You are viewing an obsolete version of the DU website which is no longer supported by the Administrators. Visit The New DU.
Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Reply #126: You're quite correct (more windbag within) [View All]

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Israel/Palestine Donate to DU
tinnypriv Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-18-03 07:35 PM
Response to Reply #124
126. You're quite correct (more windbag within)
"They could just as easily be rewarded monetarily for moving elsewhere"

That is roughly step (2) with regards to establishing a sane plan to get rid of (or, more likely now, reduce the size of) the settlements. Step (1) is of course not paying any incentives. Step (3) would be bringing back within 1967-Israel those who only want compensation for their losses (cost of their housing unit, job relocation etc). It is my impression that many of those people do not want actual "rewards", just a fair price for what they have already.

Naturally, the United States and Israel are opposed to even allowing any talk of such a plan, never mind implementing it (I have my own thoughts the structure of such a plan, but that is another topic).

I'll bring up my favourite analogy here:

With regards to settlements, Israel is basically running towards the edge of a cliff. If it says to itself, "how do I stop going over this cliff?", the obvious answer is that first of all it has to stop running towards it. Running is continuing to build new settlements.

Now, even assuming Israel stops running (and by the way, the United States is the coach cheering alongside, passing the water), it is still going to be jogging, and finally walking towards the edge. Each step (even though new building would have been stopped) is a step forwards, because of natural growth.

The only way to actual stop that forward momentum is reducing natural growth and eventually turning around and walking away (i.e. dismantling settlements).

Now, Israel hasn't even figured out that runnning full tilt towards the edge is a bad idea yet, while the coach is a totally blind, incompetent fucking fool.

"George Bush* could do a great deal in seeing that both sides honor even the vague stipulations that it makes, but he has failed to do so"

I'd be surprised if he has even read it, or knows what it means if he has. :eyes:

It is quite clear that the state department doesn't have the first clue, and they're obviously smarter than the Chimp.

I wouldn't put much importance on individual actors in this system though. After all, the policy spectrum is quite narrow on this topic in the United States.

You are right however that even the vague obligations in the Roadmap could have been pressured into being upheld. Now, the fact that they weren't says to me that the Roadmap was designed to either fail or only work long enough for domestic and international PR advantage. Either way, DOA.

"He is too busy waging his wars(*) and preparing for his upcoming election(**) to bother with a minor annoyance like Middle East peace"

That is spookily accurate (I added the underline emphasis).

I direct you to the following article from Ma'ariv (roughly translated by myself, but it is clear enough. Ben Caspit is the main author, and it was front page news):

--------

BUSH WILL STOP MEDIATING

This article directly quotes Israeli internal documents to the effect that:

"Difficult internal/foreign affairs concerns mean that the Bush administration will concentrate on the Iraq problem to relieve the president from intensive involvement in other issues, including the Israeli-Palestinian conflict" (*)

...

"Israeli officials say that the focus will now shift to the continuing complications in Iraq and the falling popularity ratings of President Bush" (*, **)

...

"It is believed that the Roadmap plan will now go into a "deep freeze". The American aim is to maintain the current "relative silence" and status quo, until after the presidential elections in Nov 2004" (**)

--------

"Deep Freeze" is now my favourite phrase for I/P issues. :dunce:

(BTW, I do believe that Mr Caspit stole it from the Associated Press in the middle of Sept, but I could be wrong).

To conclude, essentially, you can forget any serious M/E diplomacy until after the elections in 2004 (unless of course, the whole thing blows up in the face of the US and Israel. Not likely in my view, but possible nevertheless).

Anything that happens between now and then is window dressing. Not that the Roadkill was much better of course.

p.s. you'll have to forgive me if the above doesn't make much sense - just in from the pub and I didn't proofread.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 

Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Israel/Palestine Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC