The second given reason for ‘disengagement’ was the diplomatic benefits it would bring Israel. Unsurprisingly, the government Israel was most intent on gaining favour with was the Bush administration.
This is a quote from Prime Minister Sharon’s letter to President Bush, as a part of their exchange of letters in April 2004 (I’ll return to these letters presently):
The Disengagement Plan is designed to improve security for Israel and stabilize our political and economic situation. It will enable us to deploy our forces more effectively until such time that conditions in the Palestinian Authority allow for the full implementation of the Roadmap to resume. I attach, for your review, the main principles of the Disengagement Plan. This initiative, which we are not undertaking under the roadmap, represents an independent Israeli plan, yet is not inconsistent with the roadmap.
In essence, the ‘disengagement’ was intended to compliment the political process. This was the line put forward by Israeli spokesmen, and the government itself.
Yet Sharon’s most senior aide told the Israeli media that the ‘disengagement’ was intended to block the establishment of a palestinian state “untilthe Palestinians turn in to Finns”. In fact, he took it one step further, bragging the United States supported the freezing of the political process:
"When you freeze [the peace] process, you prevent the establishment of a Palestinian state, and you prevent a discussion on the [Palestinian] refugees, the borders and Jerusalem."Effectively, this whole package called the Palestinian state, with all that it entails, has been removed indefinitely from our agenda.
"And all this with authority and permission. All with a [US] presidential blessing and the ratification of both houses of Congress."
The Israeli government took this one step further, claiming that they had reached an understanding over the larger Israeli communities in Yehuda and Shomron.
It is worth reading Bush’s letter to Sharon in full. The Sharon government claimed it had gained serious concessions from the Bush administration, namely: an end to the ‘right of return’ of ‘refugees’; and for Israel retaining the largest ‘settlement blocs’.
But when you actually read the text of Bush’s letter, there are no such guarantees. Bush states that it “seems clear” that the so-called refugees should not be resettled in Israel – a completely ambiguous commitment to nothing. For the straight-talking president from Texas, such vague comments – especially in the context of a letter surely prepared in consultation with the State Department – carry a meaning all of their own.
He also says:
"In light of new realities on the ground, including already existing major Israeli populations centers, it is unrealistic to expect that the outcome of final status negotiations will be a full and complete return to the armistice lines of 1949."
Again, complete ambiguity. What’s more, U.S. Ambassador to Israel Dan Kurtzer told a group of Israeli Foreign Ministry students that in fact the U.S. had not agreed that Israel should keep the ‘settlement blocs’. (When the U.S. Embassy protested Kurtzer had been misquoted, Yediot Ahronot provided an official Foreign Ministry transcript.)
Of more recent significance, the U.S. has contradicted the Israeli government’s position that Hamas should not be allowed to take part in the upcoming palestinian legislative ‘elections’. Admittedly, the Israelis’ reason for this – ie, Hamas is dedicated to destroying Israel – are rather weak, given Fatah. Perhaps if Hamas were less open about it?
But the point here is that the whole ‘peace process’ has always based itself on that false premise of ‘moderate’ Fatah/PLO/PA, and ‘extremist’ Hamas. And even this position is crumbling. Notoriously, White House spokesman Scott McLellan bought in to the EUro-cretin line that one should distinguish between the ‘social/political wing’ of Hamas, and the terrorist ‘wing’:
"While they might have been members of Hamas, they were business professionals" interested in "improving the quality of life for the Palestinian people," he said. "Not terrorists."
The one tool the Americans and Europeans might be willing to use to compel the PA to act against terrorists, they refuse to use. A week before the Quartet released another statement demanding the PA disarm terror groups, the EU announced a huge increase in 2005 aid. In August, the U.S. donated $50m in contradiction of U.S. policy on funding terror sponsors (it is worth noting that, a little over a week before the PA got the cheque, the PA admitted that it provides salaries for convicted terrorists).
Perhaps most concerning is the assertion from Secretary Rice that Israeli concessions are absolutely not contingent on terrorist groups being disarmed, an issue discussed in greater detail in this post at Mere Rhetoric. The entire link is worth reading, but I’ll extract a part of her New York Times interview below:
SECRETARY RICE: So the answer to the question, what comes next, is that one of the obligations in the roadmap is that the Palestinian Authority should have unified security forces that are all under the authority of the Palestinian Authority and its leadership, its elected leadership. There will be elections in January. But the Palestinian Authority is going to have to deal with the infrastructure of terrorism, that's one of its obligations.
QUESTION: So the -- is it still then the U.S. position that disarmament, dismantling are the next steps for Israel in the expected steps on the right –
SECRETARY RICE: No, I'm not talking about a sequencing here because the roadmap is assiduously not sequencing one step after another. It gives, in parallel, certain obligations to both sides. And the obligation of the Palestinians has to do with the dismantling of terrorist infrastructure and organizations and they're going to have to do it.
QUESTION: And so what should Israel do right now, after Gaza?
SECRETARY RICE: Well, the Israelis will have certain obligations as well about the continued freeing of Palestinian movement and conditions on the West Bank. That's one of the obligations. I think that we would hope that there is progress again on the Sharm agenda where the Israelis, if you remember, were handing over cities to the Palestinians.The claim made by supporters of the Israeli government that nothing more will happen until the PA does it what it is obliged to do not only flies in the face of the history of every obligation the PA has ever had, but also the U.S. position. As Omri of Mere Rhetoric notes,
This is crystal clear: She considers Israel obligated "right now" to make more concessions - including "handing over cities to the Palestinians" (!!!) She literally interrupts the interviewer to emphatically make the point that the Israelis are not allowed to wait for the Palestinians to actually dismantle terrorism - quite the opposite, "the roadmap is assiduously not sequencing". This is not a hard-line, pro-Israeli stance - it's the old Oslo formula all over again.
So what exactly provoked Israeli Foreign Minister to tell the UN General Assembly that these are “optimistic times”? Israel’s ambassador to the UN, Dan Gillerman, was given the ‘honour’ of holding assuming the Presidency of the session. Foreign Minister Shalom met with his counterparts from Tunisia and Morocco, praise from Qatar (which in May of this year increased its sponsorship of Arab terrorism against Israel) and even a meeting between Pakistani President Musharraf and Prime Minister Sharon.
Consider some of the following news items since The Fruits of ‘Disengagement’ on Sunday:
- Abbas says that land north and east of Gaza is still ‘occupied’, referring to a trade made between Israel and Egypt in 1950. Presumably Abbas isn’t offering the other parts of Gaza back in return. This demand sounds uncannily like Hezbollah’s position that Sheba Farms are still ‘occupied Lebanese land’, their excuse for continued attacks on Israel.
- Shabak chief Yuval Diskin told a Knesset committee that some 3,000 rifles, 1,500,000 bullets, 200 RPGs and hundreds of kilos of explosives were moved in to Gaza. He could not confirm that SAMs or advanced anti-tank missiles had been moved in. He also said that Yehuda and Shomron are being built up as a terrorist base.
- Diskin also said that he is worried that al-Qaeda will use the porous Egypt-Gaza border to take root in Gaza and attack Israel. Of key importance, he said that in the Sinai “there is a strong infrastructure of world terror linked to Al-Qaida - stronger than the Egyptians themselves were aware of”.
- Israeli military and intelligence officials believe Hamas may use the porous Egypt-Gaza border and attack Israel across the Egypt-Israel border. They also believe the professional terrorists may have moved to Gaza, and that their expertise may be put to use in the near-future.
- The IDF believes that the Katyusha rockets in Gaza have a range of 25km, putting the city of Ashkelon in range.
- Israel has said their border with Gaza is now an international one. There is now a de facto palestinian state.
Well, you might say, at least the international community will support Israel’s right to self defence. Not according to a senior Western diplomat, who said that, because the Israelis still ‘occupied’ Yehuda and Shomron, the right to a harsh response would not apply until all of this land had been turned over to the Arabs. This is all moot anyway, given the West’s notions of Israel’s right to self-defence. The boilerplate, whether from the White House, Brussels or virtually any European capital, is that Israel has the right to self-defence, except for this recent act, and also this list of acts.
So, what exactly has Israel gained, diplomatically, as a result of the ‘disengagement’?
On the one hand, the U.S. has not guaranteed Israel anything, and has in fact been encouraged to demand a lot more. The U.S. and E.U. are no more willing to push Abbas to fight terror than they were before, and Israel will have no boost in international support to fight terror in Gaza.
On the other hand, the United Nations was pleased enough to let Ambassador Gillerman chair a General Assembly session (the first Israeli presidency at the UNGA since 1963). Various Arab and Muslim governments, some of them terrorist sponsors and most of them overtly hostile to Israel’s existence, are willing to give the Israelis a few handshakes and invitations.
In sum, nothing gained from the U.S. or Europe but another list of demands, and some empty gestures from some of the bastions of anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism.
How utterly predictable.
Very nice summary, Colt.
It leaves no room for doubt, whatsoever, as to what is going on here.
Israelis won't tolerate terrorism from Hamas, Hezballah, Al Aqsa, or any other group. Ms. Rice can interrupt interviewers with her insistences all year long, if the Palestinians continue on the road of mindless terror there will be no Palestinian state. Palestinians have nothing to offer except the cessation of terror. Without that, forget it.
In a very un-post-like fashion I'm going to admit that I'm in the dark on a few details, maybe somebody could fill me in...
1) Why is Israel approval needed in the formation of the palestinian states?
2) I've also heard that land cessation is important for the growth of palestinian state? Is that true? How so?
3) Other than using the US as force against UN sanctions, what does Israel need our support for anyway? IT's not like they pay attention to what the UN says.
4) What do we get out of our relationship with Israel? I understand trying to form a 'roadmap' for peace, but how are they beneficial to us as an ally?
#2 misterhell
Can anyone think of a terrorist group Israel has destroyed, or at least rendered 'safe'?
Maybe, maybe not. But in the meantime, the U.S. position is that Israel is obliged to release terrorists, arm terrorists, make it easier for them to move, and a host of other ridiculous acts - no matter whether the PA fulfills its obligations or not.
#3 alchemist
1.
Strictly speaking, it isn't. The PA could declare independence any time it wants.
The PA would - and does - argue that, without Israel relinquishing control of Yehuda and Shomron (now referred to as the 'West Bank'), 'occupation' is ongoing and thus Palestine would not be independent.
2.
Presumably by 'cessation', you mean 'withdrawal from'? Assuming that's the case, yes, any state needs territory. However, given the nature of palestinian 'society', any such state would be a disaster.
3.
'Need'? IMO, there are two things that Israel cannot live without from the U.S.: arms and a veto on the UNSC. With market reforms, Israel could more than make up the financial and military aid from the U.S. I would very much like to see Israel buying U.S. weapons with shekels, not dollars.
4. bq. What do we get out of our relationship with Israel? I understand trying to form a 'roadmap' for peace, but how are they beneficial to us as an ally?
Israel is a world leader in computer, medical and military technology. Israeli electronics are used in various American weapons systems. In terms of foreign policy outlook, Israel is more like the U.S. than virtually any other country.
I suggest you browse this website for more benefits, to the U.S. and to the world at large: Good News from Israel.
Colt, may I take a stab at explaining what the U. S. gets by supporting Israel? There are other factors than those you mention and the domestic political issues.
Prior to robust support from the United States a pattern had been established: every few years Israel's neighbors attacked it (or prepared to attack it and Israel preempted) and Israel took a little more territory from them as a buffer. That pattern only broke when the U. S. began to give really substantial military assistance to Israel (and Egypt BTW). These wars were profoundly destabilizing.
So what we're buying is a little more stability in the Middle East than there would be otherwise.
If we want a lasting solution to the Israeli-Palestinian problem all we have to do is to cut off financing from the US and the EU which maintains the Palestinian quasi-state. If Israel truly builds a wall that keeps out the Palestinians, and allows no economic interaction, these people will fade away into the countries where they originally came from, unless of course the countries of the West continue to subsidize their rabid culture. These people weren't originally from the region. Virtually no one was. It was a desert, and the ancestors of the Palestinians came into the region because the Jewish settlers created agricultural jobs that Arabs from other countries came to fill. Cut off the money and economic interaction with Israel and these people will disappear.
I would definitely put the Pakistani overture and the Qatari (UAE?) statement in the plus column for Israel. And being able to send Sharon up to speak to the UN is a sign that the pullout is generating some good will in previously hostile quarters. As the the Gaza security situation, the border between Israel proper and the Gaza strip is pretty effing locked down anyway; however, if god forbid there is an attack inside Israel I imagine Israeli-Egyptian relations will suffer.
But in any case, I guess it comes down to whether or not you believe that Israel has a right to occupy the Gaza strip indefinitely or not.
Correct me if I'm wrong, which certainly happens often enough... but I thought that what Israel gained from the disengagement was complete freedom from the "moral equivalency theory" in regards to anything that happens in Gaza...
tcobb: If the West cut off financing for the "refugees" and their carefully-nurtured grievances against Israel, Saudi Arabia would step into the gap.
Which might not be a bad thing; let's let them spend dollars on the dysfunctional in Gaza instead of more madrassas.
Recognition by the world community (read Europe) was always the least compelling reasons for disengagement to me. Its a nice little diplomatic card to play, but Europe is so fundamentally unserious about international affairs it really doesnt matter. They are the Greece to our Rome, we still look to them mechanically for approval even though they have long since proven they have neither the will nor the inclination to be a true player (UK excepted, for the moment).
I lean much more on the moral implications of disengagement as it affects the Israeli people. Occupation is in the long term untenable and wears at the will of the occupiers, ultimately making Israel more fragile. Good walls make good neighbors, generally. But if your neighbor starts lobbing rockets into your yard you certainly have the right to lob back 10x as many and flatten him, and the important point is that you will know yourself to be completely justified in doing so.
The only other tenable option would be to ethnically cleanse the West Bank and Gaza, which would tear the Israeli society apart from the inside (and justly so).
"Prior to robust support from the United States a pattern had been established: every few years Israel's neighbors attacked it (or prepared to attack it and Israel preempted) and Israel took a little more territory from them as a buffer. That pattern only broke when the U. S. began to give really substantial military assistance to Israel (and Egypt BTW). These wars were profoundly destabilizing."
Thats part of the answer. The other part (and more important at this point) is that Israel has nuclear weapons (which plays with your argument because we gave them to Israel). The minute it became clear Israel had a true nuclear deterrant, the ability for nation states to threaten her militarilly ended. Short of a suicidal nuclear assault from Iran that has been speculated on, that remains the case.
The most important paragraph in the letter from Bush to Sharon was this one:
"First, the United States remains committed to my vision and to its implementation as described in the roadmap. The United States will do its utmost to prevent any attempt by anyone to impose any other plan....."
The key about sticking to the roadmap is that the US will do it's utmost prevent anyone else (Europe, Saudi Arabia, etc..) from coming up with new plans that can only be less favorable to Israel than the current one. This limits the 'chipping away' of Israel politically.
The question is therefore, what the Hell was Secretary Rice saying? Was she really saying that, given the roadmap, Israel has to fulfill its obligations even if the Palestinians none of theirs? That's definitely one interpretation her talk about 'parallel tracks.' It's my interpretation, and that sucks. At the same time--- suppose she did say that. The next question is, how much does she actually mean it? Suppose Israel says that they cannot proceed with the roadmap until Palestinians get rid of terrorism. How much pressure, in reality, will the US put on Israel in that case?
This may be far more complex than it looks.
#5 Dave Schuler
Yep. Another example that comes to mind is Israel telling Syria they would intervene to prevent them invading Jordan in the 1970s.
#7 praktike
No, it isn't. There is a fence, and little more. Yad Mordechai, a kibbutz near the border, was on alert for the first time since 1967 last week. A terrorist (one of three Arabs to make it in to Israel that night from Gaza) was caught in the village.
Don't take my word for it. Israel's Defence Minister wants to create a 150m buffer zone, which would imply that the situation is far from 'pretty effing locked down'. This all ignores the use of mortars and rockets, and the potential use of SAMs and advanced anti-tank missiles.
#8 Russ
If you mean, will the international community look upon IDF attacks on terrorists in Gaza differently, I'm afraid you're wrong. See these comments from a senior Western diplomat.
#12 A Berman
The Secretary of State told the New York Times Israel is obliged to do many stupid, counter-productive things, as set out in Phase 1 of the roadmap. That's no small thing.
Plus, its the State Department. Would the State Department pressure Israel to make concessions to terrorists? Bet on form.
I should rephrase that: the terrorist was one of three Arabs who made it in to Israel from Gaza and were caught.
I've come across several instances where an alert has been sounded because the IDF has discovered a hole in the fence. This is not a sealed border.
The Palestinians have turned into Finns.
Shark Finns.
The US "gave" Israel nukes? How so?
As I understand it quite a lot of the Manhattan Project scientists and engineers were Jewish.
Maybe it was the other way around.
"I've come across several instances where an alert has been sounded because the IDF has discovered a hole in the fence. This is not a sealed border."
Its not a sealed border because the border is meant to be temporary, an Israeli decision. If it was a wall and not a fence it could be made unbreachable for all intents and purposes. The Israeli schitzofrenia about whether they really intend to permanently give up claims on Gaza is at work here.
"The US "gave" Israel nukes? How so?"
Hmm, upon further research I was wrong. I always assumed the US had supplied the expertise, but apparantly it was the French moreso (although its a murky area and Israel did end up with US research data and possibly components, this is thought to have been through espionage).
"As I understand it quite a lot of the Manhattan Project scientists and engineers were Jewish."
Israel didnt exist when the bomb was developed in the US. Also, many of the top scientists (and they were an astounding collection of some of the greatest genius's to ever live, eerily so almost) who worked on the Manhatten project became the formost anti-nuclear activists after WW2.
Israel couldnt have done it alone as secretly as it was done. They didnt have to do a lot of very visable testing and research because the French built them a reactor, supplied scientists and handed them finished plans:
http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/cpc-pubs/farr.htm
Mark, you're shifting the emphasis from 'sealed' to 'border'. Yes, Israel has only recently come to a decision on Gaza.
But Gaza has long been regarded as a separate entity in security terms, hence the construction of a fence around Gaza in 1994, its repair in 2000 and increased IDF activity on the inner-Green-Line side during the last five years. It is pure dishonesty (or, at best, simply mistaken) to claim that the Gaza fence is unbreachable.
"Mark, you're shifting the emphasis from 'sealed' to 'border'. Yes, Israel has only recently come to a decision on Gaza."
True.
"It is pure dishonesty (or, at best, simply mistaken) to claim that the Gaza fence is unbreachable."
I agree, and it is often presented that way falsely. But on the other hand, because the current fence is demonstrably breachable does not follow that a more comprehensive wall would be equally vulnerable. Its ultimately an engineering question, after all.
After reading what Alex Safian wrote in the Jewish Press on the matter, I am convinced that the New York Times account of what Secretary Rice said is so error-laden that any analysis of it will be correct only by accident. Especially given the detail in which people are trying to analyze her words.
Look, the New York Times made a hash of the interview. Let's just wait and see what the State Department says in other venues.
#20 Mark Buehner
Not exactly. The jihadis are already planning tunnels under the fence. Plus those rockets, mortars and SAMs. Counter-battery fire is great, but Israel is not confident enough to do it. Though given how readily the U.S. is willing to embargo the IDF, that isn't surprising.
#21 A Berman
Did you read the Mere Rhetoric analysis? I would have agreed you prior to having read it myself, but Omri's points are spot-on - alas.
"Not exactly. The jihadis are already planning tunnels under the fence."
Thats simple enough, accoustic sensors. And you can drive the foundations of the wall some aribitrary depth into the earth. The Palestinians dont strike me as the patient types.
"Plus those rockets, mortars and SAMs."
Thats the trick, of course. I am dead certain given an appropriate amount of resources, technology, and manpower a wall could be build to keep people on a side, but you can always go over the wall. Technology in patriot like systems helps some, but you cant ultimately stop mortars and rockets effectively.
But Israel is on the side of the border most people agree is theirs. They have the right to respond to such an attack the same way any nation would from a neighboring nation. Technological advances in optics, UAVs, counterbattery radar, and acoustics can locate the source and respond with overwhelming firepower. At the moment that would devastate a fair radius around the target. In the future that radius will grow smaller. Regardless, one soveriegn nation has attacked another and the response to it will cost the Palestinians innocent lives. That is the decision they made by allowing mortars to be fired from their street corner. If the 'world' balks at that, too bad, because 95% of the people who matter know it is the purest of self-defence in a way that putting an IDF soldier in every Palestinian living room indefinately can never be classified.
I'd quibble with the 95% figure, but whatever the remaining percentage is, it includes the U.S. administration - and virtually any future ones, too.
"I'd quibble with the 95% figure, but whatever the remaining percentage is, it includes the U.S. administration - and virtually any future ones, too."
I think that is absolutely untrue. If the Israelis withdraw to something resembling the Green Line that is all that is required of them. You really think that under such a circumstance if a shell lands in an Israeli school George W Bush would condemn returning fire?
Colt, we've had this discussion before, and while I greatly value and respect your thoughts, I think you are overly paranoid about how Israel is viewed and what is required of it by the rational majority. You have good reason, Israel has been unfairly singled out and villified, but we arent talking about rabid anti-semites for the most part. They are decent, rational people (like Bush) who see that the Palestinians do have legitimate greviances. Once those are addressed, any further aggression is an act of war.
Sharon gets that. Israel can only do what is in its power to do, and ending the occupation is in Israel's power. Once that is done, anything done to defend Israel from cross border attacks is so mindnumbingly justified that any voices idiotic enough to oppose it will be drowned out by those suck to death of Palestinian recalcitrance.
#22 "Did you read the Mere Rhetoric analysis?..."
Yes, but it's an analysis of the NYTimes article. Call it data-mining, fruit of the poisoned tree, noisy signal, garbage-in garbage-out, whatever, the point is that there's only so much you can do with a crappy transcript of an interview.
Look at the U.S. reaction to Operation Grapes of Wrath (the 1996 Israeli counter-battery fire in to Lebanon that killed ~200 Arab civilians, plus Hezbollah members). Here's Clinton's moral equivalence:
Clinton isn't Bush. But the U.S. has a similar reaction when Israel shells Hezbollah (again, counter-battery fire). And rather than support Israel's right to shoot back, the U.S. is suggesting Israel give Lebanon the Sheba Farms territory. (Sheba Farms is Syrian land taken by Israel in '67. Hezbollah says it is Lebanese. Even the U.N. says that's crap.)
The palestinians grievances are about as legitimate as al-Qaeda's. And even if that were not the case, the terrorist nature of virtually every palestinian faction ought to make them beyond the pale. A principled position might be, okay, you had it rough, but you don't get to do that. And not just saying it, but meaning it. Maybe even acting on it - and sure as hell not halting sales of vital parts for Israeli helicopter gunships.
As noted above, the U.S. is funding the PA in violation of its own stance on funding terror sponsors. I know the Bush administration isn't rabidly antisemitic. It looks more like they've been bitten by the Oslo bug.
#26 A Berman
I didn't realise that there was any question as to the accuracy of the transcript? I thought the discrepency was with how the NYT paraphrased Secretary Rice.
"Here's Clinton's moral equivalence"
So what of it? Was a single penny taken from Israeli aid? You have to look at the big picture, if Israel has 'settled' its end of the occupied territories issue, even Clinton wouldnt dare condemn them from defending themselves. Your example is flawed in that obviously there is still an ongoing contraversy. If Israel settles the contraversies, what will anyone say? Stop defending yourselves?
"And even if that were not the case, the terrorist nature of virtually every palestinian faction ought to make them beyond the pale."
It is beyond the pale, but unfortunately moral outrage only gets you so far. The reality of the situation is that unless the status quo or worse is acceptable, a one sided disengagement is the only pragmatic alternative if there is to be any longterm hope of peace. Even if you want to say the status quo is 100% the Palestinians and Arabs fault (i'll go 85-15), we are still stuck in an endless cycle with no solution.
"A principled position might be, okay, you had it rough, but you don't get to do that."
Thats been the US position all along, and its fine as far as it goes, but what good does it do? There is just too much fear of 'rewarding' terrorism in your position. Screw terrorism, screw terrorists, and screw Palistinians. Israel is simply setting its house in order, building a fence in its backyard, and if a rock comes over a boulder is going back. Period. If that makes Hamas shoot their AKs into the sky in celebration, its not going to keep me up at night. They are rats, they will feed on themselves if we give them the opportunity.
Mark,
I'm a Naval Nuke (at least in a former life).
Nukes aren't hard.
What is hard is acquiring the material to make them. The special metals etc.
Any help Israel required was more like to be of a material rather than intellectual nature.
I'd have to look in to it, and would probably not discover anything - given how long it took to find out about the U.S. embargo on Apache parts, and how few people know about the State Dept arms ban threat of 2003. It would be rash to say 'no'.
That is the line now. I have seen nothing to make me believe that will change. And even if it does, the Arabs will come up with more demands, and the West will back them - as the U.S. has done with Hezbollah's claims to Sheba Farms.
There was a time when the PLO was beyond the pale - no longer. The same will probably happen with Hamas.
Rubbish. Compare pre-Oslo rates of terror with post-Oslo rates. Terrorism of the sort perpetrated against Israel takes money, organisation, expertise.
What good does demanding Arabs not slaughter innocent Israelis do? Without anything to back it up, nothing. With aid cheques accompanying the demands, worse than nothing. It appears to be a 'nudge-nudge, wink-wink'.
I guess I'm too concerned about rewarding terrorism - in this instance, with taxpayers' money. I was taught that there should be repercussions for treating people badly. Why is this case different?
Operation Grapes of Wrath was a bad thing, IMHO. As I recall the express purpose was to kill civilians so that they'd oppose shoot n' scoot attacks on northern Israel in the future.
#28
"I didn't realise that there was any question as to the accuracy of the transcript? I thought the discrepency was with how the NYT paraphrased Secretary Rice."
My apologies-- I may have overstepped. You are correct in that the stated controversy is over the interpretation of the transcript. I suppose for me to argue that the transcript is in question, I must put it in question myself--- who supplied the transcript and how was the transcript made? But clearly, I may have misinterpreted things if the transcript isn't in doubt.
1. Today Bahrain dropped its economic boycott of Israel.
2. Israeli relations qith Qatar, Oman, Tunisia, Pakistan, Indonesia, Morocco have improved
3. Most of the arms smuggled into Gaza in recent days have been small arms, clearly intended for a Pal civil war, NOT for attacks on Israel.
4. Egypt is now accepting a role in maintaining peace in Gaza.
5. Moussa Arafat is dead.
Yes there are risks - there could be missile attack on Ashekelon tomorrow. And its possible if that happened, that the US would discourage Israeli self defence. But neither has happened yet - if we're going to discount the possible that has not yet occured (an Abbas crackdown on Hamas) its not logically consietent to count everything that MIGHT happen the other way. Unless you want only actions that have zero risk. Unfortunately staying in Gaza did not have zero risk either.
That's ridiculous for several reasons:
To argue that terrorists dedicated to destroying Israel are arming themselves NOT for attacks on Israel is ridiculous all by itself.
After their success in preventing arms reaching Gaza, and their performance in keeping the Gaza-Egypt border close, why is that any sort of plus?
Arafat was a minor player in mounting terror attacks. Fair game, naturally, but his death means little in the scheme of things.
Here's Debka:
'Might happens' like Abbas cracking down on Hamas are completely different to the 'might happens' like rocket attacks on Israeli towns and cities. There is not one reason to think Abbas will crack down on Hamas, but every reason to think the terrorists will increase the tempo of their attacks from Gaza.
#32 praktike
Not as far as I know. Counter-battery fire isn't pinpoint now, and certainly wasn't ten years ago. The vast majority of the civilians killed by Israeli fire were killed in the 'Kana incident'. Hezbollah were firing near a UN refugee 'camp', and some of the counter-fire landed in the UN position.
praktike:
Operation Grapes of Wrath was a bad thing, IMHO. As I recall the express purpose was to kill civilians so that they'd oppose shoot n' scoot attacks on northern Israel in the future.
It was intended to wreak havoc, but not to kill civilians in the number that it actually did. Standard IDF operating practice.
Colt:
Counter-battery fire isn't pinpoint now, and certainly wasn't ten years ago. The vast majority of the civilians killed by Israeli fire were killed in the 'Kana incident'. Hezbollah were firing near a UN refugee 'camp', and some of the counter-fire landed in the UN position.
It's reasonably well established, precisely from the precision of the IDF fire, that what they hit was what they were aiming at. What remains unclear is why they did it and what result they expected; not presumably the result they got, an international scandal that cramped the IDF's style for the remainder of the operation:
Well-established amongst everyone execpt the IDF, who said they screwed up the co-ordinates.
Typical Benny Morris. Shell and bomb Hezbollah targets, and infrastructure that allows them to operate, and you are trying to provoke a humanitarian crisis.
Some of us refer to such tactics as 'war'.