Human Rights Watch has issued an excellent statement about Sunday’s massacre at Qana.
Here’s an excerpt:
- “Today’s strike on Qana, killing at least 54 civilians, more than half of them children, suggests that the Israeli military is treating southern Lebanon as a free-fire zone,” said Kenneth Roth, Executive Director of Human Rights Watch. “The Israeli military seems to consider anyone left in the area a combatant who is fair game for attack.”
This latest, appalling loss of civilian life underscores the need for the U.N. Secretary-General to establish an International Commission of Inquiry to investigate serious violations of international humanitarian law in the context of the current conflict, Roth said. Such consistent failure to distinguish combatants and civilians is a war crime.
A statement issued today by the IDF said that responsibility for the Qana attack “rests with the Hezbollah” because it has used the area to launch “hundreds of missiles” into Israel. It added: “Residents in this region and specifically the residents of Qana were warned several days in advance to leave the village.”
On July 27, Israeli Justice Minister Haim Ramon said that Israel had given civilians ample time to leave southern Lebanon, and that anyone remaining could be considered a supporter of Hezbollah. “All those now in south Lebanon are terrorists who are related in some way to Hezbollah,” he said, according to the BBC.
“Just because the Israeli military warned the civilians of Qana to leave does not give it carte blanche to blindly attack,” Roth said. “It still must make every possible effort to target only genuine combatants. Through its arguments, the Israeli military is suggesting that Palestinian militant groups might ‘warn’ all settlers to leave Israeli settlements and then be justified in targeting those who remained.”
Even if the IDF claims of Hezbollah rocket fire from the Qana area are correct, Israel remains under a strict obligation to direct attacks at only military objectives, and to take all feasible precautions to avoid the incidental loss of civilian life. To date, Israel has not presented any evidence to show that Hezbollah was present in or around the building that was struck at the time of the attack.
Because I’ve been traveling, I hadn’t seen that outrageous statement from Haim Ramon. There is one sad, sad guy.
Here is a page on the HRW site with links to lots of other rights-focused resources on the Israli assaulkt on Lebanon.
Just like I said on day one, return the two soldiers. How much mutual destruction are these two soldiers worth? Or is the humiliation and face saving going to rule the day again in Lebanon?
They saw this coming, fire is returned to the source of fire. There are no military targets in south Lebanon because there is no army there.
Just return the soldiers, stay on your side of the border, and don’t lob anything across. Use your time and resource for the pursuit of happiness, is it that hard? Not unless your are such a loser that your happiness is predicated on somebody else’s misery.
Just return the 2 soldiers??
If it were that easy, why not return the Lebanese in Israeli prisons? And while at it return the occupied territories of Golan and Shebaa and the West Bank. And the Palestinian prisoners too. And stop crossing the border both on land and air by all parties.
There are two sides to a coin. No party can claim righteousness. Yes, Israel has a right to live in secure borders but so do the Palestinians and Lebanese and Syrians. Until all sides want peace and negotiated settlements it will not happen. If Israel believes that its military superiority will provide them a military solution, they are mistaken. Collective punishment of civilian populations is a no-win for all parties. 60 years of conflict have no taught any of them any wisdom as they keep with the same old strategies of failure.
“Just like I said on day one, return the two soldiers. How much mutual destruction are these two soldiers worth?”
I (and others) have serious doubts as to whether it is just about the two soldiers.
The bombing of Lebanon is part of a carefully planned and coordinated military road map. The extension of the war into Syria and Iran has already been contemplated by US and Israeli military planners. This broader military agenda is intimately related to strategic oil and oil pipelines. It is supported by the Western oil giants which control the pipeline corridors. In the context of the war on Lebanon, it seeks Israeli territorial control over the East Mediterranean coastline.
The thing is, if you’re Israel and you’ve unleashed this massive bombardment on the one Arab country that has shown some really hopeful signs of moving toward a modern participatory (if not entirely democratic) form of government, then you really do have to make sure you come out decisively on top, don’t you? I mean it’s not enough to win a split decision, is it? You need a knockout. Because anything less will make you look like not only a bully, but a paper tiger, and a dim-witted one at that. What strategic alternatives would be left then, mutual annihilation?
No, you’ve made an irrevocable decision that you’d rather be hated and feared – at least in the short term – than compromise and be assimilated into the culture you’ve displaced. Now you’d better make the “fear” part stick. How better to do that than demonstrate your utter ruthlessness by bombing babies? Surely your enemies will lay down their guns when they see their babies going up in smoke, right? Surely they will realize that they haven’t got the stomach for this kind of warfare – not when they’re on the receiving end. So you just grit your teeth and focus on your grim duty. You don’t like it, but you know what you have to do. Let the namby-pamby diplomats, pundits and Monday-morning quarterbacks say what they like. The die have been cast.
At bottom, it’s all justified by your superior understanding of the big picture – the long-term view. All this killing looks bad now, but it’s really for their own good, right? Once the Arab masses finally figure out that there is nothing – NOTHING – Israel won’t do to ensure the perpetual Jewish character of the population that will inhabit and govern the land they covet; when they realize that resistance just results in grinding poverty and dead babies, then you’ll have a chance to show them all the benefits of accommodation. So long as they do not act in a threatening manner, and do not try to meddle in actual decision-making, you will be generous with your handouts, magnanimous in your victory, gentle and wise in your governance.
But if you throw your full weight into the punch and miss the knockout, then suddenly everything will look different. You’ll be off-balance, exposed. Can’t let that happen, can you?
It’s almost an understatement to describe Israel today as a fascist state based on apartheid. Mainstream discourse there is incredibly racist toward Arabs–that is to say, the so-called progressive forces in Israel don’t exist (all polls show 90% of the population suppoorting this brutal invasion).
(all polls show 90% of the population suppoorting this brutal invasion).
Indeed, 90% of the population was for fighting this battle of survival against an unprovoked attack from a party whom Israel owes nothing. The 90% includes a very active left (the Peace Now folks, a left that has no equivalent in the Arab world. Tell me about pro peace anto government demonstrations in any of the neighboring countries.
Last week alone, Katyushas from the North, Quasams from the South, and suicide bombers dispatched from the West Bank. If fighting back is fascism, be my guest Dick.
I (and others) have serious doubts as to whether it is just about the two soldiers.
The bombing of Lebanon is part of a carefully planned and coordinated military road map.
Sure Mathew, and Hizbollah was part of the conspiracy, right? How would the plan would have proceded in the absence of the Hizbollah attack? What if they kept working their fields, enjoying their beaches, and reading their books instead of stashing 13000 rockets and firing them? What if they had said sorry and returned the soldiers a day later. How would the conspiratorial oil pipeline plan proceed?
Would you share what you are smoking? Does it come from Lebanon or Afghanistan?
This Orwellian doublespeak really is fascinating.
When Hezbollah attacks, kills and captures Israeli military soldiers it is a terrorist attack. When Israel bombs Lebanese civilian infrastructure and kills civilians it is self-defense.
What is astounding is that after 60 years of iron-fisted military solutions Israel is where it always is back to square one. As for the Palestinians and Lebanese and Syrians they also repeat the same thing they have done for 60 years with exactly the same results. Their people living in desperate conditions and taking massive loss of life.
Why can’t the people from the Levant try to do something different for a change? How about forgiveness and reconciliation? How about trying what Mandela did in South Africa!
Riverbend has posted her views.
http://riverbendblog.blogspot.com/
For the record:
Don’t buy the propaganda. Participatory government is nothing new in Lebanon. The Lebanese have been holding elections – real ones – for decades.
When can we expect to see the first Jewish settlements in south Lebanon? Within the next two years? By the end of the decade?
It was a lttle heartening to see the Human Rights watch commentary Helena linked. Don’t miss this article by David Clarke in the Guardian or the ensuing comments “How can ‘terrorism’ be condemned while war crimes go without rebuke?” Read through the comments and discover the “Qana mentality” of Haim Ramon in 2006 is neither unique nor new in the IDF.
The (quaint?)rules of war state:
* Wars should be limited to achieving the political goals that started the war (and should not include unnecessary destruction).
* Wars should be ended as quickly as possible.
* People and property should be protected against unnecessary destruction and hardship.
THE NUREMBERG DEMAND
‘Individuals have international duties which transcend the national obligations of obedience. Therefore [individuals] have the duty to violate domestic laws to prevent crimes against peace and humanity from occurring.’ The Nuremberg Tribunal 1945-1946
What is to be done? Just read and comment on blogs? Join a protest march? Donate? Watch a rerun of “The Grapes of Wrath”?
All of that can be useful but the lebanese are asking you and I to do something extra to help them. It’s called BDS. Action, without violence, against the criminality they are enduring. I’ve started talking to people locally today, please if you can spare any time consider doing the same. I’m sure it’s an concept that can be expanded on.
“This is war among people’s – and as such subject to very different rules of the game.
But Olmert believed that some quick use of air power would do. And he counted on the White House to give him all the time he needed for that campaign.”
The Mistakes of Past and Present
As usual Israelis propagandas……, Go and take your revenge from Europe guy’s not us, who did to your 6 millions Jew “who were burnt to dust by savages in Europe…”
“Gentlemen, it is time for you to understand: The Jewish state will no longer be trampled underfoot… I serve as a mouth today for six million bombed Israeli citizens, who serve as a mouth for six million annihilated Jews, who were burnt to dust by savages in Europe… And you, just as you did not take the matter seriously at the time, you are ignoring it now.”
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/08/01/wmid101.xml
To second 729’s post…
How did Olmert put it right after it started? “We don’t want anything from Lebanon. We don’t want any land. We don’t want any water.” My first reaction was, “oh, there’s an interesting subtext there…he’s said more than he realises…i.e., unpack that remark and you get: ‘we do want – and have helped ourselves to – and continue to help ourselves to – and will continue to help ourselves to – Palestinian land and water.'”
Three weeks on that “reading” seems naive in the extreme. Given the scale of the thing, I mean. All over one kidnapped soldier! Gimme a break. And given the Round One “result”: namely that south Lebanon has been “emptied out” of its inhabitants – nearly a million of them. All except of course – and it’s a big exception – Hezbollah fighters. Round Two of course will be to “cleanse” the area of them.
To cut to the chase: how long before the first Jewish settlements start appearing there?
To Davis at August 1, 2006 12:24 AM
You don’t have to “smoke” anything to reach my conclusions, just open your eyes. Of course, like we say in Puerto Rico, no hay peor ciego que el que no quiera ver. For example, there is this (which, as you will note, was written before the U.S. invasion of Iraq):
You should then tie the above into the article by Michel Chossudovsky entitled The War on Lebanon and the Battle for Oil which I had linked to originally in my previous comment, part of which reads as follows:
how long before the first Jewish settlements start appearing there?
I pick up the glove Upharsin, I bet you that there are no Israeli settlements in a year nor a decade established in Lebanon. You name the bet. Anything. I am sure you will pass, just like Shirin passed on the bet about the muslim affiliation of the Mumbai bombers.
BTW, if you read Juan Cole’s twisted logic on what the Lebanes grievance is with Israel (even though the border has been UN certified) it goes like this:
– The 1948 Israeli-Palestinian conflict resulted in Palestinians displaced, some of them north to Lebanon, which in turn created competition for agricultural land for the poor Lebanese shiite, which somehow could not compete and are suffering from such side effect until this very day…
I guess South America should be bombing Spain and Italy as the refugees resulting from their civil wars in the 20th century created competition with the locals!
If that is what a professor teaches who needs a degree?
All over one kidnapped soldier!
2 kidnapped, 3 killed. 1600 rockets launched, almost 1 million Israelis displaced. 51 Israeli civilians killed in rocket attacks. 33 Israeli soldiers killed in combat (you can tell they’re soldiers because they wear uniforms and answer to the authority of an elected government.)
How about dinner at Vagenende, the landmark Saint-Germain brasserie? August 1, 2016 will be fine by me.
One assumes, with a certain world weariness, that you two – David doing doing his Beau Geste impression and Vadim getting up on his hind legs – are the warm-up acts for JES.
The Dr. Johnson allusion because…well, because it’s not done well, Vadim. So if you could just step over here for a moment. Good. I’ll whisper it: psssst, your Y-fronts are on the outside of your trousers. Might not be a bad idea to step into that men’s room there and try again. Which is by way of saying, it’s usually a good idea in cases like this to get your sequences, your causes and effects, your actions and reactions, in the right order. If you know what I mean.
In re Qana: Haaretz now reports that:
“It now appears that the military had no information on rockets launched from the site of the building, or the presence of Hezbollah men at the time.
“The Israel Defense Forces had said after the deadly air-strike that many rockets had been launched from Qana. However, it changed its version on Monday.
“The site was included in an IAF plan to strike at several buildings in proximity to a previous launching site. Similar strikes were carried out in the past. However, there were no rocket launches from Qana on the day of the strike.”
So much for that excuse. Either Israel is acting as US proxy to get at Syria and Iran in line with the neocon fantasy or Olmert has descended into pure Kurtzian collective punishment.
Neither options accords in the slightest with the image of moral righteousness projected by some Israelis and even more loudly by their defenders.
it’s usually a good idea in cases like this to get your sequences, your causes and effects, your actions and reactions, in the right order.
the sequence of events is straightforward:
1.) Hezbollah militiamen launched an incursion into Israeli territory, followed by
2.) A devastating war.
2.) certainly didn’t cause 1.). The harm of 2.) is well within the risk of 1.) To they type of person who holds the US military responsible for Iraqi suicide terrorism, this sort of analysis should be second nature.
(PS, “y-fronts??” the constant Anglicisms make me afraid you’ve finally traded in your US passport, perhaps in protest… say it aint so! the zionist entity needs your tax dollars.)
729, Upharsin and “Soul Mate”,
Curious. What makes you think that if Israel didn’t even discuss the idea during 18 years of occupation suddenly we are going to establish settlements there?
JES,
Do “obscure” Israelis count?
In a letter to the British Prime Minister, David Lloyd George, Chaim Weizmann noted [in 1919] that Lebanon “is a well watered region . . . and the Litani River is valueless to the territory north of the proposed frontiers . . . . It can be used beneficially in the country much further south” This interest in the Litani continued through the 1950s, when both Prime Minister Ben-Gurion and Moshe Dayan, Israel’s Chief of Staff, advocated Israeli occupation of Lebanon up to the Litani River.
Boyz,
You want more felinity amongst the pigeons, take a look at Billmon’s latest.
Do “obscure” Israelis count?
Upharsin imagines that a 90-year-old, 3rd hand, brutally edited soundbite substantiates his paranoid fantasy (Salah has competition!) Sorry, U, that cat don’t hunt. Stick to chasing these.
a riverbend post is always a bittersweet experience.
Heartbreaking for its candor and humanity–a rellief to see that she’s still ok in the midst of the madness of King George. (I wouldn’t have thought it possible to worry about someone I have never met, but I worry about her alot.)
the sequence of events?
Israel launched its campaign against Hezbollah after the Shiite Muslim movement captured two Israeli soldiers July 12 in a cross-border raid. It used its air force to attack Beirut and other parts of the country and sent ground troops into Lebanon to clear Hezbollah gunmen from their strongholds near the border.
Hezbollah, founded in 1982, is sponsored by Syria and Iran. It has been linked to scores of attacks on Israelis and Americans, including rocket attacks on Israeli towns, the 1983 bombing that killed 241 U.S. soldiers and 58 French soldiers in Beirut and the 1994 attack that killed 85 at a Jewish community center in Buenos Aires. The U.S. and Israel classify Hezbollah as a terrorist organization.
(bloomberg.com)
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=az8JC8aq9UkM&refer=home
NON-RECOGNITION WATCH
Number of days that Israel declared its independence and the overwhelming majority of Arab and Muslim nations have refused to recognize that nation’s right to exist in peace.
21,263
Hey Joshua, I hope you’re not thinking of a hunger strike, pending Arab and Muslim recognition of your right to maintain an exclusive Jewish state in the Middle East.
You know, you could have a democracy in your ancient land on the Mediterranean and live there in peace, but you insist that it be a Jewish democracy. What does it mean to be a Jewish democracy? It means that the natural majority of the inhabitants of your part of the world must be perpetually excluded in some artificial way. If you allowed them in, they would have to be disenfranchised. Then you really couldn’t claim to be a democracy at all. So you have laws restricting immigration, designed to insure that very few non-Jews gain admission as anything other than temporary, nonvoting workers. Of course, if you were at peace with all of your Arab neighbors, then even your own people might begin to question the obviously discriminatory (and anachronistic) nature of these laws. A climate of perpetual hostility serves as a convenient way to avoid this kind of scrutiny. As foreign enemies, Arabs and other Muslims cannot possibly be integrated into Israeli society, because they are opposed to the very existence of the State of Israel – as a Jewish democracy. Israeli is a perfect illustration of why democracy is not the panacea some people claim. We would all like to live in a democracy – provided it is made up of people just like us. None of us wants to live in a democracy in which we are the minority. We are not really “for” democracy, are we?
A climate of perpetual hostility serves as a convenient way to avoid this kind of scrutiny.
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/30/world/middleeast/30iran.html?_r=3&oref=slogin&oref=slogin&oref=slogin
See that sign? “ISRAEL MUST BE WIPED OUT THE WORLD” Please join us in the reality based community.
You seem to be confirming my point, Vadim. What other reality are you inviting me to join?
It means that the natural majority of the inhabitants of your part of the world must be perpetually excluded in some artificial way.
What the hell is a “natural majority”? Great spin, but meaningless mumbo-jumbo.
Concerning Upharsin’s quotes, I think that the facts on the ground between 1982 and 2000 are pretty convincing.
Let me introduce myself: my name is Andrew and I’ve been reading Helena’s blog, almost religiously, for more than 2 years (with some ocasional comment or two posted, since I don’t consider myself as knowledgable and eloquent as you all – seasoned contributors are), so I feel I know you and your usual positions and rationing quite well (Helena, JES, Shirin, Davis, salah, Vadim, Joshua and many, many bright others).
One thing struck me recently: Any other subject (be it Iraq, World Cup, Italian mafia, Republicans vs. Democracts etc. etc.)
is debated in (more or less) rational terms – meaning using brains and reasoning,
but as soon as the subject turns into Israel vs. Arabs (and Palestinians) conflictis – raw emotions rule.
I don’t understand it. Let me say that I’m not emotionally attached to any side of the conflict
(I was born in Eastern Europe, now Canadian) so I can consider myself rather impartial spectator of the issue.
And I must say that your recent debates (or rather bickering) reminds me of 3-years-old boys
fighting in a sandbox (“he did it first !” “no, it was him, I didn’t !” “They kidnapped solders !” “Yeah, but they shelled the beach first !” ” but they keep firing rockets” “yes, but they bomb the hell out of Lebanon” etc).
Therefore I chalenge you: Raise above usual chattering, point-scoring and try to build something constructive out of misery, even from your opposite positions, views – all of you are extremely capable and knowledgable
(speaking from my 2+ years of experience with you, guys).
Otherwise I feel sadness that all of that potential of yours, all the time and efforts and passions you contribute here
(thanks Helena) to be wasted in meaningless bickering, while people are dying there (on both sides of the border).
You know, the thing is actually quite simple to me: Majority of people (be it Muslims, Israelis, Palestinians, Lebanese etc.)
just want to leave in peace, have basic security, have their dignity intact, feel that basic justice is applied, and to be able
to have some dreams about their future and future of their kids. It’s not a rocket science !
Find some common ground, some solution – that would be something, that would be a fruitfull use of your time.
Sorry for my rather long tirade to you and I didn’t mean to offend anybody.
Thanks,
Let me introduce myself: my name is Andrew and I’ve been reading Helena’s blog, almost religiously, for more than 2 years (with some ocasional comment or two posted, since I don’t consider myself as knowledgable and eloquent as you all – seasoned contributors are), so I feel I know you and your usual positions and rationing quite well (Helena, JES, Shirin, Davis, salah, Vadim, Joshua and many, many bright others).
One thing struck me recently: Any other subject (be it Iraq, World Cup, Italian mafia, Republicans vs. Democracts etc. etc.) is debated in (more or less) rational terms – meaning using brains and reasoning, but as soon as the subject turns into Israel vs. Arabs (and Palestinians) conflictis – raw emotions rule.
I don’t understand it. Let me say that I’m not emotionally attached to any side of the conflict
(I was born in Eastern Europe, now Canadian) so I can consider myself rather impartial spectator of the issue.
And I must say that your recent debates (or rather bickering) reminds me of 3-years-old boys
fighting in a sandbox (“he did it first !” “no, it was him, I didn’t !” “They kidnapped solders !” “Yeah, but they shelled the beach first !” ” but they keep firing rockets” “yes, but they bomb the hell out of Lebanon” etc).
Therefore I chalenge you: Raise above usual chattering, point-scoring and try to build something constructive out of misery, even from your opposite positions, views – all of you are extremely capable and knowledgable
(speaking from my 2+ years of experience with you, guys).
Otherwise I feel sadness that all of that potential of yours, all the time and efforts and passions you contribute here (thanks Helena) to be wasted in meaningless bickering, while people are dying there (on both sides of the border).
You know, the thing is actually quite simple to me: Majority of people (be it Muslims, Israelis, Palestinians, Lebanese etc.) just want to leave in peace, have basic security, have their dignity intact, feel that basic justice is applied, and to be able to have some dreams about their future and future of their kids. It’s not a rocket science !
Find some common ground, some solution – that would be something, that would be a fruitfull use of your time.
Sorry for my rather long tirade to you and I didn’t mean to offend anybody.
Thanks,
(double post) Oops, it wasn’t me, it was ‘Preview’ thing. Sorry.
“Denial of a RIGHT TO EXIST” Watch
Number of days since Palestine was WIPED OFF THE MAP:
21,263
Upharsin, we have a deal. Mine will be dinner at Les Deux Maggots in St. Germain. Feel free to send monthly updates on the settlement enterprise in Lebanon. BTW, have you looked at a map of the area recently? It may force you to redefine the term “expansionism”.
Israel is a settler colony. It has no right to exist.
There is no two-state solution. Colonialism kills and beggars its neighbours. It will not accept limits of territory nor time nor any moral or legal restraint. It degrades all, and most of all itself.
What is happening in Lebanon is the process of “underdevelopment” at an unusually fast rate. Israel is busy “underdeveloping” Lebanon, as a prelude to the intended “underdeveloping” of all what they call “Arabs”. In all respects it is no different from the actions of any other colonialists now or previously.
There is no way to compromise with colonialism. It has to go. The solution is the same for them as elsewhere. One person one vote in a unitary state of Palestine. Israel has no right to exist.
You know, the thing is actually quite simple to me: Majority of people (be it Muslims, Israelis, Palestinians, Lebanese etc.) just want to leave in peace, have basic security, have their dignity intact, feel that basic justice is applied, and to be able to have some dreams about their future and future of their kids. It’s not a rocket science !
Is it that simple? Maybe you could inform the members of the IPF (Israeli Propaganda Forces) who are scanning the Internet to seek out and destroy Anti-Israel Voices in cyberspace:
Israel backed by army of cyber-soldiers
Davis (sic),
You’re on. But only if you learn how to spell it.
Now while I’ve got you, a quick question: if all Israel wants is to live in peace with its neighbors why does it keep stealing their land?
what they call “Arabs”.
Dominic, 22+ states are self-classified as “Arab.” Together, they form something called the “Arab League.” Most of their constitutions specify both their “Arab” and “Islamic” characters (eg, Algeria is both “a land of Islam” and “an Arab land”; Egypt is formally an “Arab republic”)
http://www.shaml.org/projects/resaerch/citizen_summary.htm
Most Arab states apply narrow and very restrictive nationality laws based on a strict adherence to the principle of jus sanguinis (nationality by descent)
Qui s’excuse, s’accuse.
Mr. JES,
Why doesn’t Davis want to come out and play?
Qui s’excuse, s’accuse.
Why should I make excuses for Arab nationalism? It needs none, and neither does political Zionism. So why have you never spoken of dismantling the 20-odd (self-described) Arab or Islamic states? And why endorse an Islamist movement like Hezbollah?
Upharsin,
Why the f you asking me?
Ah. Just what I was hoping for. A nibble. Can you please answer the question? And a one, and a two…
stealing land as in repeatedly turning down a generous offer of land division only to wind up with an ever shrinking slice of the pie?
Peele Commission Plan – 1938 – rejected by Arabs
UN Partition Plan – 1947 – rejected by Arabs
End of British Mandate de facto borders – 1948 – Arab armies invaded the tiny new Israeli state
Armistice Agreement – 1949 – leaving all of the West Bank & Gaza in Arab hands didn’t deter subsequent fedayeen raids into Israel
1967: Notwithstanding that all of the West Bank & Gaza was in Arab hands – Egypt ordered the UN peacekeepers to leave Sinai, blockaded the Straits of Tiran, mobilized the Egyptian and Syrian armies and placed them by the Israeli border…result: 6 Day War – loss of West Bank, Gaza, Golan & Sinai
1979 US/Egypt/Israel agreement: Sinai returned to Egypt; Palestinians rejected proposed 5 year autonomy plan leading to an independent state.
2000 Generous Clinton/Barak offer at Camp David turned down by Arafat; no counteroffer made by the Palestinians…an Intifada instead.
Upharsin,
Ask Davis. We are two separate people, and I don’t even know who Davis really is (and I believe he doesn’t know me either).
But then, perhaps you are Dominic, or John C. or the drunken Tai Chi instructor (I forget his name), or maybe you’re even Helena?
Okay, so let me get this straight. “Loss of West Bank” – so it does belong to Israel. Is that what you’re saying? Ditto Golan.
I was not addressing the question of who it belongs to…but rather how the Arabs reacted each time it was put on a silver platter for them to accept…the pie shrinking with each lost opportunity.
I know exactly what you’re doing. And I’m pretty sure I know why you’re doing it.
I also know what you’re not doing.
Which is answering the question. Who does the West Bank belong to? Ditto the Golan.
How about a simple, straight forward answer. Just this once.
And while we’re at it, what was the “it” that was put on the plate “for them to accept”? Somebody was apparently in the act of trying to “give” or least offer up something to somebody else. Was it some of their land that was being offered? Or was it some of Israel’s? Is it right to conclude that whoever was doing the offering was the “owner” of what was being offered?
Hmmmm. And then there’s that metaphor. I suspect it reveals rather more than you wanted it to. By that I mean, isn’t it the host who “puts something on a plate” and offers it to his guest? And by definition the host is the one who is at home. I.E., he’s the householder. The one whose roof they’re under. The owner of the place.
I’m not trying to catch you out. I just want the thing to be looked at honestly. It’s a very simple question: who owns the West Bank? If the Palestinians own it, well, there’s maybe a bit of a problem there. If Israel owns it, well, a bit of a problem there, too. If nobody owns it, well, equally messy.
But at least we know where we’re coming from. Where we’re at.
People might like to take a look at David Himmelstein’s new piece in the online version of Counterpunch
Who was the offeror you ask?
In one case it was the British Mandate authorities acting under powers sanctioned by the League of Nations.
In another case it was the UN General Assembly.
In still another, it was an Armistice Agreement reached by Israel, TransJordan, Egypt, Syria and Lebanon.
One time it was an agreement reached between Israel and Egypt, brokered by Jimmy Carter.
More recently, it was a failed effort to reach a settlement between Barak and Arafat, brokered by Bill Clinton.
In none of the above cases was the format of the negotiations as much at issue as the terms of a settlement.
The point I was trying to make was that one party was always playing catchup…trying to accept a past proposed arrangement that was no longer on the table…but rejecting out of hand present proposals.
I suppose what you’re suggesting is that the Land of Palestine is not the League of Nation’s or the UN’s or Egypt’s to give away. Similarly, the 8 Arab Summiteers meeting in Khartoum after the 1967 War presumably had no right to issue their ban on negotiations with Israel…that was usurping a prerogative that rightfully, you seem to infer, belonged to the indigenous Arabs of Palestine.
But then what are to we make of the occupation of the West Bank for 19 years by Jordan and Gaza by Egypt? Did the good people of Nablus, Rafah and Jericho give their consent to being ruled out of Amman and Cairo?
You’re still being shifty. Can’t you see that what you’re saying comes across as an adagio of side-stepping?
Take the Barak episode, for example. Who was doing the offering? Barak? or Arafat? Why not just say that it was Israel’s offer?
Equally shifty is your “format of the negotiations etc.” formulation. It’s verbal prestidigitation.
It’s a very simple question. Who’s making the offer?
And what’s encoded in the answer to that question?
I wasn’t “suggesting”. But I think that probably would be the conclusion I’d come to. By what right was the “Land of Palestine” the League of Nation’s or the UN’s to give away? Did the people who lived on that land have any say in the matter? If not, why not?
And as for your last para, I suspect they didn’t give their consent. But so what?
Are you daring to suggest that those “occupations” are in any way comparable to the present occupation?
“Objection your honor: chutzpah to the Nth degree.”
“Objection sustained.”
Correct me if I’m wrong but it’s my impression that the Jordanians and Egyptians didn’t kill thousands of Palestinians. Didn’t demolish the houses of thousands of Palestinians. Didn’t build a Berlin Wall through the area that made life well nigh impossible for the indigenous people. Didn’t build hundreds of “settlements” and people them with thousands of extremely hostile, heavily armed, and rapacious foreigners – foreigners from a different culture, speaking a different tongue, with different traditions and beliefs and whose attitude to the people whose land they’d helped themselves to was “why don’t they go somewhere where they’re wanted?”
It’s all popping smoke, Truesdell.
And you still haven’t answered the question: who does the West Bank belong to? The Palestinians? Israel?
You’re not going to answer it are you. And we both know why.
Wish you would. Wish you could. Because then we’d have some common ground to stand on. Even if on opposite sides of the net.
“… or the drunken Tai Chi instructor (I forget his name) …”
Would that … (hiccup!) … be me.
JES, JES, JES, … and of course Vadim, Joshua, Davis, Truesdell, World Warren,
I have been on sabbatical, until recently. Having fun just observing the toing and froing.
Must say … it seems Upharsin is up 6-0, 6-0, 5-0, 40-Love.
But you boyz got the lovin’ … as always.
Upharsin, Be patient, I didn’t forget you but I have a day job you know. And I am in the US time zone, so cut me some slack until I get home before declaring me MIA. I am already salivating over the dinner you are buying me, with wine and dessert.
Anyway, stealing land? None from Lebanon, all Sinai returned (and plenty of room there for Egypt to acommodate some crowded Gazans, but not happening), UN certified withdrawal from Fatahland in Lebanon in exchange for nothing (actually in excahnge for an Iranian colony). Annexed the Golan heights from Syria, won in war fair ans square after decades of throwing nasty stuff down to Galilee. West Bank status is contested territories, used to Jordan but Jordan declines, Olmert wants to leave unilaterally even today after the Gaza and Lebanon fiascos. If logic prevails there should be some horse trading between West Bank and some other Israeli areas to result in a border that makes more topological sense. Israel is smaller than in the 1970s, and the second smallest in the area. Is that expansionism?
Did I answer in full? Can I move on to the multinational state? Open borders a la EU are a nice idea, but to be considered after 20 years of peace, no? How about you stop killiong me before asking to marry me? And it should also apply to Egypt as I said, why don’t they let Gazans into Sinai? How about you answer that one for a change?
Pretty good, Davis. Can I have dinner with you guys? I’ll buy my own.
Correct me if I’m wrong but it’s my impression that the Jordanians and Egyptians didn’t kill thousands of Palestinians.
Happy to oblige!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_September_in_Jordan
The people insisting that Israel has no right to exist are a major obstacle to peace. When Joshua put up that count flame I realized that anyone taking that bait by slamming Israel’s right to exist will be feeding Joshua’s agenda. If the Israeli public is convinced the opposition will destroy them they rally behind military actions like this one however deadly.
The people attacking Israel’s right to exist have to be swept aside. Then Israeli rightists have no more figleaf to hide their agressive policies. We can then build pressure for Olmert to SERIOUSLY participate in a two-state solution. Now the truth is that Israel has not been serious about a two state solution so far, as evidenced by the incomplete pullout of Gaza and the desire to annex the Jordan valley. They’re as much obstacles to peace as the opponents to Israel’s right to exist. A sovereign State of Palestine in West Bank+Gaza+East Jerusalem must be established and allowed to prosper economically. A few years down the road, who knows? Maybe Israel and Palestine get entwined enough to be able to civilly consider a merger, or maybe two separate states for good works after all. But this two-state solution needs to be implemented first.
“With wine and dessert.” I think you might be a wee bit too racy for me, David.
Why are you so keen to get the Gazans into the Sinai? I think I’ve heard that one before. Doesn’t the second stanza entertain similar ideas about the Palestinians in the “contested” territories being taken in by Jordan? Or Libya? Or wherever…just as long as it’s not the land they’ve lived on for centuries. No, Israel wants that land for “settlers” – Brooklyn Jews, Canadian Jews, etc. etc. – so the indigenous people have to leave. And if they won’t go willingly they’ll be forced out.
Maybe Egypt should open its doors to the Gazans. Maybe Israel should open its doors to them. Perhaps Egypt should propose a quid pro quo agreement. We will if you will. How does that grab you?
And as for “won in war fair and square”. Oh well, that’s all right then. Translation: what are you, about fifteen years old? Don’t you think it’s time to put the comic books away? Puerile, crude and obtuse is going to get you what you don’t want: millennia of hatred, war, mayhem, suffering, terror.
Olmert wants to leave the West Bank? Huh? Come again? What do you take us for?
Some “horse trading”. Some “adjustments”. Bit of nip and tuck. Do you for one minute think the rest of us don’t know about what’s going on in the Occupied – not “contested” – Territories? What is the figure…it’s several hundred thousand “settlers”. And hundreds of settlements. You know as well as I do that they’re meant to be permanent, “facts on the ground”.
The word “obscene” means…well, you know what it means. The root of the word is “off scene” – that which shouldn’t be seen, shouldn’t be shown. Because it’s filthy. Because it’s evil.
What Israel is doing to the Palestinians is obscene. What it’s doing to Lebanon is obscene.
People like you don’t want the rest of us to see the thing for what it is. Which is why the sophistry is never ending. Why you won’t give a straight answer to an utterly simple question: who does the West Bank belong to? Israel? Or the Palestinians?
Still waiting, David.
David,
“Anyway, stealing land? None from Lebanon, all Sinai returned”
Al-Golan heights still under occupation, Sha’ba Farms under Israeli occupations, some land from Jordan also under occupation. Sinai returned because simply no use for it, Israeli can not put settlers’ there or accurately new settlers not happy to leave their born country to live in Sinai desert.
So speaking of “stealing land” this is just make no sense, the Israeli polices in many documented UN and others sources will tell you clearly there is land still under occupation by Israelis.
I think this subject is indefensible any more on available facts on the ground.
The rules of POLITICAL CORRECTNESS when it comes to the Israeli-Arab conflict:
Upharsin, are you losing your cool? I don’t recall calling you names nor making personal or collective accusations. But we made progress, you seem to object to two parts on my response plus you consider a third unaswered. Let’s dive deeper.
– Golan annexation. Syria attacked from there for years, Syrian agression in 67 and 73. That is the risk of agression. You want to revert to the prior state? The families of the dead defending your attack want their loved ones back. Ain’t happening, you can’t unring a bell. The whole European continent settled borders that way. Germany lost land to Poland in WWII. Tough.
– Gazans to Sinai. Don’t you have Palestinians on both side of the border? Isn’t the right thing to have an open border and let the crowded Gazans reunify with their families and pursue happiness in a bit more space? They are Arab and Muslims on both sides. Having refugee camps for so many decades when land ain’t exactly a problem in Sinai. Freaking shameful if you ask me. Do the right thing and absorb them if they want.
West Bank – As I said, contested ownership. No previous legal state owner exists. The right thing is to follow demographics and topology for the sake of future stability. In the meantime while Palestinians think that time plays in their favor through demographics, Israel uses settlements to counter that. Perfectly rational, and the right incentive for an arrangement sooner rather than later.
That is my candid perspective. This in not propaganda and nobody pays me to write. If it is not coherent to you, it is still my view and there is no point in hyperventilating. It is an intractable conflict and I hyperventilate myself when I read people like Dominic, Salah, Nasrallah, and Ahmadinejad.
D.
Follow your own logic, David. “No previous state owner existed.” I.E. there was no Palestinian “state”. And Israel as a “state” didn’t own it. But there were people there. Living on that land. As they had been doing so for generations. Surely the land was theirs, irrespective of whether or not they belonged to or had the backing of a “state” entity. And just as surely Israel has no claim on that land, no right to it. In short, it is stealing the land. Case closed.
As for hyperventilating. I think not. A measure of cool disdain, yes. Not least over your addlement. Addlement that has you hysterically flapping from “contested ownership” to “for the sake of future stability” to “intractable conflict” in the space of about six or seven sentences and apparently unable – or unwilling – to see that you’re talking tosh. But that’s what happens when you try to hold on to an untenable position.
Break free, David. Trying to defend the indefensible is a mug’s game.
Or at least take a look at what David Himmelstein, Saul Landau, Rachel Lowenstein, Michael Neumann, etc. are saying. They put it much better than I can.
All best…and see you in Paris in 3652 days.
contested ownership. No previous legal state owner exists. The right thing is to follow demographics and topology for the sake of future stability.
Gift from God
Let’s make it a full house: you’ll find that Immanuel Wallerstein also makes for very interesting reading.
If something bad happens it doesn’t necessarily mean that God disapproves. It might mean that he’s testing us for a higher purpose. As we all know, the true test is yet to come.
Belated response to Truesdell at August 2, 2006 02:25 PM, where he claims:
2000 Generous Clinton/Barak offer at Camp David turned down by Arafat; no counteroffer made by the Palestinians…an Intifada instead.
See the myth of a generous offer debunked.
Upharsin,
Thanks for the update. I am glad you are able to declare victory regardless of the facts. That is a useful trait for your psyche, and is better than getting an ulcer, although it didn’t get the Palestinians very far. I don’t know who all the names you cite are, and they probably won’t buy me dinner, so I’d rather keep reading you.
As for stealing the West Bank? Nope, conquered after Jordan’s invasion in 67. Read the history, it is all well documented. It is time to agree to disagree, but we will always have Paris…
Actually, the UN has spoken about the sovereignty situation in the West Bank and Gaza. In the Partition Resolution of 1947 both these areas (plus some of what Israel captured in 1948) were designated as constituting the “Palestinian Arab state”. That resolution was the very same one that Israel used as its “birth certificate” in the international community, and it has never been disavowed or overturned by the UN.
Jordan asserted its annexation of the West Bank in 1949, but only Britain and Pakistan ever gave any endorsement of that move, which had exactly the same extra-legal character in international law as Israel’s subsequent quite unilateral annexation of East Jerusalem and Golan.
The combination of the terms of the Partition Resolution plus the repeatedly demonstrated will of the indigenous population of the West Bank to exercize national independence and soveriegnty over those lands provides everything that international legality could hope for regarding a valid sovereignty claim.
(The Partition resolution did provide that an expanded Jerusalem area should be ruled as an international “corpus separatum”. Not perhaps the best solution, but certainly better than unilateral Israeli domination/annexation of the entire city and the continuation of the present apartheid rule within it.)
It’s like a shooting gallery at a carnival. Annie Oakley rides out into the ring and to gasps of amazement hits a dime at sixty yards. Right on cue the four ducks come quacking out. Then it’s pling pling pling for the rest of us. And just like that time’s up and Annie O. shuts the the thing down with a final blaze of panache and unerring marksmanship.
Now if only there was no mayhem and carnage and death and hatred behind the make believe.