At least not since WWI I and the Geneva Conventions were created. In fact. The reason there was a WII was to prevent countries from winning turf fair and square by means of war.

Otherwise, most of Western Europe would be speaking German today.

I do have to hand it to you how your proud advocacy for ethnic cleansing rolls of your tongue so effortlessly. You make Helen Thomas sound like an amateur.

Thanks for demonstrating once again how Zionism and respect for basic human rights are mutually exclusive.

Yeah sure. Battlefield exploits have consequences sir - like it or not. Look at a map of Germany in 1914 compared with one today. What the heck happened?! Why, das Deutsches Reich shrank by like 20%!

Try and make the case for returning soil from France and Poland that was German since Roman times - and the world will laughingly answer back with a stern lecture about the wages that a state incurs when it repeatedly attacks its neighbors and repeatedly loses.

Battlefield victories matter. Check Danzig or Konigsburg sometime. Russia's magical blitz into Georgia, or Turkey doing Cyprus, or Pakistan losing half the nation as Bangladesh.

The human rights/zionist jazz is a smokescreen. And not a very good smokescreen either.

Advocates for Palestine are cold bloodedly pro war and anti Arab. Falling for the played subsidized mythologies of Palestinians - that Palestine could win from Little Satan through nonprofit jawflapping, rocketry or suicide murder - the honor, prosperity and victory that they could never otherwise obtain through outright war is inhuman - in fact - hoping for an independent Palestine that will most likely act out, start another war and grant Little Satan the same real estate they just gave back is way more 'Zionist/ Greater Little Satan' than sweetly sprinkling 2.5 million West Bankers (per 2010 CIA Worldfact Book) through out the 300 million of Arab League.

And not to put too fine a point on it - hit up Arab League for reparations. After all, the "3 No's of Khartoum" bear a cost and are more responsible for the entire sorry mess than desperate victorious counterattacks by a democratic member of the UN

Clinton blamed Arafat after Camp David because Clinton was personally offended that Arafat didn't even bother to keep up a serious pretense of actively negotiating (such as offering a specific counter-offer to the detailed Israeli proposal etc.), but instead merely rehashed old tired absolutist maximalist slogans of decades past, and went around muttering conspiracy-theory nonsense about how there had never been a Jewish temple in Jerusalem. If he wanted to retain Clinton's respect, he should have put in a little bit more effort in keeping up some kind of facade of at least appearing to be reasonable. Arafat seemed to have something of a gift for destroying his relationship with U.S. presidents, since W. Bush definitvely renounced the idea of personal presidential involvement in mideast peace efforts and/or putting serious pressure on Israel after he was convinced that Arafat had directly and personally lied to him about the Karine A affair.

Battlefield exploits used to have consequences, pre WWII, which incidentally is what explains the difference between the map of Germany in 1914 compared with one today.
It’s sad how every other country in the world has left the 19th century behind them, because they all understand that the age of colonization and empire-building is Dead And Buried.

All but one. Israel and it’s supporters think that because it missed out on the 19th century it is now entitled to play catch-up.

As a consequence of WWII. The international community agreed to binding laws that would prevent countries stealing land from one another, otherwise we would live in a world today where small countries lived under permanent threat of annexation.

So yes, you do have to go back to pre WWII or even Roman times to come up with examples of what Israel has been doing since WWII.

Pakistan losing half the nation as Bangladesh.

“The human rights/zionist jazz is a smokescreen. And not a very good smokescreen either.”

It’s not a smokescreen, Courtney, it’s just a monkey that people with racist ideologist wish would go away. After all, I’m sure you’d be the first to rationalize Israel’s creation on the aftermath of the Holocaust.

“Advocates for Palestine are cold bloodedly pro war and anti Arab.”

Now you’re just making stuff up as you go along. How can being pro Arab be anti Arab? How can being pro peace be pro war? Zionists do love their Orwellian double speak don’t they?

The problem with your position, apart from the ever present rancid hypocrisy, is that Israel stands as a monument to the success of terrorism. Israel was founded by terrorists, and even honoured those terrorists by electing their leaders to the highest office n the land.

Palestinians are no myth. I have to laugh every time the Israeli apologia try to pretend that Palestinians were a recent invention. In the 1920’s, everyone who lived in Palestine was regarded as a Palestinian and carried Palestinian passports, whether Muslim, Christian or Jew.

As for rockets, Israel fired more shells into Gaza between September 2005 (the month they withdrew from Gaza) to September 2006 than all the rockets that have ever been fired from Gaza into Israel. Understandably, you and your ilk don’t talk about that tid bit.
As for war, Israel’s track record on that front is based largely on myth. As Gilad Atzimon and others point out, the last war that Israel won was in 1967, and that was largely due to the surprise attack Israel launched. Had it not been for Nixon coming to Israel’s rescue, 1973 would have been an outright defeat. Israel have been unable to defeat Hezbollah after 2 attempts. After the having their asses handed to them in 2006, Israel ran to Uncle Sam to foot the bill for reparations, not to mention being welded to the teet of US aid.

You don’t exactly have a leg to stand on in that regard. It comes as no surprise that the flotilla episode caused IDF vets to have flash backs. It’s probably the closest any of them have ever come to seeing real action.

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3906514,00.html

So it’s understandable, that having been unable to fight a real war in 2 decades, Israel sticks to murdering a defenceless population armed with rocks and home made rockets.

The reason Clinton blamed Arafat after Camp David was because Clinton was trying to help Barak get re elected.

As Israeli foreign minister at the time Shlomo Ben Ami said, if he’d been a Palestinian, he too would have rejected the lame offer at Camp David.

The fact that Clinton went back and had a re think and came up with workable parameters, and that both he and Barak met with Arafat at Taba shortly afterwards, is pretty solid proof that they both knew the Camp David offer was garbage.

As Dennis Ross later admitted, Clinton’s administration behaved like Israel’s lawyers. They had no right to expect respect from Arafat.

Palestinians are no myth - yet the ancient Nakbah thingy is a bad joke.

A brand new Palestine would need to sign, enforce and live with magical guarantees with Little Satan. Yet New Palestine will most likely lack the power (and will?) to issue or honor such Nakbah proofing guarantees unless certain elements, their spiritual fanboys and rowdy foreigners are dissed, marginalized or destroyed.

Obviously, Palestine will need help. From whom?

The only candidate would be Palestine's sponsor and creator - Great Satan.

In other words, if this new state comes into being before the terror groups are destroyed, it will require covert and overt American police and military to defend itself against many of its own people.

Begin by showing the state how to fight its people. Soon, we will find we are helping it to fight its people. In the end, we will be fighting its people on its behalf.

We will have created a Palestinian South Vietnam.

And for what?

Since Nazi time Deutschland and Imperial Japan screamed "God! Please! Stop!" there have been born more than 100 nation states and the movements of hundreds of borders. Border moving - seldom agreeable to everyone - yet nation states accepted them as a settled border was better than war.

Germany accepted losing Prussia, Russia accepted the secession of Kazakstan and Serbs are handling the idea of Kosovo.

Even in 3rd world states gave up treasured aspirations rather than shed blood forever - Somalia gave up Ogaden, Guatemala stopped demanding Belize and Indonesia finally gave up East Timor.

There is one glaring, bizarro conspicuous exception to this willingness to accept facts - no matter how disappointing they are.

Palestine. She alone gets a magical treatment - far and above Pakistanis, Indians or German refugees from the same late 1940's era.

Face it - advocating Palestine statehood is asking for war. Why not give those folks a chance and grant Right of Relocation to any of Arab League's nation/states? With the highest literacy and phd rate in the entire Arab world they could start prepping for this life instead of being seduced by rowdy foreigners urging them to race off to the next.

The Nakbah was a tragedy, not a bad joke.

The US is an empire in decline. A Palestinian state would hardly beholden to a state that looks like cutting all foreign aid (except to Israel of course) it the Republican have their way.

Of course a Palestinian will lack the power and will need aid and assistance. Who will be there to assist? Who knows, but the creation of such a state would be a cause for celebration to the states in the region, and no doubt pressure even the American puppet dictators to chip in.
Obviously, Palestine will need help. From whom?

As we saw with Israel, terror groups are never destroyed, they simply lose their appeal and relevance. The reason the Stern Gang , Hagana and Irgun stopped blowing up hotels boats and destroying villages is because they achieved their aims. The Hanaga became re branded as the IDF.

The birth of all the nation states you are referring to was achieved by international consensus and due process. They weren't created by wars or states stealing land from one another.
Borders that were moved were moved by negotiation and consent.

Prussia no longer exists, though Germany accepted losing Prussia long before WWII ended. (Your again proving my point re the relevance of WWII) Kazakstan did not break away from Russia but was born as a result of the break up of the Soviet Union.

If you want to compare Israel with Somalia and Ethiopea, be my guest, but that would be setting the bar so low, it would be below sea level.

Indonesia gave up East Timor after East Timor voted for independence.

So how is the case of creating Palestine so magical, when you compare it to the creation of Israel? At least the Palestinian population can make a claim to being indigenous to the land and in the majority long before Israel magically appeared.

Perhaps advocating Palestine statehood is asking for war, but then again, so was advocating Israeli statehood. If there is a war, it will be because Israel decide they want one (as has always been the case since 1948 with the exception of 1973).

There's a good reason not to grant Right of Relocation to any of Arab League's nation/states. Neither the Arab states nor the Palestinians want it. Needless to say, it is also a vile and racist concept, but then again, as Benny Morris pointed out, ethnic cleansing is at the core of Zionism isn't it?

Like it or not, the Palestinians are not going anywhere. You'll have a single apartheid state pretty soon, and that will be the beginning of the end for Israel. As everyone know, Israel is on a collision course with it's own destruction. The CIA expects Israel's viability will come to an end in 20 years.

Enjoy it while you can.

Obviously all you experts have what you consider an excellent historical grounding - except it really isn't so great. Anyine here familiar with WWI? Anyone here familiar with Fromkin, David. You should really become familiar with him because what was wrought in WWI and the history of the Ottoman Empire is still going on...... except every one is more sophisticated and has a bigger pop gun. Should also read Lee Smith "The Strong Horse". There is no apparent endpoint. The only solution would be an imposed solution and there is no earthly power that can manage that. So everyone just keep the noise and destruction down!!!

Another historical zero. Nations were formed by concensus os power hungry know-nothings, including Churchill, of the British foreign Office

Totally risible neoleft. Desires and feelings matter little in assessing combat bona fides. Truth is, illegit Arab Leaguers must bear a heavy pentance for Palestine.

Everybody knows The Nakbah was a land grab by all of Palestine's neighbors that went wrong real fast. Or how Arab League ensured their own kindred people - with the same dialect and customs - were herded at gun point into misery at Tent City for eons rather than assimilated into loyal productive subjects.

Slave trading Syria, haughty Kuwait, Royal Saudiland, even embattled Lebanon have all used Palestinian right of returners as a strategic resource. Pyramidland and Jordan even cut their people loose when cutting Peace Deals with Little Satan.

Arab League's "3 No's of Khartoum" totally doomed Palestinians into the UNRWA victimistic 'shame/honor meme' - diplopolititary prestige wise - that alone should be worth tons in reparations.

Arab League created the prob - Arab League can fix it.

Certainly trumps getting played by Persia and the Ottomans into a regional war - and a Nakbah Redux.

Arab Leaguers do have their burden of responsibility, but it wasn;t they who created the Palestijnian refugee problem or the occupation.

Needless to say, the elephant tin the room is the peace initiative which offers to recognize Israel as per the 1967 borders and normalize relations. The one that Israel keeps rejecting.

must bear a heavy pentance for Palestine.

God only knows where you go the idea that Nakbah was a land grab by anyone but Israel, seeing as Israel were the ones carrying out the ethnic cleansing. Contrary to myth, the land grab buy Israel was already well under way buy the time of the 1948 war, with 200,000 Arabs driven from their homes, and 500 villages destroyed or taken over.

Nor does anyone but the Israelis bear any responsibility for herding the Palestinians at gun point. Don't bother with the usual trope about how Arabs told them to flee. Benny Morris makes it quote clear in Righteous Victims that there is no evidence of such an order.

I wouldn't be pointing the finger at Syria in terms of slave trading given that Israel has become a hub of sexual slavery and child labor.

Of course Jordan and Egypt have forsaken their populations in return for protection guarantees from the US. That's the very nature of tyrants

“Arab League's "3 No's of Khartoum" totally doomed Palestinians into the UNRWA victimistic 'shame/honor meme' - diplopolititary prestige wise - that alone should be worth tons in reparations.”

A common Hasbara myth. If peace, recognition and negotiation where important to Israel then, then why are they not now? Israel still claims to want peace. It still demands recognition. All three of these offers have been on the table since 2003 and Israel has rejected them ever since.

“Arab League created the prob - Arab League can fix it.”

Correction.

1.Israel corrected the problem and Israel want the Arabs to fix it.
2.The offer is on the table, and now Israel are not only rejecting it, but pretending it doesn't exist.

By any chance have you ever tried comparing maps of Europe from say, 1938, with 1946? Maybe you aren't aware of it but there were significant territorial changes after WWII, primarily at the expense of the aggressor, and large numbers of ethnic Germans were also ethnically cleansed from territories transferred to other countries. Your claims on behalf of the Palestinian taqiyya campaign reveal your ignornace of this history.

Both you and Neoleft refuse to acknowledge the real origins of curent events. Until you do, and follow the thread created at that time, you will find no winner in youir discussion. There are no rights; gthere are no wrongs; there is only coming to the realization that it is time to move on.

There have been several misstatements of fact that ought to be corrected:

The proof that Arab leaders urged the Arabs of Palestine to flee appears in a footnote to Walt and Mearsheimer's book. Given their take on the problem, that should be irrefutabe evidence that indeed Arab leaders caused the nakba. The idea that Jews could have forced 200,000 Arabs (out of the eventual 700,000 or so) to flee while British troops controlled the country and its byways is simply ridiculous. There is also the matter of the keys Palestinians often display: you take your key if you expect to return in short order, but not if you have been expelled at gun-point.

The three "Nos" were not, as Walt and Mearsheimer claim, the first steps in a negotiation. If they were, when Israel took them at face value, it was up to the Arabs to come forth with a more obvious opening for negotiations. They didn't. Instead, there was a conference at al Azhar promising that the Muslims would eventually get to kill all the Jews. That doesn't leave quite the leeway for equivocation that advocates of the taqiyya campaign attach to the three "Nos."

The 2003 Saudi plan is not a peace plan but a negotiating ploy. It has been presented on a "take it or leave" basis, and rejects all of Israel's legitimate claims. Like with the Khartoum three "Nos," if the Saudis are serious about a real peace between the Arab world and Israel, they would accept their proposal as a first step leading to further negotiations. They have adamantly refused to do this.

Meanwhile, while demanding that Israel acknowledge the need to establish a Palestinian state, which PM Netanyahu has done, the Palestinians continue to refuse to acknowledge the legitimacy of a Jewish state of Israel.

Thus, Walt is right about the need for a new policy, it's just that the new policy he advocates is exactly backwards. The focus needs to go into getting the Palestinians to acknowledge that Jews have the same civil and political rights they claim for themelves. As long as they refuse to do so, there is no prospect for negotiations leading to peace.

Yes, Israel controls the physical assets, but those are less important for success than a fundamental shift in the Arab/Muslim approach to the conflict. It may take a regional context, or addressing the underlying religious dimension, the subject of a more recent Benny Morris book, but this is where the road to success lies. If you want withdrawal, even without peace, you pressure Israel. If you want peace, there is no alternative to focusing on the Arabs.

And it would help a good deal if people interested in peace were to recognize the advocates of the taqiyya campaign for what they are: Participants in an effort to make peace impossible.

Neoleft, while inappropriate handwringing may be desirable, for Palestine - it’s hurtfully unhelpful and disses historical context. Critical for selective revisionism perhaps, yet if the conflict is due to Little Satan’s hard won real estate West Bank booty, then the first three wars against Little Satan must be conveniently ignored.

If the 'forever quest' for Palestine is about the Nakbah – an ancient event settled long ago by force of arms - then the Westphalian concept of borders forged in war are indeed borders. Alas! No precedent of according Palestinians any privileged position based on land lost through war.

If Saudi initiative were so hot and desirable – the Annapolis Awakening would have been prime time to pre empt Little Satan’s democratically elected cats, diplopolititary grandees and apartment building mongers with Official Recog – bringing a real Palestine into the mix. What’s the hold up? Egypt and Jordan recogged Little Satan – what is so magically delicious about Palestine or the other members of Arab League that they cannot?

It all comes right back to Arab League. If Little Satan did not exist - Arab League would have to invent something like her. It's not land or an actual threat that drives Little Satan hating – if Little Satan were not so successful, free and haughty—if she were beleaguered and tottering on the verge of ruin— without an amazing combat history of defeating her war risible neighbors, repeatedly (often all at once) without restraint or modesty, perhaps she would be tolerated.

In a sea of failed despotries, corrupt royalty, illegit Presidents For Life, totalitarianism, secret police and government-induced poverty, Little Satan is a buzzkill.

A relatively successful economy, a stable culture with a functional democracy of the most literate people to ever grace the ME is easily provocative.

And the Arab League of Failed States, that lose every war they start, provide few services and little opportunities for their own people, are easily provoked in sharp contrast.

According to you there are no rights and no wrongs, just players caught up in unfortuante circumstances.

How does that work with say the Holocaust?

You see DOCHAJ, you were given a brain, perhaps it's time to start using it. You'll never know until you try.

There is no footnote in W%M’s book that the Arab leaders urged the Arabs of Palestine to flee appears. Where is it? What does it reference?

Ecvert Israeli historian has accepted that the Nakba was the work of Israel. Israel would not exist today were it not for the Nakba. There would be no Jewish majority for a start.
“The idea that Jews could have forced 200,000 Arabs (out of the eventual 700,000 or so) to flee while British troops controlled the country and its byways is simply ridiculous.”

It’s only ridiculous is you don’t know your history. The 700,000 Palestinians that were driven out of Palestine AFTER the British had departed, so there were no British Troops controlling the country.

Are you ignorant of this simple fact or simply lying?

“The three "Nos" were not, as Walt and Mearsheimer claim, the first steps in a negotiation. If they were, when Israel took them at face value, it was up to the Arabs to come forth with a more obvious opening for negotiations.”

The Arabs did. In 2003, 22 Arab states signed a peace initiative, which reversed those 3 "Nos" into 4 “Yeses”. The fact that Israel has rejected the offer every year it has been repeated proves those three "Nos" were simply a reason for Israel to stall and stonewall while they carried out their plans to colonise the occupied territories.

“Instead, there was a conference at al Azhar promising that the Muslims would eventually get to kill all the Jews.”

Really? Please provide a link which quotes the resolution of that conference that the Muslims agree to kill all the Jews.

“The 2003 Saudi plan is not a peace plan but a negotiating ploy. It has been presented on a "take it or leave" basis, and rejects all of Israel's legitimate claims.”

False on all counts.

First of all, the plan meets all of Israel’s demands. Every one of them.

Secondly, Israel has no legitimate claims to the occupied territories or East Jerusalem.
Finally, the Arab states have not rejected any plans to carry out further negotiations of the proposal. That is a lie that Israel has spread in order to justify their rejection of an offer that exceeds Israel’s entitlements.

Netanyahu has NOT acknowledge the need to establish a Palestinian state. He has claimed his support for a 2 state solution, while refusing to recognize the second as a Palestinian state.

The Palestinians, and the rest of the Arab world are under no obligation to acknowledge the legitimacy of a Jewish state of Israel until a Palestinian state exists.

Recognition has to be mutual.

Your argument is every bit as erroneous as your insistence that the Palestinians knowledge that Jews have the same civil and political rights they claim for themselves, when the civil rights afforded to the Palestinians are much less than those enjoyed by Israelis. Even Palestinians in Israel don’t have the same rights and Israeli Jews.

You really are delusional Marty.

“Yes, Israel controls the physical assets, but those are less important for success than a fundamental shift in the Arab/Muslim approach to the conflict.”

You can’t be serious. That’s like saying oxygen is a nice thing to have, but not the most important thing in life.

Israel is maintaining a violent and oppressive occupation. The occupation is an ongoing act of war and human rights abuse.

“If you want withdrawal, even without peace, you pressure Israel. If you want peace, there is no alternative to focusing on the Arabs.”

False. As Time magazine recently reported, peace is of little consequence to the Israelis because they are quite happy to live without it. The French foreign minister, who is no enemy of Israel, has stated that Israel does not want peace.

You wouldn’t know the first thing about facts. You simply make up your own as you see fit.

land by means of war.

No matter how hard you try to spin it, or how hard Israel worked to “win” the West Bank, the don’t get to keep it. Thieves or fraudsters are not rewarded for their efforts, not matter how clever or hard they work for their ill gotten gains.

One has to laugh at how Zionists little to portray the Nakbah as old or even “ancient” news while the speak of the 1948 attack by the Arab armies and the Holocaust as though it only happened yesterday.

The Nakba and the 1948 war took place AFTFTER WII Courtney. The Westphalian concept of borders forged in war ended after WII and was superseded by a little thing called the Geneva conventions.

Apparently you have never heard of it, so you might want to look it up.

“No precedent of according Palestinians any privileged position based on land lost through war.”

False. The Baklans conflict absolutely recognized this precedent.

What’t the hold up with the Saudi peace initiative Counrthey? Simple. Israel gambled by making demands that they thought the Arab would reject, and when those demands were met, they refused to acknowledge them.

The simple fact is that the demands for recognition have never been important to Israel. As if we’re expected to believe that Israel gives a crap about what the Arab world thinks or believes. Israel was recognized long ago by the West, which is all that has ever mattered to them.

“If Little Satan did not exist - Arab League would have to invent something like her.”
If that theory were true, then it would have a historical basis. It doesn’t, therefore it’s false.

Nice try.

Isrelis love to pretend that the conflict is not about the land, in much the same way that the US like to pretend that Islamic terrorism is not about US foreign policy. If the land wasn’t so important, then Israel would have given up the occupied territories decades ago.
Of course it’s about the land.

“In a sea of failed despotries, corrupt royalty, illegit Presidents For Life, totalitarianism, secret police and government-induced poverty, Little Satan is a buzzkill.”

On the contrary. Israel fits well into the mix. As was recently reported, Israel is among the most corrupt “democracies” in the world. Israel is regarded by Europe as a greater threat to world peace than even Iran. Israel is among the most racist states in the world and greatest abusers of human rights.

Like I said earlier, it is no accident that the US supports Israel along side these despotic regimes.

"By any chance have you ever tried comparing maps of Europe from say, 1938, with 1946?"

By any chance have you tried reading what the Geneva Conventions, which were created after WII?

"Your claims on behalf of the Palestinian taqiyya campaign reveal your ignornace of this history."

Perhaps in a parallel universe, but you're the one who is imagining foot notes tha don't exist.

Great Tea Party comment.

95% of this blog has nothing to do with Holocaust. Theory is simple - getting caught up in an attempt to fix blame will never lead to a resolution. It is just a non-starter.

you ought to read material other than your version of Fox news

"Theory is simple - getting caught up in an attempt to fix blame will never lead to a resolution. It is just a non-starter."

If that were true, there would be no laws, no justice system and no penal system. All crimes could be ignored on the grounds that justice is simply a means of apportioning blame.

It's interesting and very revealing how Zionists are so threatened by the idea of justice when applied to Israel.

"If Israel worked so hard the expel Arabs, why does Israel have so large a percentage of its population as Arabic vs. Juden-frei policies of Arab neighbors"

You could easily read up on this topic rather than being lazy and asking to have it explained to you.

1. Israel were seeking to establish a Jewish majority, which was achieved without expelling 100% of the Palestinians. There was a genocide in North America, yet North American Indians exist, do they not?

2. There are no Juden-frei policies of Arab neighbors. The fact that very few Jews live in Arab countries is not because they were ethnically cleansed.

LOLZ! Sure, sure.

Explain that to Georgia, Greece, Korea, Tibet and Lebanon - all have lost turf since UN was begat courtesy of aggressive neighbors. Germany and Pakistan lost turf because of their own aggression.

And no one is particularly hot to give it back.

What is risible, incorrect and played for the 100th time is the constant effort to grant Palestine exceptional stats through selective memes.

Your characterization of the situation of the American Indians is laughable. Their only hope of survival is total assimilation. Perhaps that is how you want Jewish survival to be. And having made the effort to search the facts, I did find the blame to be fairly even. But how do you expect the facts on the ground?

You rail at the idea of such a modest offer being granted to Palestine, while overlooking the fact that Israel stands above all others in terms of being granted exceptional stats through selective memes

Even more ironically, is that the cases you cited (ie. Bangladesh), which are far from exceptional, most closely resemble the Palestinian case.

This was a particularly lazy post from you COURTNEYME109

Georgia was has lost no territory. In fact, it was only created as a result fo the break up of the Societ Union. Neither has Greece, Tibet nor has Lebanon. Korea no longer exists.
Germany’s case preceded the Geneva Conventions.

Bangladesh, formerly West Pakistan, was always separated from the Western Wing of Pakistan, and it’s independence was a natural outcome.

None of these cases illustrates a case of one state stealing land from another by means of military aggression.

Thanks again for proving my point, but you didn’t have to.

On what grounds is their only hope of survival is total assimilation?

“Perhaps that is how you want Jewish survival to be”

Is that supposed to be some kind of joke? Most of the world’s Jewish population chooses not to live in Israel because they much prefer their lives, which are best described as total assimilation. In fact, Jewish existence in the diaspora has gone beyond total assimilation, where Jewish people excel in those very communities.

You clearly have made no effort whatsoever to search for facts. You’re actually surprisingly ignorant, and anti intellectual on this matter.

Tea Party ultra double speak

forced into the Camp David agreement in a rushed and haphazard manner.
.
I read the New Yorker article that you referenced on Prince Bandar, and the discussion between him and Arafat shows very clearly that there was a deal worth taking on the table. Bandar's reaction to the Palestinian's decision to reject the deal and walk away also shows quite clearly how severe Arafat's failure truly was.
.

was behind the rise of al-Queda because of a failing strategy:
.
Walt stated "Let's also not forget that Indyk was the chief architect of "dual containment," a remarkably foolish policy that achieved the neat trick of putting the United States at odds with two countries (Iran and Iraq) that also hated each other." It also forced the United States to keep large air and ground forces in the Persian Gulf, thereby contributing to the rise of al Qaeda.
.
Not only does Walt blame the United States for supporting an ally (Saudi Arabia) following its invasion of Quwait, but even more critically, wasn't Walt the one spouting off the idea that containment was the way to go in controlling Saddam Hussein rather than "W"'s invasion, and even more so, Walt's claim that this is how we can control Iran's pursuit of a nuclear device in the event that 'diplomacy' doesn't work!?!

Which is why Clinton came up with a new set of parameters for the subsequent negotiations at Taba.

It was at Taba that both leaders agreed to the terms and went so far as to state they were on the verge of a settlement?

I wouldn't place too much faith in what Bandar Bush had to say about the talks. Israeli foreign minister at the time, Shlomo Ben Ami, stated in an a debate on Democracy Now, that he too would have rejected the Camp David offer if he were a Palestinian.

The failure was not Arafat's, it was that that US was behaving like Israel's legal team, which Dennis Ross himself later admitted.

I agree that attention should certainly be given to continuing to improve the lives of the Palestinians in the West Bank (and Gaza) but that would require a radical shift in Israeli policies, and Israel have demonstrated that the likelihood of this taking place without huge pressure, is nill.

Incidentally, the Palestinian civil war was also created in Tel Aviv and Washington. The ol' strategy of divide and rule is alive and well.

Jacob - I believe Hussein and Agha when they say the negotiations were rushed and haphazard. It makes sense when you consider the circumstances (lame duck or otherwise on their way out leaders). What I don't believe is that this then lets Arafat and the Palestinians off the hook for not taking the deal, and I don't believe H&A when they regurgitate the Palestinian line about what was offered. Even if Israel offered everything the Palestinians wanted and then some, and even if every Palestinian other than Arafat wanted to take the deal, when Arafat walked away the Palestinians had to present the deal as inadequate.

Neoleft - I think you are confusing Camp David with Taba. Ben Ami said he would have rejected Camp David, but the offer was sweetened considerably at Taba. For instance, see this desciption from his book:

"...He is highly critical of both Ariel Sharon and the late Yasser Arafat, seeing Arafat's rejection of Clinton's peace plan as a crime against the Palestinian people... "

http://www.oup.com/us/catalog/he/subject/History/WorldHistory/GeographicalMiddleEasternHistory/HistoryoftheMiddleEast/?view=usa&ci=9780195325423

It's just one more piece of evidence, from someone who is highly critical of Israelis and Palestinians both, and who sympathizes with the Palestinians, that the offer was one which the Palestinians should have taken. There are just too many examples of this to ignore. If you search for his description of the offer, you will see it matches exactly what Bandar said, Clinton said and Dennis Ross said.

That said, this happened in the past and what is needed is a way to move forward. This is simply for the record, and goes a way towards explaining why Israelis feel the way they do now. They made this offer, the best they could do, and it was not enough for the Palestinians. So that tells them that for now a deal is impossible. IMO that has been summed up recently by the fact that the Palestinians say they will never recognize Israel as the state for the Jewish people. If that is true, and not simply the Palestinians saving a negotiating chip for later, in my opinion there will never be an agreement.

I’m aware that the offer was sweetened considerably at Taba, and if you recall, both parties agreed to the Clinton Parameters that were presented there.

In fact, the parties stated that they would have reached a settlement at Taba had they had more time. It was Barak who called off the talks prematurely, due to what he claimed was the impending elections.

Neoleft, if you know the difference, then it is unclear to me why you presented a statement about Camp David in an attempt to refute a later offer made at Taba.

Regarding both parties accepting and Barak walking out, I suggest you read the entire debate with Shlomo Ben Ami rather than cherry picking the statements of his you think support your point of view. I don't know who physically left the premises first, but Ben Ami was pretty clear that when the offer was made the Palestinians came back with pages and pages of "reservations". They didn't accept the offer as it stood. On the other side of the coin, the Israelis also answered with a paper, but theirs was not a list of reservations, but rather a list of their initial positions, where they were now, how far they moved, and that this (the Clinton Parameters) was the most they could do. Some want to present this as an analagous set of "reservations", but clearly it wasn't.

There wasn't going to be any more negotiations. The Israeli elections were in a week and Ben Ami and Barak were getting hammered at home for even considering the Clinton Parameters. The Palestinian negotiating team is pretty sharp and knew this. They weren't trying to eke out another 1% of land or negotiate some slightly better offer. This is how Ben Ami tells it:

"SHLOMO BEN-AMI: Okay, well. You see, as somebody who was a part of those who prepared the Israeli document that was submitted to President Clinton, I can say that the bulk of the document was an expression of our — the comparison that we made between our initial positions and what was reflected in the Clinton parameters. It was not a series of reservations. It was basically a mention of the difference, the way that we have gone. This was an attempt to impress the President, more than an attempt to say that these are reservations, sine qua nons. There were no real reservations in our document, whereas in the Palestinian document, there were plenty of them, with the refugees, with the Haram al-Sharif, with what have you. I mean, it was full of reservations from beginning to end. Ours was not a document about reservations, it was a statement, basically, that said these were our positions, this is where we stand today. we have gone a very long way, we cannot go beyond that. This was essentially what we sent."

I did not present any statement about Camp David to refute the offer made at Taba.

The reason I brought up Taba at all was to refute the lie put forward by the Israeli propagandists, that Arafat was not interested in negotiating or that he gave up a fantastic offer. The offer at Camp David was clearly a lousy one and Arafat’s willingness to return to the table at Taba demonstrated that he wanted a settlement.

I have read the entire debate, and listened to it many times. You might recall from that debate (ie. Shlomo Ben Ami) that Ben Ami referred to Arafat as “the father of the peace process”.

Of course there are going to be many reservations and details to be ironed out in a negotiation of such importance. You don’t get a second chance in these matters, so it’s understandable that you want to get things right the first time.

Furthermore, if you recall that early on in the debate, FInkelstein makes a reference to the Dennis Ross mentality - that Camp David was based on the premise of what Israel was prepared to give up, as opposed to what the Palestinians were legally entitled to. I am confident that Ben Ami was sincere about his efforts, but suggesting that the offer was the best Israel could do is hardly compelling.

Very interesting, thanks. I looked this up and you are right, the vast majority of people think of the quote in the way Steve uses it. The interpretation does not appear to be as definitive as you state, but additionally the "quote" appears to be more of a note that FSF jotted down to himself, with evidence suggesting that it wasn't meant to be published.

Regardless of what Fitzgerald meant, to call it "one of the silliest things ever written" is a quite a bit over the top. (I mean, hasn't Steve ever read his own stuff? ;o))

How have you been?

Can't complain. Everyone is looking forward to trick-or-treating and the weather here in DC is great in Oct/Nov. I hope things are going well with you too.

to a recent documentary that discusses the state of the US education system, using Washington DC public schools as a reference point.
.
Here is the link to the Wikipedia entry, enjoy.
.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waiting_for_%22Superman%22

And the exact same analysis applies to the movie title as well. American education doesn't need Superman, it needs structural change.

When you say former glory, are you talking about your 400-year genocide of the people who rightfully own this land? Or possible 300 years of black slavery? Or was it installing puppet regimes in unwelcoming cultures?

To Reality_Check ....

"are you talking about your 400-year genocide of the people who rightfully own this land"

Isn't the US in this respect like Israel? Does that help explaining why time and again the US support Israel? Of course now the pro-Israel side will come out and say that Israel is different since God gave the land to the Jews .... etc. etc. But that is THEIR God, right? Of course THEIR God would give the land to the Jews ... whom else. It sounds like a circular problem, doesn't it?

The only fair and equitable solution is a one-state where Palestinians and Jews live together with the same rights and obligations, citizens of a state without dominant religion or ideology. Anything else will result in either a slow death for the Palestinian people or a slow destruction of Israel as a state.

to the biggest genocide in history.... You are an extremist. Your perception is distorted in a horrendous manner.

Israel's genocide is pure because it's ordained by God.

And besides, it's being carried out by the most moral army in the world. Did I miss anything?

I was wondering if you could explain to me the similarities between what happened to the Native Americans and the current state of affairs of the Palestinians.

Were the Native Americans offered their own state? I'm pretty sure they were killed off by Andrew Jackson, hicks, smallpox, and death marches.

Keep demonizing Israel beyond all proportion and truth, though I must say, the way the obvious differences between the Native American Genocide and the I/P conflict pretty much destroy your argument.

How sad to the memory of Native American culture. I'm sure most Palestinians would even be offended by your devoid-of-reality bullshit comparison. You know, it's not like the West Bank has one of the fastest growing populations in the world...it's not like genocide is the opposite of that, no way...

"I was wondering if you could explain to me the similarities between what happened to the Native Americans and the current state of affairs of the Palestinians."

Both have been driven from their land and have their land stolen.

The difference is that the US and other Western countries realized over a century ago that such practices are incompatible with modern democracy.

"Were the Native Americans offered their own state?"

No, and neither were the Palestinians.

"I'm pretty sure they were killed off by Andrew Jackson, hicks, smallpox, and death marches."

Really? So the North American Indians in the US today are who exactly?

"Keep demonizing Israel beyond all proportion and truth, though I must say, the way the obvious differences between the Native American Genocide and the I/P conflict pretty much destroy your argument."

The obvious differences are, as I argued above, that Western countries realized over a century ago that such practices are incompatible with modern democracy.

"How sad to the memory of Native American culture."

How sad that your crocodile tears are so false.

"I'm sure most Palestinians would even be offended by your devoid-of-reality bullshit comparison."

I'm sure you never considered what most Palestinians were offended by, but I am quite sure that they are offended by being massacred, driven from their homes, evicted, forced into refugee camps, forced to pass through check points and denied basic human rights.

"You know, it's not like the West Bank has one of the fastest growing populations in the world...it's not like genocide is the opposite of that, no way.."

The rate of growth of populations doesn't mean a society is not being wiped out.