Israel engages in indirect peace talks with Syria

Gee. Israel is finally taking the intiative in working out its differences with its neighbors. What a radical idea.

Gee. Israel is finally taking the intiative in working out its differences with its neighbors. What a radical idea.

Yeah, they didn't do that with the Sinai and Egypt, or with Gaza or anything. Seems to me the only ones doing anything to barter for peace are the Israelis, time and again.

E.D.Kain: Gee. Israel is finally taking the intiative in working out its differences with its neighbors. What a radical idea. Yeah, they didn't do that with the Sinai and Egypt, or with Gaza or anything. Seems to me the only ones doing anything to barter for peace are the Israelis, time and again.

I applaud any and all efforts by anybody and everybody on both sides including and especially Israel. I do. But let's don't pretend Israel has tried very hard to settle the problems it has absolutely created in the middle east. It has been the agressor from the beginning and it hasn't given up a single clod of dirt without a protracted fight. Israel has also always been perfectly content to let us rush halfway around to world to help her beat everybody over there up better and who wouldn't be? They're not stupid, we're stupid.

What has always bugged the hell out of me is the way that everyone, pretty much in the world except the actual inhabitants of the middle east sans Israel, has this ironclad assumption that the United States has to do this, when we not only have proven we suck at it, but are also totally unqualified to do it. The only reason we ever assumed the role is some kind of weird mixture of sheer arrogance and biblical wackiness. We do live 6-7,000 miles away after all. It's none of our business and it never has been. We don't speak the language and we don't understand the culture. The country who has always been way better qualified to work this out is the country that decided to set up shop there against the wishes of the people who already lived there in the first place -- Israel. We've made the whole thing immeasureably worse by meddling for 60 years. It's way past time to butt out and let the people handle this who are actually qualified to do it. Not to mention who caused the problem in the first place.

Prospero...how right you are...

But let's don't pretend Israel has tried very hard to settle the problems it has absolutely created in the middle east. It has been the agressor from the beginning and it hasn't given up a single clod of dirt without a protracted fight.

Complete fallacy (though I doubt we'll agree). In 1948 it was the Arabs who refused the partition and attacked Israel. In the subsequent wars it was the Arabs again who attacked first, and Israel who responded and won each battle--and yes, gained land, much of which it gave back later in exchange for peace. How would you have handled things, Prospero, if you had been the Israeli government and your neighbors attacked, calling for your complete destruction?

Israel has also always been perfectly content to let us rush halfway around to world to help her beat everybody over there up better and who wouldn't be?

When has America rushed to Israel's aid in a war? Name one Arab/Israeli war that the Americans were a part of.

We've made the whole thing immeasureably worse by meddling for 60 years.

How? It's easy to say this sort of thing, but I see no facts to back this up.

I have to say E.D., that I enjoy talking to you. We disagree wholly on almost everything, but you're informed and intelligent and that's my favorite kind of adversary.

Now then. You said:

In 1948 it was the Arabs who refused the partition and attacked Israel.

"Refused the partition." Nice spin. You would have refused the partition too. The partition was the entire world outside the middle east informing everyone in the middle east that it had decided that soon-to-be-Israel would be given the part of Palestine they'd already helped themselves to. The only dissenting votes on the partition were, surprise surprise, all of the countries in the middle east who had a vote.

Yes, they attacked Israel upon news of the partition. You feel that means they started it. They feel Israel started it by commandeering their land, and that the US-led rest of the world helped them. I don't know, I kind of think they have a point along the lines of the Native Americans -- although only one nation was out to conquer those lands, and that people. The whole world was helping Israel do it. However, Israel defeated the Arabs decisively, might made right just like it did in this country when we helped ourself to Indian lands, and here we are. We have what we have to deal with, as of this moment in time. And the most demanding condition the Arab world has made in the peace process is not that Israel give back the land we helped it steal in 1947, but that it give back just what it has stolen since then, and the way Israel and the Israel lobby in this country squeals at the mere suggestion you'd think they were actually making an unreasonable request. It's anything but. It's extremely reasonable and although we all break our necks to pat Israel on the back for FINALLY giving back the Golan and the Gaza, well, sort of the Gaza, nobody gives them their due for their efforts at peace. And we wonder why they hate us.

How would you have handled things, Prospero, if you had been the Israeli government and your neighbors attacked, calling for your complete destruction?

You ask that question in good faith. I understand that. You, as do so many, seem to think Israel is this helpless, defenseless little nation that is quietly minding its own business while its neighbors are plotting to destroy it. That carefully-crafted image has absolutely nothing to do with reality. It's the propaganda coup of the century. Israel is an aggressive, imperialistic nation that ranks third in the world in combat power -- third. In the world. Israel has a first-rate, crackerjack standing army of half-million -- about what we've got. We pay for both by the way. Israel has nuclear capability, also compliments of you and me and our pocketbooks. None of the people Israel is constantly fighting with could possibly mount a credible attack, or defense, against them. Israel's Arab neighbors aren't even in the top ten. They are the ones who would really like to be left alone to mind their own business -- well, they were, anyway. Once upon a time.

If I were the Israeli government, I wouldn't be under any illusions about just how helpless and defenseless Israel is. I would defend my country ferociously if my country was attacked, but I would never attack one of my neighbors solely to steal more of their land or to further oppress a beaten people. I would only use military force if it was used on me first and I would scrupulously observe international law if that happened. I wouldn't respond to kids throwing rocks with a full-out military assault with air support. I wouldn't allow my soldiers to kill innocent people for sport. I wouldn't cage people and I wouldn't institute punitive sanctions that rob hospitals of medicine and supplies and grocery stores of stock and people of their paychecks. I wouldn't deprive them of a sanitary, abundant water supply and I would arrest, try, and jail any of my citizens who committed atrocities against anyone. I would also know how utterly meaningless those calls for my country's destruction are -- I would understand that talk is cheap, and that all I needed to concern myself with was action. I would defend my country within the bounds of international law and decency. I would stop pretending the Palestinians were just oh so much worse than my own shock troops and my own apartheid policies, and stop trying to fake the whole world out about that entire little pantomime. Since you asked.

I have to say E.D., that I enjoy talking to you. We disagree wholly on almost everything, but you're informed and intelligent and that's my favorite kind of adversary.

Hats off to you as well, Prospero. There's always room for civil discourse....

The partition was the entire world outside the middle east informing everyone in the middle east that it had decided that soon-to-be-Israel would be given the part of Palestine they'd already helped themselves to.

Sadly, much of the colonized world was being partitioned at this point in time. All across the middle-east, Africa, India, South Asia, etc. Often it wasn't fair. Often it has led to bloodshed. And so, I will move on to the next point you made, that Might makes Right. Once again, this is true. We can't go back in time, and we have to face the situation we're in now. Israel exists and that is that. They aren't going away, and the region needs to learn to live in peace somehow. Nationalism is a relatively new notion to the world, and it happened to emerge in the years leading to the post-colonial era, as empires fell apart and new nations were partitioned. Prior to nationalism, the area known as Palestine was under Ottoman rule, and the city of Jerusalem was a multi-faith city consisting mainly of Christians, but also of Muslims and Jews. There were many multi-national, multi-imperial interests at play in the Holy Land.

Nationalism brought both the Zionist concept of Israel and the Arabian concept of Palestine into being. This, obviously, clashed--like Kashmir is a point of contention between Pakistan and India. Before nationalism, there was no sense of Palestine or Israel. There was a piece of the Ottoman Empire.

Now, in the 20th century the population of Arabs and Jews greatly increased, while Christians slowly left the region. As in much of the world, the colonial powers decided to split the land up in the way they thought was best.

Hence the partition. And in much of the world violence has been the effect of the various borders drawn up by the Europeans, but we have to find peaceful, reasonable ways to live with these borders because we can't turn back time.

Israel is an aggressive, imperialistic nation that ranks third in the world in combat power -- third. In the world.

This is simply not true. Yes, Israel captured lands, but only when they were attacked. Their borders were completely indefensible. Something had to be done to create a safer country in the face of so much outright aggression. But yes, now their army is top-notch, and for good reason.

If I were the Israeli government

Certainly the Israeli government has, at times, been too harsh on the Palestinians. There have been wicked deeds done on both sides. I agree that they should be more humane in their approach to the Palestinians. But then again, when faced with constant terrorism, this becomes very difficult. Besides, much of what you have said is true. Israel was continually the one to use force after being attacked. Remember the Yom Kippur war?

In any case, I take issue with both the use of the term "imperialist" which is a gross exaggeration, and "apartheid" which is also a gross exaggeration...

I enjoy your exchanges, too, EDK & Prospero. I learn a thing or two. Just want to add that in partitioning Palestine, Britain was looking out - for the British Empire. According to Benny Morris' "Road to Jerusalem", there was collusion between the Yishuv and King Abdallah of Jordan to have Jordan annex the Palestinian portion of the partition (from here on it gets Gilbert and Sullivan-esque). All of which is to say that if well begun is half done, then ill-begun must seem like an eternity to emend things.

I'm reading Bernard Wasserstein's "Divided Jerusalem." Extremely interesting history. I'll check out the "Road to Jerusalem" also...thanks.

The majority on both sides want peace.
They are both twarted by a minority on both sides that want to keep conflict going.
Same thing is happeneing right here, right now in the us.

the majority of us are against the iraqi war.(which we were from the beginning.. look at the real polls most said we must finish diplomacy first.. the only ones that showed popular support was when they asked "is saddam failed to comply".. no poll wanted us to go at it without un support.)
It is not in the interest of the neocons and their views of the powers of a war president to ever have the us not in the state of war.. they are much like hamas in that reguard

Without the state of Israel the Arab countries would have no great unifying cause. They need Israel as Bush needs the terrorists as a boogie man to manipulate the populace. I suspect that with real diplomacy Iran could be persuaded to drop their hostility to Israel in exchange for their own security and well being. I could be wrong of course but if it is never tried...

Well, yet to see if Mr. Olmert just wants to deviate attention from his pesky problems with the law or if this is something we'll still talk about next year.

On the other hand, given the Doha results on Lebanon, following a show of force by Hezb'allah, considering also the recent pledges for the Westbank and the 7.7 still to come, also given the rather nervous implications of the JPost's collection of supposed US strategies concerning Iran, Israel is well advised to at least temporarily offer Syria some sort of perspective.

In fact, being overly belligerent in these very days could be something that Israel might feel sorry for very soon.

Lets also face it. With a next president Obama or another next president whomever, would Israel expect better conditions for clearing issues with Syria than now under Bush? Today, Syria is still somewhat in the corner, in two or three years from now its position for negotiations could be much stronger.

Well let's examine this more closely. According to Bush when you negotiate with the enemy then you are tantamount to a Nazi appeaser. He carefully explained this to Israel's Parliament just the other day.

...the best defense is a good offense.

I have to admit that Israel is very good at that. The Israeli Occupation Forces should change their name to the Israeli Offense Forces.

Good question since it takes a lot of power to refine uranium. A LOT of power.

Oh come on, Syria has never done anything that would suggest it might possibly be developing nuclear weaponry with the help of North Korea....

Um, the point is that it wasn't intended for civilian nuclear power.

Ever hear of generators?

Do you know what a power grid is?

Yeah I think I have heard of a power grid before. That is what you hook up a plant that processes uranium to as in Hanford because the process consumes so much electrical power. Get it? Not something you do with some D cells or a Colman generator.

Ya think?

Damn Claus, I didn't realise you had such a pedantic streak to you ;-)

Don't be too optimistic, Claus. It's only "indirect peace talks" — at least for the time being ;)

I would think that any definition of peace would include not arming/abetting Hezbollah. Otherwise, why bother. I also seeded an article that reminded me of this: Hamas leader Khaled Meshal is in Damascus. Someone's going to sweat.

Scipio

I'm working up a piece that I will publish on Monday or Tuesday on negotiating with Syria and/or Iran. Let's just say that things are a bit more complicated than they might first seem including the not insignifcant question of who exactly is in charge in Damascus. I would think, however, that the time is ripe for a proper ration of kosher carrots with an American sauce in exchange for splitting the Syrians off from Tehran's orbit.

APPEASERS!!

Actually, not. That is a common misconception.

Talking alone is not appeasement. Offering some tangible concessions in hopes the other side will make peace might well be.alone. (But-- ...talks mean nothing-- as history has shown).

More on mere talking . . . vs actual appeasement is here

ummm - humor here ;)

What!!???**&$)$???!!!

Talking alone is not appeasement? I am getting confused. I thought that the moment you start talking, you start appeasing.

Yes, but these specific talks have been reported on since last month. It doesn't change anything -- I was just pointing out that they've been ongoing.

Imagine that somebody communicating with an "Enemy". What would Bush think?

I think there is a very fine balance--a tightrope if you will--that must be achieved when using diplomacy with overtly hostile nations. I don't think it's right to just talk to anyone without any preconditions, but on the flip side, we can't very well go without any talks at all. And the only effective diplomacy is the kind backed up with lots of guns. Big guns. Or else it's just words. This was the one real brilliant moment for Kennedy, when he backed up his words with a real threat during the Cuban Missile Crisis.

Talks can and should happen, but we must be careful when doing so, and we don't have to come to the table before various essential criteria are met. Iran and Syria should not terrorize their way to the peace talks. That doesn't make any sense at all.

Considering we have been negotiating with Iran, Syria, and North Korea for years, I doubt he'd be thinking what you expect him to.

I'm wating, too, for Dennis to weigh in on Turkey's role. At once European and Asian, Muslim and modern, this non-superpower power may be stepping up as an honest broker in the region.

Very true--there is so much potential for Turkey to act as peace-broker. Historically, the Ottoman Empire often acted as intermediary between Latin and Orthodox Christians. Perhaps the modern day Turkey will find itself as the intermediary for Islamic States and Israel.

Thanks for the link, Urbane. I'll check it out later...

I've been reading Ya Libnan (http://www.yalibnan.com),

Yes-- Ya Libnan is a good resource. 2 others I would recommend-- both weblogs-- are: Beirut Spring and From Beirut to the Beltway.

Some of the best reporting coming out of the mid-east is Michael J. Totten's Middle East Journal. He is a free lance writer. A few years ago he plunked himself down in Beirut. He covered Lebanon for a while, made a few trips to other areas (ex Cairo). Recently he's spent quite a bit of time in Iraq-- some of the best coverage I've read about that. Now he's going to the Balkans.

If you go to his site and scroll down the ppage, you can find some of his analysis re: the situation in Lebanon-- probably the single best source of analysis of what's really happening there that I've read.

I'm a Totten fan.

@10.1: I should clarify (that my poorly made point was) that I don't think the term "appeasement" applies at all to these indirect negotiations (I was reacting to some other posts that were making that connection). Pointing out that these are indirect, structured "beginnings", and that it's not even a great mystery what various parties are looking for. By contrast, a formal "summit" should traditionally be reserved for post-negotiation celebration in the event that some (even partial) agreement can be reached through back channels (jumping to a summit or making concessions without appropriate assurances might be closer to "appeasement"). And I was hoping to sneak in a little humor! Not sure if that clarification still leaves us in disagreement or not. ;)

And one of the noteworthy demands from the linked article:

Echoing U.S. comments, Israeli Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni said Syria needed to "distance itself completely" from "problematic ties" with Iran.

Syria, she told reporters, must also stop "supporting terror -- Hezbollah, Hamas", groups backed by the Islamic Republic.

Djehuty--

Don't you think there's something just a little wrong when a member needs a translator to follow him around and explain his posts?

Now don't get into this "he's so brilliant no one understands him" mode, either. The fact is, I think if he had said what you had said there wouldn't have been such an issue. It's not that difficult to tone down the abrasiveness a bit, and stop flinging around epithets that we feel are directed at us.

I don't know Eric, I think Eric Albert's rants should generally allowed to be left standing as a kind of living testimonial to the type of neo-Marxist gobbledygook that no one in the academic community has taken seriously for about 25 years or so.

I don't know Eric, I think Eric Albert's rants should generally allowed to be left standing as a kind of living testimonial to the type of neo-Marxist gobbledygook that no one in the academic community has taken seriously for about 25 years or so.

Totally. All the way up to the point where he starts throwing insults. Then he's crossed the line. I don't really care one way or the other about the rants, just the insults.

Scipio I think it's relevant because it's about the remark Eric made, which was on topic. He got a suspension for it I believe because it was misunderstood as a personal attack on NV members, which I don't think it was. So, E.D.Kain you disagree. Fair enough - that's one very good reason to post it here rather than to Calvin/Emily directly. But you haven't given reasons, I notice.

That's the point. Where are the insults?

So, E.D.Kain you disagree. Fair enough - that's one very good reason to post it here rather than to Calvin/Emily directly. But you haven't given reasons, I notice.

That's the point. Where are the insults?

Well let me see....from Eric Albert just a little bit up this thread:

I see that my deformation, class description, class appeasers are taking hold throughout this discussion.....Nice try Zionists, class apologists, nationalists class thugs.

You see? His class appeasers are taking hold throughout this discussion. I assume he means me and those with whom I share opinions. Then he goes on to say (again, aimed directly at his class appeasers, i.e. me et al) "Nice try Zionists (used as an epithet, though I am indeed a Zionist), class apologists (must be same as appeasers), nationalists class thugs.

And you know, ever since I gave up my thug-life days, I just don't appreciate being called a thug.

Ya savvy?

You got it wrong. Read it again:

I see that my deformation, class description, class appeasers are taking hold throughout this discussion.....Nice try Zionists, class apologists, nationalists class thugs.

he clearly means his terminology of "deformation", "class description" etc... so it's not a personal attack at all, in the first part.

Now when I first read it I thought the sentence starting "Nice try..." could be thought to refer to newsviners, but notice the context:

Inter class arrangements, that divide a pecking order, between class regimes, do not in fact promote peace, but divide the spoils of appeasement. Nice try Zionists, class apologists, nationalists class thugs.

He's saying that the situation of warlike nationalism, supporting a hierarchial situation within each country, is a ploy by the zionists, class apologists, class thugs (to gain popular support and maintain their power) but doesn't actually help the people. Hence "nice try..."

It applies to zionists on Newsvine as well, but it's not primarily directed at them. It's like saying "Nice try republicans, thinking that the Iraq war is going to keep the GOP in power..."

Pretty hard to take personally, unless you really stretch for it. Normal debate on many or most threads here on NV is far more questionable. Yeah "I savvy" EDK.

Pretty hard to take personally, unless you really stretch for it. Normal debate on many or most threads here on NV is far more questionable. Yeah "I savvy" EDK.

We're going to have to agree to disagree. Regardless, Newsvine seemed to think it was meant to be an insult. So now it's just a matter of evolution. We adapt or face the consequences.

How the hell can discussion of the meaning of words related to Israel, Syria, and their power structures and mutual relations not be on topic? And apparently me disputing your opinion about this (11.7) is off topic too?