http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3339785.stm Thirteen reservists from the elite Sayeret Matkal unit wrote to Prime Minister Ariel Sharon saying they would not be part of a 'rule of oppression'. Three months ago, 25 pilots refused to take part in Israeli bombing raids. In their letter, the soldiers said they would no longer participate in the defence of Jewish settlements in the West Bank and Gaza Strip. 'We will no longer corrupt the stamp of humanity in us through carrying out the missions of an occupation army ... In the past, we fought for a justified cause [but today] we have reached the boundary of oppressing another people,' the letter said.70 responses total.
There seems to be subtle changes in the tenacity with which Israel has held onto settlements in the territories. Israel is looking ahead, at the demographics, and see they'll be another 1960s South Africa if they continue the present course. Better to negotiate while they can. So, maybe, just maybe, there has been a shift toward resolution of this conflict.
We anxiously await the headline stating that "Palestinian Terrorists Publicly Refuse Orders to Bomb Innocent Israeli Civilians - and Live to Tell About It."
Whereas the rest of us anxiously await the headline:
Amateur KLG Stuns Philosophical Community -
Proves Two Wrongs DO Make a Right
<twenex snickers>
This response has been erased.
Arafatboy?
The soldiers who rebelled aren't general conscripts. They are battle hardened commandos and pilots. They must've also very well known the consequence would be a court-martial and possible jail. Their families too. So the orders they refused must've been really sickening. Hundreds of elite soldiers refusing orders is no joke for an army. Remember that just a few weeks back four retired top intelligence and military officials denounced Sharon's ways.
Yawn. They were RESERVE officers not on active duty at the time. They didn't refuse any "really sickening" orders. That was your bias speaking. Presuming the worst as an expected value. There is also another bias at play here, which is why this (and similar) stories have received so much press. The presumption that someone speaking out against his own must be right. Yet does Justice Thomas speaking out against affirmative action mean that it is wrong? Do women who are against feminism prove that it is bad? Do "cured" homosexuals mean that all gays should be "reformed"? The bulk of Israel's forces are reserves. It is a people's army. klg's point was that Israel tolerates a diversity of opinion. Thus it is no surprise that a small number of troops (out of about 1 million reserves) would voice political objections. Peace will come when Arab leaders are willing to compromise rather than view that as surrender of their dream to "throw the Jews into the sea". For more on this theme, by an Egyptian writer, see: http://www.heggy.org/culture_of_compromise.htm
And you seem to have a bias that says everything that Israel does is fair and good. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3137392.stm In their statement, released on Wednesday, the pilots said: "We, veteran and active pilots... are opposed to carrying out the illegal and immoral attack orders of the sort that Israel carries out in the territories." They added: "We are refusing to continue to attack innocent civilians." ====================== "Really sickening" were my own words but what the soldiers stated wasn't far off either. ====================== One of the rebel pilots told the Yediot Ahronot newspaper that he felt like he had "come out against his family". "I was proud to belong to the organisation called the Israel Air Force, and today I am ashamed," said the pilot, a Blackhawk helicopter captain named Alon. "This is an organisation that carries out actions that in my eyes are immoral and patently illegal." Hundreds of Israeli reserve soldiers have chosen prison over military service in the Palestinian territories during the last three years of Israeli-Palestinian violence. "We will no longer corrupt the stamp of humanity in us through carrying out the missions of an occupation army ... In the past, we fought for a justified cause [but today] we have reached the boundary of oppressing another people," the letter said. As for *tolerating* diversity of opinion. "These soldiers should be stripped of their uniform and face judgement for their disobedience and rebellion, regardless of the unit in which they serve, whether they be pilots, cooks or mechanics," Mr Boim told public radio. But I guess thats in line with Army regulations.
It's in keeping with US law: "A person who is found guilty of attempted
mutiny, mutiny, sedition, or failure to suppress or report a mutiny or
sedition shall be punished by death or such other punishment as a court-
martial may direct" (Article 94, Uniform Code of Military Justice).
I found it at
http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/ucmj2.htm#892.%20ART.%2092.%20FAILURE%2
0TO
%20OBEY%20ORDER%20OR%20REGULATION
"au" is the Air University at Maxwell Air Force Base, Montgomery, Alabama.
Article 92, "Failure to Obey Order or Regulation," is also worth looking at:
Any person subject to this chapter who--
(1) violates or fails to obey any lawful general order
or regulation;
(2) having knowledge of any other lawful order issued by
any member of the armed forces, which it is his duty to
obey, fails to obey the order; or
(3) is derelict in the performance of his duties;
shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.
(Note that death is not included as a penalty.)
However, it is arguable whether these soldiers would be subject to that provision, because they argue that the orders they are refusing are illegal and immoral, both of which are legitimoate justification for refusing an order. What's left is to adjudicate the legality and morality of the refused orders. By the way, I think that #8 is fairly reasonable and should not be discounted despite the well-known biases of its author.
Hmm. My last statement above should read: By the way, I think that #8 is fairly reasonable and should not be discounted because of the well-known biases of its author.
Court-martials are basically kangaroo courts, aren't they? From what I've heard it's practically unheard of for the defendent to win.
Kangharoo courts? The only kangaroo is you. There are laws that must be maintained, proceedures that must be followed, just as in a civil court. They are different than in a civil court, but they are there. Besides, teh defendenta regularly win on JAG! :-)
Actually, I heard a story on the radio recently that ever since the Milgram experiments, it is much easier for a soldier who refuses to obey an illegal order to make their case. Also that the US army has training tapes on how to disobey an illegal order. *shrug* I dont know if that is true.
FWIW, I think the radio story I heard was discussing this article: http://url.rexroof.com/403 (www.psychologytoday.com/htdocs/prod/ptoarticle/pto-20020301-000037.asp)
We wonder whether the soldiers' moral objections are their true reasons - or if they are the way they rationalize their psychological reactions to their long years of high stress duties. Subconsciously, the mental toll to which they have been subjected may be leading them to act for individual self-preservation - in spite of the logic that would seek to preserve the nation at the expense of some individuals.
This response has been erased.
Re resp:17: That's a really roundabout way of asking if they're cowards.
Yeah, and if the welfare of the nation was Top Priority for everybody, we'd all be Communists. And it would work.
This response has been erased.
Re 13: No, courts-martial are not "kangaroo courts." Not in the US, anyway. The judge is a trained lawyer, the prosecution can use a lawyer only if the defense also has one, and all of the usual protections available in US courts apply. There are also appellate courts, up to and including the Supreme Court. And no, not all trials result in convictions. I don't know what the conviction rate is, though.
This response has been erased.
("Non-judicial Punishment", Article 15 of the UCMJ.)
re #9: I can't think of any military organizations anywhere which
stress the value of "tolerating a diversity of opinions." You might
not be of the military mindset (God knows *I'm* not) but try to see
it from there perspective. How would a military organization function
while "tolerating a diversity of opinions"?
re #13: At the moment I'm living with my sister Cathy, who is
(a) the commanding officer of the local Coast Guard base,
(b) an attorney, and
(c) a qualified military judge.
Her current position doesn't leave her a lot of time for (c) but
her last assignment was District Legal Officer for the 8th Coast
Guard District (in New Orleans) and I heard a fair amount from her
then about what she was working on when we'd talk.
Since we currently live together, it's very common for us now to
share tales of our day at the office while we're eating dinner or
watching TV in the evenings. So while I don't know much about
military justice myself, I get a bit more information than many
people do and have a knowledgable source around to ask when I'm
confused. My impression is that (a) courts martial are far from
being "kangaroo courts", (b) to the extent that there is a high
conviction rate in courts martial that can be explained by
(1) the substantial discretion superior officers have concerning
when to convene a court, (2) the usual reluctance of those officers
to proceed to court martial without a very strong case. You might
also factor (c) into the equation, which is that much (most?)
punishment for military infractions is handled without going to
full court martial. Cathy seems to have a "Captain's Mast" at
least once or twice a week and she's got a relatively small command
up here in Ketchikan.
I don't think you can conclude much about the fairness of a justice
system based solely on conviction rate -- it's just as important to
know which cases are brought to trial. In the military, so far as
I can tell, courts martial are usually a last resort for quite
serious cases, so it's not surprising that many of them result in
conviction.
This response has been erased.
(We used "Request Mast" for the things mentioned in tod's first paragraph. The Army and Air Force probably had a different name for the smae thing.) Non-judicial Punishment can include demotion, if the officer giving the punishment has the authority to promote to the rank currently held. For example, a battalion commander can promote to sergeant, so he can demote a sergeant. (Interesting sidelight: in the Marines, only the Commandant has the authority to promote to Staff Sergeant and above. Except: the commanding generals of the recruit depots have the authority to promote drill instructors and recruiters to Gunnery Sergeant, so they also have the authority to bust them from Gunnery Sergeant.)
re: "#18 tod): Or they may just be the types that marry while in the
military . . . ."
Inasmuch as Israelis (with certain exceptions) enter the army almost
immediately upon graduation from high school and continue in the active
reserves for many years following 3 years (2 for women) of full-time
service, one would have to assume that nearly all Israelies "marry
while in the military."
re: "#20 (twenex): Yeah, and if the welfare of the nation was Top
Priority for everybody, we'd all be Communists...."
Please have the courtesy to quote us with more accuracy. We said
preservation of the nation, not welfare.
("Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for
your country."
Chairman JFK??)
Thank you.
This response has been erased.
Mr. tod, You are so darn cute. klg
Good point, Michael, re: "diversity of opinion". One which appeared lost on sj2 in #9 re #8. What I originally said was: LK> Israel tolerates a diversity of opinion. Not that the IDF does or has to. These reserve officers can, as civilians, freely express their opinion. They chose to speak as members of the military -- for political purposes, to bolster their point. If this case goes to court, then the highly respected Israeli Supreme Court will have to judge the question of whether these soldiers were refusing a legal order or if they were being given an illegal order. In my opinion, while it is commendable that these soldiers are concerned with civilian casualties amongst their enemy, it remains the case that the Fourth Geneva Conventions allow for what is known as "collateral damage" -- incidental civilian casualties while pursuing military objectives. Fourth Geneva Convention, Article 28: || The presence of a protected person [civilian] may not be used to || render certain points or areas immune from military operations. See also Article 51-5b of the Protocol Additional (I) from 1977, which allows "incidental loss of civilian life" provided they are not "excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military" target. The violation of international law is by the terrorists who hide amongst and behind the civilian population and thus endanger it (not to mention the sinister actions of the terrorists who intentionally target innocent civilians in attempts to murder as many as possible). http://www.hrw.org/press/2002/11/isrl-pa1101.htm http://www.unodc.org/unodc/terrorism_convention_terrorist_bombing.html
That applies during war, right? And it holds true for the Palestinians too, right? Israel will never let this case go to court in a public way. Never.
Mary, I'm not sure I understand your questions in the first paragraph. Conventional wisdom (or at least what I've read as written by a couple journalists) agrees that Israel doesn't want its military orders to go on trial. On the other hand, based on what international law actually states in this regard (see above quotes from the 1949 and 1977 Geneva Conventions) indicates that a limited number of civilian casualties during military operations is permissible. For the past 100+ years man has attempted to make war more humane, which of course it can never be. Any loss of human life is tragic. But a legal case will hinge on the current legality, not on an optimistic (and unrealistic) "beyond war" concept. Now consider the converse situation. In the PA territories, just to question the legitimacy of the terrorist murder of innocent civilians (or even the cynical use of children at violent mob riots) can get one branded a "collaborator". There's no question that the legality of the use of terrorism will go before the PA's kangaroo courts. To the contrary, the murderous perpetrators (funded by the PA or other Arab states, previously Iraq and still Syria and Saudi Arabia) are glorified as "martyrs", get their pictures put up all over town, and end up having streets named after them.
re: "#32 (mary): . . . And it holds true for the Palestinians too, right?" We suppose so - were they to have a "military," which, of course, under the terms of prior agreements they have signed, they do not.
The Palestinians would have a fine military if we'd send them some of the billions of dollars a year we give Israel. And if we're all going to be held to "prior agreements" then the illegal Israeli settlements wouldn't be there.
The Geneva Conventions do apply to conflicts within a country (not of an international scope) so, as HRW & AI have concluded, the PA and the terrorist groups are in violation of international law (and also the 1998 Convention for the Suppression of Terrorist Bombings.) The problem I have (and why many Jews suspect that anti-semitism is involved) is that people who wrap themselves in international law selectively choose to criticize Israel, and only Israel, for potentially minor violations -- while giving a free pass to egregious violations by Arabs (and the rest of the world). The Geneva Committee has convened twice in the past 54 years since it was formed, both times to scrutinize Israel (while attrocities in Iraq, Uganda, Yugoslavia, Central America, Cambodia, Rwanda... the list is long, have passed in shameful silence). This is perhaps the corrolary to what the Malaysian PM claimed, that Jews invented Human Rights (etc) so they could (unjustifiably) benefit from them. One could almost conclude that international laws were invented to be applied only to the Jewish state.... All of which isn't to say that two wrongs make a right. The point is that even if there is a 2nd wrong, it is of a totally different magnitude than the other wrongs which are ignored. As for the question if Israel will let the case of the refuseniks get to the courts: Upon further reflection, the soldiers are not refusing specific orders (which in theory could be illegal). They are (blanket) refusing to serve in the disputed territories -- despite the legal status of Israel's administration (just reconfirmed by the UN, which rejected the PA's claim that it, and not Israel, represent the people) and which was established by UN Security Council Resolution 242 (which in 1967 authorized Israel to hold the territories until final borders are determined through negotiations -- which for decades the Arabs refused to enter into, the Arab League even expelling Egypt in the late 1970s for participating in President Carter's Camp David Accords).
Mary slipped in while I was eating lunch. How rude! (: What "prior agreements" made the "settlements" "illegal"?
The very first google hit for illegal Israeli settlements brings up this BBC site quoting an Israeli defense minister not having any qualms about the terminology. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/2066892.stm
(For no good reason, I suspect that, were the PA to get "some of the billions" we send to Israel, Arafat would be richer, but there would be little other noticible change. Terrorism works better for the Palestinians than outright warfare would, as do the refugee camps.)
Mary, did you read that BBC article? If you had, you'd have read that the minister was against *unauthorized* settlements. Wildcat "settlements", if you will. These settlements are illegal under *Israeli law*. (Just as we can't pitch tents in the Arb and call it Grexistan.) This does not speak to ALL Jewish villages in the disputed territories being illegal under *international law*. Notice how I cited and quoted international law regarding the legal status of Israel's actions? Can you do the same to show that "settlements" are illegal? [Hint: don't ignore Article 2 of the Fourth Geneva Conventions.] Furthermore, if it is true that these "settlements" are illegal, why have the Arab states pursued this, for decades, in POLITICAL forums such as the UN rather than in LEGAL forums such as the International Court of Justice? The legal argument is such a longshot that the Arabs have not been willing to risk it in a court of law. If they lose, that would silence their claim (and all the propaganda) and end their political efforts. Any thoughts about the hypocritical invocations of international law in this theater? (See #36) Talking of hypocrisy, and assuming that you support the so-called "right of return" (for Arabs into Israel), how could it be "illegal" for Jews to return to Judea?!
I read the article, did you? I suspect that if every area in the disputed areas had to go before an international UN zoning board before it was erected, that a whole lot of Israelis and their tanks wouldn't be where they are now. By the way, are the illegal settlement this defense minister spoke about, summer of 2002, still up and housing Israelis? You can think of me as antisemitic if it makes you feel better. But mostly I feel Israel (the country) is wrong in how they are treating the Palestinians. And you are right in that I might focus more of my disgust on how the Israelis and Palestinians are going at each other than on lots of other viscous nations and their leaders. But that's not because of the religions or races involved. It's because our political leaders have chosen sides and picked one as a friend, sending lots and lots of money to feed the cause, and hoping we get something back in return. We have, historically, turned our backs on the Palestinians and given Israel a green light. I'll even suggest the origin of this pact is partly racist at heart, when looking out for our own interests we went for those most like us. Gasoline was too cheap back then to factor into the bargain. I'm disgusted we've been part of this. If I were an Arab I don't think I'd like the United States very much, for good reason. I'd be very very angry and ready to vent that in whatever way I could.
So in other words, you have no legal information to support the claim that the "settlements" are "illegal". And this is exactly why the Arabs don't need to take this to court. Their political propaganda has been so effective that it has managed to try Israel in the world of public opinion and have it found guilty -- regardless of what the law says. (There is no such thing as a UN zoning board. The UN recognizes that Israel is the proper and legal sovereign over the disputed territories.) Reminds me of Ralphs' story of Rev. Smith, a holy roller who came to Detroit years ago. After working the crowd and telling them that he could walk on water, he asked them (a couple of times) if they believed he could walk on water. The resounding answer came as "yes!". And he said, "so I don't have to walk on the water" and he passed the hat.... I'm also not sure your rendition of history is correct. Yes, the US recognized Israel when it declared independence (in accordance with UNGAR 181), but did little to help Israel (as did the UN and the rest of the world) when it was illegally attacked by the surrounding Arab states. Instead an arms embargo was placed, meaning that the Arab states had a decided advantage (with standing armies, such as the British trained and led Arab Legion in Trans-Jordan) and with Israel scrambling to raise an army with equipment from Czechoslovakia. Later, France would become Israel's major weapons supplier. In 1956, the US firmly opposed the joint British-French-Israel war against Egypt to open the Suez Canal -- which Egypt had just nationalized and in contravention of International Law closed this international waterway to Israeli shipping. During the first 20 years of the conflict (through 1967), Israel received a total of $1.2 Billion in US aid of which only $137 Million was in the form of military loans. The rest was evenly split between economic grants and loans. Through 1973, US aid to Israel was a sum total of $3.2 Billion. Of this, $1.4 Billion was in military loans (the bulk of which came after the 1967 war). The balance was roughly equally split between economic loans and grants. Note that this is an average of about $120 Million per year. Are you saying that this made the Arabs hate the US? During these 26 years, the US had also given aid to Iraq (up until the semi-democratic regime was overthrown by the Baath party in the late 1950s. No, the rumor that the US installed Saddam is utterly false.) And to Egypt (and probably some of the smaller Arab states; I don't know). Nonetheless, anti-US sentiment was high in the Arab world even then. During riots in Cairo in 1964 (65?), US food aid sent to Egypt was tossed into the Nile (while people starved). Soon thereafter Nasser turned away from the US and to the USSR. Forgive me if I don't agree with you that it was the historic US aid to Israel that induced the oil embargo. And if I disagree that the US chose to be friends with Israel instead of with the Arab world. The US attempted both but was told by the Arab states that it had to pick. This was consistent with the (illegal) Arab embargo against Israel. Companies also had to pick. They could have a market of about 3 million people in Israel, or of the 200 million people in the Arab world. They could not do business in both. So I don't agree that the US turned its back on the Arab world, the exact opposite happened: Egypt had become a Soviet client, as had Iraq, Syria, Libya and others. Why? Because the USSR gave them arms. Arms to make war against Israel. With the exception of Lebanon, no Arab state had anything resembling a democratic system. Many had frequent changes at the top as one strongman assassinated and took the place of his predecessor. Are you suggesting that the US should have supported these ruthless dictators? Through the first 20 years, there was no "Palestinian Cause" for anyone to turn their back on. Today's disputed territories sat in Arab hands, yet there was no call to create a "Palestinian" state therein. The war cry, as before, was to "throw the Jews into the sea". Egypt ruled in Gaza, Judea and Samaria were "unified" with eastern Palestine (until then known as Trans-Jordan, Palestine across the Jordan river) and became known as the "West Bank" of Jordan (ironically, the part of Palestine east of the Jordan which was west of the Jordan river). None of which prevented Arab aggression against Israel in 1967 and 1973. Nor Arab terrorism such as the murder of Olympic athletes in 1972 and numerous airplane hijackings. Only in 1974, after the oil embargo, did Israel receive its first military grant from the US. Most of this was to rebuild its defense forces which were ravaged during the 1973 war (Egypt alone had more soldiers than the entire population of Israel, and Sadat had stated that he was willing to sacrifice 1 million of them to destroy Israel). In 1975, total US aid to Israel would drop to $823 Million. Following Pres. Carter's Camp David agreement, aid to Israel would increase, but Egypt would also receive about the same. (Perhaps if other Arab countries had been interested in peace and joined, they also would have been the recipients of US aid, as Jordan would be years later). Sorry, Mary, but the facts indicate you've reversed the causality of the situation. You have made many unwarranted assumptions about what happened 25-50 years ago based on the situation today, as if there is only one way we could have gotten here -- based on other assumptions you are making. You need to read history forward, in the order it happened, rather than write it backward.
I shall accept comments made by Israeli ministers of defense, Amnesty International, The Human Right Organization, representatives of the United Nations and others, who are all calling for an end to Israeli aggression in the occupied territories, as proof Israel is wrong. To put it very gently. Just for the heck of it here is what The Human Rights Organization has to say: http://www.hrw.org/un/chr59/israelot.htm#6 Amnesty International: http://web.amnesty.org/pages/isr-index_2-eng The UN and EU: http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/1106-09.htm So we continue to disagree. You will hope for a President who will continue to send Israel money and look away at what that money is doing. I'll be shopping for a candidate willing to say, enough, Israel is wrong.
Send the Palestinians more money? We might as well just wire it to
Yasser's bank account.
Upon what basis are Israeli settlements "illegal?" (A question which
nobody seems to be able to answer.)
And (most unfortunately for Ms. mary) nowhere in her source is the
official quoted as saying "illegal." ("Nice try, but no cigar.)
In response #38: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/2066892.stm To which the response was that some of the settlements are illegal but not all of them. We should all take comfort in that news. ;-)
Light, please.
Not so fast, Ms. mary. According to the JTA.org website: "Ben-Eliezer s spokesman said the outposts are illegal in the sense that the government has not authorized them." We seriously doubt that this was the sense in which you anti-Israel folk proclaim the settlements to be illegal. It's funny (?) that when the U.S. chooses to support a liberal democracy (such as Israel) it is demonized by the lefties. And when the U.S. chooses to support a dictatorial ruler it's demonized by the lefties. Clearly, it's the case for the America haters that the friend of my enemy is my enemy.
I think the 'lefties' are mostly opposing funding other people's wars. That's a lot less hypocritical-sounding than how you prefer to spin it.
(Then they would support allowing Israel to once-and-for-all put an end to this Intafada and bounce Arafat (didn't he once win a Nobel Peace Prize?) out on his ear? That's GREAT NEWS!! Is that what How- weird (our man) favors?? It would certainly be a whole lot cheaper and, in the long run, less painful for everyone involved.)
Mary (and David), please reread my #42 and see if you can provide a more thorough response to what I said. Not just about the distinction between outposts which are illegal under Israeli law and "settlements" which are allegedly illegal under an international law that no one can find. (If others said the earth was flat would you also blindly believe them? If a former Israeli minister of defense said that the world is flat in some places would you also misconstrue this to mean that he said the earth is flat?) And that was but my first paragraph. Can you explain why the US was hated by tyrannical Arab regimes who turned their backs on America long before the US provided Israel with more than a token amount of primarily economic aid? Complete figures are provided in #42. I'm also awaiting a response to my comments in #40: | Any thoughts about the hypocritical invocations of international law | in this theater? (See #36) | Talking of hypocrisy, and assuming that you support the so-called "right | of return" (for Arabs into Israel), how could it be "illegal" for Jews | to return to Judea?! Can it really be the case that international law requires that Arabs "return" to Israel but simultaneously prohibits Jews from returning to where they lived prior to the illegal 1948 Arab invasion which ethnically cleansed ALL Jews from Judea, Samaria and Gaza?
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.
Mr. gull- Do you contend that the removal of Mr. Arafat would "only make things worse" in terms of the Israel/PLO situation or in terms of the global Arab/Israel relationship? And, how much "worse?" Thank you.
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?
(First time I've _noticed_ you admitting some of the settlements are legal, Mary.)
> 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.
Re resp:52: I think if Israel is seen as forcing Arafat out it will only generate more anger against them and ensure Arafat's replacement will be even worse. I'm not saying removing Arafat is bad in priciple, but that the political realities of it make it a bad idea. Re resp:55: > But the compromise will be based on > those parameters as they were discussed in 2000. I doubt it, simply because by that time the wall will be complete and will have defined the new Israeli border in a very non-negotiable way.
"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).
This response has been erased.
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.
This response has been erased.
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.
It's not "blood lust". I just think it's another obvious example of the discrimination that you seem bent on denying. Jewish outposts built illegally are allowed to remain and often given military protection. Arab houses built illegally are demolished.
This response has been erased.
David, read what I said about warped comparisons. Homes illegally built by Arabs don't need military protection because Jews don't attack them and murder their residents. The illegal "outposts" are a political hot-potato. The Israeli government should (and will) remove them. Yet back to the warped comparisons, is this in any way equivalent to the PA harboring and funding terrorists who are in the business of murdering innocent civilians? Note that Arafat and his thugs were in this "business" long before there were any "settlements" and before there was an "occupation", etc.
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.
As I said, its a political hot-potato. The Israeli government can't evacuate a bunch of extremists in tents and trailers only to have Arab terrorism continue unabated. But you avoided my point and question: Is this in any way equivalent to the PA harboring and funding terrorists who are in the business of murdering innocent civilians? (Note that Arafat and his thugs were in this "business" long before there were any "settlements" and before there was an "occupation", etc.) Of course not. That's a false comparison (one of many) so one can pretend that both sides are just as guilty, that we shouldn't take sides, that we should demand as much (or even more) from Israel. Under the false pretense that "if only Israel did X" (where X = "play nice" or "dismantle outposts" or "remove checkpoints" -- built as a response to terrorism) suddenly the terrorists would cease their murderous ways opposing the peace process. There can be no peace as long as there are terrorists (operating with the blessings and aid of the PA and the people) bent not just on opposing the peace process but on the dstruction of Israel. There can be no honest negotiations as long as the PA can unleash terrorism as a negotiating tool. The first step is to end the terrorism. And neither the PA nor much of the Arab & Muslim world is interested. Why not?
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.
Good grief, David. Confronted with one false equivalence (as if tolerating "outposts" in the middle of nowhere is the same as harboring and aiding terrorists who are murdering innocent civilians) you move to another: > Neither side has ever struck me as very enthusiastic [about making peace]. Really? So both sides were equally unenthusiastic in 1937, when the Jewish Agency accepted the principle of partition yet the Arab High Committee rejected it? So both sides were equally guilty in 1947, when the Jewish Agency accepted the findings of UNSCOP and Resolution 181 (establishing 2 states, one Arab and one Jewish) and the Arabs violently rejected it, opting for war? Following this war, the Arab League isued its "3 NOs" declaration: No negotiations, no recognition, no peace with Israel and went on to reject Resolution 194 (the very one invoked today as the basis of a "right of return" in a maneuver that can best be described as the opposite of a line-item veto). Again after the 1956 war, despite Israel's unilateral withdrawal from all territories in a good-faith effort to kindle negotiations, the Arab League re-issued its "3 NOs". Again after the 1967 war, Israel accepted UNSCR 242. The Arab League rejected it and re-issued its "3 NOs". Following the 1973 war, Israel again unilaterally withdrew (after repelling the surprise Arab attack, its forces were on the outskirts of Damascus and Cairo). Ultimately Egypt would come around and make peace, but not only was Carter's Camp David rejected and denounced by the rest of the Arab world (none of whom would come to the negotiating table), Egypt was expelled from the Arab League. Has anything really changed in the last 25 years? When Lebanese President Bashir Gemayel signed a peace treaty with Israel, he was promptly assassinated by the Syrian/PLO/Shia axis, the peace treaty anulled. Yes, the PLO has rejected terrorism (even several times), yet continues to harbor, fund and perpetrate it. After 7 years of Oslo the Saudis finally paid lip service to a peace plan (that stayed in the drawer; the first hint of taking it out caused an uproar at the ensuing Arab League meeting which quickly disintegrated and disbanded). At least Oslo allowed Jordan to come out from the PLO shadow and make peace (with a waiting and willing) Israel. Yet even at Clinton's Camp David, Barak was willing to compromise and make peace and Arafat was not. So why this hesitancy to compromise and make peace? Because much of the Arab world views "compromise" as "surrender" and has no interest in it. http://www.heggy.org/culture_of_compromise.htm And, as the historian Benny Morris posits: || Palestinian leaders and preachers, guided by history and religion, || have traditionally seen the Jews as an inferior race whose proper || place was as an abased minority in a Muslim polity; and the present || situation, with an Arab minority under Jewish rule, is regarded as a || perversion of nature and divine will. http://www.tnr.com/docprint.mhtml?i=20030421&s=morris042103
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."
So you are arguing that the illegal settlement perpetrated by Israel in the occupied territories is not a war crime? Finally, we're on the same page. <eye roll> How much reserve duty have you refused to perform over the past three years, Leeron? Some refuse out of conscience; others out of cowardice. Right?
You have several choices: