RSS Feed Menu
Imagine that the UN General Assembly voted last month – as opposed to next month – to recognize a state of Palestine. What would the world look like this morning, in the wake of the deadly terror attacks in southern Israel?
A UNGA vote to declare a Palestinian state would have no legal effect, of course. The UN’s own rules lodge the power of state creation in the Security Council, not the General Assembly. That’s why the 1988 vote in the General Assembly to recognize “Palestine” had no juridical effect – and why the 1999 vote in the Security Council to create East Timor did have effect.
But a UN action does not need to have legal effect to have practical effect. Propaganda has a power of its own. Israel responded to Thursday’s terror attacks with air strikes against seven targets inside Gaza. The international reaction? Quiet. There are many reasons for the quiet. But one important contributor: Israel’s air strikes crossed no internationally accepted border.
To understand how important borders are, contrast Israel’s willingness to act in Gaza against its extreme reluctance to cross the Israel-Egypt border.
The terrorists who struck Israel Thursday crossed into Israel not from Gaza, but from Egyptian-ruled Sinai. Israel’s Ynet news agency is reporting that the terrorists actually emerged from underneath an Egyptian army border outpost – and in broad daylight, too.
Yet Israel has gone out of its way to deny that any of its forces ever crossed the border. Egypt has claimed three Egyptian soldiers were killed in the aftermath of the terrorist attack. Israel insists any Egyptian casualties must have occurred in clashes with the terrorists, not at the hands of Israeli warplanes in hot pursuit.
Who knows what the truth is? The one thing we do know: Israel is determined not to be seen intruding upon Egyptian territory. It feels no such reluctance about the non-sovereign state of Gaza.
But what if Gaza were regarded as sovereign, not necessarily by the United States and Canada, but by the Islamic countries and some European countries? The dilemma Israel faces on its Egyptian border would be joined by a similar dilemma on the boundary lines with Gaza and the West Bank.
This is precisely the dilemma the Palestinian push for UN recognition is intended to create.
Sovereign states have duties as well as rights. Sovereign states are expected to control their own territory, to prevent violent individuals from launching attacks on citizens of other countries. They are expected to provide for the welfare of their populations. They are expected to refrain from planning aggressive war against their neighbours.
Nobody in his or her right mind expects a post-UN-vote “Palestine” to do any of the above things. Quite the contrary: A post-UN-vote “Palestine” will be even less likely to suppress terrorism, even more dependent on international charity and even less committed to seeking peace with Israel.
The point of the exercise is not to gain the responsibilities of statehood, but to gain greater immunity for acts of irresponsibility – such as the heinous acts that claimed the lives of eight Israelis on Thursday and Friday.
Those acts left Israeli families grieving their loss. The families of the three slain Israeli soldiers mourn no less than the families of the five murdered Israeli civilians. It is always misplaced to speak of any “good” coming from the appalling fact of terrorist violence. But we can at least take this wisdom:
On Thursday and Friday, terrorist killers not only snatched away eight innocent lives. They also shoved the Arab world’s biggest state, Egypt, closer toward conflict with Israel. Such conflict would in turn raise the already-too-high risk of Islamic extremists taking power in the Egyptian state and army.
Palestinian radicalism can have frightening large-scale geopolitical implications. The whole region has an interest in dissuading the Palestinian leadership from adventurism and provocation. The push for a September UN vote on Palestinian statehood creates exactly the most perverse possible incentives for even relatively responsible Palestinian leaders. The world’s answer to the push must be a firm and unequivocal “no” – backed by a credible threat to end international assistance to the Palestinian Authority if the PA leaders are reckless enough to proceed.
Demosthenes // Aug 20, 2011 at 11:02 am
I agree with everything you say.
And still I say: the Israeli occupation of Gaza must end. If it does not, then Israel will have to choose whether to remain Jewish or democratic. It’s that simple.
tommybones // Aug 20, 2011 at 11:26 am
“Israel responded to Thursday’s terror attacks with air strikes against seven targets inside Gaza. ”
This attitude is the problem in a nutshell. What constitutes a “terror” attack and what constitutes a “response”?
Is it not terror to have a policy of collective punishment of 1.5 million civilians for “voting the wrong way”? Is illegal occupation ever “self defense”?
Why is it, Mr. Frum, that whenever Israel massacres Palestinians, it’s always described as a “response” to some sort of provocation, but when Palestinians attack, It’s never described as a response to 40+ years of occupation? Or illegal blockades, which punish the men, women, and children of Gaza?
And this speaks further to your bizarre reasoning for denying Palestinian statehood. To wit:
“Sovereign states have duties as well as rights. Sovereign states are expected to control their own territory, to prevent violent individuals from launching attacks on citizens of other countries. They are expected to provide for the welfare of their populations. They are expected to refrain from planning aggressive war against their neighbours. Nobody in his or her right mind expects a post-UN-vote “Palestine” to do any of the above things. Quite the contrary: A post-UN-vote “Palestine” will be even less likely to suppress terrorism, even more dependent on international charity and even less committed to seeking peace with Israel. The point of the exercise is not to gain the responsibilities of statehood, but to gain greater immunity for acts of irresponsibility – such as the heinous acts that claimed the lives of eight Israelis on Thursday and Friday.”
This is beyond hypocritical. Are you so far removed from reality that you can’t see this? Let’s unpack this statement a bit.
“Sovereign states are expected to control their own territory, to prevent violent individuals from launching attacks on citizens of other countries.”
Are we to believe that state sanctioned illegal violence against neighboring countries is okay?
Israel has illegally invaded Lebanon five times, Syria, Egypt, Iran and Palestinian territory numerous times over the past 4+ decades. The death toll in these attacks makes the Palestinian attacks look like a drop of water in the ocean.
“They are expected to refrain from planning aggressive war against their neighbours.”
You actually typed this without a shred of irony? The one country, besides the U.S., guilty of the most “aggressive war” in the entire Middle East has been Israel. Or are you completely unaware of the amount of land Israel has illegally stolen and continues to steal on a daily basis? What is that, if not “aggressive war” against neighbors?
“Nobody in his or her right mind expects a post-UN-vote “Palestine” to do any of the above things. ”
And does anybody in their right mind feel Israel will stop doing those same exact things? Which they have been doing continuously for decades??? Did Israeli statehood stop Israel from committing a nearly endless list of atrocities???
And when will you ever in your life describe the numerous atrocities committed by Israel as “heinous acts”? Have you ever?
The hypocrisy David Frum continues to display in the Israeli/Palestinian dispute is mind-boggling.
Faramarz Fathi // Aug 20, 2011 at 1:31 pm
MR. Frum:
Can I safely assume you have already contemplated and picked a secluded spot deep in the Israeli forests for your retirement after reading Tommy’s comment?
If not, then, that would be a further indication that you are in need of help from a Psychologist.
Faramarz Fathi
jakester // Aug 21, 2011 at 2:52 am
Israel took Gaza, Sinai and West Bank in 1967, for obvious strategic reasons so they could have a cohesive border. They gave Sinai back decades ago. So where is all this land they keep stealing? Oh right, aggressive wars, against innocent countries who only wanted to be good neighbors or adversaries whose martial competence fell far short of their bellicose aims
tommybones // Aug 21, 2011 at 9:16 am
Is this a serious question? First of all, the land they “took” was not theirs to take. They continue to hold stolen land, lots of it. Secondly, unless you’ve lived under a rock for the past 40 years, you should know about the settlements and how they have expanded and continue to expand on a daily basis. Those, too, are illegal. Wake up.
“Oh right, aggressive wars, against innocent countries who only wanted to be good neighbors.”
You understand how Israel was created, right? European countries forced Israel into existence against the will of the native populations in the region. This forced nationalization resulted in hundreds of thousands of civilians being forcibly removed from their homes at gunpoint. You blame them for being angry at the time? Meanwhile, the 1967 war was over 40 years ago. Since then, Israel has stolen land, invaded neighbors and killed more innocent people in the region than all other their alleged enemies combined. Israel has been a “good neighbor”? Tell that to Lebanon, a Nation they have illegally invaded five times in the past three decades.
Israel is the most powerful military force in the region. There “Right to Exist” is not being threatened. Who can defeat them? Nobody. The “self defense” canard is being used as cover for Israeli aggression and nothing more. Much like our own military is being used to control oil-rich regions under the false claim of self defense in a “War on Terror.” It’s nonsense.
Both the U.S. and Israel are Middle East aggressors, fighting for control of resources, which happen to be in the territory of other nations.
jakester // Aug 21, 2011 at 12:46 pm
First off, all Israeli settlements in Gaza are gone.
It’s hard to feel sorry for the Gazans. They elected Hamas who declared war on Israel with the aim of eliminating all of Israel. Granted their means are almost comical, but their will and aims aren’t. What if instead they elected a government who was willing to pursue peaceful means to achieve sovereignty & good relations with Israel, not some jihad to the bitter end Islamocrazies? I blame Hamas and their supporters for calling the wrath of Israel down on their people, who they treat like pawns in their sick martyrdom game. Not just pawns, but lives to be willingly sacrificed for propaganda purposes.
The Middle East and the world are suffering no shortage of miserable Islamic sewer states like Hamas’s Gaza. They are a cancer just like Somalia Yemen, etc
tommybones // Aug 21, 2011 at 1:11 pm
Where to begin… perhaps you should begin by comparing a map from pre-1967 war with a current map. You’ll see the amount of land suddenly occupied by Israel has grown by an enormous amount. All illegally, of course.
“It’s hard to feel sorry for the Gazans. They elected Hamas who declared war on Israel with the aim of eliminating all of Israel. ”
Need to check the official Double-Standard manuel…. ah, here it is:
Section 2: Israel is justified in violating international law in response to RHETORIC put forth by Hamas, which states its desire to steal Israeli land and make it their own, yet Hamas is NOT JUSTIFIED in violating international law in response to Israel ACTUALLY STEALING PALESTINIAN LAND, by force, and creating new, Jewish-only communities on that stolen land, thus making it Israel’s own.
And Section 6: Palestinians are blamed for the violence they receive because they vote for “thugs” to represent them. Israeli leaders, no matter how many crimes they commit, nor how many deaths they cause, nor how many times they actively and unapologetically target civilians for massive collective punishment in violation of numerous humanitarian and criminal laws, are NOT to be considered “thugs,” and therefore one could not claim Israeli’s who voted for them deserve what they get as a result.
Well done.
jakester // Aug 21, 2011 at 2:32 pm
Rhetoric, like declaring war, sponsoring terror attacks, rocket barrages, suicide bombings, all sponsored from the top there? Elimination of Israel is PART OF THEIR CHARTER! Since Hamas declared war on Israel, they reap what they sow. So either that makes you an accomplice or a useful bleeding heart idiot. So if Hamas cared about their people, really cared about their lives and living conditions, they would’ve chosen the path of peace. Meanwhile millions are going to die or be permanently maimed through hunger and neglect in wonderful, well managed Islamic Somalia, but who cares?
tommybones // Aug 21, 2011 at 2:38 pm
“Rhetoric, like declaring war, sponsoring terror attacks, rocket barrages, suicide bombings, all sponsored from the top there?”
It’s really amazing how people can be confronted with facts and still see the world through one lens. The list of atrocities committed by “the top” of the Israeli government over the past 40+ decades is so long and horrific, one could spend all day listing them and not even chip the surface. How many times must I post the list of double-standards before the reality sets in? It’s literally self delusion at some point, or merely willful ignorance.
jagerine // Aug 22, 2011 at 4:11 pm
+1 jakester
Carney // Aug 22, 2011 at 4:56 pm
Because, TommyBones, the Israelis do not seek to maximize civilian deaths, nor to cause them indiscriminately or deliberately to foster terror. Rather, they take great pains and exercise great restraint to minimize collateral damage and only target known terrorist leaders, despite the substantial grassroots support terror has in the “Palestinian” population.
By stark contrast, the “Palestinian” leadership, has often done all the damage to Israeli civilians that it physically logistically can. It exerts its utmost effort and used every resource at its disposal. Mass casualty attacks against buses, nightclubs, restaurants, etc. were a staple of “Palestinian” policy until the much criticized security barrier went up, after which point the “Palestinians” have resorted to attempting to suicide bomb wall checkpoints and lob mortars and missiles over the top, in an effort to kill Israelis at random.
The moral difference between the two behavior patterns is obvious to all but anti-Semites. Are you an anti-Semite?
cswilly // Aug 20, 2011 at 11:53 am
The Palestinian are reproducing like rabbits. As such the Israelis are so fucked.
The rule of law does not exist in the middle-east, merci USA USA.
I love Tel Aviv; lovely people, culturally mixed, open…but it is not Israel and the crazy wackos who want to delete the Palestinians from their land.
Defending your rights by force is very American (2nd amendment).
nikhil_gupta // Aug 20, 2011 at 12:58 pm
How in the world does anyone care anymore.
Graychin // Aug 20, 2011 at 2:07 pm
“Israel responded to Thursday’s terror attacks with air strikes against seven targets inside Gaza. ”
Disproportionate retaliation by Israel against Gaza has been very effective in the past in reducing tensions and bringing about peace. Stick with a winning strategy – right?
Or is this partly a “wag the dog” tactic to draw Israeli public attention away from domestic issues?
tommybones // Aug 20, 2011 at 4:40 pm
I also love how the word “massacre” is routinely thrown around whenever more than one Israeli gets killed, but hundreds of Palestinian civilians can get slaughtered in a two week campaign and Frum would never refer to it as such.
Demosthenes // Aug 20, 2011 at 4:48 pm
I think the most important thing is to avoid double standards. Anti-Semitism is racism. Zionism is also racism.
tommybones // Aug 20, 2011 at 5:01 pm
Speaking of double-standards:
Israel has the right to violate international law to defend their people, if those laws fail in their duty to protect the people of Israel. Hamas DOES NOT have the right to violate international law to defend their people, if those laws fail in their duty to protect the Palestinian people.
Israel is justified in violating international law in response to RHETORIC put forth by Hamas, which states its desire to steal Israeli land and make it their own, yet Hamas is NOT JUSTIFIED in violating international law in response to Israel ACTUALLY STEALING PALESTINIAN LAND, by force, and creating new, Jewish-only communities on that stolen land, thus making it Israel’s own.
Israel is encouraged to defend their people with extreme violence in response to illegal actions taken by Hamas. Hamas is discouraged from defending their people with extreme violence in response to illegal actions taken by Israel.
Since the definition of a terrorist organization is, in simple terms, an organization which takes part in terrorist activities (like targeting civilians etc), Hamas is rightly deemed a terrorist organization because of their use of terrorist tactics. Israel, however, is NOT a terrorist organization, in spite of engaging in numerous acts of terrorism.
When Hamas doesn’t agree to a peace plan, they “do not want peace.” When Israel doesn’t agree to a peace plan, it’s because Hamas “doesn’t want peace.”
Palestinians are blamed for the violence they receive because they vote for “thugs” to represent them. Israeli leaders, no matter how many crimes they commit, nor how many deaths they cause, nor how many times they actively and unapologetically target civilians for massive collective punishment in violation of numerous humanitarian and criminal laws, are NOT to be considered “thugs,” and therefore one could not claim Israeli’s who voted for them deserve what they get as a result.
Israel is allowed to stockpile a large nuclear weapons arsenal as well as the most powerful conventional weapons arsenal in the entire Middle East, which it has regularly used on its neighbors, slaughtering thousands of innocent civilians over the years (including hundreds of children), but Hamas is deemed evil incarnate for “smuggling” crude, antiquated rockets into their “arsenal,” which has resulted in less than 30 civilian deaths in the past decade.
Palestinians are REQUIRED to acknowledge Israel’s Right To Exist (TM), but Israel has no obligation to acknowledge Palestinian rights at all.
Have I missed anything?
Demosthenes // Aug 21, 2011 at 12:42 am
Nope
Hunter01 // Aug 20, 2011 at 6:00 pm
Some problems have no solution. Israel is not our partner in peace negotiations — it does not view its interests as coterminous with ours. Same for the Palestinians. From the US perspective, the only calculus that makes sense is to pursue our own strategic goals before the middle-east powder-keg explodes again in our face. That means, tell Israel it will pay a price for the new settlements — i.e., the US will abstain in the UNGA vote — but give Israel time to dismantle the settlements before the vote. The conservatives will go nuts, but screw ‘em; the rest of the nation will appreciate the gesture.
Rob_654 // Aug 20, 2011 at 6:53 pm
Why not arm the Palestinians with weapons and training that is equivalent to Israel – and then let them fight it out “militarily” – and then neither side will be able to voice any reason to use “terrorism”.
Because we all know that if a guy with a bomb blows up a bus that is despicable act of terror and is done by a coward – but if a missile or bomb goes off track and wipes out an bunch of innocent folks – well that’s just a military error and we all feel really, really, really bad about it and we promise we’ll investigate what happened.
jakester // Aug 20, 2011 at 10:01 pm
Mass retaliations against civilian targets are brutal, knee jerk and in the end counter-productive. For example, with all the meddling and killing Israel did in Lebanon, did it make Lebanon a better place? As much as I despise Hamas, brutal retaliations by Israel will only continue the cycle of violence
Demosthenes // Aug 21, 2011 at 12:53 am
As I understand it, Israel’s destruction of Lebanese infrastructure had very little to do with actually rooting out Hamas or Hezbollah, which they weren’t even able to accomplish. (For the record, I think that while Hamas and even more so Hezbollah should be understood, like the IRA, as primarily political parties with strong terrorist/militant elements, that of course does not excuse their inexcusable tactics).
Some Lebanese friends of mine pointed to the destruction of water-processing plants dozens of kilometers north of the terrorists’ known positions as the “real” reason, i.e. that Lebanon had been refusing to allow Israel to yet again change the terms of their treaty to share water from the River Jordan, in addition to harboring militants. To be sure, the IDF also targeted sewage treatment plants, fuel pumps, ports, airports, roads, bridges, and electrical stations. Even, perhaps especially, if the “real” reason was the stated reason, this was unacceptable and counterproductive. But such wholesale destruction makes a lot more sense to me in terms of water sources than it does in terms of a few Intifadis with peashooters that didn’t even end up getting caught or killed.
tommybones // Aug 21, 2011 at 9:18 am
Not to mention, deliberately targeting civilian infrastructure, like water treatment plants, is a war crime.
jakester // Aug 21, 2011 at 12:48 pm
hmm, like what we and the Brits did in WW ll & Nam? Or the Russians did in Chechnya and Afghanistan. Face it, in modern wars you fight peoples, not just armies.
tommybones // Aug 21, 2011 at 1:24 pm
So, war crimes are okay, just because we and others committed them in the past. Understood. Meanwhile, let me open the manual again:
Sections 1&3:
Israel has the right to violate international law to defend their people, if those laws fail in their duty to protect the people of Israel. Hamas DOES NOT have the right to violate international law to defend their people, if those laws fail in their duty to protect the Palestinian people.
Israel is encouraged to defend their people with extreme violence in response to illegal actions taken by Hamas. Hamas is discouraged from defending their people with extreme violence in response to illegal actions taken by Israel.
P.S. – the war crimes I am referring to are from treaties enacted post WWII.
Rabiner // Aug 21, 2011 at 12:48 pm
It wasn’t like David Frum was advocating a ‘yes’ vote before this incident.
jakester // Aug 21, 2011 at 12:59 pm
Sorry if my sympathies for the Gazans are near 0. They chose the path of war and no compromise in their fight to the death with Israel. They care about their own people less than the Israelis do. If they cared about the welfare of their people, they would have chosen the path of peace. End comment
tommybones // Aug 21, 2011 at 1:20 pm
“They chose the path of war and no compromise in their fight to the death with Israel. ”
Jakester:
How many ways can you be completely wrong, I wonder? Did you know that in all the years of peace talks, every single legal concession has come from the Palestinian side of the table and not a single legal concession has come from the Israeli side? So which side is the one unwilling to compromise, exactly?
And are you aware that public polling of Gazans revealed 72% are in favor of a two-state solution? And are you aware that Hamas agreed to such a framework, based on the legal 1967 borders, but that offer was rejected by Israel?
Here’s a good example. The common myth in regard to the talks at Camp David and Taba was that Arafat walked away from the table and killed a deal, even though Israel “compromised.” Let’s look at the reality.
There were four key issues at Camp David and at Taba. Number one, settlements. Number two, borders. Number three, Jerusalem. Number four, refugees.
Let’s start with settlements. Under international law, there is no dispute, no controversy. Under Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention, it’s illegal for any occupying country to transfer its population to Occupied Territories. All of the settlements are illegal under international law. No dispute. The World Court in July 2004 ruled that all the settlements are illegal. The Palestinians were willing to concede 50% of the Israeli settlements in the West Bank. That was a monumental concession, going well beyond anything that was demanded of them under international law.
Borders. The principle is clear. It is inadmissible to acquire territory by war. Under international law, Israel had to withdraw from all of the West Bank and all of Gaza. As the World Court put it in July 2004, those are, quote, “occupied Palestinian territories.” Now, however you want to argue over percentages, there is no question the Palestinians were willing to make concessions on the borders.
Jerusalem. Jerusalem is an interesting case, because if you read the standard mainstream accounts in the United States, everyone talks about the huge concessions that Barak was willing to make on Jerusalem. But under international law Israel has not one iota of sovereignty over any of Jerusalem. The World Court decision said Jerusalem is occupied Palestinian territory. Now, the Palestinians were willing to divide Jerusalem roughly in half, the Jewish side to Israel, the Arab side to the Palestinians.
And number four, refugees. On the question of refugees, it’s not a dispute under international law. Remarkably, even fairly conservative human rights organizations like Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch issued statements on the question of the right of return, believing categorically, under international law, every Palestinian, roughly five to six million, has the right to return; not to some little parcels, but to their homes or the environs of their homes in Israel. That’s the law. Now, the Palestinians were not demanding and never demanded the full return of six million refugees. Estimates range from tens of thousands to upwards of 400,000; well short of six million.
On every single issue, all the concessions came from the Palestinians. The problem is, EVERYONE BEGINS WITH WHAT ISRAEL WANTS and how much of its wants it’s willing to give up. But that’s not the relevant framework. The only relevant framework is under international law what you are entitled to, and when you use that framework it’s a very, very different picture. So Arafat gets lambasted for walking away from the table, but every single concession came from his side of the table and not a single concession from Israel.
Additionally, the most recent Arab Peace Plan, also known as the “Saudi Plan,” calls for a two state solution, based on the pre-war 1967 borders. The plan would respect “Israel’s Right to Exist” as a sovereign nation. The plan has been endorsed by virtually the entire planet, including Hezbollah, Hamas, the Palestinian people, Iran, Egypt, Syria, Jordon, Lebanon and even the American people. Which entities don’t agree to this fair and just plan for peace? Israel and the U.S. government, who have no interest in peace.
When you say Hamas must choose peace, you are really saying they must choose unconditional surrender.
End of lesson.
tommybones // Aug 21, 2011 at 1:44 pm
In Jakester’s world, someone could steal his entire home at gunpoint, then offer to give him back the garage and were he to reject the offer, it would be his fault for “not choosing peace.”
jakester // Aug 21, 2011 at 2:38 pm
In tommybone’s world, the failed conquerors and antagonists who desired the destruction of a state get to play the martyr. Let’s give Prussia and the Sudetenland back to the Germany while we’re at it, since so many there were ethnic Germans. The only problem I see is that the Arabs failed to exterminate Israel so they flipped over into victim mode. And Israel did have a right to at least their part of Jerusalem. Those 1948 borders were formed when after it seemed like the Arabs would lose big time instead of winning, the world stepped in to order a cease fire before the Israelis took all of Jerusalem and the West Bank.
tommybones // Aug 21, 2011 at 2:41 pm
It’s sad to see someone so hopelessly one-sided. You want peace? Educate yourself.
Curiosity // Aug 21, 2011 at 8:48 pm
“And are you aware that public polling of Gazans revealed 72% are in favor of a two-state solution? And are you aware that Hamas agreed to such a framework, based on the legal 1967 borders, but that offer was rejected by Israel? ”
That’s 28% of a population that wants a 1 state solution. That’s 28% of a population that wants Isreal gone. 72% is well more than half, but well less than the amount needed to argue that the Palestinians just want to play nice.
A friend passed this video on to me and I found it to be rather clear, but perhaps it is filled with lies.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=glJ2a22yGwo
Go.
Rabiner // Aug 21, 2011 at 11:45 pm
Whats an acceptable percentage then? 80? 90? 100? I would never expect 100% of Americans to agree on any topic so the standard shouldn’t be that ridiculous for Palestinians on a very contentious political issue.
advocatusdiaboli // Aug 21, 2011 at 6:08 pm
After the McVeigh Massacre, the massacres in Iraq and Pakistan, the government lying at the highest levels to go to war about fictitious WMDs in Iraq, and the obliteration bombings of North Vietnam over a discredited domino theory, let’s say “No!” to the USA membership in the UN.
Oops!
Which of those was GOVERNMENT sponsored and which were rogue citizens. Same for the Eliat Massacre. All you need to do is be fair and apply the same critiques of everyone, equally, but sadly David, you cannot.
Demosthenes // Aug 22, 2011 at 2:05 am
All you need to do is be fair and apply the same critiques of everyone, equally
As I said above, to me, the most important thing is not to have any double standards. Anti-Semitism is racism; so is Zionism. At this point, as bad as the occupation is for the Palestinians, it is even worse for the Israeli people. It drains their blood and treasure, and it will make it impossible for Israel to remain both Jewish and democratic. So we are left with either a Jewish autocracy, or an Arab-majority secular democracy, and the dream and the promise of Beth Yisrael is no more.
Carney // Aug 22, 2011 at 5:05 pm
Discredited domino theory?
So, in the 60s and 70s, our pending or recent abandonment of our ally in South Vietnam and allowing it to fall to Communism did NOT play a major role in the fall of Laos and Cambodia to Communism?
That in turn had nothing to do with an emboldened Soviet adventurism and the fall to Communism of Ethiopia, Nicaragua, South Yemen, Angola, Mozambique, Guinea, and Afghanistan?
The 70s were instead a triumphal march of freedom as a demoralized Soviet Union retreated throughout the world and its satellite states and movements collapsed?
Yeah, that domino theory was really discredited all right.
Carney // Aug 22, 2011 at 5:07 pm
The difference is, the US government is not naming town squares after William Calley.
Smargalicious // Aug 22, 2011 at 7:49 am
You cannot negotiate with Muslims.
The non-Muslim world realizes that.
kortuem // Aug 22, 2011 at 12:43 pm
David,
I agree with your point that an internationally recognized Palestine would complicate Israel’s military response. However it cuts both ways: an internationally recognized Palestine would also make it much harder for Palestine to justify cross-border aggressions – and would allow the world to assign blame if Palestine (or Israel) should violate the borders.