas, the extremist Northern Irish are a *small minority*. The silent majority will support whatever they consider to be their main aim - in NIreland the majority of Catholics doesn't support violence; in Palestine, if there was such a country, the majority wouldn't support violence either: they have seen what the last 35 years brought them, and they wouldn't risk it again. Don't underestimate the Palestinians - the western media may portray them at times as bloodthirsty savage towelheads, but that impression is wrong.

It's interesting to see how suicide bombers work: there are two general types, the first being the young susceptible men who are put under immense pressure by extremists, set into a stage of semi-religious fanaticism, indoctrinated to hate and destroy, and then sent to kill. The second, currently more common type, are normal individuals who are experiencing enormous psychological stress due to their environmental hazards, pressure, and directed hatreds. The fanatic radicals usually belong to the first group, the second - much more spontaneous type - is a reasonably recent phenomenon. People are cracking under stress, fear, hatred, and anger.

If the Palestinians were given that what they believe belongs to them rightfully, the second group would be eliminated almost overnight. During Rabin's time, the second group was practically non-existent. There were still occasional fanatics belonging to the first group, but the rate at which incidents occurred was significantly lower; the second group that has grabbed so much attention is a fairly recent phenomenon, started as part of the second intifada, (cf. tw's postings regarding the Temple Mount and Sharon)

Psychologically and historically speaking, I believe to have evidence on my side, as outlined above and in my previous posting. Again, I would be very happy to be given ANY INDICATION WHATSOEVER that this is incorrect; it's easy to doubt and claim that 'XYZ wouldn't happen', but can we get any indication for that whatsoever?

You are assuming that you know exactly what the average Palestinian is thinking. How do you know that? Have you spoken to any non-radical Palestinians lately? Unfortunately, I have: one of them is a local student at my University, and he came to discuss the terrorist actions against the US at an University debate. I got chatting to him, and realized that the vast majority of Palestinians want exactly TWO things:

1. A non-occupied country, a nation, a home land. They believe Israel is illegally and against US conventions occupying the West Bank. Whether or not they are right in that is debatable; it isn't debatable that this is the main thrust of their desires.

2. Peace, no gunfire at night, no tanks flattening houses, no travel controls, no daily friskings, no Israeli children kicking at their old and weak, relative security. Not even prosperity .. just a place to call home, a country where they can live in peace.

Local, regional, and international pressure? Signed border contracts? The Arab League's acceptance of Israel's border, and the threat of being tortured by your friendly Palestinian brothers so you won't fuck up again, risking having Israeli tanks flattening the country you shed so much blood for over the last 35+ years? The fact that 80%+ of Palestinians don't give a flying fuck about anything apart from wanting a place to live, a roof over their heads, and no harassement from the Israelis?

I am happy to give the Northern Irish example again. People were yelling how once the Catholics were given representation and rights and things, they would immediately start plotting to overthrow the British government in NIreland, and attempt immediate unification with the Republic of Ireland. Did that happen? Fuck no. People are entirely too happy to be able to go out of their houses without getting shot because they happen to be Protestant or Catholic. The vast majority of the Palestinians will be too busy to rebuild their country and try to make a living to care about anything. The few radicals that will undoubtedly remain will be found and killed, by the Palestinian authorities, by the Mossad, by US spies, by whoever wants peace in the region. Frighteningly enough, that's the vast majority of people there, despite what you may thing. The major instigators of the 6-Day War and the Yom Kippur wars, Egypt, Syria, and Jordan... well, you'd be shocked at how desperate they are for relative peace in the Middle East.

However, I am happy to be enlightened to the opposite. If a land-for-peace deal seems to be too fraught with danger that the radicals will get greedy and start risking everybody's lives and their incredible achievements over some tiny strips of land, what's the alternative? Do tell.

X.

X, It appears that the right of return is a non-starter with the Israeli public, have you seen any estimates for the cost of reparations?


A Confederation is one option I've read about, but its probably not hard-headed enough.

http://www.secession.net/israel-pale...ederation.html

I have alway found it hard to understand why somebody who was forced out of his village, or tricked out of his village by scheming bad leadership, have it whatever way you want, 50 years ago has less right to return then somebody who's ancestors where kicked out 2000 years ago. I think if the Palestinians are to give up the right to return to Israel (which is impractical anyhow) then Israel should remove the right of Aliyah for Jewish people and become a state for Israelis who ever they are rather then a Jewish homeland (an idea incompatible with real democracy IMHO). Jewish settlements should then be removed from the West Bank and hell since I'm in happy dream wish land anyhow..yeah a confederation of the Israeli and Palestinian states since they are so economically and geographically entwined.