response 51 of 70:

Dec 29 02:32 UTC 2003

Re resp:49: I think getting rid of Arafat would be a big help, but if
Israel takes him out it'll only make things worse.  He'll have to either
die or be made irrelevent by internal politics.

Re resp:50: I don't know about Mary, but assuming I support the "right
of return" is assuming an awful lot.  I don't, and never have.  I don't
feel it's at all realistic.

response 53 of 70:

Dec 29 04:28 UTC 2003

I don't think you see answers until they are the ones you
want to hear, Leeron.

You ask for proof of illegal settlements, I gave it to you, now you say
those aren't really illegal enough.  Or the right illegal ones.  Or the
illegal ones that don't really exist.  I don't suppose it makes a whole
lot of difference to the Palestinians dodging the tanks. 

You want to believe those who disagree with you are anti-semetic, that
that's the only reason that makes any sense.  History has taught you
to look there, first.  I hope in time you can approach these discussions
without pulling the race card.  But I understand why that's hard.

You ask why the Arabs hate the US, like even back in the 40's?  You mean
besides our pure white political alliances?  Racism at home?  Distaste for
all religions non-Christian? Incredible culture clashes? And on and on...
Haven't a clue. ;-) 

And I'm pretty sure the window for anyone to return and co-occupy
is past.  World opinion is shifting.  The populations are shifting.
It's just a matter of time before the Palestinians get some 
respected leadership.  That's when the negotiations will get
interesting.

And one little nit-pick.  If someone from Topeka said their
farm was flat, I'd believe 'em.  If the Israeli minister of
defense admitted some of the settlements are illegal, I'll
believe 'em.  You seem to think I shouldn't.  

I'm afraid we won't be able to find common ground here,
again.  Maybe next round?

response 55 of 70:

Dec 29 08:40 UTC 2003

> You ask for proof of illegal settlements, I gave it to you

No. I asked for the International Law based upon which these "settlements"
are illegal. Just as I cited from the Geneva Conventions to show that
Israel's "orders" were within the law (not to mention that the "refuseniks"
aren't refusing any specific order but to serve in a particular region, in
territories that according to the UN are under legal Israeli administration.)

This law must be so obscure that for decades the Arab states have pursued
this matter at the UN, a POLITICAL forum, rather than in the International
Court of Justice, for a LEGAL ruling based on LAW.
 
> If the Israeli minister of defense admitted some of the settlements are
> illegal, I'll believe 'em.  You seem to think I shouldn't.  
 
Well, as Joe pointed out, only SOME. So we have two types of Jewish villages.
"Outposts" which are illegal under Israeli law and "settlements" which are
allegedly illegal under some unknown international law.

Your argument is akin to saying that if the minister of health said that
abortion in the 3rd trimester are illegal then that's proof that all
abortions are illegal....

 
> You want to believe those who disagree with you are anti-semetic

From comments elsewhere, I think that's abundantly clear. But actually,
I didn't say so. I said that given the hypocritical way in which some
people selective apply international law to what at worst is a gray area,
while always ignoring scores of other egregious violations, makes other
people think that this is due to anti-semitism. Didn't you validate that?


> You ask why the Arabs hate the US, like even back in the 40's?

No, like even back in 1966 and 1972, before the US gave any significant
aid to Israel.

> You mean besides our pure white political alliances?  Racism at home?
> Distaste for all religions non-Christian? Incredible culture clashes?
> And on and on...  Haven't a clue. ;-) 

But you previously alleged it was because the US supported Israel!
That the US had turned its back on the Arabs. Now you're saying that
it was the reverse? That the Arabs turned their back on the US? OK.

While what you say is true to some degree, it didn't prevent the Iraqis
or the Egyptians from liking the US -- until such time that the Baath
party overthrew the Iraqi government and until the Egyptians chose to
side with the USSR (who had many of the same faults you cite).  In fact,
I think one could successfully argue that the US didn't turn to Israel
until after it had been dumped by the Arabs in favor of the USSR.
 

> I'm pretty sure the window for anyone to return and co-occupy is past.

Does this mean you oppose the so-called "right of return" or that you
agree that it doesn't exist?  (Rather than what some people evidently
believe, that it exists for Arabs but not for Jews.)  If so then this is
progress for it supports a two-state solution.


> It's just a matter of time before the Palestinians get some respected
> leadership.

May that day come soon.

> That's when the negotiations will get interesting.

Not really. The Palestinian Arab negotiators at Camp David / Taba wanted
Arafat to accept the compromise. Sure, it wasn't perfect, but it was a
pretty good deal. Probably more than they had hoped for.  Ostensibly
Arafat refused it because he wanted an extra 77 square miles of territory.
The more reasonable explanation is that he wouldn't have been happy even
with that because his primary objection was ending the conflict without
"liberating" Haifa and Tel Aviv. (Recall that after walking out of Camp
David without as much as a counter-offer, Arafat sought to gain support
for a unilateral declaration of independence: establishing a state on less
than half the territory of the Clinton compromise -- but without the terrible
price of having to make peace with Israel and foregoing its destruction.)

So when the time of enlightened Palestinian Arab leadership arrives, it
will enable such negotiations from merely being items of discussion.
They might actually be implemented. But the compromise will be based on
those parameters as they were discussed in 2000.

response 57 of 70:

Dec 29 19:08 UTC 2003

"Worse" than Arafat?   Difficult to believe, particularly if Israel did 
the housecleaning that the Peace Prize guy refuses to do.

Better to take the bad medicine all at once than to suffer drop by drop.


lk:  Could it be said the "illegal" settlements are, really, only out 
of compliance with Israeli zoning-type regulations.  And are these 
people who are strict law-and-order types as far as who-may-live-where 
also in favor of law that restricted who may live in places such as 
Grosse Pointe (which didn't allow dirty Jews to live there, either).

response 59 of 70:

Dec 30 02:44 UTC 2003

Re resp:57: Well, if they *are* out of zoning compliance, maybe they 
should bulldoze the houses like they do to Palastinian houses that are 
out of compliance.

response 61 of 70:

Dec 30 17:25 UTC 2003

Arafat needs to be removed by the Palestinian Arabs. Yet they dare not
do so.  Maybe the UN should help and take him to the Hague?  While I'm
in dream-land, Michigan should beat USC 120-0....   What they need is
a PM who will, backed by the PNC, wrest control of the dozen security
organizations away from Arafat and put them to use.

klg, the "outposts" are in violation of Israeli law. I'm no lawyer and
suppose it's something akin to zoning laws, but they are illegal. Just
as you can't go pitching tents and trailers in the middle of nowhere in
Nevada.  (Not for a night, certainly not in the hope of establishing a
new town.)

There is a warped sense of equivalency here. Israelis (allegedly) break
the law by building "settlements".  Arab terrorists break the law by
murdering scores of innocent civilians.


David, Palestinian houses that have illegal additions, etc., are not
demolished. We've already had this discussion once (when Aaron posted
a long article about how an Israeli hotel which was then used for
condos instead was not bulldozed, nor were Israeli homes that were
in violation of building codes, such as remodeling a kitchen without
a permit). Most often Arab houses are bulldozed because they are
built on a neighbor's land, on public lands (try building a house
in the Arb....), etc.

(And to prevent you from alleging that Arabs can't get permits, let
me remind you that there is a very small difference (~5%) in the
number of permits approved and that in areas such as Jerusalem, Arab
building has outpaced Jewish building.)

In any event, the "outposts" are usually just tents and trailers and
can be removed quite easily, despite gull's blood lust to see Jewish
homes bulldozed.

Similarly, if there does come a time when the security fence is not
needed, it can come down. But note that its route isn't that far
different than what was proposed by President Clinton.

response 65 of 70:

Jan 4 01:31 UTC 2004

The Israeli government makes noises about removing them when the U.S. 
ratchets up the pressure enough.  It's always just noise, though.  They 
rarely actually remove one, and when they do another just crops up 
elsewhere.

response 67 of 70:

Jan 5 20:16 UTC 2004

I don't know, to be honest.  Neither side has ever struck me as very
enthusiastic.  Progress never happens except under pressure from outside
parties.

response 69 of 70:

Jan 10 05:24 UTC 2004

Ran across an interesting tidbit showing that the International Committe
of the Red Cross does not consider Israeli settlements to be a "war crime", a
violation of the Geneva Conventions.  From the Jerusalem Post (20 June 2001):

        The Jerusalem representative of the International Committee of the Red
        Cross (ICRC), Rene Kosimik, on May 17, 2001, said, "The installation
        of a population of the occupying power in occupied territory is
        considered an illegal move, it is a grave breach. In principal it is
        a war crime." Rep.  Eliot Engel protested to the President of the
        ICRC, Jakob Kellenberger, who replied, "The expression 'war crime'
        has not been used by the ICRC in relation to Israeli settlements in
        the occupied territories in the past and will not be used anymore in
        the present context." He added, "The reference made to it on May 17
        was inappropriate and will not be repeated."