Israel Says Arabs Should Make Peace After Iraq War

[Herschel]

http://reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=worldNews&storyID=3146355

"Israel said on Wednesday that recent events in Iraq should encourage Arab leaders to negotiate peace with it.
Secretary of State Colin Powell added that he expected a future democratically elected government of Iraq itself to make peace with the Jewish state.

Israeli Foreign Minister Silvan Shalom, speaking after talks with Powell, said he and Powell had discussed the latest news from Iraq and he found it "encouraging."

"I think it can motivate moderate leaders in the region to negotiate with Israel and to move forward toward a peace with Israel. It was for many years that they were frightened to do it because Saddam Hussein was in power," he told reporters."

One of the benefits of Sadaam being gone.

[FlashHarry]

1. Peace or the Sword. Nice.

Nothing like a Hobson's choice.

On edit: This should probably be moved to the Israeli/Palestinian Affairs Board.

[Jacobin]

2. ???

Bizarre article. The hypothesis is that other Arab nations wouldn't negotiate with Israel because the other Arab nations thought Saddam would attack them if they did?

Perhaps I'm not up to speed on something. Before I shoot off my mouth.....

[Julien Sorel]

4. It's Israel, at it again. The reason the Arabs won't make peace

with Israel is because Israel refuses to part with Arab land. They won't let go of the Golan Heights, and they refuse to give the Palestinians a workable state. The Arabs unanimously offered Israel a peace deal a couple of years ago, and Israel refused to even consider it, because it required them to return the lands they'd conquered in the 1967 war. For over 30 years now, Israel has chosen land instead of peace, and now they are trying to hide behind American skirts to force the Arabs to go along with it.

The correct headline should be, "War In Iraq Should Lead To Arabs Making Peace with Israel On Israel's Terms."

Remember though, Israel is better than its neighbors. So much better in fact, that it has the right to unilaterally decide what the borders in the region should be.

[DoveTurnedHawk]

5. Your Claims Are Revisionist History

By the way, did you ever draft that proposal down in I/P?

with Israel is because Israel refuses to part with Arab land.

Israel and the Arab countries have a history of hating each other, and each has reason to hate the other. It's not quite as simple as refusing to part with "Arab land," as any honest observer of the situation knows.

They won't let go of the Golan Heights,

Funny thing about the Golan, the occupier of those heights has the ability to shell the land below. While the Golan was in the hands of the Arab states, Israeli settlements were frequently shelled. The reverse has not been true.

and they refuse to give the Palestinians a workable state.

There should certainly be a two-state solution, but Arafat and the intifada also bear some responsibility for this. Anyone who makes this out to be a sole responsibility situation is either being overly simplistic or intellectually dishonest.

DTH

[Wonder]

6. Which revisionists are you refering to?

The Israel revisionists? I have read some and it seems to me they cast a much brighter light onto the history which places it IMHO in a more balanced perspective. I mean you can take bits and pieces out of the history, especially from the six day war and make it sound like those 6 days were based only on Arab Aggression. HOwever, once you factor in the various Arab, Revisionist, British and US viewpoints of that era in Israeli history, it is arguable Israel exaggerated the threat based on very calculated tactics devised to justify preemptive measures. In much the same way the US (and in part Israel) exaggerated the current threat of various arab states today. (and if we do not take a more diplomatic bend in the road the TRUTH IS all of them are a threat to the world for the holy catastrophe it looks light they all have a hand in provoking regardless of how it jumps off, if it jumps off).

In the more balanced context, the so called Arab Aggression takes on more dimension in that it is not something whose bases was unfounded, when from the Arab perspective it can soundly argued that Israel was (and consequently is) playing chicken and as such posed and does certianly poses (along with the US) their own aggressive threat to the Arab Countries that surrounded them. Iran case in point.

I realize some of the revisionists are recanting in a way to suggest that the transfer seems the best remedy and are now arguing that perhaps Israel should have gotten it over with back in 1948. I beg to differ. In and of itself even in recanting it reveals that transfer policies were certainly being employeed regardless of how the Arab-Israli war tends to muddy those waters as well. So consequently, it can be argued those same strategies are at play here when once again transfer policy seems to be lurking somewhere in the background all covered up by contingencies and what not.

I agree this is not a sole responsibility issue that is not only simplistic but ignorant. However, here is my problem: when one goes back to mandate what I have come to find more so than not is that I have rarely observed much in the way of any acknowledgement that "the Arab" hostilities are most certainly understandable, based on the utter shaft they got by the UK, as well as the clandestine activities of the Shai, Palmar, Shakar, Irgun and haganah (which even the British Authority wanted dismantled after the white papers in 1938, before partition was announced and Haganah went legit). Rarely is Israeli dirty pool admitted as a partial factor or cause of some of the "arab aggression, (which I feel over the years must be factored in cummulaively) but instead it is rationalized as the means that enabled Israel to gain and maintian statehood, which I do not believe many ae contesting. The right of Israel to exist that is.

The Israeli terrorist or dirty pool tactics utilized both against the UK (kind david Hotel 1946 to name one, to say nothing of the breakins and wiretaps of the Shai) and the sabatoge infilitrated against the arab villages by the mistra'eremvi (and all the other Arab, Syrian and Egyptian Plattoons, I mean those Israeli's or Jewish immigrants disquised as arabs) are rarely addressed. Nor is there recognition that these calculated and divisive tactics; the use of sacred terror in the 50's and 60's wherein raids were conducted in ways that they could be denied afterward, as well as numerous and purposeful attacks on arab civilians; are in anyway related as causal to any of the arab aggressions that was to be, not only expected, but sometimes purposely provoked. It seems to me this is the stuff that is not common knowledge and therefore to this day is easily denied; with the tables swiftly turned back round to the responsibility of the arabs (I reference your statement regarding Arafat and the intifada). And then again it goes round and round to set the focus back on the responsibility of the Arabs.

What concerns me most about this lack of admittance, even in the face of the current intifada, is that the disproporation insurgences of the IDF are being led by Ariel Sharon himself wherein he is presently utitlizing the same deception as outlined in the Livia Rokach study (to name one), and it's immorality still remains unacknowledged, hardly being addressed in the mainstream.

Instead what is most regularly publicized, is the Israeli propaganda which we have all but memorized like we have our own US propaganda agendas (though all are not fooled by them). In other words, and judging more by the actions of Sharon's army in the last 3 years not Sharon's or Bush's rhetoric, is he is deadset on driving home another deception which is leading us to believe that transfer is the only option. And again with no recognition that this man is hardly interested in addressing the Palestinians at eye level. NOt that the Palestinians do not have there own immoralities and corrruptions and terrorism to answer for, they do too. However in the mainstream the burden of responsibility is placed solely and squarely on the Palestinians, as it is being placed solely and squarely on the Arab world (syria, Iran, Iraq, lebannon).

So while once again I read someone's post, who appears to be objective, while at that same time your post also seems to justify Israel tactic and once again bringing our focus back to that responsibility that Arafat and the intifada have to bear. While I say but of course, I wonder what responsibility do you see Sharon acknowledging? Not the minority demography that makes up the Israeli left, the peace activists and those that do acknowledge and have spoken quite critically of Israeli tactics and the immorality of some of its policy. However, in the current mainstream, it seems most are taken up by the nationalistic rallying (very similar to what we see here in the US wherein America has ralled almost unanimously behind the so called war on terrorism), which will not bring the needed acknowledges, nor the focus required on Israel, who ALSO bears some of the responsibility.

You must forgive me but I really do not see current GOI acknowledging much of their own responsibility. And why the hell is the NPT being passed over as what I feel is at this stage a viable option?

[wellst0nev0ter]

7. Hmm. . .

Funny thing about the Golan, the occupier of those heights has the ability to shell the land below. While the Golan was in the hands of the Arab states, Israeli settlements were frequently shelled. The reverse has not been true.

Actually, according to the 1992 issue of Middle East Policy, vol. 1, no 4, the Syrian border battle was frequently precipitated by Israel encroaching on DMZs, displacing residents in those zones, and even engaging Syrian territory itselt. The operative quote from that article is "U.N. observers in the field and U.N. votes in New York are unanimous in holding that principle responsibility for the Syrian-Israeli border hostilities belongs to Israel".

There should certainly be a two-state solution, but Arafat and the intifada also bear some responsibility for this. Anyone who makes this out to be a sole responsibility situation is either being overly simplistic or intellectually dishonest.

No, if you read the new book that just came out, Shattered Dreams the only thing Arafat did to "sabatoge" the peace process was to act like an equal partner in peace, not as a sponge soaking up whatever the Israelis wanted. The utter contempt that Clinton and Israel had for Palestinian aspirations can be summed up in this paraoxism by Clinton when Arafat correctly noted that international legitimacy of the Camp David deal is predicated on complete withdrawal from the West Bank:

"That's not possible. This isn't the Security Council here. This isn't the UN General Assembly. If you want to give a lecture, go over there and don't make me waste my time. I'm the President of the United States. . .You're not acting in good faith. You never submit a counter proposal."

Never mind that Arafat apparently had no problems with the land swap, or negotiating "right of return". It's no wonder they didn't allow the Camp David Summit to be videotaped. There would be a good chance the truth might come out.

[Wonder]

8. How succinctly you summed it up.

at the end of my long winded post I would add yours and say that too!

As for Arafat. He was illy equipped to negotiate, especially the way the US was brokering it, and much more concerned with his own power, to say nothing of the fact that he did not even show up to the meetings with workable maps.

In other words, the oslo peace process was quite flawed with Arafat bending over for some of the big bucks the US was throwing at him. And the Israeli Palestinian Liaison committee which gave Israel veto power of the Palestinian election process is very telling regarding just how much control Israel intended upon relinquishing. Not much. Amazing we are just doing a much higher stake encore on that.

They want to really address right of return? From what I gather all that would be needed would be a strategic and well thought out Israeli reparation proposal. Has one been drafted yet?

I mean an official, responsible, thorough, reparation plan; not just lip service. Could put an end to what it seem might just be a non-issue called right to return. Sharon counted off all his contingencies, so where's his official reparation plan?

[DoveTurnedHawk]

12. We Agree on This

They want to really address right of return? From what I gather all that would be needed would be a strategic and well thought out Israeli reparation proposal. Has one been drafted yet?

I'm not aware of one, unfortunately.

I mean an official, responsible, thorough, reparation plan; not just lip service. Could put an end to what it seem might just be a non-issue called right to return. Sharon counted off all his contingencies, so where's his official reparation plan?

Sharon has no plan, except continued warfare and misery.

Real reparations are critical to any peace plan. I am pessimistic about it ever happening, though, unless the U.S. is the one who foots the bill once more.

DTH

[Wonder]

16. That defeats the purpose

"Real reparations are critical to any peace plan. I am pessimistic about it ever happening, though, unless the U.S. is the one who foots the bill once more."

That will never do. It completely exonerates Israel once again from taking responsibiliy. See right here in this area it is very telling. Besides the Israeli left and small minority of the population I really don't get Israel feels they bear any reponsibility which much of their Arab Polices have reflected and still reflect today in the Sharon government.

Israel fells themselves only the victim. With this disproportionate balance of power Israel having all the control. The land, the roads, the water, the history, the doctrine, the propaganda: THERE WILL BE NO PEACE WITH PAYING FOR.

IMHO Israel must foot the bill for reparation, in doing so they would be actually owning up to some of the part they played in this confict. No instead everybody screams they want right of return, they want right of return. It becomes clear refugees like Said, the candidate that tried to run in the 90's Samiha Khalil but was vetoed by the Israeli veto-power over the Palestinian election, would most certainly take reparation without Right to Return to Israel Proper.

Israel doesn't have a plan. This tells me GOI does not either want to negotiate at eye level with the arabs, and REFUSE to take any responsibility for Israeli damages that have been done in part due to blatant anti-arab transfer policy which at times they tried to due on the sly.

Without comparing this to the holocaust (as there or no direct comparisons to be made), Israel has received monetary reparations from Germany which was only the right thing to do. I ran across the figure recently, though it escapes me at the moment.

Still remains too many Israeli myths for there to be any Peace let alone Lasting Peace, and still the tables are turned around on the Arabs with no recognition of even the damage that has been rendered by the Israeli occupation, to homes, land, cultural identity, solidarity.
Yet they cry the Arabs are solely responsible for ALL of the aggression. This is extraordinarily problematic.

[Julien Sorel]

9. Really?

First of all, the subject line of your post screams out that you have absolutely no idea what 'revisionist history' is. But that's a minor quibble, given the actual content.



Israel and the Arab countries have a history of hating each other, and each has reason to hate the other. It's not quite as simple as refusing to part with "Arab land," as any honest observer of the situation knows.

Your claim has absolutely no support -- it's just your opinion. I stated a fact: Israel has refused, on many occasions, to make peace with the Arabs because it refuses to give them their land back. the Arab position has been absolutely consistent since 1967: Israel can have land or peace, but not both. That is certainly a fair position, and certainly much fairer than the deal Israel has offered to some (but not all) Arabs: peace for peace, but Israel keeps their land. Hatred has nothing to do with it. I actually mentioned the most recent attempt at Arab peacemaking, the Saudi Peace plan, which was turned down flat by Israel, without discussion, without counter offer. It must have been that hatred.

One can only hope that the 'honest observer' you had in mind was not yourself.


Funny thing about the Golan, the occupier of those heights has the ability to shell the land below. While the Golan was in the hands of the Arab states, Israeli settlements were frequently shelled. The reverse has not been true.

Israeli settlements were shelled because Israel continued to encroach and settle, illegally, on the DMZ that was set down in the 1949 Armistice, evicting Syrian Arabs in the process (sound familiar?). This was well documented by UN observers at the time, who credited Syria with showing remarkable restraint in the face of constant Israeli provocation. This version, incidentally, has been confirmed by several Israeli politicians of the era, most authoritatively by Moshe Dayan, who described Israel's provocation of the Syrians as a 'game,' and said the goal was to seize territory by military means and hold it until the Arabs gave in (sound familiar?)

Dayan must be one of those 'revisionist historians' one hears about these days.


By the way, did you ever draft that proposal down in I/P?

What? This makes less sense than the rest, no small accomplishment.

[Wonder]

10. all well founded but for the source selectivity

and the trashing of the revisionists, who's works I find applaudable as well as insightful, even benny morris who is the one I know now turning back and suggesting transfer is the only option. Transfer will bring lasting peace?

Israel wants peace? Than it should than be not an eye for an eye, but eye to eye! In other words, it doesn't really look like Israel has ever really wanted to negotiate with the Arabs or Palestinians at eye level.

[DoveTurnedHawk]

11. Really!

First of all, the subject line of your post screams out that you have absolutely no idea what 'revisionist history' is.

I know what it is quite well, thanks, but your ad hominem here is quite unsurprising considering your track record.

Your claim has absolutely no support -- it's just your opinion. I stated a fact: Israel has refused, on many occasions, to make peace with the Arabs because it refuses to give them their land back.

Buddy, here are a few words that neatly eviscerate your premise:

Egypt. Sinai. Camp David. Barak. Clinton. Arafat.

the Arab position has been absolutely consistent since 1967: Israel can have land or peace, but not both. That is certainly a fair position, and certainly much fairer than the deal Israel has offered to some (but not all) Arabs: peace for peace, but Israel keeps their land.

I repeat: neither side is perfect, in fact both sides are quite far from perfect, but your efforts to make Israel the demon and the Arab states the angels are really just the flip side of the same thing you are accusing pro-Israeli posters of doing.

As for land for peace, Barak, Clinton and Arafat tried that. Arafat walked out.

Now, you will hear no arguments from me about Israel creating some "facts on the ground" in the form of illegal settlements, which they did, nor will you hear arguments that Barak's offer was some godsend, which it wasn't. But at the end of the day, it was Arafat who walked out, and Arafat who did not counter.

Hatred has nothing to do with it.

Boggle.

Thank you very much. Statements like these make it very easy to dismiss your arguments as the one-sided propaganda of a partisan, rather than someone interested in a fair discussion.

Israeli settlements were shelled because Israel continued to encroach and settle, illegally, on the DMZ that was set down in the 1949 Armistice, evicting Syrian Arabs in the process (sound familiar?).

Uh huh. Sure. Shelling Israeli villages is a very proportionate response to small arms fire or farming efforts.

In any event, I will certainly agree that Israel is not about to let go of the Golan, because of the area's critical military and defensive value. Much if not all of Israel can be targeted by artillery emplaced on the Golan. The reverse is not true (Syria being a much larger country, geographically), and again, I'm not aware of any Israeli shelling from the Golan of Syrian villages, are you?

This was well documented by UN observers at the time, who credited Syria with showing remarkable restraint in the face of constant Israeli provocation.

Oh yes, the UN who has always been so unbiased with respect to Israel.

:eyes:

By the way, did you ever draft that proposal down in I/P?

What? This makes less sense than the rest, no small accomplishment.

I'm sure you'd like to forget it, considering how badly you fared in that forum, but rest assured, your amusing gymnastics were quite memorable.

"This is not the essay you promised, Mr. Bunter."

DTH

[Julien Sorel]

13. Nice.

A post that is remarkable for its hypocrisy:

I know what it is quite well, thanks, but your ad hominem here is quite unsurprising considering your track record.

Of course you do. That's why you used it incorrectly.

Buddy, here are a few words that neatly eviscerate your premise:

Egypt. Sinai. Camp David. Barak. Clinton. Arafat.

Now, how do these words 'neatly eviscerate my premise?' Israel has agreed to land for peace exactly once, and that was only after the Egyptians went to war to try to force the return of their own land. But that's the best you can do to demonstrate Israel's willingness to establish peace? I think your 'honest observer' would reach a different conclusion.

Now, you will hear no arguments from me about Israel creating some "facts on the ground" in the form of illegal settlements, which they did, nor will you hear arguments that Barak's offer was some godsend, which it wasn't. But at the end of the day, it was Arafat who walked out, and Arafat who did not counter.

First, that's one instance in a long history. Second, you didn't say what Arafat 'walked out' on, what Arafat didn't make a 'counter' to. Just to save you the trouble of continuing to pretend you know what you're talking about, Barak never made a real offer, not at Camp David II, not at the Taba talks held later. They were just talks, discussions. The two sides -- note two sides-- could barely even agree on a framework for discussion, let alone get to the level where legitimate offers could be made.

Words are just that -- words. Next time try attaching an argument to them.


Thank you very much. Statements like these make it very easy to dismiss your arguments as the one-sided propaganda of a partisan, rather than someone interested in a fair discussion.

More, from the person who cries about ad-hominems. :/

Uh huh. Sure. Shelling Israeli villages is a very proportionate response to small arms fire or farming efforts.

The last I heard, forcibly evicting people from their homes and land was an act of war; shelling in return is considered an appropriate response. I imagine that, if Mexico or Canada tried to force Americans off their land, the U.S. military would quickly be involved. But as soon as this switches to Israel and Syria, it becomes a disproportionate 'response.' I suppose this is an example of intellectual honesty. Maybe that's why I have such a problem with it. As an aside, and while we're on the topic, and your knowledge being so extensive, perhaps you would care to share with me how many Israelis died as a result of this disproportionate shelling?

In any event, I will certainly agree that Israel is not about to let go of the Golan, because of the area's critical military and defensive value. Much if not all of Israel can be targeted by artillery emplaced on the Golan. The reverse is not true (Syria being a much larger country, geographically), and again, I'm not aware of any Israeli shelling from the Golan of Syrian villages, are you?

I see. So the Syrians want their land back, and refuse to agree to peace without getting their land, but both sides are equally to blame. Never mind that a land grab is against international law -- both sides are to blame. Dove Turned Hawk said so, and said that anyone who disagrees with this 'logic' is being intellectually dishonest.

As for the strategic value of Golan, it's nonsense. Several Israeli generals have said so, and they captured Golan as an afterthought during the Six Days War. If it was so important, why wasn't capturing it a major goal of the war? The real reason they captured Golan, according to Dayan and others, was the 'greed' of Israeli farmers for the Syrian land and the water that went with it.

By the way, I'm not sure if Israel has shelled Syria from Golan, but I am sure that Israel has used its Air Force to bomb Syrian (and Lebanese, and Egyptian) cities -- many times in fact. Since in your eyes security interests give Israel the right to take Syria's land, perhaps a reciprocal arrangement could be made regarding Israel's air force? We do, after all, need to see both sides of this -- you keep mentioning how important that is.

Oh yes, the UN who has always been so unbiased with respect to Israel.

Ahhh, the old 'The UN is biased against Israel' canard, presented, as always, without proof. Conveniently, you ignore the fact I adduced that knowledgeable Israelis have confirmed the UN's version of events. But you still rail on and on about 'intellectual dishonesty.' If I didn't know better, I'd say your constant reference to honesty and dishonesty was a clear cut case of projection.


I'm sure you'd like to forget it, considering how badly you fared in that forum, but rest assured, your amusing gymnastics were quite memorable.

"This is not the essay you promised, Mr. Bunter."

Ahh, now I remember, I even remember you. You're the guy who was proud to be described as a sycophant.

At any rate, I wasn't aware that I had 'fared badly' on that forum, but given your record for intellectual honesty, I'll simply take your word for it. I do recall the comment in question. Your hero was reduced to pretending I'd 'promised' an essay when I'd done no such thing, because he had no arguments to offer. I'll make the same offer to you I made to your master: show me where I promised the essay, and you'll get it. Until then, this is just more nonsense from you.

By the way, and I don't mean this as an insult or a personal attack, but I got a laugh out of it when I remembered. The only reason I even remember you at all is a wry thought I had when considering your name and the quality of your posts: at least the brain is the same. Yet you remember details from a discussion several months ago, in which you were, at best, a bit player. As a complete aside, are you sure your priorities in life are in order? It's a serious question. Obviously, I don't expect, or even want, an answer here, but it's something you might want to think about.

[DoveTurnedHawk]

19. You Are Very Predictable, Mr. Bunter

Now, how do these words 'neatly eviscerate my premise?' Israel has agreed to land for peace exactly once,

Hey, there's one gesture of peace by Israel! And not just a trifling one, either, it was a huge mass of land!

and that was only after the Egyptians went to war to try to force the return of their own land.

A war which Egypt lost once again. Israel was in no military danger whatsoever from Egypt when they negotiated the Sinai back to them.

First, that's one instance in a long history.

Hey, just like the Sinai! I guess that makes two! Sooner or later, those gestures of peace by Israel just start adding up, don't they?

Thank you very much. Statements like these make it very easy to dismiss your arguments as the one-sided propaganda of a partisan, rather than someone interested in a fair discussion.

More, from the person who cries about ad-hominems. :/

As you might say, I thought I was just making a statement of fact?

The last I heard, forcibly evicting people from their homes and land was an act of war; shelling in return is considered an appropriate response.

So I'm sure you have no problem, then, with the Israelis making war in 1967 because of the Egyptian naval blockade, which is considered a classic casus belli?

I suppose this is an example of intellectual honesty. Maybe that's why I have such a problem with it.

I'm really glad you're able to admit this. That's the first step in getting better, you know.

I see. So the Syrians want their land back, and refuse to agree to peace without getting their land, but both sides are equally to blame.

For the condition of war that has existed between them for decades? Yes, absolutely both sides are to blame.

As for the strategic value of Golan, it's nonsense. Several Israeli generals have said so, and they captured Golan as an afterthought during the Six Days War.

Nonsense? You are no student of military affairs, if you dispute the strategic value of the Golan.

And please show me these Israeli generals statements. I would like to see the context of your claims. Regardless, so long as the Israeli people perceive strategic value in the Golan, the reality is that turning it over as part of any peace plan will be very difficult, if not impossible. I prefer to deal in realities, rather than idle wishes. And as I've said, no party in this conflict is an innocent.

Ahh, now I remember, I even remember you. You're the guy who was proud to be described as a sycophant.

The Magistrate is the best treasure this discussion board has to offer, and I certainly have no qualms whatsoever offering him my unqualified support and adulation, it's true. :-)

At any rate, I wasn't aware that I had 'fared badly' on that forum,

Of course you weren't, dear.

I do recall the comment in question. Your hero was reduced to pretending I'd 'promised' an essay when I'd done no such thing, because he had no arguments to offer.

The Magistrate had no arguments to offer? I love how you dig yourself in deeper with every sentence. Even several of your own compatriots on the "pro-Palestinian" side would disagree vehemently with you, there.

By the way, and I don't mean this as an insult or a personal attack,

Sure ya don't, Billy. :-)

Yet you remember details from a discussion several months ago, in which you were, at best, a bit player.

That I do indeed remember clearly those details should give you some idea of the sheer magnitude of your defeat in this Forum.

As a complete aside, are you sure your priorities in life are in order? It's a serious question. Obviously, I don't expect, or even want, an answer here, but it's something you might want to think about.

LOL. For once, I'm not going to argue with you, as I've previously spent hundreds of hours of my free time participating and helping to moderate this message board, and that probably is indeed just a little bit out-of-whack with respect to priorities.

Regardless, however, I am quite satisfied with my life, and have achieved certain objective indicia of success, so I guess it hasn't hurt me too badly.

In any event, you have once again done exactly as I had hoped: your tone alone, not to mention your words, have exposed you as the rabid partisan you are, attempting vainly to pass yourself off as an unbiased observer.

I am quite confident that is why you spend no time down here, with people on both sides who know as much as or more than you on these issues. You're much more interested in trying to spread your biased view of the conflict to people "upstairs" who are less likely to call you on your inaccuracies, than being subjected to another humiliating defeat by the learned members of this forum.

Thanks again for doing as I'd hoped you would.

DTH

[CitizenDick]

20. Break it up

Geez. You both post 18-inch posts, sentence by sentence rebuttals to each other, grinding some kind of axe. Can we dircet some of this considerable effort toward Bush? - Disclaimer... I probably have or will do the same at some point :)

[Wonder]

17. Camp David? Barak? Clinton? Arafat?

There is much analysis on the assorted peace plans to be had going back to the Allon Plan. Few saught peace. Why because few had Israeli relinquishing much control. Each repackaged the one before it and I believe all were attempt to institutionalize the Occupation rather than dismantle it. This by now in leftist circles both American and Israeli is common knowledge.

On Edit.

And Arafat fell right in line with the Israeli program. One is left to wonder who the US was brokering for. Does not look like Palestinian soveriegnty or their right to self determine was on the agenda, and Arafat certainly did not lend much help there either. As some of the record shows he himself virtually abandoned the cause of his people, putting his power above their cause. He was no Nelson Mandella that is for sure.

[Darranar]

23. In 1967...

The Israelis offered the Arabs all the land they had conquered, aside from Jerusalem, for peace. The Arabs were unwilling to negotiate. That hardly is a "land or peace" approach.

Sorry, DoveTurnedHawk, that shouldn't have been a reply to your post. But the point remains the same.

[Tinoire]

24. Hey Dove, Arafat didn't walk out of the Camp David Talks- Israel did

It was the Israeli team that walked out after having been promised a better deal by Bush's people, specifically Richard Perle. The same man who's currently telling Eitam that he can safely ignore the Road Map.

Anger at peace talks 'meddling'

Political scandal in US as Bush advisers tell Israelis to be ready to walk out of Camp David negotiations

Israel and the Middle East: special report

Julian Borger in Washington
Thursday July 13, 2000
The Guardian

(Excerpt)

The Middle East peace talks at Camp David became the subject of a political scandal in the US last night when reports emerged that one of George W Bush's foreign policy advisers had warned the Israeli delegation to be prepared to walk out of negotiations.
Richard Perle, a veteran cold war warrior and former assistant secretary of state, urged the Israeli prime minister, Ehud Barak, not to agree to any settlement which left the future status of Jerusalem unresolved, according to the New York Post website.

The website quoted a message received by Mr Barak yesterday from two of his emissaries, Yoram Ben-Ze'ev and Yossi Alpher. The two men said Mr Perle "asked us to send a clear message" to Mr Barak that it would be a "catastrophe" if the Jerusalem question was not dealt with, and urged him "to walk away" from the Camp David negotiations if faced with that outcome.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/Story/0,2763,342857,00.html
----

(Excerpt)
In 2000, when Prime Minister Ehud Barak, PLO Chairman Yasser Arafat and President Clinton were meeting at Camp David, Perle made news when he warned Barak not to let Vice President Al Gore become involved in the peace summit, for fear it would boost Gore's election prospects. He also told Barak to "walk away" from a peace plan if it left the thorny issue of a divided Jerusalem unresolved. Working as an advisor to candidate Bush, Perle warned Barak he would urge the Texas governor to condemn any peace plan that gave the PLO a foothold in Jerusalem.

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2002/09/05/perle/index1.html


----
Richard Perle Sabotaged Mideast Peace Talks in July 2000
11-Mar-03
Richard Perle
In July 2000, Richard Perle contacted the Israeli government and deliberately tried to sabotage President Clinton's Mideast Peace talks at Camp David, when Clinton worked around the clock with Ehud Barak and Yassir Arafat to find a formula for peace. Barak's people reported the matter to Clinton, and Bush was forced to publicly disavow the efforts on his behalf to sabotage negotiations. Bush said he 'disagreed' with what Perle did, as if his campaign had not directed and/or approved of it. At the time, there were demands that Perle be prosecuted for illegally interfering with American foreign policy. Naturally, Bush's new AG John Ashcroft scrubbed the case.
http://www.democrats.com/preview.cfm?term=Richard%20Perle

And this interesting tidbit from an old DU thread that came up during my google: http://www.democraticunderground.com/duforum/DCForumID30/7925.html

So what was to be the crowning foreign policy achievement of the Clinton administration collapsed under the weight of obstructionists from both sides of the conflict, including Bush supporters undercutting America's commander in chief.

Richard Perle wasn't just urging then Prime Minister Barak to hold off for Bush. Perle must have known that an Ariel Sharon tenure in the Israeli PM's office wasn't far off. (( Wasn't there an big election scandal in Israel?)) Sharon's Likud party is the spiritual, fundamentalist and politically bankrupt equivalent of the Bush Cartel Republican Party. They even agree on the same style of crony capitalism offered under the bait and switch euphemism of opening up a "free market economy" (i.e., reward my campaign contributors with contracts and screw everyone else). The Likud and the Bush Cartel are two birds of the same feather. Actually, Benjamin Netanyahu, who was educated in the U.S. and used to be a regular television pundit on American news shows, is the favored Israeli politician of the American extremist right (AKA, the Republican Party), but Sharon will do.

http://www.buzzflash.com/buzzscripts/buzz.dll/quote

[ex_jew]

3. But if the war isn't over...

and won't be over until the US goes home empty-handed, why should Arabs be motivated to do anything positive towards Israel ? I see Iraq as a proxy for the I/P issue, one which the US CAN lose, with profound consequences. Do you think Arabs don't notice the US inability to subdue an Arab country, despite tying up the majority of its troops with only occasional results ? Now we are BEGGING the UN to help "stabilize" the situation, where previously we felt free to ignore that organization's feelings about Israel. Our gigantic deficit (not even including the huge sums we are wasting in Iraq) makes it very unlikely we will continue on to attack other Arab nations. Add to this the weakness of our currency and the sheer amount of energy that our leaderless administration must spend covering up its lies and economic failings and I would have to believe that our "enemies" smell blood. After all, our previous allies in NATO are making plans to counter our every move worldwide. Why should the Arabs behave any differently ?

[scsifreak]

14. Well, maybe Sharon's handlers...

... see the weakenesses of America's power? Maybe Sharon has realized this and is slowly weaning himself from it. Might go a long way to explain Sharon's sudden 'change of heart'. This is probably the longest period in which Sharon hasn't ordered some Palestinian killed...

[leesa]

15. Israel is the aggressor most of the time

Israel needs to stop hiding behind the skirts of the US and needs to learn how to get along with her neighbors.

[Gimel]

18. Intifadas

the purpose of the Intifada I and II seems to have been to get Israeli provoke conflict. The Purpose of the Security Wall/Fence is to maintain peace without having to resort to "aggression". Yet look how the world press treats that. Once the Palestinian terrorists are unable to attack civilian targets, Israel can practice non-violence in return.

The response to the Intifada is seen as conflict, while attacks on civilians in Israel are accepted as justifiable protest.

This is unacceptable to Israel and supporters of Israel.

[Violet_Crumble]

22. Yeah, Israel never did anything to provoke the uprisings!!

Hell, the way some people talk you'd think that Israel had occupied territory that doesn't belong to it and built Israeli-only settlements there and oppressed the people who already live there ;) And in case you hadn't noticed, that 'security wall' is taking more Palestinian land. This may be of no concern to someone who thinks Israel has some 'historical' right to the land and the people already living there are just whining nuisances, but it is and should be of real concern to anyone who doesn't just respond to any criticism of it in typical knee-jerking 'supporter of Israel' style....

Violet...

[StandWatie]

21. wow, cool..

you just invade and set up an Israeli stooge as dictator to make peace, who would have thought it.

I don't know what the hell that has to do with "democracy" but I'm sure someone can tell me.

[Aidoneus]

25. what sort of extortion is this?

Why is this Israeli minister playing up to the worst fears? kiss our ass or "Great Satan" says you're next?

[sushi]

26. A future Iraqi leader must have

the support of the majority of the people, otherwise the instability will continue even after SH is gone.

The question is:
If the coming election in Iraq is going to be really free and democratic, what if the majority of the people of Iraq elect a Shiite mullah who does not like western ways?
If, to prevent this, the US picks the candidates, or actively support an Iraqi "Karzai," who will then be "encouraged" to negotiate peace with Israel, then the US will not have brought freedom to Iraq!