Two wars at once?

[Occhidiangela]

You will have noticed that Saudi Arabia and Israel have NOT reached a mutually acceptable agreement. Not every offer is acceptable, that is what the word negotiations refer to. Merely to have made an offer. regardless of its merits, does not constitute a valid basis for an agreement. It takes two to tango.

Egypt and Israel have indeed reached a mutually acceptable arrangement. I wonder if Israel and Syria ever will.

The Palestinians are not morally in the right, they are combatants. They are also the saps of other Arabs, and have been for years. A policy of non-violent engagement, and indeed, a number of progressive moves by their leader, have not been supported by follow through action that raises the confidence of Israelis. Check to newspaper for about the last 20 years. At almost any excuse, a tantrum is thrown and a bomb goes off. You will note that the more liberal Prime Ministers, who trusted in the good faith of the Palestinians, have shown that their trust was ill earned.

West Bank. Occupied in 1967 for the simple reason of national survival. Look at a map and try to understand how that works. The continued settlement is certainly a serious obstacle to appeasement of radical Palestinians. When I was last in Jerusalem, I noted how armed patrols were everywhere. Gee, I wonder why?

Until such time as the UN decrees that Israel is not a legitimate nationstate, it is the Paletsinians who are in the wrong to use violence to achieve their ends. They are trying to effect change, and are unwilling to use the sanctioned methods to do so. Time and again, when negotiations move forward, someone decides that 'it aint enough' and sets off a bomb. What a great way to build confidence in the other side that you are bargaining in good faith.

Yet you consider that being morally correct? Welcome to the real world. History moves forward.

Edit: "Foreign INvader?"

LOL. Let's see, 1948, Israel attacked. 1956 Israel attacked 1967, Israel preemptive strike versus Arab Mobilization 1973? Israel attacked.

You see a pattern here? Who is invading whom.

Meanwhile, since 1973, a series of steps have been implemented that increases Palestinians goals of self determination, but you see, THEY don't want to be team players. They don't want to be part of an effective modern nation, they want to be part of their own nationstate, one that has little to no hope for economic viability beyong handouts from wealthy Arab states. Sound like . . . Haiti.

"Waaaaaaaah, I want it now!"

Thanks for playing.

[TaMeOlta]

EDIT : Her title "You're more alike than you think"

Considering that Occhi is also a married father of (I think) two. ;)

-Griselda

:lol: Ok , sorry , I'm a little slow , I just read that now !! :lol: I can picture a couple of mischievous smirks appearing whilst typing those responses ! ;)

[Dani]

You will have noticed that Saudi Arabia and Israel have NOT reached a mutually acceptable agreement. Not every offer is acceptable, that is what the word negotiations refer to. Merely to have made an offer. regardless of its merits, does not constitute a valid basis for an agreement. It takes two to tango.

And the trap goes snapsnap.
If you had known what was offered by Saudi Arabia (backed by the entire Arab League + PA), and what was allegedly offered by Barak-Clinton, you would've known how silly your statement is.

Arafat, as much as I despise him, did get one thing right. His position as of late is exactly in accordance with UN resolutions.

And here we come to the crux of the issue. You can't make arguments on Middle East based on US media reportings. You really have to make an effort to research it yourself, and above all not limit yourself to the pro-Israeli camp. Yet, in my previous post I said this discussion is futile on the internet, because there is no way for me to convince you here. And would I say that I most likely posses far superior knowledge of the Middle East, will just make you accuse me of arrogance or act defensive, so I won't. Just be aware, that you're not debating this with a layman who has read an article or two on Le Monde or Newsweek. I don't think you're completely unfamiliar with the situation either, I do think however, that you've been grossly manipulated by the media in your country. (or even language, as the Oz media doesn't seem any better, and in the UK only BBC seems to still report without a huge agenda hanging from their back..and I'm not talking just about the ME.)

Egypt and Israel have indeed reached a mutually acceptable arrangement.  I wonder if Israel and Syria ever will

You stated Egypt was the onlyone with whom Israel had a mutualy accepted arrangement. I gave you the SA plan as a counter, to show you, that Israel is as much, if not more, to blame for the situation.
Since you now illuminate Syria, maybe I was wrong in my guess, that you simply forgot another country Israel has come to an agreement. Namely Jordan.

The Palestinians are not morally in the right, they are combatants. 

Hmm, are you digging yourself the proverbial grave here? Palestinians are a civilian people trying to live under circumstances under which most of us would rebel. Palestinians are not fighting IDF troops or blowing themselves up. A handful of extremists are.
Yet again, go to West Bank. Better live there for 6 months without your comfy US passport.

Check to newspaper for about the last 20  years. 

US newspaper? I've no doubt you're mostly correct. Try a French, German or Scand newspaper and you will read a completely different story. Or just switch your channel to BBC News from time to time. I didn't say US media and society is staunchly pro-Israeli just to air my gums or exercise my fingers.

You will note that the more liberal Prime Ministers, who trusted in the good faith of the Palestinians, have shown that their trust was ill earned.

The only Israeli PM who (judging by their actions) really might've wanted to make a deal that did not go all out to rip-off the Palestinians was shot by a Jewish extremist. Mention Barak, and I'll help you dig that pit for yourself. ;)

West Bank.  Occupied in 1967 for the simple reason of national survival. 

Survival from what? There be Dragons east of the West Bank? As you yourself pointed out in the previous page, the Arabs haven't shown themselves to be great warriors of late. Israel is militarily stronger than all potential hostiles combined.

When I was last in Jerusalem, I noted how armed patrols were everywhere.  Gee, I wonder why?

Heeheehee. Three words. West Bank, go!

Until such time as the UN decrees that Israel is not a legitimate nationstate, it is the Paletsinians who are in the wrong to use violence to achieve their ends. 

Here you come from a point of total hypocrisy spoonfed to you by the US media.
Israel is currently in violation of dozens of UN resolutions.
Iraq is in violation of a couple such.
Yet who do you want to go to war against?

You should know better than to bring in the UN card, as that position as maintained by the US in recent times is totally undefensible. At least be honest and say, that UN is relevant only when it's interests and resolutions coincide with your views.

LOL.  Let's see, 1948, Israel attacked.  1956 Israel attacked  1967, Israel preemptive strike versus Arab Mobilization  1973? Israel attacked.

First of all Israeli DOI was not sanctioned by the UN at the time. It was premature. So for one, there's your first move of aggression in the area. Second, 1967 was plain and simple Israeli attack. Mobilization or no, does not give you carte blanche to attack. Provocations are common in politics, yet such does not give you a casus belli according to international laws. If Israel wished, it could've pursued other avenues instead of going on the offensive. Avenues whch would've been legit and within international laws.

Meanwhile, since 1973, a series of steps have been implemented that increases Palestinians goals of self determination, but you see, THEY don't want to be team players. 

Yet they did in the spring of 2002, and it was Israel which refused to play along. Israel refuses to follow international law, it constantly violates UN resolutions, it treats Palestine civilians worse than animals; yet your sympathies are on their side.
And it all boils down to US media. Have you ever watched a live UN discussion on CNN? Have you then watched the edited versions the air later, and the soundbytes the repeatedly broadcast for the next 48 hours, and which they then shove don your throat as "historical truth"? Just couple days ago, I had an opportunity to yet again witness this.

Go live in the West Bank, experience the constant suffering and humiliation that the Israeli Government has imposed on ordinary Palestinian people, maybe then you will question a bit what you've been taught to believe.

I wait with anticipation that you declare me a staunch anti-semite just as your pal Elie Wiesel told you to. ;)

The best thing really is to just let it be. I won't die with you believing what you believe, and I would dare to guess your survival does not depend on my opinions either. So how about we shake hands and call each other zionist-dupe/anti-semite while coughing? ;)

[Occhidiangela]

1. Is hardly an Arab state of significance. That is why I chose the words that I did. Jordan is beyond weak, and are of basically no threat. Not only that, but King Hussein was one of the more moderate and progressive leaders to have graced the Mid East for some time. He was looking out for HIS OWN interests when he made his peace with his neighbor.

Try again.

2. Maybe you should consider that the Israeli's don't trust the Saudi's for a good reason. Maybe if an offer is made to you by an historic enemy, you tread forward with great care. How about you do your own homework, and consider how war by other means on Israel is a matter of habit. The trade embargo that was in place beginning in 1948 was, as late as the late 1970's, getting US companies into trouble for compliance, in our Congress. IIRC, Coca Cola got fined by our Congress for supporting the Arab trade embargo, which included third order sanctions along these lines: "If you do business with business that do business with Israel, you can't do business with us."

If the Arab world really wanted to embrace Israel into their commuity, and work constructive change from within, they would do what many smarter nations have done: do it via trade. Completely revamping trade policy vis a vis Israel in every Arab capital would be an enormous move forward that could create a win-win expectancy, and most likely earn the trust to create a locally crafted mutual security arrangement. The problem is, "it aint enough" has been the theme since about 1970.

The track record of the Arab world is clear. War, by military might and war, by other means, have been used, and continue to be used, both oficially and covertly.

Only Egypt has, of the substantial nations who posed the initial threat, moved forward and 'closed the deal.' Until the Saudi's and their other powerful colleagues in the Arab world can actually "close the deal" (which in Egypt's case took the US and Jimmy Carter as honest broker to achieve) then they remain in the "all talk, no action camp." To close the deal, they have to either earn the Isreali's trust, which they most obviously have not, or convince an honest broker, such as France, NATO, US, UK, India, some one, to act as mediator and or honest broker.

3. How about let's return to Syria. Without a substantive peace agreement with Syria, how is Israel in any way confident in its future security? Without a substantive peace agreement with Iraq, how can Isreal be secure? Without a substantive peace agreement that does not leave them vulnerable to repeated invasion, agreements with every important nation in the Arab world, what incentive does Isreal have to adopt a position other than their present paranoic one? But you did sort of raise an interesting point: look at what Jordan achieved, and maybe the rest of the Arab world could consider how Jordan has moved forward, as weak as they are. I suspect that you will find there is an ego problem lurking therein.

4. Once again, welcome to the real world. If you choose to take the position that Israel is in the wrong to exist, then you will continue to take the positions that you do. That is OK. I take the position that Israel has a right to exist, and so basing my PoV on that. And I contend that you have blinders on insofar as the Palestinian question, who are the foil used to keep Israel ugly in the negotiation process. That too, is a tool "by other means."

You tell me how Arab nations will actually earn the trust of Israel, and I will probably email your suggestion to the Nobel committee, and recommend they award you the prize. That key ingredient remains absent.

Consider how many years it took for the US and USSR to slowly break down the wall of distrust between them. That is still a work in progress.

[Occhidiangela]

"Hmm, are you digging yourself the proverbial grave here? Palestinians are a civilian people trying to live under circumstances under which most of us would rebel. Palestinians are not fighting IDF troops or blowing themselves up. A handful of extremists are."

Nice repetition of a fantasy. In a guerilla war, in a non-conventinal war, there are not civilians. But you of course forget what we learned in Viet Nam. If the civilians wanted peace, they would not harbor the "few militants." Please read Chariman Mao on how to conduct an insurgency, and swim within the pond amongst the other fish.

"Here you come from a point of total hypocrisy spoonfed to you by the US media.
Israel is currently in violation of dozens of UN resolutions.
Iraq is in violation of a couple such.
Yet who do you want to go to war against?
You should know better than to bring in the UN card, as that position as maintained by the US in recent times is totally undefensible. At least be honest and say, that UN is relevant only when it's interests and resolutions coincide with your views."

More the fool you, to compare apples and plums. If Israel is a threat to stability writ large, then perhaps other substantive UN action and Security council resolutions will be enforced. We shall see. The 'threat' to the sovreignty of Palestinians is remarkably small peanuts compared to the threat posed by Iraq to many nations in the region. Degree does matter. But you have your blinders on, I doubt you will listen to contrary positions.

"Heeheehee. Three words. West Bank, go!"

Three words. "Go screw yourself."

I lived behind the Iron Curtain as a boy. I don't need to go the the West Bank to know that it sucks to have every street corner policed by armed men, and I don't need to go to the West Bank, again, to know that a neighborhood where people throw rocks at the cops is no place I want to be, even if the cops are pricks.

Funny thing, though, my US passport goes with me whenever I travel for a good reason. I means something. Why would I want to live in the West Bank? Is there some great business opportunity? Is there some great cultural depth? No, I don't go there for the same reason that I don't vacation in Watts. I have better things to do with my time and money.

We have reached the point where we are talking at each other, and not to each other, which is contrarty to your original intention, which was to engender discussion on a different topic, which was: a two front war, can the US do it? On this other matter, I have heard enough of your position, and you have doubtless heard enough of mine. I have been all over the world, and I form my opinions based on a variety of inputs. The US media is kind of far down my list as credible sources.

You made a comment that it is hard to convince anyone in an internet debate.

I will add to that very true observation: where you sit determines what you see.

I leave to you that last word. It is your thread. :)

[Jester]

"Just be aware, that you're not debating this with a layman who has read an article or two on Le Monde or Newsweek."

If you are a spy, diplomat, official, or someone else who has a vested interest in not telling people who you are, feel free to disregard this, but...

What's with all the veiled allusions to some mysterious expertise you have? Why not just say what you know and why? Wouldn't that be a little easier than asking us to trust some unnamed body of knowledge?

Jester

[Dani]

I'll make this brief since I'm obviously just wearing down my fingers.

1. If you call Jordan insignificant, you don't leave many possibles to the significant ones. Besides your original claim did not even mention significance.

2. Maybe the Israelis should earn the trust of the Arabs, and not vice versa. Ever thought of that? Maybe there should be some effort from both sides. Maybe Israel abiding by UN resolutions would be a good first step.

3. Your suggestion about Arabs opening trade to Israel is hilarious considering the US policy has been since the time of Wilson to punish undesireable regimes with sanctions, boycotts, even not recognizing them. Heck, I also read the article on last week's Time about "hugging them to death". I don't really agree with that article. (re: US opening trade with NK, etc.)

4. Now wait a minute there mister. I have at no time said that Israel has no right to exist. This is typical argument that I see coming from people who have militant pro-zionist views. It is very underhanded tactic. Shame on you.

5. In modern civilized world, civilized regimes do not treat civilians as combatants. Israel is acting like Milosevic. You can't justifiably punish a 99% innocent civilian population for the actions for a handful. You likewise acnnot expect said civilians to risk their lives to stop that handful. Blame Arafat if you like, thought I think that he's so incompetent, that he actually doesn't have any real control over the extremists anymore.

6. Eh, frankly speaking Israel is a greater risk to stability than Iraq. But it's not a question about that. The question is why is Israel allowed to ignore dozens, actually hundreds (800+) of UN resolutions and declarations? If any other country would do that, even one considered totally civilized and harmless, say Sweden, there would've been very serious consequences.

7. Incidentally I've also lived in a Soviet puppet state, and not just as a kid. Yet, I can tell you, that the adversities the Palestinians face on West Bank is something even Poles were not subjected to. For example, in Warsaw it was not usual for 5km travel to work take 3-4 hours because of constant checks, searches (even strip), probes and other kind of fascism.
Damn, even in Leningrad, SSSR, the miliza didn't point you with an automated rifle just because of your ethnic group, or for any other non-reason for that matter. The only comparable places in (guess) your lifetime would've been apartheid era South Africa, and Banja Luka, Sarajevo, etc. during the Bosnian holocaust.

8. While you might like to hide behind your passport, (btw - isn't it nice how in some French movies those US tourists screaming "you can't do this to me, I'm an American citizen" always get killed in most gruesome ways? ;) ), I choose not to. I prefer to try to blend in, and experience the society as it is, and not as it is presented to outsiders. Ofcource success in most places is not that great, nor long lived. (language, drastic difference in appearance etc.)
Also, I choose to visit hotspots, lengthy period in former Jugoslavia for example. Might get killed some day because of it, but well at least I'm that much richer in experience. :P

9. We can fight our upbringing only that much. I believe that you're a worldy and intelligent American. I still think your views are polluted by the US media (and the society that the media has helped to shape) As for original topic, that seemed to get sidetracked already on the first page, IIRC you were not the least to blame for it. :P

In any case, should we meet by accident at a far away foreign land, let me buy you a drink of their local rat poison (ie. bad local drink). Cheap Ukrainian vodka (done from fermented potato peels) for example can be quite an experience, if you don't go blind from it. ;)

[Dani]

...though I don't know what good it will do to you.

In a sense, you could say I used to be a government official, thought it was mostly just in legal sense. I've also worked for my state, but then so do the guys who clean the streets. ;) As for knowledge. I have some expertise in WW2 and related matters, which include the Middle East. Have studied history for most of my life, specializing in the above. Have taught said in high school.
Yet more than any studies, or positions, or jobs, I've gained my knowledge simply from a deep love and fascination with the subject. (but I just prefer to say that I'm not totally clueless, ie. a layperson who has read a couple articles on the subject)
I speak six languages plus understand a handful more because they are so closely related, some well, some not so well. Have been a gamer as well for most of my life. I am an ektomorph, and will sic my cat at you if you ask more questions about me...buy my autobiography in 2023 (it will be called "life through nicotine stained glasses"). :P

Since the thread has gone by the wayside in a major major way, feel free to post your lifestories in nutshells as well, I'm actually curious. Besides, I look a schmuck for posting this, and I would look a schmuck for not posting as well; it's only fair same happens to you. ;)

[Dani]

Why not just say what you know and why? Wouldn't that be a little easier than asking us to trust some unnamed body of knowledge?

Jester

Separate post to answer this. I consider it untasteful. I only said what I said to have Occhi take at least some effort in his replies...smart and educated people sometimes tend to just state facts from occasionally faulty memory when in the net or other unpersonal medium. As proved by my f-16 gaffe I'm not the least guilty of this myself.
I don't really like personal questions on the net, but the post you wrote left me in an uncomfortable catch-22 situation...I hope not ignoring it was the right decision.