April 14, 2004, Manifest Destiny (or Creating Tomorrow's Terrorists Today II)
No point in limiting one's imperial ambitions. All hail President Bush, who, at a back-slap-happy meeting in Washington today with Israeli PM Ariel Sharon announced that he strongly endorsed Sharon's plan on unilateral Israeli withdrawl from Gaza. Well, that's fine. That was one of the campaign promises of Labor Party leader Amram Mitzna-- who, as you will recall-- was trounced by Mr. Sharon in last year's general elections (even after getting extensive support from me, who alas, doesn't vote in Israel).
Of course, Mitzna ALSO proposed unilateral withdrawals from parts of the West Bank, AND continued negotiations with Palestinians-- regardless of any other factors. President Bush, for his part, acknowledged "facts on the ground" by noting that Israel will not, under any circumstances, withdraw to the 1949 armistice lines (a/k/a the pre-1967 borders). But... as if acknowledging that "facts on the ground" (which means "settlements") wasn't (insanely) provocative enough (do you get the feeling Bush is telling even more terrorists who might want to target Americans and American interests to "bring it on"?), Bush out-did himself. The American President pointed out that the ultimate political resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict would be the establishment of a Palestinian state, the price of which would be the surrendering of the vaunted "right of return" on the part of the Palestinians.
Many Palestinians have noted that the American promise of liberation in Iraq has simply effectively replaced Saddam with chaos, danger and humiliation. Well, as they say... why stop there? Why should the Israelis have all the fun inflicting humiliation and hopelessness on the Palestinians... its fairly obvious that the United States should get in on it!
DOES THIS GUY HAVE A FUCKING CLUE? Playing up Palestinian resentments and grievances are being used to avoid meaningful internal reform by the very governments whose repressive regimes have led directly to the emergence of Al Qaeda operatives and leaders (you know-- our FRIENDS Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Yemen... those sort of places). Well, hell-- why should those resentments be confined TO ISRAEL? Let's get AMERICA in on the action. You gotta problem with that? BRING IT ON! So much for the honest broker thing. Let's just pick a side we like better (in Bush's case, he will tell you how moved he was by a helicopter ride Ariel Sharon once gave him) and say-- that's the side. They get what they want.
Crony capitalism, Middle East policy... what's the diference? In the end, Halliburton will make money either way-- its a "win, win" situation.
Comments
I don't understand.
You seem to be saying that you think the president made a mistake by stating, "It seems clear that an agreed, just, fair and realistic framework for a solution to the Palestinian refugee issue, as part of any final status agreement, will need to be found through the establishment of a Palestinian state and the settling of Palestinian refugees there, rather than Israel."
Which part of that do you take issue with? The notion, or the speaking of it in plain terms?
Personally, I think the president was speaking the truth: if we want to hold on to the idea of a Jewish state, the Arab refugees must not be allowed to re-settle inside Israel. I mean, a Jewish state is Jewish only to the extent that its people are mostly Jewish. Bringing millions of Arabs into Israel would destroy that idea.
(Why should there be a Jewish state? Because the Jews are unique in their history of persecution and attempted genocide. That's my opinion on it, but I'm not married to that opinion. If you want to try to change it, please go ahead. I'm eager to hear good arguments to the contrary.)
Now, on to the question of language. The president's statement was plain and clear, and as such it was bound to piss off people who disagree with him. But forty years of careful, diplomatic language has gotten us absolutely nowhere. I think the time for tiptoeing around has passed. It's time to start hammering out the details. This settlement will be dismantled; that one will stay. And so on.
Of course, that still doesn't address the problem of the power vacuum in the future Palestinian state. Arafat has to go. He's a tyrant and a criminal. What will replace him? We can't allow a brand new nation to fall into chaos. But, I guess, we have to do one thing at a time.
Posted by Jeff Harrell at April 14, 2004 11:55 PM
I don't understand.
You seem to be saying that you think the president made a mistake by stating, "It seems clear that an agreed, just, fair and realistic framework for a solution to the Palestinian refugee issue, as part of any final status agreement, will need to be found through the establishment of a Palestinian state and the settling of Palestinian refugees there, rather than Israel."
Which part of that do you take issue with? The notion, or the speaking of it in plain terms?
Personally, I think the president was speaking the truth: if we want to hold on to the idea of a Jewish state, the Arab refugees must not be allowed to re-settle inside Israel. I mean, a Jewish state is Jewish only to the extent that its people are mostly Jewish. Bringing millions of Arabs into Israel would destroy that idea.
(Why should there be a Jewish state? Because the Jews are unique in their history of persecution and attempted genocide. That's my opinion on it, but I'm not married to that opinion. If you want to try to change it, please go ahead. I'm eager to hear good arguments to the contrary.)
Now, on to the question of language. The president's statement was plain and clear, and as such it was bound to piss off people who disagree with him. But forty years of careful, diplomatic language has gotten us absolutely nowhere. I think the time for tiptoeing around has passed. It's time to start hammering out the details. This settlement will be dismantled; that one will stay. And so on.
Of course, that still doesn't address the problem of the power vacuum in the future Palestinian state. Arafat has to go. He's a tyrant and a criminal. What will replace him? We can't allow a brand new nation to fall into chaos. But, I guess, we have to do one thing at a time.
Posted by Jeff Harrell at April 14, 2004 11:56 PM
Crap. Apologies for the double-post.
Posted by Jeff Harrell at April 14, 2004 11:56 PM
See above re: honest broker.
The fact is, I would have no problem for having him said-- "the Palestinians will have to give up SOME THINGS that they have long considered critical-- AS WILL THE ISRAELIS"... We all would have known what he MEANT. Instead-- he simply SAID IT, thereby committing the United States (as long as he's around, anyway) to not merely "a position", but, rhetorically, to THE ISRAELI POSITION, i.e., not ONLY will there be no right of return (btw-- it was ALWAYS understood under UN resolutions and elsewhere that there would be COMPENSATION for the right of return-- query if Bush proposes not even THAT)
BUT ALSO THAT ISRAEL WILL GET TO KEEP THE WEST BANK (or at least, the good parts, via settlements). It ain't hard to read both of those into his statement. (Oh-- and what's Israel "giving up" for this? Gaza-- which it has never really wanted anyway. Wonderful.)
The Palestinians are classic Arab bargainers. 5 shekels? What am I giving this away? YOu want my wife and 6 children to STARVE? I should kill you now for such an insulting, outrageously low offer. Ptewwy. Get out of my site. Six shekels? Done.
But this PResident LOVES the idea of humiliating Arabs (excepting SAUDI Arabs, of course)-- just like Steven den Beste, I suppose-- hey, they suck-- so let's give 'em a smackdown, right?
Wrong. Taking away their bargaining power IS HUMILIATING. There will be a price paid for that-- bad enough the Israelis don't seem to give a shit (at least as shown by their voting patterns), and seem politically willing to absorb being under perpetual attack-- waves of suicide bomber attempts come almost every day (we just hear about the tiny percentage that aren't thwarted).
Query whether the Americans will mind that particular Arab response, seeing as we seem to have just adopted the same position.
AS to Arafat-- let's just say that Mr. Rabin and Mr. Peres went OUT OF THEIR WAY to bring him back from Tunis-- Israel is now stuck with him. Is he a criminal-- as dishonest as the day is long-- singlehandedly THE obstacle to peace-- the world better off with him having a massive heart attack and dying? Yes, yes, yes and yes. But he's there now. Bluster or not-- Sharon can't touch him without opening up a Pandora's box that will never be closed. He's part of the playing field. To be honest-- HE TOO can-- and will have to be-- bargained away (see Club Med for Dictators)-- but the key word is BARGAINED.
An American imposed "peace" that the Palestinians are unhappy with BECAUSE THEY DIDN'T BARGAIN FOR IT will be no different from the invasion-imposed democracy we're not going to have in Iraq. Mr. Bush-- see above-- refuses to acknowledge that anyone except himself is allowed to have national pride. This is not a mistake-- its a disaster.
Posted by the talking dog at April 15, 2004 04:57 AM
I agree with the dog, here. In addition, look at a map. See where those settlements are? They essentially split the West Bank into non-contiguous parts, which for all intents and purposes means a state can't be cobbled out of them. (See East and West Pakistan, post-1948).
Also, I read today (again) that something like 90% of Arabs think the Palestinian issue is part of their lifeblood (not enough to give them a homeland, but never mind; that's for another time). That being the case, we have just renounced all semblance of being a rational go-between and have further allied ourselves with a man the Arabs despise for good reason.
George Bush is a tool of the Likud-loving neocons. Remember the memo Perle wrote for Netanyehu?
September 11 redux, anyone? I really fear that's a more likely option than it was yesterday before Bush did this.
Posted by Linkmeister at April 15, 2004 10:31 PM
I am in a moral quandry.
My friend searches for http://cheating.any1in.us/cheating-spouse.html cheating spouse on google to screen potential roommates.
He found any1in.us , but did not visit.
I, on the other hand, searched for http://cheating.any1in.us/cheating-husband.html cheating husband and found any1in.us.
I went there and found that http://www.any1in.us/Spytech-Realtime-Spy.html Spytech Realtime Spy were easier to find than on google.
Should I tell him that his potential roommate is a http://cheating.any1in.us/detective.html detective ?
Posted by V. Dombrosky at July 8, 2004 12:29 AM
Thank you for this site. Hope to get information.
Posted by mssql exploit at July 28, 2004 10:02 PM
Keep up this great resource. I bookmark your site, best greetings ...
Posted by reality porn reviews at July 30, 2004 03:29 AM
I love your website.
Posted by fat boys at August 3, 2004 07:39 AM
Great site. Enjoyed it.
Posted by clerk stories at August 7, 2004 08:02 AM
outrageous
Posted by free porn video at August 8, 2004 02:56 AM
Excellent site. Keep up the good work.
http://www.888-online-casino.biz
http://www.888-on-net.biz
Posted by online casino at August 13, 2004 02:53 AM
Keep up the good work.
http://www.buy-v-online.biz
http://www.online-texas-holdem.biz
Posted by viagra at August 24, 2004 03:22 PM
8276 Herie http://blaja.web-cialis.com is online for all your black jack needs. We also have your blackjack needs met as well ;-)
Posted by blackjack at August 25, 2004 03:54 AM
1834 check out http://texhold.levitra-i.com for texas hold em online action boodrow
Posted by texas hold em at August 26, 2004 10:56 PM
8611 Look at http://oncas.tramadol-web.com/
its the hizzy for online casino action any where!
Posted by casino online at August 27, 2004 06:10 PM