Netanyahu’s speech to Congress
Bookworm on May 25 2011 at 1:40 pm | Filed under: Uncategorized
The speech starts about 22 minutes into the video:
Related posts:
- Let’s all sing like the birdies sing….
- More on un-freedom of speech *UPDATE*
- Quick impressions of Palin’s speech
Email This Post To A Friend
70 Responses to “Netanyahu’s speech to Congress”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Gentle woman? Hey gentle woman…
Hey gentle woman… where is the violent, aggressive women at?
Does this guy know how to work an American room, or what?
As I was listening to it I couldn’t help but imagine the exploding heads of Bookworm Room’s resident crypto anti-Semites as he pointed out everything that makes Israel and Israeli culture superior to the thug cultures that surround them. What mirth!
I also liked that he painted The One into a corner with his effusive thanks for The One’s staunch support. It was damning with faint praise, and even Obama must have dimly gotten it.
I did notice that he has a slight problem with the sh sound. Not a concern for me since my real pet peeve is the sibilant ess, which seems to be an affectation among certain flamboyant gays, as well as a straightforward speech defect.
Don’t you think it’s neat that Netanyahu can inspire a stream of thought that ranges from the halls of Congress to Obama’s dimness to the palate-meets-tongue problems of a certain type of homosexual in just moments? Can you imagine Ahmadinejad doing that? I didn’t think so.
{Reposted from another thread.}
Netanyahu’s speech to Congress, selected quotes:
“Congratulations, America. Congratulations, Mr. President. You got bin Laden. Good riddance.”
“Thank you all, and thank you, President Obama, for your steadfast commitment to Israel’s security.”
” But as President Obama said, the border will be different than the one that existed on June 4th, 1967. Israel will not return to the indefensible boundaries of 1967.”
“There are millions of young people out there who are determined to change their future. We all look at them. They muster courage. They risk their lives. They demand dignity. They desire liberty.”
“Now this is not easy for me. It’s not easy because I recognize that in a genuine peace we will be required to give up parts of the ancestral Jewish homeland,”
“In any peace agreement that ends the conflict, some settlements will end up beyond Israel’s borders. The precise delineation of those borders must be negotiated,”
Important speech. You will notice how closely it tracks to our discussion over the last several days. Israel is now publicly committed to giving up much of the West Bank, including lands that include Jewish settlements, as part of a final peace settlement. Netanyahu adjusted his stance on how he interpreted Obama’s statement on the 1967 borders. (Notice that Obama’s statement helped push that process forward.) And Israel threw its support to those in the Arab world who are fighting for democracy, even though it can unleash dangerous instabilities in the Middle East.
Z excerpts the following from Netanyahu’s speech include:
“Now this is not easy for me. It’s not easy because I recognize that in a genuine peace we will be required to give up parts of the ancestral Jewish homeland,”
“In any peace agreement that ends the conflict, some settlements will end up beyond Israel’s borders. The precise delineation of those borders must be negotiated,”
You need to parse this both in terms of contractual language and political rhetoric. Key words and phrases include:
“genuine peace”
“parts of the ancestral Jewish homeland”
“some settlements will end up beyond Israel’s borders”
“Precise delineation of those borders must be negotiated“
That’s a very far cry from Z’s conclusion that “Israel is now publicly committed to giving up much of the West Bank”.
Danny Lemieux: “genuine peace”
That would be based on security and stability.
Danny Lemieux: “parts of the ancestral Jewish homeland” “some settlements will end up beyond Israel’s borders” “Precise delineation of those borders must be negotiated“
That’s the problem, of course. Where the borders will be drawn. Though Netanyahu’s speech has been well-received in the U.S., not so in Israel. Most people were disappointed he didn’t find a way to restart negotiations. However, Israel now publicly committed to giving up parts of the West Bank, including those that include settlements. Even that won’t leave reasonable borders, though.
This map gives some indication of the problem.
http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2011/01/23/world/middleeast/23boundar_map.html
Danny Lemieux: “genuine peace”
That would be based on security and stability.
Danny Lemieux: “parts of the ancestral Jewish homeland” “some settlements will end up beyond Israel’s borders” “Precise delineation of those borders must be negotiated“
That’s the problem, of course. Where the borders will be drawn. Though Netanyahu’s speech has been well-received in the U.S., not so in Israel. Most people were disappointed he didn’t find a way to restart negotiations. However, Israel now publicly committed to giving up parts of the West Bank, including those that include settlements. Even that won’t leave reasonable borders, though.
This map gives some indication of the problem.
http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2011/01/23/world/middleeast/23boundar_map.html
This map gives some indication of the problem.
http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2011/01/23/world/middleeast/23boundar_map.html
Z, I believe I’ve identified why I tune out most of your posts. Its the way you approach an argument. Sometimes, you will offer an unsupported statement of opinion, seemingly intending that it will be taken as fact and truth, then attempting to shift ground to a related subject or post that is not on point.
Case in point: your posts #6-9. You state: ”Though Netanyahu’s speech has been well-received in the U.S., not so in Israel.” This is followed by an unsupported opinion, stated as fact: ”Even that won’t leave reasonable borders, though.” Finally we’re given a link to a NYT graphic of a land swap plan that, according the the caption, “is not currently being considered in the negotiation process.” According to an AP news story, Netanyahu now enjoys a 51% approval rating in Israel, up 13% from a similar poll taken 5 weeks ago. A plurality (46%) believe the US trip was a success, while 10% believe it was a failure. The sample size seems quite small (477 polled), but it should be mentioned that a similar percentage polled in the US would require a sample size of over 19,000. Here’s the link.
So… do you stand by your assertion that Netanyahu’s speech was not well received in Israel?
BobK: Z, I believe I’ve identified why I tune out most of your posts.
That’s fine, though many of our comments generate a lot of responses. And in this case, we believe we raised a number of important points.
BobK: This is followed by an unsupported opinion, stated as fact: ”Even that won’t leave reasonable borders, though.”
That’s why we linked the map, to begin a discussion of that point. Take a look at the pattern of settlements. If we try to envelope 80% of the settler population, it leaves very bizarre borders. A trip east from Ramallah, for instance, would require crossing an international border, or a long path around. If you consider the other 20% of the settlers, representing 2% of the population of the West Bank, there is no plausiable line that could encompass them and still leave an unfragmented border for a Palestinian state.
Again, the map is presented to *initiate* a discussion.
BobK: According to an AP news story, Netanyahu now enjoys a 51% approval rating in Israel, up 13% from a similar poll taken 5 weeks ago… So… do you stand by your assertion that Netanyahu’s speech was not well received in Israel?
No, we’ll retract that claim. (The poll came out after we originally posted that statement.) Though analyst reaction was often negative, the public is rallying behind Netanyahu. As we mentioned, it was an important speech in many respects. Palestinian reaction is somewhat different.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/26/world/middleeast/26mideast.html
BobK: The sample size seems quite small (477 polled), but it should be mentioned that a similar percentage polled in the US would require a sample size of over 19,000.
Um, no. It requires virtually the same sample size for the same margin of error of ~5%. A miracle of statistics! (Think of ingredients in a soup. As long as the soup is well mixed, then you only need a teaspoon to taste the ingredients, no matter if it is a small pot or a large pot.)
Zachriel: (The poll came out after we originally posted that statement.)
Well, about the same time, anyway.
Z’s response: Um, no. It requires virtually the same sample size for the same margin of error of ~5%.
I’m not asking this to be contentious, Z, but only out of curiosity – what margin of error does a n=477 sample size generate as a representative of a population of 7.5 million?
Danny Lemieux: I’m not asking this to be contentious, Z, but only out of curiosity –
It’s not contentious at all. It’s a good question, though a bit off-topic.
Danny Lemieux: what margin of error does a n=477 sample size generate as a representative of a population of 7.5 million?
There is 95% probability (confidence level) that the results will be within 4½% (margin of error) of the true amount. This is true for populations of 70 thousand to 70 million. (It changes with very small populations, then it’s more like a stew, where a teaspoon may, by chance, have a bit of meat or potato.)
Try this calculator for fun.
http://www.raosoft.com/samplesize.html
[...] you haven’t listened to Netanyahu’s speech to Congress, you must. And I mean listen. I’m usually a speech reader, because I read quickly, and [...]
[...] you haven’t listened to Netanyahu’s speech to Congress, you must. And I mean listen. I’m usually a speech reader, because I read quickly, and seldom [...]
Z,
I wasn’t referring to margin of error, I was referring to the raw sample size in proportion to population. Many US polls have larger sample sizes, but certainly not in proportion to population. Just pre-empting the “what a tiny sample” counter-argument.
A poll that has 45 % Republicans and 55% Democrats, is not 4% in error. It’s about 10% in error plus the 4.5% in error.
BobK: I wasn’t referring to margin of error, I was referring to the raw sample size in proportion to population.
The sample size required for a given margin of error and confidence level is virtually the same for a population of 70 thousand as it is for 70 trillion. Think soup!
BobK: Many US polls have larger sample sizes, but certainly not in proportion to population.
Most polls try to have a sample of about 1000 people, giving a margin of error of about 3%. This works whether the sample is the state of Missouri, or the entire United States.
BobK: Just pre-empting the “what a tiny sample” counter-argument.
Very small populations would be less than 10,000 or so, and are irrelevant to our cases above. Anything with a population of over 10,000 or so will take a sample of about 450 for a 4½% margin of error, and about 1000 for a 3% margin of error.
But just for completeness, for a 4½% margin of error, a population of 1000 would take a sample size of about 300, or 30% of the population. A population of 100 would take a sample size of 100 of 83, or 83% of the population.
Ymarsakar: A poll that has 45 % Republicans and 55% Democrats, is not 4% in error.
Polling, just like soup tasting, assumes proper mixing, that is, the sample is a random selection from the entire population. There are many sources of error in polling.
This cracks me up: Zach is always waving his scepter and telling us when we go off-topic, but then he hijacks it here so he can show his mathematical chops.
Hey, the thread is about how Netanyahu knocked one out of Obama’s park, and how his rhetoric completely puts to shame that of the murderers whom Zach so consistently and reliably defends on this site.
Don’t let The Basementeer pull off another threadjack.
Sorry for the off-topic.
Charles Martel: Hey, the thread is about how Netanyahu knocked one out of Obama’s park, and how his rhetoric completely puts to shame that of the murderers whom Zach so consistently and reliably defends on this site.
Rhetoric isn’t going to enough to achieve a peaceful end to the conflict.
Israel have historically wanted to start the negotiations from the Jordanian border. The Palestinians claim the entirety of Palestine, not recognizing Israel’s right to exist. Nearly all outside observers, including the United States, have long recognized that negotiations have to start at the 1967 lines, excepting Jerusalem, and then negotiate from there.
Notice how Obama’s speech moved the process. During the media-storm, Netanyahu originally claimed Israel would never retreat to the 1967 borders. During his speech to the U.S. Congress, though, he thanked the President for saying that Israel would not end up with its 1967 borders.
The question is whether Israel and the Palestinians can find some way to move the process forward, and whether Netanyahu helped or hindered the process.
Here is how Zach’s oh-so-reasonable Israeli-Palestinian negotiations would probably go:
Israeli Negotiator: “OK, let’s look at the 1967 borders. State your preferences and we’ll begin there.”
Palestinian Negotiator: “We would prefer to start at the 1928 borders. Your Zionist entity has no right to exist.”
Israeli (taken aback): “There is no room for discussion?”
Palestinian: “Jewish pigs deserve no room for anything. However, we may consider talking to you if you accept the following: The Dome of the Rock belongs to us. All Israeli settlements in the West Bank return to us. The Golan Heights return to Syria. You must accept the right-of-return claims of 5 million Palestinians. You must create a demilitarized zone between Palestine, Syria and Lebanon.”
Israeli: “Whoa, that’s a schissel! Any possibility we could sit down over some pastrami on rye and see if there’s some wiggle room?”
Palestinian: “Jewish food is haram! When we have taken back our rightful lands, we will destroy every deli between Aleppo and Nicosia!”
Israeli: “OK, OK. Let’s pretend that we can reach an agreement. Who will guarantee our security concerns?”
Palestinian: “The Americans under Obama could commit on paper to something or another. The UN, which performed so admirably in Rwanda, the Balkans, Iraq and the Congo, will form a 500-man ‘trip-wire’ brigade on the Jordanian border that will fiercely defend against unwarranted intrusions on Jew territory—when they’re not sampling the delicious bottoms of 9 year olds!
Here’s another poll on Netanyahu’s speech, from Teleseker-Maariv.
57% of Israelis say Netanyahu should have said “yes” or “yes, but” to Obama’s 1967-based plan.
http://www.nrg.co.il/online/1/ART2/244/067.html
A slight variation:
Israeli Negotiator: God gave us this land.
Palestinian Negotiator: God gave us this land.
Z,
I agree with your statement that rhetoric is not going to achieve an end to this conflict – not even PM Netanyahu’s intelligent and eloquent rhetoric (contrasted with President Obama’s tired platitudes, glib reasoning and clipped delivery). Why? Because the true conflict has never been about borders – 1948, 1967 or otherwise. It is and has always been about the survival of a Jewish state and a Jewish presence in the Middle East. For a brief clear discussion of this ongoing mess, I’d recommend Donald Sensing’s article found here.
BobK: It is and has always been about the survival of a Jewish state and a Jewish presence in the Middle East.
Yes, from the Arab point of view, they were pushed off their land by foreigners, and that the foundation of Israel was a disaster. Israel’s starting position is the border with Jordan (no Palestine), and the Palestinian’s starting position is the Sea (no Israel).
Z,
Did you even look at the link I posted? Israel has offered land for peace, only to experience the intifada. In 1982, Israel returned to Egypt all of the Sinai (taken in response to the 1967 Arab attempt to smash Israel from all sides, not an aggressive war of conquest) – fulfilling it’s obligations under a 1979 treaty. Israel has repeatedly shown themselves to be honorable when treated with respect. Fatah/Hamas has demonstrated no interest in peace, honor or respect. They say one thing to Western interests and the UN (in English), and something completely different in Arabic for Arab consumption.
Please don’t try to argue moral equivalence here. You’re only embarrassing yourselves.
BTW – that poll you cited also shows that if an election were held today, Likud and the nationalist party in Israel would gain seats in the Knesset. The appeasers would lose seats. A poor citation to support your contention that PM Netanyahu (and his views) are not well received in Israel…
BoBk, it’s like talking to a computer program that hasn’t been able to pass the Turing Test, isn’t it.
BobK,
Sometimes Z is compelled to wrest the narrative forcefully back to the Palestinian perspective. Even in the case such as yours, where it’s a digression that has nothing to do with your actual topic or argument, Z will do this.
It’s an effective technique in many ways, especially directed for the casual readers who are just dropping in, interested.
It’s effective because Z’s statements aren’t false. Z’s position is based on what I would call “Z’s Important List Of Truths.” That list of truths ignores other truths – not because they’re false, but because in Z’s worldview, they’re less important.
Here in Book’s corner of the internet universe, her advocacy position (and many of ours) is ardently pro-Israel. Book’s position (and usually ours) is based on our own “Important List of Truths”. And we can explain, every single one, why we think they’re more important than Z’s “List Of Truths”.
If you go look up the old Zachriel blog – I think it’s the same Zachriel – you’ll find that Z lays out Z’s rules for argumentation, from I think 2005. I think Z cut and pasted that exact set of rules into a comment here some weeks back, too. So Z’s been at this a while, has figured out what he thinks is the most effective blog debate style, and sticks to it with admirable consistency and tenacity. I gotta tip my hat in admiration to that, no matter what I think of the content of Z’s argumentation, or my own frustration (non-commendable!) when I think I’ve just been “digressed on” or misconstrued.
I say “he”, but Z self-refers as “We”, and comes up with so many supportive links so quickly that I’m starting to think Z may well be a collective! I don’t visit many of them but the ones I decide may interest me have almost always been in fact supportive of Z’s position. (Again, not saying I *agree* with the Z-argument at hand…!)
So, yeah, it’s frustrating to get digressed on!
So I could make a comment such as:
> So I envision this teenager, propped on the bed with a two-foot tall stack of comic books on the table next to the lamp. Every single one of them, a gore-fest of zombies and ripped arms and dripping eye sockets, machetes chopping through necks that are spewing fountains of blood, ankle stumps climbing stairs. And I want to say, “Hey kid! Maybe one night a week you should put down those comic books and pick up Hayek’s “The Road To Serfdom”, OK? It just might do you some good!
And I should not be surprised were Z’s comment on this to read:
> Banning comic books is thought by most responsible authorities to be a violation of freedom of speech
And I’m, like, Hey! Not my point at all! A true statement, but not at all relevant to my argument.
But them’s the rules and that’s the playbook. It’s based on a different “List Of Truths”.
Mike, good call. On other blogs that the Z Entity pestered, it did exactly the same thing. Nobody whatsoever was ever converted, but the entity had a high old time passing gas or whatever it is that it delights in passing.
I know, Charles. And sometimes the Z response is actually not irrelevant.
Somewhat back on topic, I made a point in a thread concerning the Palestinian refugees. I wondered, what if a nation makes a decision: *Never* leave a refugee problem festering on your border. Give the world deliberative bodies a deadline – “Help us take care of this problem now, or we’ll take care of it for you.” As bad as it may be, the solution would at least end the problem.
Israel didn’t take that position, and never has yet.
So I wondered – not even advocated, but wondered – what if Israel had forcefully ended the refugee issue violently?
Z to my argument was, as best I can remember:
> It would have been particularly awful for the Palestinian refugees
To which I could have replied, of course it would have. Which is why I hesitate to state an advocacy.
But look at the persistent vexing problem with the Palestinian refugees, encamped, trapped where they are. They’re not going back home, not the original generation, and none of these descendants either. None of the Arab countries will ever take them. The Palestinians are pawns in an endless power play. This helpless state that they’re in must be a part of the cause of their virulent, genocidal hatred. They don’t direct this hatred at their Arab neighbors, who have great blame; no, it is expressed solely at the Israelis.
So: You’re the Israeiis, and the Palestinians have just fled across the border of Israel. The war is over. Suppose the Israelis then took the hard line. Disperse them, or we will. You have six months. Then six months pass. The Israelis construct a technique for dispersal. Five thousand Palestinians die in the forced dispersal – murdered, cold-bloodedly. But the Palestinians are gone into Jordan (suppose). And they stay there or are further dispersed. Those who survived the onslaught pick up their lives and carry on.
Israel is roundly condemned internationally – and with some, perhaps a lot, of justification. The history books list this brutal action, an atrocity, in all truthfulness. Those Palestinians who survived, as the years pass, continue to hate the Israelis with great passion.
But – they’re living normal lives again, all of them, in Jordan, in Iraq, in Ehypt, in Saudi Arabia. Those who stayed in Israel continue to live in Israel (as they do today). The refugee problem recedes in memory, and eventually, it’s just a footnote. Though the atrocity remains, it recedes in importance, too.
So you have an atrocity of, say, 10,000 deaths, or whatever corresponds to the number of deaths caused by the repeated incursions to stop the Palestinians endless assaults on Israel. Assaults that are only going to continue via Hamas, the terrorist organization that has sworn to end Israel’s existence and commit genocide, that rains missiles down upon Israel’s cities and villages and towns, that would murder millions of Israeli’s tonight, if only they could.
Which is worse – what’s happening now and continues and continues to happen; or the “atrocity” I’m wondering about? I do have to wonder.
BobK: Did you even look at the link I posted?
Yes. Did you read our response?
BobK: Israel has offered land for peace, only to experience the intifada.
Yes, there is still an ongoing conflict.
BobK: Israel has repeatedly shown themselves to be honorable when treated with respect.
And yet they keep building settlements in disputed territories knowing it makes peace harder and harder to achieve.
Donald Sensing: The conflict is not about land. The conflict is over Israel’s very existence, not its “borders.”
Of course it’s about the land. If Israel were in South America or Europe, the Palestinians wouldn’t care. They consider the land to be theirs, given to them by God, and they being asked to negotiate away parts of their homeland. The Israelis think the same.
BobK: BTW – that poll you cited also shows that if an election were held today, Likud and the nationalist party in Israel would gain seats in the Knesset.
Yes, that is correct, though not as much of a bump as in the other poll. We’ll see if he can hold on to that favorable opinion. Perhaps, as he seems to have summed up much of Israeli sentiment with regards to the Palestinian issue.
BobK: A poor citation to support your contention that PM Netanyahu (and his views) are not well received in Israel…
We explicitly retracted that claim. Do you read our responses?
Mike Devx: Sometimes Z is compelled to wrest the narrative forcefully back to the Palestinian perspective.
If you were to argue that the Israelis have no legitimate concerns, we would just as strongly disagree.
Mike Devx: Here in Book’s corner of the internet universe, her advocacy position (and many of ours) is ardently pro-Israel.
We’re ardently pro-Israel. They have every right to live in peace and security within recognized borders. Violent attacks against Israelis are counterproductive and attacks against Israeli civilians are morally abhorrent.
Mike Devx: Book’s position (and usually ours) is based on our own “Important List of Truths”. And we can explain, every single one, why we think they’re more important than Z’s “List Of Truths”.
What are those “Truths”?
Mike Devx: And I should not be surprised were Z’s comment on this to read:
> Banning comic books is thought by most responsible authorities to be a violation of freedom of speech
After all this time, you still don’t understand our fundamental position. Banning comic books is a violation of freedom of speech.
Charles Martel: On other blogs that the Z Entity pestered, it did exactly the same thing. Nobody whatsoever was ever converted,
The usual commenters are rarely converted because they are set in their positions. We comment for the benefit of the general reader in the hopes that they will understand why it is not appropriate to propose the execution of Leftists in order to lower the crime rate.
Came across this 2004 letter from Pres. George W. Bush to then-Prime Minister Ariel Sharon that openly recognizes that Israel cannot and should not return to its pre-1967 borders.
http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2004/04/20040414-3.html
Oh well, another false Lefty meme busted!
Mike Devx: Which is worse – what’s happening now and continues and continues to happen; or the “atrocity” I’m wondering about? I do have to wonder.
You’re talking about emptying the entire West Bank. The problem is that your violent scenario would not have resolved the problem, but exasperated it. There would be far more refugees, not fewer. With thousands upon thousands of innocent civilians slaughtered, Israel would have even more blood on their hands than they do now, the children of the Holocaust committing a holocaust. It is likely the entire world would have turned their backs on them, including the United States. If not, then it would have led to a direct confrontation with the Soviet Union, who would have been on the side of “good.”
Israel needs allies in the world, and they need to believe in themselves. You really have to decide what kind of country you’re going to be. That includes Israel, the Palestinians and the U.S.
Danny Lemieux: Came across this 2004 letter from Pres. George W. Bush to then-Prime Minister Ariel Sharon that openly recognizes that Israel cannot and should not return to its pre-1967 borders.
You can’t still be that confused. The U.S. policy has always been negotiate land-swaps from the 1967 borders (1948 Armistice lines), not a return to the 1967 borders.
Bush: “Any final status agreement must be reached between the two parties, and changes to the 1949 Armistice lines must be mutually agreed to.”
Obama: “The borders of Israel and Palestine should be based on the 1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps, so that secure and recognized borders are established for both states.”
Actual text of Obama’s speech:
“So while the core issues of the conflict must be negotiated, the basis of those negotiations is clear: a viable Palestine, and a secure Israel. The United States believes that negotiations should result in two states, with permanent Palestinian borders with Israel, Jordan, and Egypt, and permanent Israeli borders with Palestine. The borders of Israel and Palestine should be based on the 1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps, so that secure and recognized borders are established for both states. The Palestinian people must have the right to govern themselves, and reach their potential, in a sovereign and contiguous state.”
Interpreted, by Foreign Policy magazine:
“”The borders of Israel and Palestine should be based on the 1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps,” the U.S. president said, referring to what are official known as the 1949 Armistice lines“.
http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2011/05/19/obama_alters_us_policy_tells_israel_to_start_with_67_borders
Swaps or no swaps…the 1949 lines are indefensible.
Danny Lemieux: Swaps or no swaps…the 1949 lines are indefensible.
That’s not necessarily the case, but you need to at least acknowledge that the U.S. has not called for a return to the 1967 borders, that Obama’s statement is in keeping with continuing U.S. policy.
What borders would you think were fair to all parties?
Z…as I have told you before, I don’t believe there are ANY borders that are “fair” to the Palestinians. It’s like asking the Czechs to come to some accommodation with Hitler over the Sudetenland. THERE IS NO SOLUTION!
To paraphrase, this situation will have no solution until Palestinians learn to love their own children more than they hate the Jews.
I think the best policy for the U.S. to adopt is to cut off all funding to the Palestinians yesterday, to tell them to work things out with the Israelis on their own and, when they are ready to recognize Israel as a country and its right to exist, THEN we can talk. Until then, don’t bother calling.
Everything else is enablement of collective Palestinian insanity. I know there are many wonderful Palestinian individuals (Some of whom I greatly like and respect). However, their voices don’t count. Even the other Arab countries consider the Palestinians to be nuts (once you peek behind the rhetoric).
The French and Brits took hundreds of years to achieve a grudging peace with each other. Today, I can’t imagine them going to war with each other and most that I know now profess a grudging admiration for each other. However, it took them 100s of years to get to that point.
However, their voices don’t count.
They matter not in the least. For the Zs of the world make them irrelevant in the face of human trials and tribulations. The children that call themselves adults, are not able to handle the reality of the day, instead calling it cynicism and preaching a need for Obama HOpe and Change.
However, it took them 100s of years to get to that point.
Once they stopped being a constitutional monarchy, Britain and France lost most of the reasons for fighting. Originally, the English sought territory in France, Normandy, as something being legitimate to the English crown. Or that the French crown should descend upon the English royals.
Original causes, see. And the Palestinian original cause is still going strong. Something Leftists and pro-Palestinian people would like to ignore.
Just saw a report on foreign aid…apparently we give 2/3 of our total foreign aid to muslim countries, and 1/3 goes to Arab countries. None of it is for charitable purposes – all of it is military aid.
I know that there was a time when we gave aid in order to counter the Soviets. Is there still reason to provide that counter balance? I don’t think so. In fact, it seems to me that we either get something in return for our aid, or cut it out entirely. Charity is one thing, but it’s about time that the Europeans and the Arabs provide for their own defense.
Danny Lemieux: Z…as I have told you before, I don’t believe there are ANY borders that are “fair” to the Palestinians.
Fair may be too strong a word. Acceptable, then.
Danny Lemieux: To paraphrase, this situation will have no solution until Palestinians learn to love their own children more than they hate the Jews.
What you keep ignoring is that the Palestinians consider it their land, their children’s land, they are being asked to surrender.
Danny Lemieux: I know there are many wonderful Palestinian individuals (Some of whom I greatly like and respect). However, their voices don’t count.
Their voices have to be made to count. Keep in mind that the Palestinians do have elections, and the majority do want to find some way forward.
“73 percent of Palestinians in both the West Bank and Gaza were in favor of peace negotiations with Israel, but stressed that a settlement freeze should be a precondition to talks.”
http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/poll-most-palestinians-want-peace-with-israel-1.297196
What you keep ignoring is that the Palestinians consider it their land, their children’s land, they are being asked to surrender.
Like you keep ignoring the Israelis that were forcibly re-located?
Their voices have to be made to count.
Like the voices of Israeli settlers whom you called militaristic conquerors building forts?
Ymarsakar: Like you keep ignoring the Israelis that were forcibly re-located?
Do you mean the Gaza settlers? They were removed by their own government, which should have discouraged the settlements in the first place.
Ymarsakar: Like the voices of Israeli settlers whom you called militaristic conquerors building forts?
That’s the way they look, hilltop fortresses like Crusader castles; but the settlers believe they are part of God’s mandate, that they not only can, but should populate the West Bank. Again, they shouldn’t be settling in lands that are clearly the heart of the nascent Palestinian state.
>>What you keep ignoring is that the Palestinians consider it their land, their children’s land, they are being asked to surrender. >>
What you keep ignoring is that the reason they don’t have their land is that they lost the war.
Actions have consequences.
They were on the wrong side of the conflict.
>>they shouldn’t be settling in lands that are clearly the heart of the nascent Palestinian state. >>
Possession is 9/10 of the law.
What part of “they lost the war” don’t you understand?
suek: What you keep ignoring is that the reason they don’t have their land is that they lost the war.
Um, no. We’ve responded to that point many times. International law no longer recognizes the right of conquest. Israel is a signatory to the Charter of the United Nations. Israel does have a right to security. They are an occupying power in the West Bank.
> You’re talking about emptying the entire West Bank. [...] You really have to decide what kind of country you’re going to be. That includes Israel, the Palestinians and the U.S.
I was speaking of the Palestinatian refugee problem as it existed in 1949, not today. And I was clear: I was not advocating that in 1949 the Israelis should have forcibly dispersed the refugees. I was not taking a supportive position. I am *wondering*. Debating internally in my head.
To repeat part of your comment: You really have to decide what kind of country you’re going to be.
By analogy I looked at Truman’s agonizing decision:
- Deliberately murder 200,000 – 300,000 Japanese by dropping two atomic bombs
- Deliberately murder 1,000,000 – 2,000,000 Japanese and 200,000 American GIs by the traditional sea to land invasion of Japan.
He chose the first. Quite a few out there still consider that decision an atrocity. I don’t. I apply the same logic to a supposed 1949 Israeli decision to disperse the refugees. It, too, would have been a terrible, agonizing decision. No analogy is perfect, but it’s reasonably close.
On a different part of your post:
> The problem is that your violent scenario would not have resolved the problem, but exasperated it. There would be far more refugees, not fewer.
I don’t know how you end up with far more refugees if you contemplate such a 1949 “solution”. But I totally agree, sure: It might not even have worked. But again, back to my analogy. We’ve got the benefit of 20-20 hindsight: The dropping of the two atomic bombs worked. Japan surrendered. There was no guarantee even that murder of 200,000 – 300,000 was going to work. And there was no guarantee that a sea to land invasion murdering millions would have worked either.
So, in my post #31 and earlier in other commentary, I wondered about this. I’m still wondering. (But not advocating.)
If international law doesn’t recognize the Israeli and Palestinian reality, then that’s convenient since reality doesn’t recognize international law to begin with. Since it is reality that takes its existence first, we all know who’s on the bottom of the totem pole.
Mike Devx: I was speaking of the Palestinatian refugee problem as it existed in 1949, not today.
Yes. The refugees moved into the West Bank and Gaza. So to dispel those refugees, you would have to push them out of the West Bank and Gaza. To do that, you would have to occupy those territories creating more refugees. When they fought against you, you would create more refugees. If you evacuated all of the West Bank, there would be millions of refugees in the surrounding country. When do you stop? Oh, and you lose whatever support you may have had from other countries.
Mike Devx: And I was clear: I was not advocating that in 1949 the Israelis should have forcibly dispersed the refugees.
Yes, that was understood.
Z’s using an outdated slavery model here that says the sons of servants and slaves are always slaves and servants because the duty and obligation of a slave is to obey their Master and produce more slaves.
The idea that wrong becomes right because the Israeli government signed a UN Charter and that this UN Charter is then utilized to destroy Israel, means that now Israel has the right and power to take away the life and happiness of Israeli citizens? Completely wrong and incorrect, as well as unjust and illegitimate.
It’s not so much that the logic is un-parseable as it is completely unethical. The right of authority any government or organization has, does not come from another organization slash government. It comes from the power that built that government/organization. Thus the UN Charter’s authority does not come from every nation, only the nations that is specifically involved in a dispute. On a greater level, the UN Charter’s authority rests within the military powers of the Great Powers or superpowers of the time. In 2008, that would be the United States of America, alone. Israel does not need to negotiate with the UN or its Charter, but it does need to negotiate with the United States. Which is why BN visited the US. The concept of sovereignty only goes one way up, and it isn’t trickle down. The international umbrella doesn’t exist. It does not have authority over Israeli or Palestinian actions or borders. The governments in the UN have no legitimate justification to interfere in another country’s matters lacking national security or trade interests. The Israelis removed their own people not because the international umbrella told them to, but because the Israeli government, in order to safeguard their entire nation and people, decided that this was a decision they were going to do. None of the reasons justifying should have come from an authority or organization that had no backing amongst the Israeli people. The moment a nation holds the interests and orders of some other group at the highest levels, the citizens of that nation immediately become the slaves of a foreign power and are no longer accountable to their government nor are capable holding their government to account. This is one of the older models of slavery humans have designed to create mixed economic projections.
It is entirely irrelevant whether the UN recognizes or does not recognize Israel or Palestinian territorial boundaries. The only thing that matters is what the powerful nations in the UN will do about it. The moment the US removes itself from the UN entirely, is the moment when the UN loses the supermajority of its power and influence. In so far as Israel has to compromise, they must only deal with the nations that have actual disputes with them. That doesn’t include all the nations in the UN.
They were removed by their own government, which should have discouraged the settlements in the first place.
Z has no problems with the Israeli government removing their own people by force, because he believes people should be discouraged from making a living and acquiring wealth in a free economy if the international tyranny dictates that it is right for some people to suffer. He’d much prefer a mixed economy built upon slave ethics. His support of the Palestinian cause allows him to ignore how Palestinian governments do not forcibly remove people or terrorists from the disputed territories in question. Z thinks that this is “fair” by his definitions.
Morally reprehensible, sick, and totally distorted unethical con artists talk about “fairness” but in the end, they’re just trash.
Ymarsakar: Z’s using an outdated slavery model here that says the sons of servants and slaves are always slaves and servants because the duty and obligation of a slave is to obey their Master and produce more slaves.
Rest assured, we reject that social model. If the rest of your comment is based on that misunderstanding, perhaps you should reconsider your position.
Ymarsakar: The idea that wrong becomes right because the Israeli government signed a UN Charter and that this UN Charter is then utilized to destroy Israel, means that now Israel has the right and power to take away the life and happiness of Israeli citizens? Completely wrong and incorrect, as well as unjust and illegitimate.
Good thing, then, that the U.N. actually helped found Israel, and Israel is a voluntary member of the United Nations whose Charter gives every country the right to self-defense.
Ymarsakar: Morally reprehensible, sick, and totally distorted unethical con artists talk about “fairness” but in the end, they’re just trash.
Because suggesting that Israel discourage settlements in untenable and contested regions is the same as calling for the murder of millions of Leftists as a crime control measure.
Ymarsakar: Z’s using an outdated slavery model here that says the sons of servants and slaves are always slaves and servants because the duty and obligation of a slave is to obey their Master and produce more slaves.
Rest assured, we reject that social model. If the rest of your comment is based on that misunderstanding, perhaps you should reconsider your position.
Ymarsakar: The idea that wrong becomes right because the Israeli government signed a UN Charter and that this UN Charter is then utilized to destroy Israel, means that now Israel has the right and power to take away the life and happiness of Israeli citizens? Completely wrong and incorrect, as well as unjust and illegitimate.
Good thing, then, that the U.N. actually helped found Israel, and Israel is a voluntary member of the United Nations whose Charter gives every country the right to self-defense.
Ymarsakar: Morally reprehensible, sick, and totally distorted unethical con artists talk about “fairness” but in the end, they’re just trash.
Because suggesting that Israel discourage settlements in untenable and contested regions is the same as calling for the murder of millions of Leftists as a crime control measure.
Oh, it’s not that you think Israelis should do something better. You never offered a solution or a proposal to such. You’re basically speecifying your moral lectures on what the Israelis should do and anything they shouldn’t do is wrong and morally reprehensible. Not acceptable to you, as voiced by you.
The US provided recognition of Israel, as many other nations did. The UN documents aren’t worth the space they are taking up in New York.
Basically you’re riding the high horse of arrogance and moral conceit in telling Israelis, who you neither care about nor are responsible for, how they shouldn’t act to “preserve their security”. Just as you’re riding the high horse of arrogance and foolishness in telling Bookworm Room readers what is or isn’t acceptable, what they are required to write or not write, and last but not least, what readers here should think about the issues you have dictated and massaged to your own personal specifications.
In terms of moral posturing, your position on Israel is softer and more naive than the one you personally took here. You actually voiced a plan of order in dictation mode as well as an assertion of what “should be”, whereas on Israel you only voiced what you think shouldn’t be.
Words and appearances matter much more to you than actual results from behavior imparted (from you to others) and actions taken (in words written). Is that why you end up either ignoring the Hamas charter or paying particular attention to my calls to action. You can disbelieve and ignore Hamas because no Hamas member is here communicating with you. But you find it hard to ignore the fear that takes hold when you think about such ideas as mine taking a greater hold upon the psyche of individuals and readers on the internets.
People who pride themselves on placing the greatest moral worth and intellectual authority on words and appearances alone are often shocked and startled by Action. The greater it is, the more unorthodox the action, the greater the unsettling fear that descends upon the wordsworth.
A man or woman that does not consider the ramifications that derives from taking action upon their ideas and word claims, is considered reckless and foolish. A person that does not pay any attention at all to the consequences of their actions because they never do anything other than talk about their moral sanction and their God, international authority, is less worthy than a reckless fool. I do not believe any such claim from such a one. How can they reject a social model of authoritarianism when their every action is authoritarian in nature? How can they reject a social model of authoritarianism when the only actions you see them do is to talk about supporting authoritarianism? If slavery is what they are against, then it will never be proved because they will never do anything about slavery other than talk about being against it, while talking about supporting statist regimes that enslave people.
Zach gives us an interesting tell in a statement above, namely, that the UN Charter “gives” nations the right to self-defense. This is a typical statist point of view, that some government or authority gives us our rights—which, of course, means that it can take them away.
Ymar: The governments in the UN have no legitimate justification to interfere in another country’s matters lacking national security or trade interests.
The problem is, what *if* a nation does publicly agree to abide by the decisions of U.N. controlling authority? Then they have bound themselves. Israel (and most countries) to one degree or another have publicly bound themselves to U.N. authority.
I mentioned John Bolton’s 2005 book in another post. I reread the last two chapters of it a few evenings ago. Much of it concerned his time as our U.N. ambassador, specifically the Israel-Lebanon conflict of I think 2004. The detailed inside look at the machinations of all parties involved within the U.N. was fascinating. The key thing there was, and is, that the results of these U.N. power plays, once you’ve bound yourself to abide by those resulting decisions, is sometimes life-or-death. Just absolutely critical.
Ymar: The moment a nation holds the interests and orders of some other group at the highest levels, the citizens of that nation immediately become the slaves of a foreign power and are no longer accountable to their government nor are capable holding their government to account.
Yep. That’s exactly the problem!
In political theory, once the citizens of a sovereign state no longer – as you put it – “are capable of holding their government to account”, they’re in a terrible position. Ceding sovereign authority to these unelected supra-national bodies – who are just people after all, with their own hidden interests – is an extraordinarily risky thing to do. As an example, the U.S. refuses to recognize the sovereignty of the I.C.C. (International Criminal Court) over any American citizen or affairs. Thank God.
Ymarsakar: Basically you’re riding the high horse of arrogance and moral conceit in telling Israelis, who you neither care about nor are responsible for, how they shouldn’t act to “preserve their security”.
As we have said, Israel has a right to self-defense. You should know that, if you were reading our comments.
Most of your reply is an incoherent rant. Let us just say that the Palestinians should eschew violence and recognize Israel’s right to exist, and then genuinely share it with them as their neighbors—as should Israel. They can make a new life for themselves, and the pains of the past will recede. It would help if those borders made some sort of sense, though. And there are other important issues, such as water rights, and access to holy places. To reach this point, they have to talk to one another. That’s unlikely to occur as long as Israel continues to build settlements in disputed territory.
Politics is the art of the possible. At the end, each government has to bring their people to the table. The people themselves have to be at peace.
Charles Martel: Zach{riel} gives us an interesting tell in a statement above, namely, that the UN Charter “gives” nations the right to self-defense. This is a typical statist point of view, that some government or authority gives us our rights—which, of course, means that it can take them away.
Do you understand what a contract is? A promise? Because that is what the Charter is, a promise, a contract, an agreement between parties.
Mike Devx: The problem is, what *if* a nation does publicly agree to abide by the decisions of U.N. controlling authority? Then they have bound themselves. Israel (and most countries) to one degree or another have publicly bound themselves to U.N. authority.
That’s right. The basic principle is that war should be avoided as a means of resolving international disputes, because war is so terrible, so uncontrollable, that it can consume the entire world, as it did twice in the last century, if left unchecked.
Ymarsakar: The moment a nation holds the interests and orders of some other group at the highest levels, the citizens of that nation immediately become the slaves of a foreign power and are no longer accountable to their government nor are capable holding their government to account.
Mike Devx: Yep. That’s exactly the problem!
Hardly. The United Nations is a very weak, decentralized organization, with very little enforcement power. Nor is the United Nations Charter the only treaty among nations. You don’t think there should be maritime law? Or international trade laws? Countries are bound to one another in many different ways, and the American Founders certainly saw the making of treaties to be an important function of the government.
I may be misinformed about this, but I seem to recall that a large number of the people resident in Judea and Samaria left their lands in 1967 voluntarily when warned by Jordan/Syria/Egypt that the invasion was coming. These people became the refugees accepted into Jordan (provisionally, ending up in camps) and rejected by all other Arab nations. The Arabs who remained with their land after the Six-Days War were granted full Israeli citizenship and voting rights, and even today there are a significant number of Knesset seats held by Arabs (10? 12? in the 120 seat Knesset).
Culture and government are not abstract, and ideological “fairness” pales when compared to the reality of what life must be like in Israel. In judging the “rights” of the Arabs in Israel, or the “fairness” of the situation on the ground today, I find myself asking a few simple questions: Would I rather be an Muslim living in Tel-Aviv or a Christian living in Bethlehem? Would I rather be an Arab in Haifa or a Jew in Hebron? If I were homosexual, would it be better for me in Nazareth or Ramallah?
I fear an Arab “Palestine” would look far more like the Hamas-controlled Gaza strip than Israeli Tel Aviv. So, which culture, which government deserves our support? It’s a no-brainer.
Zach, what I understand is that you believe rights are not inherent but are given.
Charles Martel: what I understand is that you believe rights are not inherent but are given.
Well, if that is why you are confused, then be assured, Charles Martel! We believe in inherent rights, including freedom of speech, assembly, and the right of a people to self-determination.
BobK: Would I rather be an Arab in Haifa or a Jew in Hebron?
It would probably depend on the person. For instance, thousands of Palestinians were forced out of Haifa by the Israelis in 1948, and there are 500 Jewish settlers who have moved to Hebron, a city of 160,000 Palestinians.
Zach, thanks for the clarification. I appreciate it.
Israel (and most countries) to one degree or another have publicly bound themselves to U.N. authority.
Israel is like an abused child that wants to be loved and so will cling to the abuser. I can’t do anything about that. Nor would I be expected to. If the Israeli government is practicing a form of self-suicide, then the Israeli Jews have the responsibility, not me, to overthrow or correct their government. I have no such debt or obligations on that score to be against or for it. There is no duty requiring me to be for or against it, but that won’t change what I think is right.
The reason why I said Z is for one of those old model slave economies is because a contract is normally considered valid only between the direct representatives of the Parties involved or the Parties involved themselves, A or B etc.
Z is basically saying that the son and relative of A, is now beholden to the promises Party A made to Party B. That Israeli citizens must suffer and obey the people the Israeli government made promises with, rather than simply obeying the Israeli government. That’s basically the same as your father selling you and your sister into slavery and getting a pot of gold in return.
Contracts and promises? Hah. Yeah, a slave deal is a contract, I agree with you there, Z.
Martel said what would be pertinent to my position on national self defense.. It’s not whether Israel has a right to self-defense, but the origin of the cause that we differ on. The way your world is made up, Israel only has self defense because of ephemeral illusions like contracts or charters provide such a thing. We believe a little differently.
Mike, I’ll give you my assessment of the situation if I was commanding a nation in these times. There are essentially a couple of primary points to consider.
1. A small nation like Israel would face world wide boycotts and even bombing runs if it was outside the “protection” of the UN.
2. So long as the United States of America is in the UN, leaving the UN is announcing hostile intentions towards America and thus it is not so much cutting yourself off from problem Arabs and jihadists as it is inviting in a larger problem: the American military. And if you don’t think the American military is a problem you need to consider, look at where Qaddafi and Saddam are living. A small nation enters the UN and accepts the restrictions, because of the fear of American repercussions, retaliation, or military action.
3. To preserve national security, leaders must make tough choices. Not between the best and the worst, but between worse and more worse. That is the situation Israel has been in mostly of recent times. Other nations like Rhodesia (Zimbabwe after the African colonials took over white farms) faced the same pressures and fell.
Thus, yes, Israel is an abused child clinging to the abuser in the UN. But they have little choice, for to leave the fold would invite in more dire repercussions and no Israeli leader has yet decided that their fate was desperate enough to require such actions. As I said before, the Israelis lack the hate in their hearts required to win against the Palestinians. They still do. And perhaps they always will.
Mike, when people say America is a conquering empire, 99% of it is Leftist clap trap. But while they aren’t right to think that we are the source of all evil, nor are they even half right in the claim, they aren’t entirely wrong either.
American policies, whether Democrat or Republican, has shaped much of the world today. And if Israel is suicidal in her self-chosen policies towards peace, the US can be said to be suicidal as well in how we have babied and pampered our worst enemies in the world, while crushing and torturing the citizens of nations that might have been our greatest allies.
A little light moment…
http://directorblue.blogspot.com/2011/05/dear-president-obama-papa-b.html
Ymarsakar: Israel is like an abused child that wants to be loved and so will cling to the abuser.
Not sure why you would denigrate Israel that way, but they are a highly developed democracy with much to be proud of.
Ymarsakar: The way your world is made up, Israel only has self defense because of ephemeral illusions like contracts or charters provide such a thing.
The primitive condition is the strong takes what it wants from the weak. A step above that is reciprocity. And the step above that is for nations to forgo war, other than in self-defense, as a means to settle disputes.
Ymarsakar: Z is basically saying that the son and relative of A, is now beholden to the promises Party A made to Party B.
Are you saying that a nation can’t enter into treaties?
They have much to be proud of, including getting rid of Arab terrorists and making the desert green.
Having an unresolved ongoing war for more than 5 decades is not one of them.