Hello Archytas: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peace_process_in_the_Israeli-Palestinian_conflict I think that you have as full as and maybe an even fuller understanding regarding the overall situation that I do. The wikipedia entry gives a fair general recounting. My point is that, as a matter of treaty or law, the Palestinians should retain many more land and civil rights than they do currently. But, of course, the thing about treaty or legal claims is that they have to be honored and enforced (BY ACTUAL POWER IF NEED BE) which, at the U.N and elsewhere, the U.S. support for Israeli military and economic superiority over its Palestinian and other neighbors, precludes. It is an impasse that needs to be resolved in some way and the resolution can, in practical terms, go in any number of directions. The question is which way should the resolution proceed? I think you know where I stand on this... I would prefer a more or less legal or treaty precedent resoution grounded in the original founding documents and other international law.... like U.N. agreements....Israel, in most cases backed by the U.S., has always preferred a re-negotiated deal more in favor to its own interests, at every step along the way. Law or Force of Arms? And, of course, what happens when the Force of Arms doesn't align with the Law? nominal9
On Jan 5, 10:12 pm, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > The Economist has just published a book review going over this old > ground Nom. We never seem to be able to get into the real situation > before all kinds of worms come out of holes with pre-set > argumentation. > > On 5 Jan, 11:22, nominal9 <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > I tried to get the following Letter to the Editor published by the NY > > Times in 2001, unsuccessfully. But some Times writers picked up on my > > Honest Broker opinions themselves some time later... small time > > plagiarism, something I've learned one has to deal with. Anyway, 8 > > years or so later and the point still holds, I think. Look at what';s > > going in Gaza, still the same dynamic, and Obama.... I call him an O- > > re-O.... it appears he won't do the right thing either....Some > > otherwise enlightened folks don't want to credit or admit the > > influence of the Zionist Racists and the Israel Lobby on U.S. > > politics.... I think they lack... courage... and intellectual > > integrity... > > nominal9 > > Letter to the > > Editor > > December 4, 2001 > > New York Times > > > Editor: > > The war is over and the U.S. just lost. The moment that G. W. Bush > > extended the > > umbrella of the "war on terrorism" to cover Ariel Sharon and Israel's > > policies against the > > Palestinians, any pretense on the part of the U.S. of being an honest > > broker and an > > innocent victim of terrorism was dashed. > > It's the same damned U.S. mistake time and time again. The most > > direct parallel > > happened in the early 1980's under Ronald Reagan. At that time, Ariel > > Sharon and Israel > > had invaded Lebanon. The U.S. went to Beirut with an international > > peacekeeping force > > to, ostensibly, keep the combatant Israelis separated from the > > Lebanese and Palestinians. > > It went well until the U.S. forces decided to direct bombs and naval > > gunfire against > > Lebanese positions. Those actions gave some Lebanese the impression > > that the U.S. was > > not acting as a fair peacekeeper but was rather acting as a combatant > > ally of Israel, little > > wonder. A Lebanese suicide bomber drove a truck full of explosives > > into a Beirut > > building that was being used as a Marine barracks and killed over 200 > > U.S. personnel. > > Not long afterwards, the U.S. force was withdrawn from Lebanon by > > President Reagan. A > > similar situation occurred in the early 1990's under President Clinton > > in Somalia. Here > > again, the U.S. entered Somalia ostensibly on a peacekeeping mission, > > to insure the > > distribution of food supplies in a war torn and starving nation. All > > well and good, until > > U.S. forces took sides against one of the local Muslim warlords and > > tried to either kill or > > capture him by force of arms. The Muslim warlord did not appreciate > > being targeted for > > bullets instead of food aid, one U.S. helicopter was shot down and > > U.S. forces engaged in > > a bloody firefight from which they were forced to retreat leaving > > behind dead and > > suffering other casualties. Once again, shortly afterwards these later > > U.S. forces were > > withdrawn from Somalia by President Clinton. Clearly, in both cases, > > the failure was with > > U.S. presidential leadership, not with the soldiers. > > Call it "mission creep" or maybe it was just a dearth of "truth in > > advertising". The > > pattern is fairly obvious. First, the U.S. represents itself either > > as 1) a fair and > > disinterested third party or 2) as an unjustly aggrieved innocent > > bystander to some > > situation. Second, the U.S. introduces its military or economic > > presence into the fracas > > under the pretense of being an honest broker between two parties. > > Third, then the U.S. > > chooses one side and, in the process, betrays the other. Fourth, > > that's when the U.S. > > "honest broker" deception is made manifest and there is Hell to pay. > > In the present instance, as of a few days ago, President Bush and > > the U.S. just > > effected the third stage betrayal in the war on terrorism. It's just a > > question of time until > > the fourth stage comes around. What exactly did President Bush do? > > First, President > > Bush and the U.S. government represented itself to the world > > community, to NATO, to > > the U.N., to Muslim countries and to the U.S. electorate as being an > > innocent, unjustly > > targeted victim of terrorism. The terrorists, consisting of Bin Laden > > and his group, > > directly attacked the U.S. savagely and without cause. Second, > > President Bush convinced > > his global audience of this case. President Bush was able to extract a > > certain consensus of > > opinion and build a coalition of nations to fight this specific > > terrorist threat (i.e., Bin > > Laden and his group). Third, but now the unjustly targeted victims of > > terrorism are no > > longer the U.S. hijacked airline passengers plus the Twin Towers and > > the Pentagon > > victims, alone. Lo and behold, the U.S. has expanded the mission to > > fighting Israel's > > purported terrorist battle, too. So, the fight was never solely about > > Bin Laden's attacks > > against the U.S. of September 11, 2001. And, the U.S. was not as > > disinterested as it may > > have appeared regarding the conflict between Israel and the > > Palestinians. Fourth, one can > > assume that at least some Muslim members of the "coalition" against > > terrorism will not > > take kindly to having the label of terrorist extended to Hamas or to > > other Muslim > > organizations....Lebanon has already balked. Fourth, it may also prove > > unlikely that the > > U.N. security council or the U.N. in its entirety will allow its > > mandates against terrorism > > to be applied to Palestinians and to the situation surrounding Israel. > > Fourth, Israel is not a > > member of NATO, so any treaty obligations which apply to the U.S. do > > not extend to > > Israel. Fourth, and what do the U.S. families of the victims of the > > September 11, 2001 > > attacks think? > > > P.S. I require that this opinion letter only be published in its > > entirety, word for word, or > > not at all. There's nothing nefarious about this request, I just > > despise censorship.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/Minds-Eye?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
