text:
Reader comments are listed below. Comments are currently closed and new comments are no longer being accepted.
Khamenei has just declared 'there can be NO DIRECT TALKS WITH THE USA' … he feels he's got a 'gun to his head' … I say … 'GET USED TO IT' … there's more than a gun aimed at your Nuclear Program surely !!!
I can 'understand' the thug Khamenei … he's afraid for the first time in his life … the fate of Iran is in 'his hands' and he's afraid of the consequences of his decision …
GOOD … A LITTLE PSYCHOLOGICAL PRESSURE … NEVER DID ANYONE HARM … LOL … it tends to crystallize the mind they say ! It's going to end one way or the other but it will not be with Iran having NUCLEAR WEAPONS … that's clear!
As long as Russia and China back Iran the USA will take no physical action. The USA cannot afford another long and protracted war, it is having enough problems with its debt and ever increasing ceilings.
Talks will no doubt show up all the red lines between both parties, yet that is the perfect place to begin, as it is the areas between where the most ground can be covered.
Good point - Russia-bashing has been going on for a long time by both the USA and Israel. They (i.e., the Russians) do not get provoked easily - however, there comes a point when they..............As for China, the economic vulnerability of the USA is reason enough for them not to cross swords with China. In addition to these two, I get the sense that European public opinion is also getting fed up with excessive Iran-bashing and the rhetoric of Israel's right-wing extremists. I was quite surprised to see the cartoon on Netanyahu in the Sunday Times a few weeks ago.
Good point about Russia backing Iran and making the USA afraid to attack? What's Russia going to do? Let me know … otherwise YOUR BIAS is showing … anything to poke a finger in the eye of the USA or Israel … any excuse will do … EXCEPT … Israel will NOT DEFER TO OTHERS WHAT THEY BELIEVE/KNOW IS IN THEIR BEST INTERESTS … THEY WON'T LEAVE IT UP TO PUTIN TO DECIDE … NETANYAHU WILL DECIDE …
As to your 'thought' about European Public Opinion … as if you've conducted a POLL yourself … LOL … Hezbollah has JUST been IMPLICATED in an act of terror IN THE EU … ˙Hezbollah is a known proxy for IRAN … it's transparent … Iran WILL BE deemed a HOSTILE COUNTRY … for sponsoring such a vile act of terror on European soil …
AS for the cartoon YOU'VE MENTIONED … BOTH THE EDITOR, RUPERT MURDOCH AND THE CARTOONIST … BOTH APOLOGIZED FOR THE MISTAKE …
You're so easy to refute … get your act together … but be brief … your long winded prose is truly pedantic
Iran calls USA a BIG SATAN and has never withdrawn this comment although very tactfully this has been wrapped up with few good kind words by few visits from the Atomic people who they say there is nothing wrong with having nuke in Iran. That seems to be the huge problem as Kores has India has so why cannot Iran have this? There, we have the stalemate that will never clear the cobwebs in the USA and Iran deals any time. While Mali and Algeries , Israel contest Iran is supplying the weapons to Hizabulla or the fanatics of the jihadis there seems to no proof of this. And the matter is in abeyance for very long time I thank you FirozaliA.Mulla DBA
There can be 'no deal' with the Islamist Fascist Dictatorship of Iran … this Mullocracy has a POLITICAL AGENDA that is anathema to the West and especially to Israel.
It's not in the interest of the West for 'rogue' states NOT WITHIN OUR SPHERE OF INFLUENCE to have NUKES and the means to deliver them! IRAN is seeking to do both of these and it must be stopped.
Nuclear Proliferation is the reason it must be stopped. The Planet Earth is 'too small' for 'rogue' states' to threaten the West with war. It's like this … the Islamists in Mali have just been 'shewed' away from their base … they haven't disappeared they've been 'brushed aside' … they'll be back if they can … there is NO stopping them from returning UNTIL THEY ARE ELIMINATED … the same is true of the Islamist Fascist Mullocracy of Iran … it MUST BE ELIMINATED or they will bring the Iranian People to destruction … they cannot be 'bought off' since the Mullocracy needs to maintain power in order to project it's influence on the neighbourhood and keep the JIHAD against the West ongoing …
War is inevitable … it must come on OUR TERMS when WE HAVE THE ADVANTAGE … 'don't ask for mercy on the battlefield' … it'll be too late. It's 2013 or 2014 … since there will be elections in the coming months in Iran and the USA will 'want' to give the Mullahs one more chance …
Israel cannot and will not wait beyond 2014 …
It is not all ISLAM a Fascists as you call it It is Iran that seems to have the problem since years like we have in the north Korea and Ireland . Pakistan has been the target of all the atrocities of these , the drones as Afghanistan sits quite . Would you call Afghanistan a Muslim sytes fanatic? Yes, it is The poppy that grows ais against the Isalm I thank you Firozali A.Mulla DBA
It's not about Islam …
BUT Islamists/Islamic Revolutionaries/Political Islam … is used to convince the People of the Muslim World that ONLY 'THEY' ARE ON THE 'RIGHT PATH' … THE 'TRUE PATH'
Therefore … the troubling issue is … Islamists/Islamic Revolutionaries/Political Islam have been able to CONVINCE enough Muslims to allow themselves to … GET ELECTED … HIDE AMONG THE PEOPLE … KEEP THEMSELVES ACTIVE IN TERROR ACTIVITIES IN BROAD DAYLIGHT … for the last 25 + YEARS that we have been aware of 'Jihad' in its TRUE SENSE!!!
Pakistan is a failed state … unable to give its people a reasonable 'lifestyle' … instead it is a 'caldron' of anti-West … anti-American … 'noise' … the people have spoken … THEY HATE the WEST! So … don't get me started on Pakistan!
Yet you go on and on about the jews being some chosen people by a mythical being thought up by jews, which just goes to show how fanatical and irrational you and those like you are.
You talk of political islam, yet your own beliefs show you up to be just as bad as any 'jihadist'.
Not sure what planet you are on when talking about Pakistan, as it is still pro-UK and Commonwealth.
Sorry to 'soil' your curry Cutter me'brother!
No the Pakistanis are up to NO GOOD … they're not to be trusted with anything … they are the proverbial miscreants …
BTW … while Jews 'invented' the one God … it seems to have won over BILLIONS of People on Planet Earth … but what is that saying about … "shooting the messenger"? Well … it is just a saying? LOL
Can someone explain to me the implications of a select few, the Royal Guard in this instance, having increased economic clout? While they may be able to influence the country of Iran, does this economic power hold any water internationally, especially with multilateral sanctions?
"America and its allies have applied sanctions of great breadth and severity, bolstered on occasion by assassinations and cyber-assaults, all the while hoping for an Iranian climbdown that has yet to happen". Are these Cyber attacks and assassinations official or actually confirmed, or just speculation?
I agree to this and we seem to have lost the trend of the EAST I thank you FirozaliA.Mulla DBA
"So likewise, a passionate attachment of one nation for another produces a variety of evils. Sympathy for the favorite nation, facilitating the illusion of an imaginary common interest in cases where no real common interest exists, and infusing into one the enmities of the other, betrays the former into a participation in the quarrels and wars of the latter without adequate inducement or justification. . .. Real patriots who may resist the intrigues of the favorite (nation) are liable to become suspected and odious, while its tools and dupes usurp the applause and confidence of the people, to surrender their interests." -- -- George Washington, Farewell Address to the Nation, 1796, read annually before the U.S. Senate on the anniversary of Washington's birthday
"Settling accounts with the U.S. needs to be done with force, not with words as it regards jungle law as the rule of its survival. We are not disguising the fact that the various satellites and long-range rockets that we will fire and the high-level nuclear test we will carry out are targeted at the United States."
-- -- North Korea's National Defense Commission, 24Jan2013
Number of times North Korea was mentioned during the confirmation hearings for America's next Secretary of Defense: 0
We have to all envy countries like the US, who really stand for something. After all they fought 70 years to get rid of communism and were unwavering in their quest to defeat it.
Now that we have a Mullahacracy in Iran, with a paramilitary force supporting the grand Mullah, and propping up this dictatorship, it is only in America that we can see hope. I say why bargain with the Millah? They themselves have proven that they have absolutely no interest in reforming or modifying their behaviour. There was a time from 1988 to 2005 where there existed a polygamy of thoughts and ideas within the ranks of the Mullahacracy. We had reformist Mullahs and Radical Mullahs and there was hope that one day true democratic values and true reform will take hold in Iran. Since 2005 we have had one fraction of the Mullahacracy with the support of the paramilitary guards, and under the absolute dictatorial rule of their grand Mullah Khamanei take complete control.
This control has extended to purging of the military, banks, industry, finance, telecommunication, friday prey leaders, religious scholars, universities, private businesses, hospitals etc. of any one that does not agree with them.
In Iran of today only one thing is relevant and that is support of the system (Nezam) and loyalty to the leader.
Should USA bargain with such a regime? Is that not the betrayal of 70 million Iranians? After all what hope is there for the ordinary man on the street, if USA bargains with this gang of tugs and bullies? Until such time that they can not get a deal with the west, they will need the reformers and the dissidents for window dressing. Heck having spoiled Rafsanjani and Khatami's deal with the west, just because of selfish reasons and arrogance that Mr. Khamanei was not behind it, I say lets give him no deal out of spite. Lets watch him face failure and realize that rational normal nations will never invite him in to the club.
Make no mistake, the hungry dogs of Napoleon need constant feeding, and soon they will demand more. Khamanei needs a deal to keep his guard dogs happy. If he can not get one, they will eat him alive. There is no unity in the house of Mullahacracy. Only kill or be killed. The gap between Khamanei and eternal enlightenment in heaven is one injection. The guards are far from united, and the small circle that surrounds the Grand Mullah is well aware of this. By having given the guards large concessions and having allowed them to take complete control of the economy, the grand mullah has managed to appease them, but how long will this last?
USA should talk openly and at the same time make it clear that reforming the Mullahacracy is necessary for any lasting deal. Offer the biggest carrot, in return for the reform, and not suspension of the enrichment, and watch the wolves eat each others children.
iran is a paper tiger who hides behind proxies
The US has no interest in resolving this standoff and so has been dismissing perfectly workable solutions because it wants to keep the issue alive as a pretext for imposing regime change on Iran, just as "WMDs in IRaq" was just a pretext.
Probably, Iran will not be satisfied until it has the capability to build the bomb - and, unfortunately for Israel, the Middle East and the entire world, Iran will probably use it. So Iran's Arab neighbours should be just as concerned as Israel. The only thing that will stop Iran is decisive military intervention by Israel - support from Saudi, Egypt and others would be welcomed but they could not side with Israel though they probably all have dialogue through clandestine channels. Short of a popular uprising which appears unlikely, Iran will likely cross the "red line" and provide an excuse for Israel and the US to attack.
There is an inherent racism in the view that Israel (refuses to sign the NPT) can happily have over 400 nuclear warheads, and Iran (a signatory to the NPT) must be punished. There are dozens of very senior political thinkers and intellectuals who feel that Israel's 500 nuclear warheads constitute a danger of peace in Asia. Israeli leaders have made nuclear threats several times - e.g., "Arabs may have the oil, but we have the matches." (Ariel Sharon). As opposed to Iran's non-interventionist approach, Israel has frequently made very aggressive actions (and statements) towards countries which are not even near Israel. For example, "in 1983 Sharon proposed to India that it join with Israel to attack Pakistani nuclear facilities; in the late 70s he proposed sending Israeli paratroopers to Tehran to prop up the Shah; and in 1982 he called for expanding Israel's security influence to stretch from "Mauritania to Afghanistan." - Seymour Hersh. What business does Israel have in interfering in Pakistan and/or Africa?? Other than having an aggressive and arrogant foreign and a total refusal to sign any treaty on arms control!!!
According to Israel Shahak, "The wish for peace, so often assumed as the Israeli aim, is not in my view a principle of Israeli policy, while the wish to extend Israeli domination and influence is." and "Israel is preparing for a war, nuclear if need be, for the sake of averting domestic change not to its liking, if it occurs in some or any Middle Eastern states.... Israel clearly prepares itself to seek overtly a hegemony over the entire Middle East..., without hesitating to use for the purpose all means available, including nuclear ones." In other words, Israel, is willing to use nuclear weapons to "seek overtly a hegemony over the entire Middle East". Consequently, Israel should not be surprised if other countries in the region will obviously seek to develop nuclear options. Iran is only 1 country. Since Israel has a threatening posture, Pakistan will seek to expand its nuclear arsenal. Turkey and Egypt should also be considering developing nuclear weapons. This is not my view - this is the unanimous view of all the Asian nuclear powers - i.e., Russia, China, India and Pakistan.
Israel uses its nuclear arsenal not just in the context of "deterrence" or of direct war fighting, but to pressurize all regional countries into accepting the status quo of illegally expanding settlements and grabbing land. In Israeli strategic jargon this concept is called "nonconventional compellence" and is exemplified by a quote from Shimon Peres; "acquiring a superior nuclear weapons system would mean the possibility of using it for compellent purposes- that is forcing the other side to accept Israeli political demands, which presumably include a demand that the traditional status quo be accepted and a peace treaty signed." - Shimon Peres. In other words, it is the stated policy of the government of Israel to force an "unfair peace" on its neighbors and the people of Palestine. Kindly remember that both Britain and other European countries had grabbed a lot of territories in Asia through "unfair peace treaties". All these territories have now been lost because the treaties were unfair - Goa has gone to India, Macao has gone to China, Hong Kong has gone to China, etc., etc. An unfair peace can never be a sustainable peace!!!
According to Seymour Hersh, "the size and sophistication of Israel's nuclear arsenal allows men such as Ariel Sharon to dream of redrawing the map of the Middle East aided by the implicit threat of nuclear force." Ze'ev Shiff, an Israeli military expert writing in Haaretz said, "Whoever believes that Israel will ever sign the UN Convention prohibiting the proliferation of nuclear weapons... is day dreaming," and Munya Mardoch, Director of the Israeli Institute for the Development of Weaponry, said in 1994, "The moral and political meaning of nuclear weapons is that states which renounce their use are acquiescing to the status of Vassal states. All those states which feel satisfied with possessing conventional weapons alone are fated to become vassal states." Fine - if Israel has nuclear weapons to prevent being "a vassal state", then other countries also want the same privilege. Israel's view that it should be the only nuclear country smacks to 18th century racism and colonialism. When Russia and China went nuclear, the USA used the same arguments - i.e., that the communists have an aggressive ideology. Where is that argument now?? China is the biggest lender to the USA!!! Israel and the USA used the same arguments when India and Pakistan went nuclear - i.e., these black people cannot be trusted. Pure racism. However, in the period of apartheid, Israel had an active nuclear development program with "white" South Africa!!!
Your message is impressive in length and quality of prose - but misses a key point - Israel would never use nuclear weapons unless it was on the verge of being wiped out. It is the ultimate deterrent. With countries around it with combined land masses thousands of times the size of Israel and with enemies wanting to wipe it out just within sight across in West Bank, Israel must have nuclear deterrence. It has been attacked by its neighbours in 1948, 1967, 1973 etc with the intention of wiping it out - now Iran wants to build the bomb and has stated it will wipe Israel off the map.
There is also the difference between democratic Israel and Iran - in the former, the Government would deliberate any decision on military action and would consult with the US (as we have just seen with the bombing of the convoy in Syria). In Iran, the supreme leader might wake up one morning and decide he has had a dream or a message and simply give the nod the strike. Also, Iran could provide the bomb to Hezbollah and they could use it.
Finally, you talk about Sharon "redrawing map". Did you not notice that he was the one who pulled Israeli troops and settlers out of Gaza?
You have made several comments - most of them erroneous. I will address only 1 point now (and the rest later) - i.e., your statement that Iran "has stated it will wipe Israel off the map".
Here is what Jonathan Steele (The Guardian, UK) wrote about this issue in 2006 regarding semantic confusion and cognitive dissonance:
"It is 50 years since the greatest misquotation of the cold war. At a Kremlin reception for western ambassadors in 1956, the Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev announced: "We will bury you." Those four words were seized on by American hawks as proof of aggressive Soviet intent.
Doves who pointed out that the full quotation gave a less threatening message were drowned out. Khrushchev had actually said: "Whether you like it or not, history is on our side. We will bury you." It was a harmless boast about socialism's eventual victory in the ideological competition with capitalism. He was not talking about war.
Now we face a similar propaganda distortion of remarks by Iran's president. Ask anyone in Washington, London or Tel Aviv if they can cite any phrase uttered by Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and the chances are high they will say he wants Israel "wiped off the map".
Again it is four short words, though the distortion is worse than in the Khrushchev case. The remarks are not out of context. They are wrong, pure and simple. Ahmadinejad never said them. Farsi speakers have pointed out that he was mistranslated. The Iranian president was quoting an ancient statement by Iran's first Islamist leader, the late Ayatollah Khomeini, that "this regime occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time" just as the Shah's regime in Iran had vanished.
He was not making a military threat. He was calling for an end to the occupation of Jerusalem at some point in the future. The "page of time" phrase suggests he did not expect it to happen soon. There was no implication that either Khomeini, when he first made the statement, or Ahmadinejad, in repeating it, felt it was imminent, or that Iran would be involved in bringing it about.
But the propaganda damage was done, and western hawks bracket the Iranian president with Hitler as though he wants to exterminate Jews. At the recent annual convention of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, a powerful lobby group, huge screens switched between pictures of Ahmadinejad making the false "wiping off the map" statement and a ranting Hitler.
Misquoting Ahmadinejad is worse than taking Khrushchev out of context for a second reason. Although the Soviet Union had a collective leadership, the pudgy Russian was the undoubted No 1 figure, particularly on foreign policy. The Iranian president is not.
Whatever Iran's nuclear ambitions, even US hawks admit it will be years before it could acquire a bomb, let alone the means to deliver it. This offers ample time for negotiations and a "grand bargain" between Iran and the US over Middle Eastern security. Flanked by countries with US bases, Iran has legitimate concerns about Washington's intentions.
Even without the US factor, instability in the Gulf worries all Iranians, whether or not they like being ruled by clerics. All-out civil war in Iraq, which could lead to intervention by Turkey and Iraq's Arab neighbours, would be a disaster for Iran. If the US wants to withdraw from Iraq in any kind of order, this too will require dialogue with Iran. If this is what Blair told Bush last week, he did well. But he should go all the way, and urge the Americans to talk without conditions."
Regarding Iran - it is a signatory to the NPT. If there is a violation, then the UN should take strict action against Iran. Iran's track record on war is interesting - they have never invaded any country for the past several centuries!!! Israel has not signed the NPT, and it is in violation of dozens of UN resolutions. Based on your comments, it seems that you do not live in Asia???
too long dude all i was thinking was blah blah blah, be more concise with your opinion that way no matter how dumb it is it will get read
Noted. I will make this one brief. I read your comment on this TE article - "iran is a paper tiger who hides behind proxies" (your comment. Great - your comment was certainly "concise". Also I agree with you - your comment was totally dumb. In fact, given its very limited content, readers will wonder why you bothered to comment at all.
what more needed to be said they are cowards to afraid to fight the great and little satan in a conventional battle because they would get smoked. You must be one of those guys who think its a genius comment if its long, i will tell you a secret the average reader will see your comment and skip it every time so why bother wasting your time typing insufferable drivel
I guess you know very little about asymmetrical warfare, because you probably have very little knowledge about Asia and a lack of awareness about guerrilla warfare . Only idiots fight "conventional battles" - i.e., people like George Bush and neocons like Rumsfeld (remember "shock and awe") - hence, the "withdrawal" from Iraq and Afghanistan. The USA has been losing every single war in Asia for the past 4-5 decades - from Vietnam to Iraq and Afghanistan. Read up on history - unless you find that books are too long to read. Or just stay with Faux News - so that you can still plan imaginary invasions and fantasy victories (remember "mission accomplished").
You write in a very impressive style - but your elegant prose does not change the fact that you are incorrect:
Only a seriously deluded person would believe that Iran does not desire to eliminate Israel.
Aside from mere words, Iran also acts to fulfil those words - it arms and goads on both Hamas and Hezbollah - two organisations with only one aim - the elimination of the State of Israel.
It finances suicide bombers and gives financial rewards to the bombers' families.
As the recent Gaza war showed - Israel is not the one starting the war - and Israel is not the aggressor.
Regarding Ahmadinejad's quote, please refer to the article from the Atlantic
This feply is actually for
Mr. L6QjhvJGVk
You conveniently left out Korea, thanks to us South Korea is the 15th largest economy in the world instead of being in the stone age with the north. We withdrew from Vietnam because it was a very unpopular war. With regards to Iraq, we completely wiped out the government and the military, but we thought that Iraqi's would step up and unite to form a stable country instead of killing each other (boy were we wrong), I don't think any military in the world or any amount of money could have changed the outcome in Iraq. Regardless, it is a somewhat stable democracy compared to other countries in the area. Afghanistan, I don't know what you would consider a victory there; we dismantled most of the terrorist cells there and set up a democracy. To address your statement about Bush's mission accomplished, its fairly common knowledge that that was a misunderstanding; the ship he was aboard was returning home, so it's "mission was accomplished". And now finally to your good friend Mr.Ahmadinejad just watch his UN speeches and you will see his threaten to Israel. The man is nuts and a huge conspiracy theorist, remember when Bin Laden was killed? He came out right away and said that it was a fake, and then a couple days later Al Qaeda Confirmed Bin Laden's Death. Iran will inevitably collapse and when it does and a stable democarcy takes it's place, I think most American's and Europeans would be at ease with a nuclear Iran.
Americans don't have the 'killer instinct' … they're too nice!
Asians? … there's plenty of nice places on Planet Earth without the stink! Asia?
You said: "I guess you know very little about asymmetrical warfare …"
Actually … Israel has taught the West … including the US Military how to deal with Arab/Muslim "asymmetrical warfare" …
Israel has ended any delusion in the minds of terror groups that:
• they can 'hide' …
• carry out missions with impunity …
• live long …
There's tactics and then there's weapons and then there's training … Israel has ended the pursuit of victory by the PLO, Fatah, Hamas, Hezbollah … and Iran's other proxy Sudan … and now Syria …
"asymmetrical warfare" … has proven to be a failure in Israel … due to:
• Intelligence gathering
• development of drones
• use of targeted killing
• use of laser guided GPS Missiles
• development of anti-missile systems - Iron Dome, David's Sling
The Arab/Muslims have been a COMPLETE FAILURE at any and all attempts to injure the Jewish State … RATHER … by being so hostile to the Jewish State … the Arab/Muslims have made Israel stronger … since that's the ONLY WAY to deal with Arab/Muslims … YOU'VE GOT TO 'PUSH BACK' … there's no being 'nice' … it's not a word in the vocabulary of Arab/Muslims … it's interpreted as being 'soft' … being 'weak' … the Arab/Muslims must accept their fate and live with the Jewish State as the MAJOR MILITARY POWER in the Arab/Muslim Middle East … it's that or continue to butt your heads against a solid impregnable rock … so which is it?
I get why one would use guerilla tactics its effective when your weaker than the other guy, your missing my point their cowards because they send terrorists to do the job their military is afraid to do. How can you if you have any morality defend the actions of one of the mist despotic regimes in the world
You have made several important points - most of them will require a detailed response. Consequently, I will proceed in a sequential manner and take your comments one-by-one.
"You conveniently left out Korea, thanks to us South Korea is the 15th largest economy in the world instead of being in the stone age with the north" - your comment. You are right - I apologize for this oversight - in fact, a typographical area.
The Korean war was complex, but to simplify matters, let us view it on 2 levels - tactical and strategic. Tactically it was a stalemate - strategically it was a major defeat.
Tactically. The war started on the 38th parallel and ended on the 38th parallel. Millions of lives were lost, billions of dollars were spent and "not one inch of territory was gained".
Strategically. The US had 2 main strategic objectives. Objective No. 1: the reunification of Korea. Objective No. 2: the "containment of communist China".
The USA assembled a huge coalition of allies with a massive superiority in terms of troops (the coalition plus South Korea had over 1 million troops) and equipment (tanks, ships and aircraft). Initially, the war went very well for the US.
Encouraged by early successes, US forces began in early October 1950 to press northward. They met only light resistance and by late November had captured virtually all of North Korea. At two points, units reached the Yalu River, the border between North Korea and China.
Obviously the Chinese reacted to this aggressive move. "Late in November, across the snow that heralded a harsh North Korean winter, the Chinese struck. Attacking largely at night, the Chinese rapidly dislodged the Eighth Army and X Corps.
In the east, X Corps units were withdrawn by sea from the ports of Hungnam and Wonsan. Surrounded far inland, the lst Marine Division reached Hungnam in one of the great fighting retreats of history. In the west, by land and sea, the Eighth Army also fell back. By the end of December the United Nations forces had been pushed back to a line just south of the 38th parallel. In the face of a renewed Chinese offensive, they withdrew from Seoul and the Han River line early in January 1951.
In the more open terrain of South Korea, the United Nations forces were able to form a fairly continuous line of resistance. They continued to withdraw slowly until in mid-January the front stabilized along an undulating line running from the 37th parallel in the west to a point midway between the 37th and 38th parallels in the east".
We all know what happened after that. The entry of China into the war had a heavy impact upon the United States. Draft calls were increased, and more reservists were called to active duty. President Truman declared a state of national emergency, and economic controls were imposed.
Fearing that the wider war with China that would be necessary to reunify Korea would cost too many American lives and raise the risk of nuclear war with the Soviet Union, the United States abandoned the idea of forcibly reuniting the two Koreas. Instead, it decided to accept a rough restoration of the situation that had existed before the war.
You have to remember that China as an independent entity was born in October, 1949 - i.e., it was only 1 year old. It was a desperately poor country. Its military lacked equipment - and it was facing the largest (and best equipped) coalition on the planet. To fight the USA to a stalemate is viewed as a major strategic success by independent military analysts. In many US books and journals, the Korean war is described as "the beginning of imperial over-reach".
Containment of China. This strategic objective also failed - and this absurd policy continued for a few decades, before being abandoned.
It is ironic that now China is the biggest lender to the US government!!!
I will take up your other points in my next comments.
"cowards because they send terrorists to do the job their military is afraid to do" - your comment. You have a point - partially so. Most armies avoid a direct fight. The Israeli IDF conducts targeted assassinations (of civilians) in many countries, the USA uses drones in hostile terrain because "their military is afraid" to enter, etc.
"How can you if you have any morality defend the actions of one of the mist despotic regimes in the world" - your comment.
The issues are simple:
- Nobody is saying that Iran has a great regime.
- However, Iran has never invaded any country for the past several centuries. That is their track record.
- The USA has been threatening them with "regime change" for well over a decade.
- We all know what the track record of the USA is!!!!!
- Israel has not signed the NPT and refuses to do so.
- Israel has over 500 nuclear warheads.
- Iran has signed the NPT and allows UN inspections.
- The whole Middle East should be a nuclear-free zone.
- The 4 Asian nuclear countries (Russia, China, India and Pakistan) have been saying this for over a decade.
- Why is the USA unwilling to support them on this issue??
Where is your sense "of morality" when you want other countries to just "die upon your request", just like the Red Indians??? This is the 21st century, and colonialism is no longer acceptable.
Comments - Part 2...............
"We withdrew from Vietnam because it was a very unpopular war" - your comment.
Three million southeast Asians dead. Fifty-six thousand U.S. soldiers killed. Cities flattened by bombs. A countryside devastated to this day by chemical warfare. And all you can say about this major catastrophe is "unpopular war"?????
Let us be frank, shall we. The defeat came first - the unpopularity came much later. Let us look at both these issues.
The Vietnam war is embedded in American memory - even decades after it ended in a "withdrawal" (all Americans use this word instead of defeat). The self-confidence of the US military was so badly eroded that the USA has been unable to take on even small Asian countries since then.
As Henry Kissinger puts it: "Vietnam is still with us. It has created doubts about American judgement, about American credibility, about American power, about American ethics and morals - not only at home but U.S. involvement throughout the world. It has poisoned our domestic debate. So we paid an exorbitant price for this decision".
And everything possible was tried to win the war - against a very tiny, very poor country. The United States dropped 8.8 million tons of bombs during this war, an amount much greater than the total dropped by all aircraft in all of World War II. In addition, a huge percentage of the countryside was blanketed by napalm, white phosphorous, agent orange, and other chemical and biological weapons.
"Yet in 1972 after the most intensive bombing of the North had destroyed virtually all industrial, transportation, and communications facilities built since 1954, flattened three major cities and twenty-nine province capitals, the North's party leaders replied that they had defeated the U.S. "air war of destruction" - Stanley Karnow. Why?? Because they proved that ethics and morals are more important in total warfare than destruction.
After this bombing campaign, Ho Chi Minh issued the following statement:
"You can kill ten of my men for every one I kill of yours. But even at those odds, you will lose and I will win."
In effect this attrition strategy (of Gen. Giap) was a test of wills which the United States could not endure. The youth in America started protesting about the war, primarily because they could not see the morality of this war, and also because the number of Americans getting killed started multiplying. Celebrities joined in - on June 20, 1967, the boxer Muhammad Ali was convicted in Houston for refusing induction in the US armed forces. Ali saw the war in Vietnam as an exercise in genocide. He also used his platform as a boxing champion to connect the war abroad with the war at home, saying:
"Why should they ask me to put on a uniform and go 10,000 miles from home and drop bombs and bullets on brown people in Vietnam while Negro people in Louisville are treated like dogs?"
The famous military historian, Gabriel Kolko's has written about vital lessons of the Vietnam war: "Successive administrations in Washington have no capacity whatsoever to learn from past errors. Total defeat in Vietnam 30 years ago should have been a warning to the U.S.: wars are too complicated for any nation, even the most powerful, to undertake without grave risk. They are not simply military exercises in which equipment and firepower is decisive, but political, ideological, and economic challenges also. The events of Vietnam 30 years ago should have proven that".
The Pentagon Papers (John Prados Margaret Pratt Porter - May, 2004) also revealed that Lyndon Johnson had lied repeatedly and that neither he nor any other official had devised a plan to end the war and leave. The credibility gap between government and people became unbridgeable. But lying to the USA people happens frequently. It is now known (and documented) that Bush lied abut WMD in Iraq. It is now known (in Europe and Asia) that there are no nuclear weapons in Iraq, and that many people in Congress (including people who are funded by Aipac) are just creating a hype about this issue. It is strange that there is no accountability for elected officials who fabricate issues???
I will take up your other points in my next comments.
Yes you make some good points on the Korean war. The U.S. made a calculated choice; either wage all out war on the Chinese and risk Soviet aggresion in Europe, or return to the borders that were set up after World War 2. I wouldn't call that a stalemate when the main goal of the U.S. was to stop the spread of communism, which it succeeded in.
Im not to sure what your point is in your comments about Vietnam. I said we lost because it was a very unpopular war. Your response was a much better one than mine in explaining why it was so unpopular so I thank you for that.
You said … referring to Iran; "The issues are simple:
- Nobody is saying that Iran has a great regime.
- However, Iran has never invaded any country for the past several centuries. That is their track record."
The track record is NOT so pristine!
In fact, Iran went to war for 10 Years with Iraq in a bloody war in which the Iranians used children to clear minefields … KNOWINGLY sending these 'little ones' to their deaths!
Iran has been at war since 1979 against the USA … this war is carried out by proxies and 'under cover' but nevertheless … it is WAR … as Ayatollah Khomeini pronounced it … this war is/was being carried out in Iraq and Afghanistan and the world at large … this war is being carried out by funding terrorist groups INCLUDING Hezbollah/Hamas/Islamic Jihad/Al Queida/Taliban
Iran has been at war with Israel through proxies as well … Hezbollah … Hamas … Islamic Jihad have been funded and armed and 'schooled' in the methods of asymmetrical warfare … the Arab/Muslims cannot face Arab/Muslim armies and win so they've reverted to terror tactics … this hasn't worked either since the Jews/Zionists/Israelis have been able to adjust their own tactics to defeat their enemies
You said: "- Israel has not signed the NPT and refuses to do so.
- Israel has over 500 nuclear warheads."
Israel is NOT ALONE in NOT SIGNING the NPT … those that do sign it must abide by its provisions … WHICH IRAN HAS FAILED TO DO … by cheating the Nuclear Inspectors and only begrudgingly informing the inspectors of new facilities they've built AFTER THE FACT … Iran wants it both ways … 'their cake and eat it too' … this is NOT ALLOWED and cheats will pay for their prevarications
You said: "The whole Middle East should be a nuclear-free zone. The 4 Asian nuclear countries (Russia, China, India and Pakistan) have been saying this for over a decade."
Did you expect ANYONE to believe this LIE! Russia and China … Pakistan and India … will disarm along with the other countries of the Middle East? Is that YOUR point? Or they demand ISRAEL to disarm while maintaining THEIR Nuclear Weapons? Which is it? Hypocrisy or Chutzpah?
Your 'upset' at the USA for their interventions in Asia are shared by some but frankly … what Asians have done to other Asians MUST TOO BE REMEMBERED … the horrors of China's 70 MILLION DEATH BY CAVEAT must NEVER BE FORGOTTEN OR FORGIVEN … the Vietnamese started wars against other neighbouring peoples CANNOT BE PUSHED ASIDE … there are so many other willful examples of wars against the 'other' in Asia … the mind boggles … but as an Asian it would be appropriate to mention YOUR OWN 'hurt' feelings from the actions of fellow Asians
BTW … was colonialism ONLY a Western-thing … or did Asians countries colonize other spaces too? Let me know … you seem to be an expert on this subject … I await your response.
check out this article
You good well know why israel has nukes if they didn't the arabs would just keep attacking like they did before with their armies. Because of the nukes they can only fight by using proxy groups or risk their whole country being turned to ash. The point u made about the us miltary being afraid to enter countries like pakistan is b.s, the pakistanis refuse them permission to chase terrorists who flee over the border. And iran was only threatened after taking hostages another cowardly move I might add. Of the four countries you mentioned who want the nuclear free mideast all are suspect except for india. The russians play a double game against the west, the chinese steal everything they can, and the pakistanis hid bin ladin for years.
Yes, I do read the Israeli press - you don't expect them to be unbiased surely??
Here is an article on the same subject from London, UK:
"Of the four countries you mentioned who want the nuclear free mideast all are suspect except for india" - your comment. Learn to live with it - these are Asia's nuclear powers. Israel and Iran are both located in Asia. USA is not a very relevant entity in Asia - "withdrawal" is the main word we hear for the past several decades.
Incidentally, China is the biggest lender to the USA.
"Iran will likely cross the "red line" and provide an excuse for Israel and the US to attack" - your comment. Do not worry, Mr/Ms Watford, Israel's Mossad has been working on a false flag operation for years to "engineer an excuse".
Foreign Policy magazine (January 2012):
"Buried deep in the archives of America's intelligence services are a series of memos, written during the last years of President George W. Bush's administration, that describe how Israeli Mossad officers recruited operatives belonging to the terrorist group Jundallah by passing themselves off as American agents. According to two U.S. intelligence officials, the Israelis, flush with American dollars and toting U.S. passports, posed as CIA officers in recruiting Jundallah operatives -- what is commonly referred to as a "false flag" operation."
"Mossad has planted a few dozen agents in the CIA. Since they tend to be US nationals, they have managed to evade scrutiny. The Obama administration is deeply worried......."
"But while the memos show that the United States had barred even the most incidental contact with Jundallah, according to both intelligence officers, the same was not true for Israel's Mossad. The memos also detail CIA field reports saying that Israel's recruiting activities occurred under the nose of U.S. intelligence officers, most notably in London, the capital of one of Israel's ostensible allies, where Mossad officers posing as CIA operatives met with Jundallah officials."
"Interviews with six currently serving or recently retired intelligence officers over the last 18 months have helped to fill in the blanks of the Israeli false-flag operation. In addition to the two currently serving U.S. intelligence officers, the existence of the Israeli false-flag operation was confirmed to me by four retired intelligence officers who have served in the CIA or have monitored Israeli intelligence operations from senior positions inside the U.S. government."
Incidentally these "false flag" operations by Israel have been going on to the past few years - e.g., four Mossad agents were picked up by Pakistan's intelligence a few weeks ago - trying to cross the border into Iran - they were US-trained It specialists. They confessed that their mission was to paralyze (government) computer networks. They were handed over to Iran.
European intelligence agencies have also alerted the USA about these "false flag operations" by Israel. As Foreign Policy reports:
"The issue has now returned to the spotlight with the string of assassinations of Iranian nuclear scientists and has outraged serving and retired intelligence officers who fear that Israeli operations are endangering American lives.
"This certainly isn't the first time this has happened, though it's the worst case I've heard of," former Centcom chief and retired Gen. Joe Hoar said of the Israeli operation upon being informed of it. "But while false-flag operations are hardly new, they're extremely dangerous. You're basically using your friendship with an ally for your own purposes. Israel is playing with fire. It gets us involved in their covert war, whether we want to be involved or not."
The Israeli operation left a number of recently retired CIA officers sputtering in frustration. "It's going to be pretty hard for the U.S. to distance itself from an Israeli attack on Iran with this kind of thing going on," one of them told me."
Therefore, Mr/Ms Watford, your friends are hard at work to "provide an excuse for Israel and the US to attack." The key issue is: will the USA be baited by false information or does the USA have a moral (and ethical) backbone to make its own independent decisions???
For better or worse we have to accept that some questionable states have nukes, but you can't expect the world's last super power to withdraw from the region. And as for china being america's lender its a sad fact of life, a decision made by america's short sighted leadership from both parties. I enjoy these debates with you, you have strong opinions although I might disagree with most of them I respect your right to have them. I think you have the wrong opinion on what israel is and why they are who they are. let me ask you something should the pals have taken the partition deal in 47, even though they likened it to legalizing a thief. I think they should've taken it because alot of them came in after the jews got there and revived the land, they have even less of a claim to it if you look at it historically.
Actually, the Israeli press is biased - Ha'aretz is biased AGAINST the incumbent Israeli Govt. Ynet and JPost tend to write to a US audience. I think you would agree Guardian is biased against Israel also
The fundamental difference between Iran and Israel is that Iran is a mullahacracy ruled by a bunch of religious zealots and a band of paramillitary tugs. Their objectives are not the betterment of the people and they have no accountability to anyone let alone the electorate.
Israel for all its double standards, its aggressive and bullying tactics. Its unjust occupation of Palestinian lands etc. etc. is a state that is accountable to the Jewish electorate in its boarders. Its leaders do all to better the lot of other Israeli's at the expense of the arabs, muslims and Iranians.
I feel this is the point lost. No nation that possess a bomb or for that matter the bomb will self annihilate or make irrational decisions and choices, so long as it is democratic and accountable to someone for its actions. When the state / nation is ruled by one person accountable and enlightened by god himself (such as the grand ayatollah Vitamin K of Iran) it is easy to have massive lack of trust from the global community.
Iran's Mullah's can free the dissidents, reform the regime, have free elections separate god and decision making process around politics, and then for all I care develop a phaser gun that can knock moon off its orbit.
Till then, I want them in a stray jacket.
Interesting. The mullah's in Iran and the right-wing expansionists in Israel are both an irrational lot of people. You mentioned that "till then, I want them in a stray jacket" - I think you meant strait-jacket?? Anyway, surely it would be in everybody's interest to ensure that this region becomes a nuclear-free zone. Bush and his team of neocons made matters worse. However, surely this is a realistic goal for Obama in his 2nd term??
Btw, I have traveled to both Israel and Iran. Watching TV in both countries illustrates my point. Iran TV has a very biased view of world politics. Israeli TV is worse - it depicts all Muslims as barbaric, idiotic, etc. Both these countries need to enter the 21st century!!!
Thank you - you have raised an important point about 1947. I am in Mongolia and the internet signal is bad at the airport. I will respond to you when I get home tonight.
LIKE … YOU"LL have to live with Israel being a NUCLEAR POWER … with the
'baddest' Military in the region! The Israeli Nukes are NOT only land based … they're on submarines … GET USED TO IT!
It's not like dim sum … where you get to choose only the ones YOU like … no sniffing … no tasting … no take-backs … Israel is/was/will be … as the Dude said in The Big Lebowsk: "the Dude abides" … LOL
As for Iran's pretensions to greatness … their mantle of 'greatness' fell off them CENTURIES AGO … it's like we ALL have eyes and can see that 'the Emperor Has No Clothes' …
Chinese debt can be solved by INFLATION … hello?
That's a LIE … Israeli TV depicts the Arab/Muslim World as it is! We ALL SEE the same news EVERY NIGHT on TV. It's not STATE-RUN TV … it's independently run TV … UNLIKE IRAN … a fascist Islamist State whose STATE RUN TV is vetted by censors in order to PROMOTE the Iranian Revolution.
YOU can only tell LIES and go back to ad hominems about the Arab/Israeli Conflict. Your self importance is staggering … it's embarrassing to know that such an ego centric pedant exists!
Why would 'Mr. Asian' admit that? Asian … it must mean he's Pakistani … since they don't like to refer to themselves as Pakistanis but rather South-Asian in order to 'generalize' their real place of origin. That is, THEY'RE embarrassed of their own People … understandable BUT regrettable!
It makes perfect sense really … his moving around all these places around the globe … doing business … Hmm … working for the ISI … beats being a 'prole' in Islamabad!
About Ha'aretz - your observation is accurate. On The Guardian, you are wrong - it has a long tradition (about 2 centuries) of representing the views of the intellectuals in the UK. It is the only major newspaper with "provincial" origins - it was originally the Manchester Guardian. In Europe, the newspaper which is most anti-Zionist is Le Monde (France) and the Italian press. In the UK, most of the "serious newspapers" are critical about issues like the settlements, Iran-bashing, right-wing Israeli politics, etc. In fact, only a few weeks ago, the most "conservative" newspaper (The Times) published a highly critical cartoon. In the cartoon, the Israeli prime minister, Binyamin Netanyahu, was depicted building a wall using what appeared to be the blood of Palestinians. It carried the strapline: "Will cementing peace continue?"
The British newspaper with the most detailed coverage about the Middle East is The Independent - their award-winning journalist (Robert Fisk) has covered the ME for 4 decades. He is based in Beirut, Lebanon. He is worth reading.
I notice that tzatz has been commenting about me - and my nationality. He is entirely off the mark, as usual. I have stopped responding to his comments, as he tends to use abusive language - and is very racist.
I take your point about the Times - that was indeed a shocking cartoon. I accept what you say about Le Monde - I will start taking a look at the Independent - though I don't share the same warm view of Robert Fisk that you do. Will let you know - no doubt we will bump into each other in other forums - I enjoy reading your notes but don't agree with all you have to say
You have asked 2 questions:
1. "should the pals have taken the partition deal in 47".
2. "they have even less of a claim to it if you look at it historically".
In response to your first question. I think the issue is complicated by the fact that even if they had accepted the deal in 1947, the outcome would have been the same. Reason 1: the UN should have created an "enforcement mechanism" (i.e., a military force) to enforce the plan on both parties. Reason 2: The whole plan was a colonial enterprise based on an "occupy and evict" strategy - the "founding fathers" of Israel made their colonialist aspirations very clear. Their charter was based on a few verses written 30 centuries ago. It is always a bad idea to base any constitution or charter on quotes from ancient texts whose mystery author (i.e., God) has never been seen. In my view, it is more important to read the pronouncements of the actual "policy makers" of Zionism. In this context, here are a few quotes from key members of the Zionist movement:
"We must expropriate gently the private property on the state assigned to us. We shall try to spirit the penniless population across the border by procuring employment for it in the transit countries, while denying it employment in our country. The property owners will come over to our side. Both the process of expropriation and the removal of the poor must be carried out discretely and circumspectly. Let the owners of the immoveable property believe that they are cheating us, selling us things for more than they are worth. But we are not going to sell them anything back." - T. Herzl, 1885.
"...the transfer of [Palestinian] Arab population from the area of the Jewish state does not serve only one aim--to diminish the Arab population. It also serves a second, no less important, aim which is to advocate land presently held and cultivated by the [Palestinian] Arabs and thus to release it for Jewish inhabitants." Y. Weitz, 1937.
"There is no justice, no law, and no God in heaven, only a single law which decides and supersedes all---- [Jewish] settlement [of the land]." Z. Jabotinsky, 1926.
"The world has become accustomed to the idea of mass migrations and has become fond of them." He later added, "Hitler--- as odious as he is to us---has given this idea a good name in the world." Z. Jabotinsky, 1940.
"This is only a stage in the realization of Zionism and it should prepare the ground for our expansion throughout the whole country through Jewish-Arab agreement .... the state, however, must enforce order and security and it will do this not by mobilizing and preaching 'sermons on the mount' but by the machine-guns, which we will need." D. Ben-Gurion, 1938.
"this is why we formulated our demand not as a Jewish state in Palestine but Palestine as a Jewish state". D. Ben-Gurion, 1942.
"In the area allocated to the Jewish State there are not more than 520,000 Jews and about 350,000 non-Jews, mostly Arabs. Together with the Jews of Jerusalem, the total population of the Jewish State at the time of its establishment, will be about one million, including almost 40% non-Jews. such a [population] composition does not provide a stable basis for a Jewish State. This [demographic] fact must be viewed in all its clarity and acuteness. With such a [population] composition, there cannot even be absolute certainty that control will remain in the hands of the Jewish majority .... There can be no stable and strong Jewish state so long as it has a Jewish majority of only 60%." D. Ben-Gurion, 1946.
"[Land is acquired] by force --- that is, by conquest in war, or in other words, by ROBBING land form its owner; . . . by expropriation via government authority; or by purchase. . . until at some point we become rulers." M. Ussishkin, 1904.
"By a Jewish National Home I mean the creation of such conditions that as the country is developed we can pour in a considerable number of immigrants, and finally establish such a society in Palestine that Palestine shall be as Jewish as England is English or America American." C. Weizmann, 1919.
"I do not believe in the TRANSFER of an individual. I believe in the TRANSFER of entire villages." A. Ruppin, 1931.
I will address your 2nd question in my next comments. In addition to your point, there is an additional (important) issue - the USA wanted a "loyal watchdog" in that part of the world given the colonial powers (Britain and France) were rapidly abdicating their colonies in Asia. "American policy makers in 1947–48 agreed that the highest foreign policy objective was containment of Soviet expansion as the Cold War unfolded. From the perspective of many officials, Palestine was secondary to the goal of protecting the "Northern Tier" of Greece, Turkey and Iran from Communism, as promised by the Truman Doctrine." "Truman recognized the State of Israel on May 14, 1948, eleven minutes after it declared itself a nation!!!" The USA is impartial??? Lol.
Hmm that was a mouthful of a comment to digest but from what i was able to gleam you mainly take issue to the area israel was given in the partition. While I agree it was larger it was also mostly made up of the negev desert hardly prized land. As for what was added on it was war, land captured in a war is never really given back. Perhaps things could've been done differently but I still believe if the partition was accepted by both sides each country would be significantly different. They could've benefited from each other, israel from the pals cheap labor and the pals from israel's technology. And lastly eve though america recognized israel quickly the relationship didn't become as cozy as we know it until after the 67 war
Off the mark? Not likely … it's your views that are 'off the mark'!
You're defending the Guardian? That 'rag' with Comment is Free … as long as you're ANTI-ZIONIST! But you'd like that kind of rag !! Suites your personality to a 'T' …
Fisk … and the cartoon in the Times … perfect … YOU'RE MAKING MY DAY!
Guys like you are 'outed' sooner or later … it's an offhand remark at a party … a certain opinion that's given in the 'wrong' place … I'll be waiting for that moment … Asian
As an Asian … you are aware of the Population Transfer at the birth of India/Pakistan … in 1947
In Israel/Palestine … there was a Partition Plan … AND an inadvertent POPULATION TRANSFER …
Arab/Muslims out of the Jewish State (though it was NOT PLANNED-IT WAS THE RESULT OF WAR)
Jews from the Arab/Muslim Middle East (INCLUDING … MOROCCO, ALGERIA, TUNISIA, LIBYA, EGYPT, YEMEN, IRAQ, IRAN, SYRIA, LEBANON et al) who FLED, WERE THROWN OUT, LEFT UNDER DURESS ended up in the Jewish State
THEREFORE … a Population Transfer from WITHIN THE ARAB/MUSLIM MIDDLE EAST … solved by serendipity a huge issue … it goes to show you the end result of UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES !!! Brought to you by … the Arab Higher Committee … the Arab League … LOL
Herzl was laughing in his grave at the stupidity of the Arab/Muslims … his dream realized by their idiotic behaviour … what the Ottoman Caliph would NEVER grant Herzl … the Arab/Muslim countries did ON THEIR OWN … they took the 'short money' and ended up BANKRUPT!
You may have a point that "if the partition was accepted by both sides each country would be significantly different". Perhaps so. However, at the heart of the Zionist movement there was always a hardcore elite (in power) who believe in expansionism. For example, look at the events of 1948 - the origins of Israel. From the beginning of Israel, there have been peacemakers who have tried their best to find a solution. Like Rabin (who was murdered by a Jewish fundamentalist - Israel's equivalent of the Taliban), the right-wing Jews put hurdles in their path, and, in some cases, murdered them. In response to the origins of the crisis in Palestine, the UN SC appointed Count Folke Bernadotte as the UN mediator for Palestine. The plan submitted by the UN mediator in 1948 was a very reasonable plan. Here are the details:
The state of Palestine has to be created within the territories envisaged in Resolution 181. Subsequent to disputes in 1947, under Resolution 186, the UN appointed a mediator, Folke Bernadotte. His final proposals were (on September 16, 1948):
"1. Peace must return to Palestine and every feasible measure should be taken to ensure that hostilities will not be resumed and that harmonious relations between Arab and Jew will ultimately be restored.
2 A Jewish State called Israel exists in Palestine and there are no sound reasons for assuming that it will not continue to do so.
3. The boundaries of this new State must finally be fixed either by formal agreement between the parties concerned or failing that, by the United Nations.
4. Adherence to the principle of geographical homogeneity and integration, which should be the major objective of the boundary arrangements, should apply equally to Arab and Jewish territories, whose frontiers should not therefore, be rigidly controlled by the territorial arrangements envisaged in the resolution of 29 November.
5. The right of innocent people, uprooted from their homes by the present terror and ravages of war, to return to their homes, should be affirmed and made effective, with assurance of adequate compensation for the property of those who may choose not to return.
6. The City of Jerusalem, because of its religious and international significance and the complexity of interests involved, should be accorded special and separate treatment.
7. International responsibility should be expressed where desirable and necessary in the form of international guarantees, as a means of allaying existing fears, and particularly with regard to boundaries and human rights.
8. The existing indefinite truce should be superseded by a formal peace, or at the minimum, an armistice.
9. The frontiers between the Arab and Jewish territories, in the absence of agreement between Arabs and Jews, should be established by the United Nations.
10. The Negev should be defined as Arab territory.
11. The frontier should run from Faluja north northeast to Ramleh and Lydda (both of which places would be in Arab territory).
12. Galilee should be defined as Jewish territory.
13. Haifa should be declared a free port, and Lydda airport should be declared a free airport.
14. The City of Jerusalem, which should be understood as covering the area defined in the resolution of the General Assembly of 29 November, should be treated separately and should be placed under effective United Nations control with maximum feasible local autonomy for its Arab and Jewish communities with full safeguards for the protection of the Holy Places and sites and free access to them and for religious freedom.
15. The United Nations should establish a Palestine conciliation commission.
16. The right of the Arab refugees to return to their homes in Jewish-controlled territory at the earliest possible date should be affirmed by the United Nations, and their repatriation, resettlement and economic and social rehabilitation, and payment of adequate compensation for the property of those choosing not to return, should be supervised and assisted by the United Nations conciliation commission."
On the very next day (September 17, 1948), he "was assassinated in Jerusalem by the militant Zionist group Lehi while pursuing his official duties. The decision to assassinate him had been taken by Natan Yellin-Mor, Yisrael Eldad and Yitzhak Shamir, who was later to become Prime Minister of Israel."
The problem with the Zionists is that they assassinate anybody who is reasonable and wants peace. They have assassinated countless moderate Palestinian leaders. They murdered Count Folke Bernadotte (who was a friend of the Jews). They even assassinated their own Prime Minister, Rabin!!! This terrorist mindset is a huge hurdle in the search for a peaceful solution. Liberal Jews in the USA and Europe are disgusted by the expansionist policies of Israel. Read articles by Chomsky, Ilan Pappe, Tariq Ali, Richard Falk, John Pilger, and dozens of liberal Jews in the J Street movement.
Netanyahu is also a Jewish Taliban - next post.
Israeli Taliban - Part 2.
Israeli politics (with a few exceptions) has been dominated by right-wing expansionists and terrorists - Shimon Peres, Menachem Begin, Sharon, Netanyahu, etc.
Take the case of the current PM - as reported (in July, 2010) by a British journalist, Jonathan Cook (a Nazareth- based journalist and winner of the Martha Gellhorn Special Prize for Journalism):
"The contents of a secretly recorded video threaten to gravely embarrass not only Benjamin Netanyahu, the Israeli prime minister but also the US administration of Barack Obama.
The film was shot, apparently without Mr Netanyahu's knowledge, nine years ago, when the government of Ariel Sharon had started reinvading the main cities of the West Bank to crush Palestinian resistance in the early stages of the second intifada.
At the time Mr Netanyahu had taken a short break from politics but was soon to join Mr Sharon's government as finance minister. On a visit to a home in the settlement of Ofra in the West Bank to pay condolences to the family of a man killed in a Palestinian shooting attack, he makes a series of unguarded admissions about his first period as prime minister, from 1996 to 1999."
"Seated on a sofa in the house, he tells the family that he deceived the US president of the time, Bill Clinton, into believing he was helping implement the Oslo accords, the US-sponsored peace process between Israel and the Palestinians, by making minor withdrawals from the West Bank while actually entrenching the occupation. He boasts that he thereby destroyed the Oslo process.
He dismisses the US as "easily moved to the right direction" and calls high levels of popular American support for Israel "absurd". He also suggests that, far from being defensive, Israel's harsh military repression of the Palestinian uprising was designed chiefly to crush the Palestinian Authority led by Yasser Arafat so that it could be made more pliable for Israeli diktats."
"The contemptuous view of Washington Mr Netanyahu demonstrates in the film will confirm the suspicions of many observers – including Palestinian leaders – that his current professions of good faith should not be taken seriously."
"Writing in the liberal Haaretz newspaper, the columnist Gideon Levy called the video "outrageous". He said it proved that Mr Netanyahu was a "con artist who thinks that Washington is in his pocket and that he can pull the wool over its eyes". He added that the prime minister had not reformed in the intervening period: "Such a crooked way of thinking does not change over the years."
In the film, Mr Netanyahu says Israel must inflict "blows [on the Palestinians] that are so painful the price will be too heavy to be borne … A broad attack on the Palestinian Authority, to bring them to the point of being afraid that everything is collapsing".
When asked if the US will object, he responds: "America is something that can be easily moved. Moved to the right direction … They won't get in our way … Eighty per cent of the Americans support us. It's absurd."
It is clear that on the Palestine issue (and the Iran issue) the Americans are being taken for a (massive) ride!!! And then (very nice) Americans that I meet always end up asking me this question: "Why are we so hated in Asia?" The hatred stems primarily from robotically following Israel's "wish list" of destroying countries in the vicinity through "regime change". Israel is America's greatest political liability!!!
Did you write this while on the toilet? Was the Internet working alright in there? Because what you continue to write is real shit!
Again a great post on your part here's what I think though, even if it were possible to go back to that un resolution and follow it to the letter. You have to admit that much has changed, for instance the homes you want those people to return to in most cases no longer exist. And even if they did how and why would a soveriegn state transfer millions of people many of whom are hostile to its existence to its own territory. I am all for the right for them to return to the new country of palestine but apparently they won't get that chance. I find it troubling how their leaders can treat them so beastly allowing them to die(abbas reecently said he would rather them die in syria than giveup the right of return to come to the west bank). Or how their arab brothers can keep them for decades in squalor while millions of refugees jews included have been resettled in other countries. As for jerusalem being redivided again its kind of a crazy request would u ask the french to divide paris, the name alone says it all jerussalem as in jew. While I agree some of the jewish groups like the stern gang used terrorism, not that i condone it but the brits bias towards the arabs eg the white paper caused that kind of extreme reaction its really their fault the holy land is so messed up if they were better administrators during the mandate period things might have been different. Finally I want to close on bibi I admit he had a romney 47 percent moment but besides rabin or barak no one has a better chance of getting a deal done. I have studied this conflict for years, the three things the pals want most are none starters jerusalem, right of return to israel and release of prisoners if they gave up the first two israel could give them the last one
Truly … you have the 'patience of Job' … in deeming to answer the 'Asian' … all YOUR OWN BELIEFS contradict his own missives!
You said that upon meeting Americans they ask you: "Why are we so hated in Asia?"
ANSWER IS: THEY MET YOU. You are the hateful source of the anti-Israel/anti-Zionist/anti-Semitic HATE SCREED … they'd be deaf and dumb not to hear it come out of YOUR mouth! You make the case of DIVORCE from Israel but the American People continue to pledge their attachment IN EVERY SINGLE POLL …
Johnathan Cook … you might as well ask Chomsky or any other pro-Palestinian blogger!
Too bad the issue doesn't revolve around blogging BUT POWER … ABSOLUTE POWER IS WHAT THE ISRAELIS MAINTAIN … it's the only method of keeping themselves free and safe … Inshallah … Praise be to Allah! LOL
Thank you for your response. I agree with you that much has changed, for instance the homes you want those people to return to in most cases no longer exist".
However, the history of the past century has proved that reversing historical trends sometimes takes only a few years in the "fast-forward world" that we live in. Just a few examples:
- After WW2, the USA emerged as the world's only super-power. It is now clearly in decline. More on this later.
- It took the British 4 centuries to build an empire - their empires were "lost within 2 decades".
- Till 3 decades ago, the USA did not even recognize China as a country. China is now the biggest lender to America.
- It took 2 centuries to build the apartheid structure in South Africa - it took only 2 years to overthrow it.
Take Israel. The Jews decided to leave Europe and move to Asia. Fine - most welcome - come and stay. But instead of behaving like polite guests, they started behaving like colonial conquerors. That has to stop - and Asian powers will ensure that it does.
The main issue that right-wing Zionists have to face is the issue of legitimacy in their "new home in Asia". The recent vote in the UN proved that well over 95% of global population voted in favor of the Palestinian resolution. As usual, the USA was Israel's only supporter. "Israel must withdraw all settlers from the West Bank or potentially face a case at the international criminal court (ICC) for serious violations of international law" said the UN Human Rights Council (UNHRC) 2 weeks ago. Israel, it said, was in violation of article 49 of the fourth Geneva convention, which forbids the transfer of civilian populations to occupied territory".
All empires have an expiry date, and the USA is a declining world power. "the US National Intelligence Council admitted that America's global power was indeed on a declining trajectory. In one of its periodic futuristic reports, Global Trends 2025, the Council cited "the transfer of global wealth and economic power now under way, roughly from West to East" and "without precedent in modern history," as the primary factor in the decline of the "United States' relative strength—even in the military realm." Like many in Washington, however, the Council's analysts anticipated a very long, very soft landing for American global preeminence, and harbored the hope that somehow the US would long "retain unique military capabilities… to project military power globally" for decades to come.
No such luck. Under current projections, the United States will find itself in second place behind China (already the world's second largest economy) in economic output around 2026, and behind India by 2050. Similarly, Chinese innovation is on a trajectory toward world leadership in applied science and military technology sometime between 2020 and 2030, just as America's current supply of brilliant scientists and engineers retires, without adequate replacement by an ill-educated younger generation.
By 2020, according to current plans, the Pentagon will throw a military Hail Mary pass for a dying empire. It will launch a lethal triple canopy of advanced aerospace robotics that represents Washington's last best hope of retaining global power despite its waning economic influence. By that year, however, China's global network of communications satellites, backed by the world's most powerful supercomputers, will also be fully operational, providing Beijing with an independent platform for the weaponization of space and a powerful communications system for missile- or cyber-strikes into every quadrant of the globe."
Israel will need to become an acceptable neighbor to Asian super-powers (i.e., Russia, China, India, Japan) and to regional powers like Turkey. The USA will leave Asia and pursue its own agenda - hence, its support will not be permanent. "At the same time, the world balance of power is also changing. New powers are rising, old powers are gradually losing their clout. This will not be a one-time, dramatic occurrence, but a slow and steady process. That is how history is moving. Anyone who places himself on the wrong side of it will pay the price" - Uri Avnery (Israeli writer and peace activist with Gush Shalom).
Here in London, there is a popular joke. Officer at Heathrow airport asks a visiting Israeli: "Your occupation, sir". The Israeli replies: "No, occupation - just visiting".
These issues are complex - and I will add to these comments (to amplify the issues) in a short while.
Once again a great response on your part you truly are a great debater and I have read and thought about what you have said. There is one problem I have with it. How do you know it will all happen like you explain, before 1989 many thought communism would last indefinitely but it crumbled america you say is declining but I think otherwise. America just needs new blood in the leadership obama sadly was shackled to people who perpetuated the status quo. As for china how do you know that it won't break apart before then with its many different minority groups all yearning for freedom. China reminds me of a flawed diamond beautiful to look at outside but inside full of problems, an enormous aging population equals a healthcare crisis that will be legendary. A gender imbalance will probably lead to social instability because there will be far more young men who can't have families. There tech industry isn't nearly as advanced as america or israel's by the way so they probably will try to steal what they need which is good but they won't be able to work it like the owner. As for israel which asian country would challenge it, the turks are more bark than bite (assad shot down their jet and they barely retaliated). China wants to make money not war and the rest are only concerned with their internal affairs. Even iran who hates israel knows better than to fight it with its outdated weapons. Lastly I want to end on the cyber stuff america and israel are advanced enough in hacking to make a virus that can destroy real world machines (stuxnet) that is much scarier than anything chinese hackers have ever done.
Thank you for your comments - there is a lot of merit in your arguments. They can be broken up into 2 different discussions:
1. The future of Israel; and
2. The USA and China in the 21st century.
The issue of Israel is relatively minor (in terms of global priorities) - we can look at that first.
Jewish history (and the Bible) documents a series of attempts to "build a temple" (read the word "country" for the word "temple") - three times the temple was built and three times it was destroyed. That is why the planet is full of great buildings from all known civilizations - e.g., Mayan buildings, the pyramids in Egypt, beautiful churches, outstanding Muslim buildings, brilliant Hindu architecture, the forbidden city in China, etc., etc. There is no such thing as great Jewish architecture. Why???
Let us take the destruction of the 3 temples. The first was destroyed in 587 BC by Nebuchadnezzar II of Babylonia. The second was when it had been plundered and wrecked by Judaea's foreign rulers. The third time, it had been rebuilt by Herod the Great in 20 BC. - and destroyed 3 times!!! Why was Israel created 3 times before and destroyed 3 times?? Arrogance, racism and an inability to integrate with local people were the main causes. In addition, to that there was bone-chilling cruelty as documented in the Bible.
In Biblical times Jews had an unfortunate propensity to overreach themselves and to that extent were agents of their own misfortune. The religious scriptures are full of these examples.
"Moses responds to God's anger by ordering his army to kill the five kingdoms of Midianites. These were the same people that had welcomed Moses with open arms when he originally fled from Egypt after murdering an Egyptian. They even allowed him to marry one of their women. We now see how Moses repays their kindness: his army kills all the men and captures their women and children. When Moses sees the thousands of captives, he gets angry because it was the Midianite women which caused the Israelite men to stray from God's commandments in the first place. Moses says to his soldiers, "Have you kept the women alive? They are the reason God sent that plague to kill 24,000 of us." He then commanded his army to kill all the boy children and all the women who were not virgins. The Bible doesn't tell us how they determined who was a virgin but we can imagine it was a humane and caring exam based on the past record of God's people. The Israelites then kept all the virgin girls for themselves, dividing them up along with the livestock - Numbers 31.
"Joshua proceeds to utterly destroy the kingdoms of Lachish, Makkedah, the Gibeonites, the Libnahites, the Eglonites, the Hebronites and the Debirites. The five main kings were captured and Joshua had his men place their "feet" (genitals?) on the necks of these kings. Afterwards he killed the kings and hung their bodies in trees for all to see. The fact that his men putting their "feet" on the necks of the kings hadn't already killed them strengthens the theory that it was their genitals which the Israelites placed on the necks of the kings as an insult. The kings of the other cities were killed and laid on the ruins of their cities just like the king of Jericho. The Bible sums up all the horrifying bloodshed by saying, "So Joshua smote all the country of the hills, and of the south, and of the vale, and of the springs, and all their kings: he left none remaining, but utterly destroyed all that breathed, as the Lord God of Israel commanded." - Joshua 10:27-40.
"Once David becomes king, the Amalekites invade his kingdom. Unlike the bloody conquests of the Israelites, the "heathen" Amalekites burn the captured city but they don't kill anyone, "great or small." David pursues them and slays the Amalekites while they are camping. None of the captured Israelites had been harmed by the Amalekites, in contrast to the bloodbath the Israelites had been conducting against the Amalekites - 1 Samuel 30:1-19.
"When the tribe of Benjamin was nearly exterminated, the leaders of Israel had decreed that they wouldn't allow any of their women to marry the men of the tribe of Benjamin (Judges 21:1). Without women, the tribe was doomed to become extinct, so the leaders of Israel came up with a plan to get wives for the Benjamites (Judges 21:2-4). They called for a council meeting but didn't send out an invitation to one of the minor tribes. When there were no representatives from that tribe present at the council meeting (Judges 21:5-9), the leaders declared that the minor tribe that hadn't shown up would have all of its people that weren't virgin women of marrying age, slayed (Judges 21:10-11). The surviving women would then be given to the men of the tribe of Benjamin (Judges 21:12-13). After the virgin women of the minor tribe were redistributed to the Benjamites, it was discovered that there were still not enough women to keep the Benjamites viable as a tribe (Judges 21:14).
To be continued.
Part 2.
Arrogance led to genocide and ethnic cleansing of neighboring countries - sounds familiar, doesn't it!!! Then, of course, there is blatant racism in their religious texts - a few are given below:
* "If a 'goy' (Gentile) hits a Jew he must be killed." (Sanhedrin 58b)
* "If a Jew finds an object lost by a 'goy' it does not have to be returned." (Baba Mezia 24a)
* "If a Jew murders a 'goy' there will be no death penalty." (Sanhedrin 57a)
* What a Jew steals from a 'goy' he may keep." (Sanhedrin 57a)
* "Jews may use subterfuges to circumvent a 'goy.'" (Baba Kamma 113a)
* "All children of the 'goyim' (Gentiles) are animals." (Yebamoth 98a)
* "Girls born of the 'goyim' are in a state of 'niddah' (menstrual uncleanness!) from birth." (Abodah Zarah 36b)
* "The 'goyim' are not humans. They are beasts." (Baba Mezia 114b)
* "If you eat with a 'goy' it is the same as eating with a dog." (Tosapoth, Jebamoth 94b)
* "Even the best of the 'goyim' should all be killed." (Soferim 15)
* "Sexual intercourse between the 'goyim' is like intercourse between animals." (Sanhedrin 74b)
* "When it comes to a Gentile in peace times, one may harm him indirectly, for instance, by removing a ladder after he had fallen into a crevice." (Shulkan Arukh, Yoreh De 'ah, 158, Hebrew Edition only)
I love the last one in this compilation. It explains why the Israeli media is stating that many of the clauses in the ceasefire agreement were inserted "just to fool the people of Gaza". After all, blood (and genetics) is thicker than water.
Hence, in my view, there are 2 possible future scenarios:
1. Expansion, apartheid, ethnic cleansing (like in the past) - followed by resistance. It might take years, but a pariah state cannot exist for very long in the 21st century. Eventually, their only supporters (the Americans) will also get fed up their continued hawkish demands.
2. A secular one state solution with equal rights for all and constitutional safeguards for all (the Christians, the Jews and the Muslims). Many secular Jews have written about this as the ideal solution.
More on this in my next comments.
Part 3.
Out of the the 14 million Jews in the world, actually a majority of them are secular and moderate - most of the secular Jews live in Europe and America. Unfortunately, the guys who run Israel are the right-wing expansionists and ultra-orthodox (i.e., the Jewish Taliban).
However, even within Israel there is a strong liberal element - people like Uri Averny and Gilad Atzmon. Uri wrote as follows:
"YES, ISRAEL'S standing in the world is indeed sinking continuously, but not because of a world-wide plot uniting "anti-Semites" and "Self-hating Jews".
We are sinking, because we are on the wrong side of history.
Israel has maintained for decades a regime of occupation. It continues to control and humiliate another people. Ideologically and practically, it lives in the mental world of the 19th century, while the rest of the world is starting to live in the 21st. Israeli policy is simply anachronistic.
The 21st century will see the sight of nations coming together. It will see the beginning of a world order, and I have no doubt that this idea will be realized.
Concepts like democracy, liberty, justice and human rights are not only moral values – in today's world they have become essential needs, a basis for a new world order.
That is the "right side of history". But our country is closing its eyes to this. True, it excels in the most international of industries, high tech, and is working successfully to extend its economic ties to the far corners of the world. But it scorns international public opinion, the United Nations and international law. It sticks to a form of nationalism that was "modern" at the time of the French revolution, when the "nation-state" was the highest ideal.
Awakening will, in the medium and long term, change the Israeli-Arab balance of power – psychologically, politically, economically, and in the end also militarily. At the same time, the world balance of power is also changing. New powers are rising, old powers are gradually losing their clout. This will not be a one-time, dramatic occurrence, but a slow and steady process.
That is how history is moving. Anyone who places himself on the wrong side of it will pay the price."
This is a serious voice of enlightenment. On the other hand you have the following:
In 2009, the Israeli government has launched a television and Internet advertising campaign urging Israelis to inform on Jewish friends and relatives abroad who may be in danger of marrying non-Jews.
The advertisements, employing what the Israeli media described as "scare tactics," are designed to stop assimilation through intermarriage among young Diaspora Jews by encouraging their move to Israel.
The campaign, which cost $800,000, was created in response to reports that half of all Jews outside Israel marry non-Jews. It is just one of several initiatives by the Israeli state and private organizations to try to increase the size of Israel's Jewish population.
According to one ad, voiced over by one of the country's leading news anchors, assimilation is "a strategic national threat," warning: "More than 50 percent of Diaspora youth assimilate and are lost to us."
Adam Keller, of Gush Shalom, an Israeli peace group, said this was a reference both to a general fear in Israel that the Jewish people may one day disappear through assimilation and to a more specific concern that, if it is to survive, Israel must recruit more Jews to its "demographic war" against Palestinians."
This is history repeating itself (go back to the Bible and the Talmud) - rather than trying to assimilate in their new homeland (and encourage people to inter-marry - like in America), the right-wing government is promoting an ethnocentric and racist form of thinking.
And yet, there are liberal Jews who are out there advocating assimilation and secular values - and a one state solution.
To be continued.
Part 4.
A one state solution is the only rational solution, promoted by many Israeli and Palestinian thinkers. Here is what Gilad Atzmon (an Israeli-born musician, writer and anti-racism campaigner) has to say about this issue:
One or two states?
"So what do we do for the time being: should we fight for one state or two states? I guess that you gather by now that I am a strong supporter of one state. I would love to see Israel being transformed into a state of its citizens. I would also openly admit that I do realize that this state won't be a Jewish state. It will be Palestine. It is about time to say it openly: Israel belongs to the past. And yet, I contend that it is the facts on the ground that will determine the future of the region. And what we see on the ground is perhaps encouraging.
In spite of the pain, animosity and distrust between the two people, there is one principle both Israelis and Palestinian would agree upon, namely "Two peoples, one hummus". It may sound frivolous, banal or trivial to say that, but it is actually far more profound than just a culinary suggestion. Israelis are gradually becoming the minority on the land. As I once heard the Palestinian ambassador to Britain, Manuel Hassassian, saying: "Israel has many lethal bombs, the Palestinians have only one bomb, the demographic one."
Interestingly enough, when Israelis want to feel authentic, they do not speak in Yiddish or Aramaic; they actually swear in Arabic and eat hummus.
The meaning of it is simple: deep in their hearts the Israelis know that Palestine is the land and Israel is just a state. When Israelis want to bond with Zion they actually plagiarize the indigenous people of the land, for deep inside the Israeli knows that the sky, the sea, al-Quds, Mount Olive, the Sea of Galilee, the Wailing Wall, the Arabic language and the hummus belong to the land. They also grasp that oppression, exceptionalism, supremacy belong to the state – their own Jewish state.
"Two peoples, one hummus" is my image of peace and reconciliation. The land will stay forever; the failing Jewish state is already subject to historical research. The two people will dine together, and they won't just share the hummus: they might even share the pita bread between them."
The people of that region must shun the violent Biblical past and embrace the secular principles of the 21st century. I am an optimist - but, this will need a strong nudge from the USA (where there are many people who share this secular vision). The White House and Congress do not have this vision - sadly. But, I am sure that the Americans are capable of electing new leaders who are not "shackled to people who perpetuated the status quo" (your words)!!!
A true masterpiece of a comment, I must admit it made me think long and hard after I read it. Here now is my response to each part, for part 1 while all what you say may be true one cannot fairly compare the modern state of israel to the biblical one, where dealing with two different time periods each with its own sets of moral values. I don't think anyone back then had heard of human rights. For part two I will truly admit that not being jewish I've never read their torah as they call it, but one can find similar statements in the bible and the koran. Indeed people who critize islam are always using obscure hadiths to prove how bad it is. I don't know if jews today with many being secular would follow the book to the letter. Part three is where you scored the most points the occupation is a fact, for whatever reason its there. Israel will say if jordan didn't join in the 67 war they wouldn't be in the west bank. I am a history buff and I know they wanted to fight jordan primarily for jerusalem. The part about international opinion is a moot point, many states give the world the finger when it suits their interest how many dictatorships or democracies have a perfect world opinion record. The u.n with its automatic muslim majority picks on israel which only leads to more non compliance. Why would they cooperate with them when they know they will always get singled out and people like sudan or cuba get a free pass nobody talks about the turks occupation of cyprus which is almost as long but i digress. Your last point is noble but it won't work there is too much hate for them to all live under one roof. But for asking sake would a one state solution include gaza also that prospect would never get agreed to. You said the current leadership of israel is right wing but that softy netanyahu is barely a righty and leiberman has been neutered by the court and the next government looks to be closer to the center if lapid finally succombs to reality and joins (he won't be prime minister but he could be number 2). Here is my conclusion which is a question to you what country you know has ever given back territory it won in war, not especially if the two entities are still at war with each other like the jews and arabs still are. Israel isn't perfect but its a whole lot better than any of the countries in the region. Even turkey who leads the world in journalists in jail can't compare to israel.
My apologies for the delay in responding. As a political realist, your points are valid - however, let me try and address your points and concerns.
Incidentally, I just finished watching the film "Lincoln". As an American, does not that (i.e., the whole issue of slavery and civil rights) show you how idealism prevails in politics when the moral issues are clear??? I trust that you will agree that the "correct moral position" eventually wins - although it may take several years, or even decades.
Territory won in war is never returned (your point)?? Let us take the legal position. In the past, keeping conquered land was quite customary. International law has now evolved considerably. It is now a criminal act. "A crime against peace, in international law, refers to "planning, preparation, initiation, or waging of wars of aggression, or a war in violation of international treaties, agreements or assurances, or participation in a common plan or conspiracy for the accomplishment of any of the foregoing". This definition of crimes against peace was first incorporated into the Nuremberg Principles and later included in the United Nations Charter. This definition would play a part in defining aggression as a crime against peace. It can also refer to the core international crimes set out in Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, (genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes and the crime of aggression)which adopted crimes negotiated previously in the Draft code of crimes against the peace and security of mankind."
"The interdiction of aggressive war was confirmed and broadened by the United Nations Charter, which provides in article 2, paragraph 4, that "All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations." One legal consequence of this is that it is clearly unlawful to annex territory by force. However, neither this, nor the original treaty have prevented the subsequent use of annexation. More broadly, there is a strong presumption against the legality of using, or threatening, military force against another country."
Territory has been returned, in fact - in 1956. Have you read about the Protocol of Sèvres???
"The Protocol of Sèvres (French, Protocole de Sèvres) was a secret agreement reached between the governments of Israel, France and the United Kingdom during discussions held between 22 and 24 October 1956 at Sèvres, France. The protocol concerns their joint political and military collusion to topple Gamal Abdul Nasser, by invading and occupying parts of Egypt in response to President Nasser's nationalization of the Suez Canal on 26 July. The planning for and the agreements contained in the protocol began the Suez Crisis on 29 October 1956."
3 countries (Israel, the UK and France) colluded in secret to launch a war against Egypt. The operation was a military success, but a political disaster. All the land captured and occupied had to be returned!!!
Likewise, in apartheid South Africa and Rhodesia, over 80% of the arable land was controlled by "white farmers". Nearly all that land has now been returned to black farmers!!!
On Israel, much will depend on the foreign policy of the USA - Israel's sole ally. In the recent vote in the UN on the issue of granting membership to Palestine, 95% of the population of this planet voted in favor. Israel and the USA (and a few minor island nations) voted against the resolution. The USA must realize that Israel is now a huge political liability. Will the USA modify its position??? You tell me.
If the USA does not modify its position, my view is that the best (i.e., peaceful) solution would be an extreme form of a Gandhian economic movement (globally) to compel the USA (and Israel) to change their policies. To amplify, a global resolution to boycott all Israeli and USA products, banks and companies. Incidentally, there is nothing that is produced in the USA that cannot be bought elsewhere. Given the fragile condition of the US economy, even a partial boycott lasting for a year or so will have a huge effect. Informally, this has already started. Some of the major central banks in Asia (including India, Russia and China) are dumping $'s and buying gold. Have you noticed that most Asian airlines have stopped buying Boeing aircraft?? Capitalism has its strengths - but, it has one fatal flaw. What do you do when people suddenly stop buying what you produce???
The Economist explains: Who would pay a "mansion tax"
The Economist explains
Football and British politics: David Cameron's own goal
Game theory
Britain's election campaign: April 26th: The silence of David Cameron
The week ahead: A very normal affair
Football and politics: David Cameron's own goal
America's Ukrainian mission: Training wheels
Have you listened to The Economist Radio on Facebook?
The Economist Radio is an on-demand social listening platform that allows you to listen, share and recommend The Economist audio content
Test your EQ
Take our weekly news quiz to stay on top of the headlines
Want more from The Economist?
Visit The Economist e-store and you'll find a range of carefully selected products for business and pleasure, Economist books and diaries, and much more