Evolution of Dispossession

Evolution of Dispossession
How to Steal a Country?

Monday, July 16, 2007

Here We Go Again ...

The sabre-rattling is definitely intensifying, and all the true reasons have been laid out before the current PR blitzkrieg by the war party, but having a 3rd carrier setting up in the Persian Gulf, it seems like the attack is imminent.

11 comments:

Liberal White Boy said...

Thanks, I missed this. It comes as no surprise though. With the next war will come the draft. Then perhaps there will be a few more of us on the streets. Just like the good old days.

wdporter said...

Truly scary stuff.

Hate to ask this, but Scottie did you have any input on the whole Fatah vs. Hamas, Gaza Strip vs. "West Bank First" thing?

I'd be tickled pink to get your opinion on it.

come see us.

BP

scottie said...

Of course Bush's recent calls for new peace talks are a joke.

There were elections, and Hamas won. This admin wants to deal with Fatah and Abbas and I do not blame them, but the fact is Hamas won. So the new calls for elections are a joke, completely invalid. ARe we going to insist on elections until the right people win? This is not a new strategy actually. IF you look at how the US has intervened in central and south America, it is very similar, in regard to elections.

As far as West Bank first, there can be no Palestinian state with small enclaves of Palestinians disconnected from other enclaves. The road system in the occupied West Bank favors the illegal Israeli settlements, which are protected by the bulk of the IDF soldiers in the West Bank.

If Bush truly were committed to a peace plan, he would have strongly urged Olmert's government to engage with the renewed Saudi initiative, really the most comprehensive peace plan ever offered to end the conflict.

It's all politics and photo opportunities.

wdporter said...

LOL...

Ok, I know that Bush isn't going to do anything right.

And you're right. The Palestinians split into factions is not ideal, (and I'll take your word on the road system). And obviously Hamas was elected by the Palestinians. My contention is that there can be no peace settlement while they're holding the reigns, though.

I guess my question was, what do you think about Hamas' actions in the Gaza and Abbas' response.

scottie said...

It's ludicrous to suggest that Hamas will control the Gaza and Fatah will control the West Bank. The mere proposal of such a "compromise" only accentuates the desperation of the Palestinian cause at the moment.

I read an intersting article by Aaron Heller on the Golan issue the other day. The title was something like "Israel CANNOT meet the Syrian demand on the Golan" ...

It should have truthfully read "Israel REFUSES to meet the Syrian demand on the Golan"

Israel wants to have its cake and eat it too ; it wants to keep the territories captured in the '67 war and continue to maintain a (false) pretense of discussing peace measures. There can be no lasting peace with the settlements and expansion, and Israel knows this quite well, and they have opted the course of land confiscation settlements, and refuses to make concessions, all the while demanding all neighboring Arab states lay down their arms. It is a farce.

wdporter said...

You're right, but whether Hamas was elected legitimately or not (and, of course, they were) it goes to show you how much easier it is for Israel and the US to deal with a regime that is not so entirely violent and confrontational.

No, a separated Palestine is not an option, but taking power away from Hamas in any way possible, in my humble opinion, is necessary for any sort of peace proposals to go forward. Your skepticism whether it'll work or not is well-founded, but it doesn't change the fact that Hamas closes more doors than it opens.

As an evil NEOCON, I'm way more accommodating than you think on the West Bank and Gaza.

Golan Heights I have a tougher time, though. Out of the three "hot spots" if you will, it's the one that offers the most strategic military advantage to whoever occupies it.

Not that it shouldn't eventually go back to its rightful owners, the Syrians, I would find it extremely unwise for Israel to just let it go as long as it's fighting the same war on two other fronts.

So maybe "West Bank First" is not an option, but "Golan Heights last" is pretty obvious to me.

Thanks for your thoughts.

scottie said...

I concur with the majority of your comments, but I must point on the illegality of acquisition of territory by force. True the Golan offers strategic military advantages, but that does not mean that Israel has a right to it. It is a question of what is in the best long-term interests of all parties ; the irony is that keeping the Golan is not in Israel's best long-term interests, peace is and should be embraced in the talks ongoing right now ; the renewed Arab League proposal.

We'll see ...

wdporter said...

well, sure Scottie, in an ideal world it is the best thing for them to turn over Golan, as I pointed out. In the long-term, turning it over would be an ultimate gesture, and as they took a BEATING from the hills over the next few years, international sentiment would lean again heavily in Israel's favor and force Hezbollah/Syria's hand.

But ask yourself, in the current situation, if it was your responsibility to keep Israel safe (in the short term) would you turn over Golan?

You gotta ask how realistic it is for Israel to sit there and take missiles from the hills for the sake of "long-term" advantage.

I mean c'mon, taking that territory in the first place was for military advantage--Machiavellian, "illegal" whatever you want to call it--but it wasn't done just for the sake of being mean.

As soon as ceding territory is met with peace and not missiles, then more of it will come...hopefully. That hasn't happened yet.

Hamas and Hezbollah will ALWAYS respond to gestures of peace with violence, period. You know it, and I know it.

Sorry to be so optimistic, but just can't help but think that MAYBE Fatah--sans Arafat--can do what Hamas is simply unable to do by its very nature.

Obviously a ton of the responsibility lies with Israel, but not all of it. As long as violent terrorist groups are in charge of Palestine, Israel has every excuse--rightly or wrongly--to oppress.

Like you said, we'll see.

scottie said...

First off, you should read the history of Eli Cohen and how this Israeli spy helped to secure the Golan in the first place.

Secondly, you are arguing that Syria, if they had the Golan back, would lob missiles at Israel. This is farcical. Syria is not Lebanon, and its army does not allow resistance groups, like Hezbollah, to have a carte blanche on the border. Any attack against Israel by Syrian forces would be met with severe reprisals. Not so in Lebanon when the Lebanese government can point the finger at Hezbollah and keep their government/army out of harm's way. Apples and oranges

The fact is, and the same argument applies to the West Bank and Gaza, that Israel refuses to relinquish these pieces of other states (originally) conquered in a war where the rules of engagement were ultimately overarched by the UN, whom the Israelis begged for inclusion, and Israel has done abided by virtually none of its resolutions, again through the use of the US veto in the security council.

No justice, no peace, and my blogsite is named after this very simple, stark reality.

It makes no sense to continue this wounded duck rejectionist policy any more. In the 70's I can understand why Israel did, but not any more.

wdporter said...

The method by which the Golan Heights were taken are irrelevant. It was taken by military force, and arguably in response to shells being tossed by Syria, and this is before Hezbollah. Are you saying that this spy tossed the shells, if so, I'll be happy to read the account.

However, as excellent as your other points are, you talk as if Syria is somehow above using Hezbollah as a proxy, even though they've done just that in Lebanon.

And again, it's easy for you and I to talk about what SHOULD be done but if you think Israel should just TRUST that Syria wouldn't use the Golan Heights for its military advantage, I think that's a little naive.

And don't forget the fact that the Golan Heights are a huge water supply to Israel as well...right or wrong, I think it is and should be the last place for Israel to compromise on...

But overall I see your point, everyone wants "justice" AND "peace", but you have to believe that even the most "token" of gestures of justice must be met with sincere gestures of peace, and it's been VERY hard for Israel to do that with the leadership that Palestine has classically saddled itself with.

No Justice, No Peace is indeed a great goal, but putting it by definition in that order denies reality.

scottie said...

What if, Butch, the US declared Iraq US territory right now?

Do you think the US should be entitled to this land because we conquered it?

Acquisition of territory by force is illegal, under terms the Israeli government agreed to.

It is a question of legality, period.

I am sure Syria would use the Golan and the advantages it has to their advantage. So what? Should Israel enjoy all the advantages? Free money from US taxpayers, no accountability whatsoever, and a willingness to harm its chief sponsor.

And yes water is a major, not minor issue, from the Israeli standpoint. But again, so what.

Recall that Israel pre-emptively attacked Egypt in the '67 war and started the war. They were not the victims. They were the aggressors from start to finish. They even showed naked aggression against the USS Liberty on the 3rd day so they could take the Golan, which was against the stated wishes of LBJ (according to Thomas Moorer, who believed this was the real reason the Liberty was attacked deliberately).

If Israel wants peace, which they do not want actually, they must un-do the wrongs inflicted on their neighbors, and have some accountability for their seriously-flawed, warped, and racist agendas. And the militias targeting Israel should take a good look in the mirror and re-think their strategies, but the onus of the major concessions, in my opinion, lies with Israel because Israel has become an embattled nation because of its actions since the mid-70's. Before that time, you could heap blame on the Arab countries almost in equal proportions, but since Sadat's visit to the Knesset and the original Camp David, Israel's behavior has been simply deplorable, and why the US has had to bail it out of so much trouble in the Security Council (since 1972).

But it seems you think Israel has a right to do anything it wants to any neighbor it wants because the ends justify the means. Yikes, I thought Machiavelli had died.