 |
 |
 |
Making a Silk Purse out of a Sow’s Ear
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.israpundit.com/mt-tb.cgi/7833
Comments
1
.
ligneus
said:
I wrote recently along the lines that: If a number of countries launch a war on another country with aim the of its destruction, and then lose the war, there is a goddamn price to be paid.
I think the Arab countries forfeited any right to the 'occupied territories' by their unprovoked aggression. If, for instance, Israel ever gives back the Golan Heights to Syria, I think I'll just lose interest in them. That land cost many lives, lives that were lost because of Syria's aggression.
I guess Syria could try to take it back by force, well good luck guys, you'll learn one day. Hmm, I think they're beginning to 'get it', though they have some way to go yet.
Posted by: ligneus on March 1, 2005 07:56 PM
2
.
BobW
said:
Rather than fabricate a silk purse, Israel is being replaced by the new Palestine. FM Sylvan Shalom's statement re London "if there is peace there will be economic growth" is false.
The London conference is just another example of a trap - minor - but still a trap. In 1992, Middle East peace talks were shifted to Rome in lieu of Washington, D.C. This compromise venue selection assisted Israel because Rome was closer to the Middle East. A Rome site gave an implicit recognition of Israel's legitimacy. It was the Arab's who lost on their wish for Washington, D.C. Yesterday's London conference allowed for both pro forma and substantive matters to jell - for the account of the Arabs.
A "truly viable" state requires the dissolution of Israel. Israeli society - social, economic and political, is much weaker than recognized. Israeli assistance to the new Arab state translates to Israeli losses. ICAO Montreal refused to send me some material on Dahaniyeh airfield, Gaza transitioning to an airport. Old Atarot airport, Jerusalem (under Arab control) can be rehabilitated-even if only for ambulance helicopters-and an air corridor is established between the two. This effectively splits Israel as we know Israel today. A split Israel cannot be defended under current concepts of land-air warfare.
My complete agreement goes to "Most of the outcome has been predetrmined without negotiation.".
Why is this? Where does Israel's weaknesses trace to? After all, the London conference did not make demands on Saudi Arabia and China to fund massive economic development for the new Palestine. The "problem" traces to Israel's government. The world changed after 1973 and GOI failed to change with the world. Prior to Oslo and prior to Madrid, the seeds of destruction were planted in Israel with the cooperation of some Jewish Israelis.
Only a comprehensive examination of Israel's government apparatus along with proposed solutions will save Israel. This cannot occur within Israel because of the Yevsektzia control.
Sarcasticly speaking, if FM Shalom went to the First Baptist Church of Dallas during the London conference, Israel would have a say in Jewish destiny. Instead, he commented on a subject only the oil barons and Asians are conversant with.
Kol tuv,
BobW
Posted by: BobW on March 2, 2005 04:56 AM
3
.
Alan
said:
Wolves in sheeps clothing BILLED as friends of Israel. Gain the trust of the populace by having them think you are one thing..... and then in the end, whack it to them.
History will show that perhaps these so-called friends were indeed the worst enemy of Israel.
Posted by: Alan on March 2, 2005 11:08 AM
4
.
Per
said:
Ted wrote: "As a result, UNSC Res. 242 emphasized “the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war” even though this was not then and is not now, a recognized principal of international law. True that the words “all” or “the” were not included when it required “that Israeli armed forces withdraw from territories occupied as a result of the recent conflict”, resulting in what diplomats call “constructive ambiguity”. The resolution also required the establishment of “just and lasting peace in the Middle East” and “a just settlement of the refugee problem”.
I think a key issue when it comes to understanding when, where and how Israel lost her historic opportunities, is to further analyze what Res. 242 actually required at the time it was drafted and adopted, and not to include all the evasive interpretations that have made it edible to the Arabs in the "peace process". “The inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war” was not a problem for Israel, not having in mind to keep the Sinai. The West Bank and Gaza had been acquired by war by Jordan and Egypt and was "liberated" by Israel.
The 67-war was a continuation of the inconclusive 48-war, and changed nothing but the location of the armistice lines. The actual "occupied territory" was then the Sinai peninsula, although neither this territory was in fact formally under recognized Egyptian
sovereignty at the time.
Among the historic blunders made by the Israeli Government in the wake of the 67-war, was to ignore the carefully phrased wording of Res. 242, and to permit being engaged in negoriations with Egypt over the Sinai, most of which was returned to Egypt, without including "a just settlement of the refugee problem" in the deal, and without requiring a similar agreement with the other Arab states simultaneously.
Remember that the 242-requirement of "a just settlement of the refugee problem" comprised a just solution of the WHOLE refugee problem from 1948, not just the Arab part of it. Israel could well have lived with a solution resulting in the resettlement and integration of 800,000 Arab Jews in Israel against the resettlement and integration of 600.000 Palestinian Arabs in the relevant Arab countries. Israel failed to go for that bargain at a time when its government really had barganing power, and gave away nearly all of the "occupied territiry" (Sinai) against the Gaza-strip, a piece of paper, and a million irredentist Gazans. What a deal for the Egyptians!!!
All this will be difficult to reverse now, unless Israel adopts a bold national and international policy and rids herself of the prevailing dhimmi attitude in its relations with the Arabs as well as the State Department.
Posted by: Per on March 26, 2005 02:09 PM
Making a Silk Purse out of a Sow’s Ear
By Ted Belman
Unfortunately, no surprise there. It has been the US policy since the Six Day War to prevent Israel from acquiring territory by force. No doubt this position was cooked up in the ”Oil Cabinet”.
As a result, UNSC Res. 242 emphasized “the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war” even though this was not then and is not now, a recognized principal of international law. True that the words “all” or “the” were not included when it required “that Israeli armed forces withdraw from territories occupied as a result of the recent conflict”, resulting in what diplomats call “constructive ambiguity”. The resolution also required the establishment of “just and lasting peace in the Middle East” and “a just settlement of the refugee problem”.
What constitutes a “just peace” or “just settlement” is anyone’s guess. More important it is a cover for any principles that each side demands in the name of justice. For instance is a cold peace a “just peace”. Or does the “just settlement” require repatriation or compensation? And if compensation will suffice, who is to pay it? Justice would demand that the Arab countries pay the compensation because it was their war of aggression that created both the Arab and the Jewish refugees.
This resolution wasn’t accepted by the Arabs until the Oslo Accords were established. It then became the intended basis for settlement within the Oslo Accords...
Nowhere did it require that a Palestinian state be created or, if created, that it be viable or contiguous unless the latter were required for a “just peace”. Obviously both sides have different opinions as to what would be just. Israel could rightly argue that having been subject to a war of aggression that justice requires compensation in some form in addition to the establishment of secure borders. It is much harder for the Arabs to argue that a just peace requires the creation of Palestine. After all such a state wasn’t even mooted in 1967. Any lands that Israel armed forces were to withdraw from would have automatically become part of Jordan or Egypt. No notion of viability or contiguity there.
Furthermore, there was no requirement in Res 242 or in the Oslo Accords that settlement activity cease or be frozen. The US position has consistently considered the settlements as illegal, at worse or an obstacle to peace, at best. In fact there is nothing illegal about the settlements. After all the British Mandate was to enable “close settlement of the land by Jews.” Nevertheless the Mitchell Report recommended a settlement freeze with no legal foundation and the State Department endorsed it.
Not until the release of the Roadmap did Israel accept this freeze at least in name. The fourteen redlines to the Roadmap which Israel articulated did not take issue with the freeze. I have long argued that the establishment of settlements served the purpose of making time be on Israel’s side. That is, the more the Palestinians avoided making a settlement the larger the settlements would become. This was the only pressure Israel could really apply. Yet the US demanded that Israel do nothing to prejudge the outcome denying Israel this tool to bring about a settlement. It has also denied Israel the right of self defence from time to time. It effectively worked to hamstring Israel from bettering its position. I argue that so long as the Palestinians resort to terror to better their position, Israel should be permitted to build settlements to better its position. At a minimum, the two should be linked.
The Roadmap for the first time imposed the condition that a viable Palestinian State be created. The redlines also took no issue with the word “viable”. Israel is being forced to make a silk purse out of a sow’s ear. Israel is thus prevented from arguing that Palestine should not be created because it would not be viable and thus would not be a good or workable solution. Israel is being forced to make it viable at its own expense and peril. This includes sharing water supplies, hiring Palestinian workers, ceding sufficient land so that the state is contiguous and enabling some kind of passageway to Gaza. In addition it includes ceding the Golan, the Jordan Rift and the Philidelphi Corridor. Israel is also being forced to agree that Palestine be fully sovereign, thus allowing it to have control of its borders and air space.
Res 242 also contemplated the establishment of “demilitarized zones”, yet it will be a fight for Israel to keep Palestine demilitarized even if it was agreed to. Russia has now offered to supply the PA with weapons in violation of the clauses in the Oslo Accords proscribing such.
Whatever happened to a negotiated settlement? Whatever happened to “secure borders”? The only thing left to negotiate is who takes out the garbage. Most of the outcome has been predetermined without any negotiation.
Posted by Ted Belman at March 2, 2005 08:23 AM