Israel confirms talks with Syria

[William F. Owen]

4- Why is it I see those within the Arab world so concerned with ensuring that the Jews not be able to find archeological proof of their existence in regions if things are so cut and dry as many would portray them to be.

OK, but that does not explain the Elephant in the corner, which the anti-semitism that runs a river through Middle East politics and always has, even before 1948. Something the Arabs deny but is part of historical fact. It is still at the heart of the conflict to this day.

[Ron Humphrey]

OK, but that does not explain the Elephant in the corner, which the anti-semitism that runs a river through Middle East politics and always has, even before 1948. Something the Arabs deny but is part of historical fact. It is still at the heart of the conflict to this day.

The immediate tendency here will be to beat dead horses or rehash those things which we have all heard before.

But I think there may be something here to benefit all if we really start breaking the whole down to it's parts. We all know what we already know, the important thing is being willing to test what we know in order to assure it stands up.

Ken makes great points about predecessors decisions and actions resulting in how things have to be handled now. Lets try to focus an what the exact points of contention are today and we can trace them back. Somewhere along the way we may begin to see some mutually recognized patterns or issues which we can then focus on.


Let's just take it one step at a time and see what comes of this. I feel certain that I'm about to learn somethin I didn't know

[William F. Owen]

Lets try to focus an what the exact points of contention are today and we can trace them back. Somewhere along the way we may begin to see some mutually recognized patterns or issues which we can then focus on.

Here are a couple of the points, not commonly recognised in this matter.

a.) At the heart to of the conflict is the deeply and widely held belief Arab that Jews (not Israelis) should not exist in their place of origin, nor be entitled to a nation - thus no Israel, or Israelis. The exceptions to these beliefs are countries like Turkey, that have no/little institutional history of killing Jews (Jews not Israelis) - Turkey being a whole league ahead of Morocco, as Turkey still has a large Jewish community.

c.) Israel has withdrawn from >80% of the territory it has ever taken by force of arms for self-protection. In every case there has been a reduction in security for Israel, which most Israelis are willing to stand for the bones of a lasting peace. This will not occur in the West Bank because no one in Israel wants to see Iranians firing rockets into Tel-Aviv, or be the man that put Hezbollah within striking distance of 96% of Israel's population.

c.) Unless people are willing to concede Israel's absolute right to exist, like any other nation, within sensibly modified variations of the pre-1967 cease fire line, then the only other option is simply and fight to death or exhaustion.

[JJackson]

Ken we are just going to have to agree to disagree on the UN. I am happy to concede it is far from perfect but we should be trying to redress its problems not tear it down. Collecting a coalition of like minded nations to impose their will is wrong. At the moment the US has the might but morally I see their/our position as no better than if a coalitions of Islamic countries invaded the UK and imposed Sharia Law as a correction of our lax morals. Both coalitions would be convinced of the morality of their causes the principal difference is the West – at this moment in history - has the military might to impose its will (after a fashion). If there is to be some kind of international law - and it is to have any credibility – I would argue our defacto unit of sovereignty lies at the nation state level and some form of council of these units must be the arbiter of trans-national disputes. The problem - in my opinion - has much to do with the states paranoia at relinquishing any control at all to a higher authority. The states are acting anarchically not democratically and those benefiting most from the status quo are – naturally enough - being the greatest impediment to reform.
While I agree it is not helpful to go full sack cloth and ashes over the wealth built up in our nations by the slave trade - or other actions taken by past generations - we should as we ‘sit in modern comfort surrounded by masses of information with absolutely no responsibility’ not think we have no responsibility but acknowledge that previous generations helped put us in this position and use our knowledge and power benevolently rather than to screw some dirt poor country into accepting a trade agreement that is going to keep their citizens earning a pittance.

William our difference is probably more fundamental.

Here are a couple of the points, not commonly recognised in this matter.

a.) At the heart to of the conflict is the deeply and widely held belief Arab that Jews (not Israelis) should not exist in their place of origin, nor be entitled to a nation - thus no Israel, or Israelis. The exceptions to these beliefs are countries like Turkey, that have no/little institutional history of killing Jews (Jews not Israelis) - Turkey being a whole league ahead of Morocco, as Turkey still has a large Jewish community.

c.) Israel has withdrawn from >80% of the territory it has ever taken by force of arms for self-protection. In every case there has been a reduction in security for Israel, which most Israelis are willing to stand for the bones of a lasting peace. This will not occur in the West Bank because no one in Israel wants to see Iranians firing rockets into Tel-Aviv, or be the man that put Hezbollah within striking distance of 96% of Israel's population.

c.) Unless people are willing to concede Israel's absolute right to exist, like any other nation, within sensibly modified variations of the pre-1967 cease fire line, then the only other option is simply and fight to death or exhaustion.

a) That there has been wide spread historical anti-Semitism – for me is again a given – and obviously not just by Arab peoples. The Jews were blamed for spreading the Black Death, Shakespeare shows them as less than popular and on the modern states Germany and the USSR institutionalised it and many others including the US & UK just let it persist unchallenged.
b&c) “This will not occur in the West Bank because no one in Israel wants to see Iranians firing rockets into Tel-Aviv” again I can not let this go unchallenged. That Iran is helping various Palestinian groups I grant you, but the US is helping Israel and it is equally true and equally inflammatory and generally unhelpful for me to say the Americans are firing rockets and killing Palestinian civilians. Earlier I referred to the Stone Age, which seems a bit harsh, but a Roman general would probably keep his ballistas if offered Hamas’ rockets in exchange (you know the ones with the pin-the-tail-on-the-donkey targeting system) however if the Romans had had a few of those shinny IDF helicopter gunships with the nice rocket pods on either side then Hannibal would have needed more than the Nubian cavalry and a few elephants.
Israel is so small geographically that all of Israel could be in the range of enemy rockets if Iran or Syria or anyone else choose to supply them, at present the Israelis are the only ones with hi-tech weapons. Acceptance of Israel is unlikely without the creation and acceptance of a Palestine state but that is not currently in Israel’s best interests. While they have US protection, a modern military, a European standard of living and control over the holy sites why would they want to accept a state which other Arab nations could legitimately arm to parity. There is no trust for such a measure.

1. How? On what basis do you start discussions? Morally I have huge issues with the Jews that believed it was worthwhile to talk to the Nazis. I see the same problem here.

Again worrying with the Nazi analogy. If we are going to use it then it is the Israelis with the power and the Palestinians are the oppressed and suffering but I am not happy with casting the Jews as the Nazis even if the analogy does work better that way around. The Israelis just have to talk we had to do it with the IRA. Ignoring your enemies just because you do not like their tactics is not going to get you a solution. With the IRA they never had the level of popular support – even within the Catholic community – that Hamas or Hezbollah have, they could not have stood for democratic office and been elected. These are not a few radical terrorists they are mass movements with wide popular support fighting a war of liberation against an occupying army. You may not see it that way but they do and short of genocide I don’t see any way that is going to change. So talk or fight to annihilation there are a lot more of them and they are already exhausted so I don’t think that is going to be enough to stop them.

[Ron Humphrey]

Ken we are just going to have to agree to disagree on the UN. I am happy to concede it is far from perfect but we should be trying to redress its problems not tear it down. Collecting a coalition of like minded nations to impose their will is wrong. At the moment the US has the might but morally I see their/our position as no better than if a coalitions of Islamic countries invaded the UK and imposed Sharia Law as a correction of our lax morals. Both coalitions would be convinced of the morality of their causes the principal difference is the West – at this moment in history - has the military might to impose its will (after a fashion). If there is to be some kind of international law - and it is to have any credibility – I would argue our defacto unit of sovereignty lies at the nation state level and some form of council of these units must be the arbiter of trans-national disputes. The problem - in my opinion - has much to do with the states paranoia at relinquishing any control at all to a higher authority. The states are acting anarchically not democratically and those benefiting most from the status quo are – naturally enough - being the greatest impediment to reform.
While I agree it is not helpful to go full sack cloth and ashes over the wealth built up in our nations by the slave trade - or other actions taken by past generations - we should as we ‘sit in modern comfort surrounded by masses of information with absolutely no responsibility’ not think we have no responsibility but acknowledge that previous generations helped put us in this position and use our knowledge and power benevolently rather than to screw some dirt poor country into accepting a trade agreement that is going to keep their citizens earning a pittance.

William our difference is probably more fundamental.




a) That there has been wide spread historical anti-Semitism – for me is again a given – and obviously not just by Arab peoples. The Jews were blamed for spreading the Black Death, Shakespeare shows them as less than popular and on the modern states Germany and the USSR institutionalised it and many others including the US & UK just let it persist unchallenged.
b&c) “This will not occur in the West Bank because no one in Israel wants to see Iranians firing rockets into Tel-Aviv” again I can not let this go unchallenged. That Iran is helping various Palestinian groups I grant you, but the US is helping Israel and it is equally true and equally inflammatory and generally unhelpful for me to say the Americans are firing rockets and killing Palestinian civilians. Earlier I referred to the Stone Age, which seems a bit harsh, but a Roman general would probably keep his ballistas if offered Hamas’ rockets in exchange (you know the ones with the pin-the-tail-on-the-donkey targeting system) however if the Romans had had a few of those shinny IDF helicopter gunships with the nice rocket pods on either side then Hannibal would have needed more than the Nubian cavalry and a few elephants.
Israel is so small geographically that all of Israel could be in the range of enemy rockets if Iran or Syria or anyone else choose to supply them, at present the Israelis are the only ones with hi-tech weapons. Acceptance of Israel is unlikely without the creation and acceptance of a Palestine state but that is not currently in Israel’s best interests. While they have US protection, a modern military, a European standard of living and control over the holy sites why would they want to accept a state which other Arab nations could legitimately arm to parity. There is no trust for such a measure.

Again worrying with the Nazi analogy. If we are going to use it then it is the Israelis with the power and the Palestinians are the oppressed and suffering but I am not happy with casting the Jews as the Nazis even if the analogy does work better that way around. The Israelis just have to talk we had to do it with the IRA. Ignoring your enemies just because you do not like their tactics is not going to get you a solution. With the IRA they never had the level of popular support – even within the Catholic community – that Hamas or Hezbollah have, they could not have stood for democratic office and been elected. These are not a few radical terrorists they are mass movements with wide popular support fighting a war of liberation against an occupying army. You may not see it that way but they do and short of genocide I don’t see any way that is going to change. So talk or fight to annihilation there are a lot more of them and they are already exhausted so I don’t think that is going to be enough to stop them.

I note that you acknowledge one of the major problems with the UN and why it is and will likely remain fairly ineffectual as long as those things don't change. But I find myself curious on both this and the Isreal issue as to what exactly you feel would be the actual results of such things as placing all responsibility for international affairs at the feet of the UN.

And of Isreal capitulating to the demands ( acceptable in what I have heard you say so far) That they give up many of the very things which have helped them to survive amongst those who seek to do them harm and refuse to recognize their right to exist as they do right now.

What exactly do you suggest would be the real life results of such actions.

Along the lines of our responsibilities to make amends for past improprieties of our ancestors I really don't see where it has ever been effective in history to have those who have opportunity to deal with current considerations correctly avoid doing so but rather work at it from a how can we make up for someone elses mistakes aspect.

The problem with the latter is it
1- Doesn't necessarily address any of the issues directly at hand
2- What it does do is create expectation for accountability beyond that which mankind can actually control.

For me it still comes down to choices and for those of us who have the opportunity to make them we should either benefit from the right ones or suffer from the wrong ones.

For those who aren't given those choices (those) who actually take those choices away from them should be accountable for just such.

[Jedburgh]

Amidst this all-too-predictable bickering, I'll just interject for a book recommendation. The Brink of Peace: The Israeli-Syrian Negotiations is an autopsy of the earlier, failed process and makes for a good background read to put the current move for negotiations in context.

[AmericanPride]

I disagree with the ready assumption that a Palestinian state would be detrimental to Israeli security. It would first remove most (though certainly not all) of the ideological opposition to Israel, particularly internationally. This may be more important if US military power continues to gradually erode in the face of emerging near-peer competitors. Second, it would give legitimacy to Israeli military retaliation if factions within the new Palestinian state decide to attack Israel; by terrorism, rockets, etc. And I think if Israel can retain control of key resources (water, energy, oil, etc) and use that as leverage with a legitimate and recognized Palestinian authority, an effective, though not perfect, peace could be created. The Palestinian state would be beholden to Israel, making Israel its patron; not Syria or Iran.

[William F. Owen]

Acceptance of Israel is unlikely without the creation and acceptance of a Palestine state but that is not currently in Israel’s best interests.

Utterly wrong. My wife used to buy her furniture in Nablus and get her car serviced in Ramallah. Tens of 1,000's of Israelis used the Palestinian Casinos in Jericho. Lots of Palestinian worked in Israel and for Isreali firms in the territories. A peaceful Palestinian State is very much in Israels interest. I'd submit that a peace with Israel, is the kiss of death to the powerful complexions of Palestinian leaderships.

The Palestinian State is not the desired condition for a Palestinian Peace. It never was when Gaza was part of Egypt, and the West Bank was part of Jordan. That only changed in 1988.

Again worrying with the Nazi analogy. If we are going to use it then it is the Israelis with the power and the Palestinians are the oppressed and suffering but I am not happy with casting the Jews as the Nazis even if the analogy does work better that way around.

Strangely enough I am pretty careful what I say about Nazis. It's nothing to do with power. It's about belief and action. I said I had a moral problem negotiating with people like them. Not that anyone was like them, and when I do, I refer to the anti-semitic element of their creed as that is what generally distinguishes Nazism from Fascism, Italy and Spain having not big beef with Jews. - except the Communist ones! A lot of the Proto-fascist where Jews!

When the IDF starts exterminating Jews, I'll except the Nazi tag.

...and yes, I have a huge problem with the occupation of Judea and Samaria. I don't think the IDF should be there. I think it delegitimises Israels existance, but unlike the Palestinians, I am happy to accept Arabs, living in Israel.

Shabat Shalom. I'm off the market, to drink coffee, served by hot looking Yemini girls.