A Pox On All Their Houses

From The Economist, November 17-23rd Issue

This cartoon captures some of the absurdity of the current goings on between Israel and Hamas.  But what is utterly misstates is the disproportionality of the mess.  What Israel is doing is a little like dropping a 500 pound bomb on an obnoxious teenager because he shot you with a BB gun.  The pictures of the destruction wrought by Israel in Gaza are all over the place.  What is very, very hard to find is any comparable evidence -- indeed any evidence at all -- of destruction in Israel.  Given the Israeli PR adeptness, I suspect this is because there is very, very little of it.

I have no sympathy for Hamas.  What they hope to accomplish other than getting their own people killed by shooting rockets at Israel is beyond understanding.  Perhaps there is a better explanation, but the seemingly obvious answer is a culture of no-harm-goes-unavenged that would make the Hatfields and McCoys proud. 

But neither do I have any sympathy for Israel.  The idea that somehow Israel is the victim here is preposterous.  The Israeli Ambassador asked what would American do if some foreign group lobbed 8,000 rockets into America.  That begs the question, though, of what we would do if a foreign state had occupied most of the country for nearly 45 years and was relentlessly building settlements along the entire eastern seaboard.  Sporadic rocket fire from Hamas is the price Israel pays for the occupation.  And, since Israel has no intention of ever agreeing to a Palestinian state worthy of the name, they should accept that as a very small price indeed.

The Middle East has dominated American foreign policy for a quarter century now.  We need to follow through on the promise that Iran will not get a nuclear weapon.  But beyond that, it's time to give up.  We are no longer so dependent on the Middle East for our energy, and if we backed away from Israel, the terrorism threat would largely evaporate.  It's time to tell the entire Middle East: "You made this mess. Continuing it hurts no one but yourselves.  We've tried to help.  But we're done.  It's up to you to either clean it up or live with it."

The Isreali/Palestinian Cease-Fire: Grasping At Straws?

What are we to make of the recent "cease-fire" between Israel and various Palestinian factions operating in the Gaza strip? Is it, as Amos Oz, an Israeli novelist hopes, "the first flicker of light at the edge of the darkness". Or is it, as the Jerusalem Post suggests, "the military and diplomatic triumph of Hamas". If you take the leaders of the Palestinian groups at their word, the cease-fire is simply a "chance to reload" that changes nothing:

"The ceasefire offers a period of calm for our fighters to recover and prepare for our final goal of evacuating Palestine," said Abu Abir, spokesman for the Popular Resistance Committees, a Hamas-allied terror organization in the Gaza Strip responsible for many of the recent rocket attacks against Israeli communities.
"We will keep fighting (Israel), but for the moment we will postpone certain parts of the military struggle," Abu Abir said.

But, notwithstanding, Olmert sees this as an opportunity of historic proportions:

The past cannot be changed, and the victims of the conflict, from both sides of the border, cannot be returned.

Dictates are futile and mutual accusations are nothing but useless word games. Historic scores cannot be settled and scars cannot be obliterated.

All we can do today is prevent further tragedies and bequeath to the younger generation a bright horizon and hope for a new life. Let us convert animosity and the "honing of our swords" to mutual recognition, respect and direct dialogue.

The cynic in me yells that this is just one more false hope. That, in the end, neither the Palestinians nor the Israelis will make the sacrifices and compromises necessary to end the conflict.

But, for all of that, I can't resist hoping that "maybe this time it will be different."

Israel

Does anyone besides me think Israel is our single biggest foreign policy problem? Why do we keep supporting these nut cases?

O Israel

I got an e-mail on the mess in Lebanon from ole Yuval, the self-styled "Truth Provider." It included the following paragraph:

Please support the IDF. Allow it to complete the task. Only full victory will do. For the sake of us all and our future generations, do not allow peacenicks and uppeasers [sic] to put obstacles on our road to full victory.

As if "full victory" were achieveable by force of arms. This war, like every one that has prededed it since 1967 will end in exactly the same way: by making absolutely no difference. Except of course to all the people killed or maimed in the process.

I am so frustrated by this whole situation I am simply beside myself. The situation between the Arabs and Israel is the greatest threat to American security in the world today. Yet, despite the lessons of nearly 40 years, no one seems to be able to see that bombs and bullets change nothing for the better. Where is our Nelson Mandela?

ARRRGH!

"You'd Do The Same Thing. Probably Even Worse"

There has been a lot of criticism of Israel for what is characterized as its disproportionate responses to the cross-border incursions and kidnappings perpetrated by Hamas and then by Hezbollah. If you are interested, much of this criticism is catalogued in an article posted yesterday on the Zionist Organization Of America website, which, of course, considers such criticism to be evidence of the perfidy of Israel's so-called "friends."

Every one of these statements also blamed Hezbollah for starting things, condemned Iran and Syria for supporting Hezbollah and confirmed Israel's right to defend itself from such attacks. Even some of Israel's traditional enemies joined in criticizing Hezbollah as well as Israel.

Yet the opinion pieces from Israel's American supporters chose to largely ignore these facts and to portray the criticism as an attack on Israel's right to respond at all: Washington Post, Charles Krauthammer, Wall Street Journal, Max Boot, James Taranto, Charles Krauthammer(again), etc.

But the disproportionality is so overwhelming that even the Israeli PR machine cannot keep it out of the news sections: Dozens more die as air strikes continue, Dazed Refugees Flood Beirut, Beirut: City Of Ruins, Large-Scale Evacuations From Lebanon Begin etc. Yes, Israelis are suffering and dying too, but some statistics reported in today's NY Times brings the relative suffering into perspective:

The asymmetry in the reported death tolls is marked and growing: some 230 Lebanese dead, most of them civilians, to 25 Israeli dead, 13 of them civilians. In Gaza, one Israel soldier has died from his own army's fire, and 103 Palestinians have been killed, 70 percent of them militants.

In addition, Israel has disabled the Lebanon's only commercial airport, blockaded its ports, and destroyed fuel tanks, power plants, gas stations, lighthouses, bridges, roads and innumerable homes and businesses in both Lebanon and Gaza. It has even bombed a Lebanese Army base -- the same army it insists should be disarming Hezbollah. Nothing even remotely similar to this is occurring in Israel.

With the disproportionality so blatant and undeniable, Israeli apologists have taken a new tack: they are defending it, arguing that other countries would do the same thing, probably even worse. As reported in the same NY Times article today:

Referring to complaints that Israel was using disproportionate force, Dan Gillerman, Israel's United Nations ambassador, said at a rally of supporters in New York this week, "You're damn right we are. If your cities were shelled the way ours were," he said, addressing critics, "you would use much more force than we are or we ever will."

In a USA Today op-ed piece, Newt Gingrich makes this argument as well:

Imagine that this morning 50 missiles were launched from Cuba and exploded in Miami. In addition to buildings and homes being destroyed, scores of Americans were being killed. Now imagine our allies responded by saying publicly that we must not be too aggressive in protecting our citizens and that America must use the utmost restraint.

Our history shows us that we, as Americans, would reject such bad advice. After all, we have never reacted to a direct attack on our soil with any restraint. Every time America has been attacked by an enemy, we set about defeating it and ending the threat.

There is considerable truth to this. One need not go back to World War II for an example; one need only consider our response to the 9/11 attacks. Far from showing restraint, we invaded and occupied two entire countries, bringing to each civilian casualties and destruction of property far in excees of what we ourselves suffered -- and far in excess of what the Israelis are inflicting on either Lebanon or Gaza.

But the analogy contains its own rebuttal: as we ourselves have proved, such disproportionality just . . . does . . . not . . . work in these types of struggles. Yes, it did work in WW II, the "lessons" of which continue to cloud our thinking about today's world. But with regard to the Muslim world, I know of no instance where the application of "overwhelming force" has produced anything other than more, and more barbaric, violence. To the contrary, the Russian experience in Afghanistan and Chechnya, our own experience in Afghanistan and Iraq and -- most of all -- Israel's experience in its 40 year struggle with the Palestinians, demonstrate, I think conclusively, that in these kinds of struggles overwhelming force is not just doomed to failure, it is like trying to douse a fire with gasoline.

The human suffering that Israel is inflciting on the Lebanese is offensive, but what makes it offensive has less to do with issues of proportionality than it does with the fact that it is gratuitous. We can accept disproportionate violence and casulaties and the suffering and deaths of innocents if (and so long as) we believe that something worthwhile will result in the end. We Americans still have some hope that our own acts of disproportional violence in Iraq and Afghanistan may yet prove to have been "worth it;" at least, we did not know in that our actions would only make matters worse. That cannot be said for the Israelis. After 40 years of fighting, nothing in their experience provides them with even the smallest inkling of belief that the suffering they are imposing on others will dampen the ardor or blunt the effectiveness of their enemies. As such, the violence is not really a calculated step taken reluctantly in the hope of a better future. It is simply an act of rage born of frustration.

So what is the alternative? I don't know. That's the problem. No one seems to know, so we and the Israelis and the Russians and everyone else caught up in the struggles with the Muslim world keep doing the same things over, and over and over again. With the same sorry results. I don't know what the answer is, but I do know this: We have to, we must, find some better way of dealing with these types of adversaries. "Overwhelming force" is not the answer.

A Pox On All Your Houses

As if the news from Iraq, Afghanistan and Somalia (to say nothing of Iran and Korea) weren't bad enough, now the Israelis and Palestinians are back at it. It's the Hatflieds and McCoys played out on an international scale.

What are the Israelis thinking? I sometimes think that way down deep they want -- maybe even need -- this constant conflict. Someone kidnaps one of their soldiers, they invade, bomb power plants and homes, terrorize the resident population and (surprise, surprise) what do they get in return? Another group kidnaps two more soldiers. So what do they do? Invade that country bombing away as if that would accomplish something.

Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. You'd think that, after 60 years, they would have figured out that massive retaliation just makes things worse. But it is like they are afraid to try anything else.

If the only thing at risk in all of this were Israslis and Palestinians, I'd say "Go for it you idiots. Kill each other to your hearts' content." But that is not all that is at stake. How can we continue to support a regime that kills 20 for every casualty they suffer? What sort of hypnotic hold does Israel have over us that leads us to keep defending them despite the obvious-to-anyone fact that their actions and reactions pare a threat to our own security?

I just don't get it. Why do we care about them?

Blood Fued

As a part of my commitment to myself to listen to people I don't agree with, I am on a number of Israeli right-winger e-mail distribution lists. For the most part, I read and delete. But every once in a while I find myself compelled to respond. It is invariably a mistake. But it is sometimes informative. I had one of those moments today.

I won't try to reproduce the whole exchange, but the staring point was an email my interlocutor (Mordechai) sent out a couple of days ago that had the following re line: "For all the morons out there who haven't figured this out for themselves. Olmert is destroying Israel. He must go!"

I did not respond to that one, but Mordechai apparently got a fair amount of feedback form others objecting to his "strong language," and he felt compelled, I guess, to send out a defense of the language (not the ideas, mind you, just thelanguagee). I weighed in at that point, with this:

The strong language does not bother me, but the paucity of ideas does. If the Sharon/Olmert plan is moronic, what approach is not? The status quo is unacceptable to Israel, the Palestinians, the Arabs, the United States, indeed, the world. So give us something better before you start labeling people who are trying to find a way "morons."

And, we were off.

About 15 minutes later (do these guys do anything besides lurk beside their e-mail? In terms of "rapid response" they make the Republicanss look like rank amateurs), Mordechai responded with a long e-mail, most of which was non-responsive and self-justificatory. But he did get to some concrete proposals eventually. They were, in toto:

I do not think there is any 'off-the-shelf' solution. I would begin with total application of the law to all Arabs living in Israel. In other words, if a Jew drives a car and picks up passengers for payment, this is called a taxi and he needs a license. If he does not have one, his car is confiscated. I want the same to apply to Arabs. If I attempt to build without a license, the building will be torn down and I will be fined. I want the same for Arabs (there are presently some 84,000 illegal Arab buildings). If a Jewish young adult attends university, they pay tuition, and Arab does not. If own a business, I need to pay taxes income, VAT etcetera. I want the same to apply to Arabs.

Let's see what 'demographic' issue exist if Arabs have to spend three years in national service in order to vote. A Yeshiva boy must serve in the army to vote, and Arab votes with no service. (I did not say 'army' -- there are many types of service, let them clean bed pans in the Hospital).

This is where I would begin with a 'solution'. I can continue on, but this would be too long. All of this are things that I have stated many times in the past.

Two minutes later, he then appended this:

As to the 'war' in general, I agree with Churchill. The only solution to total war is total defeat followed by total surrender.

To which I, growing more impatient by the minute, responded thus:

The Arabs/Muslims have suffered total defeat any number of times.

Militarily they are a joke. Israel has beaten them soundly 4 times.The US has taken down two Muslim countries in 5 years. Yet total surrender remains chimerical. The more total their defeat the more fanatical their resistance becomes. If insanity is doing the same thing over and over but expecting different results, those who argue that we Israel and the US) should continue doing the same things we have been
doing for 60 years are damn near certifiable. Another form of insanity is a deeply held belief in propositions for which there is no evidence. There is no evidence for the proposition that "total surrender" of the Palestinians, or the Muslim world generally, is even remotely attainable. Believing that this should be the goal is a form of lunacy.

Oh, and yes. Let's insist that Arab taxi drivers get licenses. That will help.

(That last was not, I admit, really conducive to reasoned discussion, but I succumbed to my baser impulses).

But then, in response, came this, which is really the point of this whole post:

I wish I could agree. They [the Muslims] have received serious setbacks, but none of these are comparable to what Churchill meant. . . .

The US, did not 'take down' two Muslim countries. They are still there; and they are very aware that they are still there, simply waiting for the US to tire, again. . . .

Is Islam defeatable? A good question and certainly not one with a trivial answer. I believe they are. . . . How about seeing a few battalions of US Marines marching down the streets of Mecca? (Infidels are not allowed in Mecca, under pain of instant, albeit slow, death.) Do you think this would affect their perception of their ability to defeat the West? I think it has a good chance to shake things up.

Marines in Mecca? Defeats more "total" than they suffered in Iraq and Afghanistan? Defeats so "total" that they result in "total surrender? What, exactly, is he talking about here?

The response I penned was simply this: "Sadly Mordecahi, the differences between you and them are far samller than you would like to believe."

I did not send it though. After all, what is the point? These people are simply beyond talking to. They have no more sense of what is possible (much less appropriate) than the jihadists do. Our national security -- and economy -- is the hostage of a Hatfield-McCoy blood fued.

A pox on both their houses!

Butting Heads With "True Belivers"

I should have known better. Yuval called in the cavalry and the following is one of the results:

How dare you evoke Hitler as a metaphor or an analogy of Yuval. the only reason that I can think of for you to do that is your lack of any other reasonable arguments.

However, in your ignorant self serving justification of the Palestinians, you are helping to bring disaster upon all of our heads. Stop listening to yourself if you can, and listen to them. In Arabic. [!] Palestinians who want a better life have already left the PA. They were a little better educated with a little more money. Those who remain have been brainwashed in a culture that worships death and hate. When children are asked: "Given a choice between democracy freedom and peace, and Shahada ( martyrdom via suicide/terror) what would you choose?" The girls look at the questioner as if he had gone mad and answer "Shahada". Jews are likened in Friday sermons to monkeys and pigs who should be killed. Jews are demonized to Palestinian children from the time they are babies. Young children are taught conflict management on one level only: someone cuts down your tree, run into the house, get your assault rifle and committ a massacre.

When you realize that all of your arguments are the joke on you, and the Palestinians are laughing because they have managed to hide their agenda from you, maybe we will have a chance.

In the meantime, Please remove me from the list of people to whom you expose your venom. Yuval sent me a copy of your correspondance: that is his right . He is my friend. You however are a venemous self satisfied example of a person in whom a little knowledge does a great deal of damage.

Linda

And she calls me venomous?!

I have learned - or actually re-learned - one thing from all of this: There is really no point to even trying to reason with these people. They need, simply, to be ignored.

Still More of the Yuval-Bill Debates

As you might have expected, my allusion to Hitler was -- shall we say -- not well recieved. In the interests of fairness and completeness, here is Yuvals response along with my defense:

Yuval: Now your true face reveals itself.

Bill: What face is that? The face of a man who is appalled at the idea that someone would seriously advocate "relocating" the West Bank Palestinians "elsewhere"? Yes, I am appalled.

Yuval:There is nothing more telling about a person than the invocation by him of Hitler.

Bill: Excuse me, but the first mention of Hitler came from you: "Furthermore, the term humiliation is reminiscent of 1933 Germany. The Germans were 'humiliated' therefore they saw themselves justified to murder the entire Europe. " I simply took your own analogy and turned it around. However, given the incendiary nature of such an allusion, I regret it. Slobodan Milosevic would have suited my purposes just as well.

Yuval: In my response I will try to stay on a higher ground although I do not think you deserve it. Here is why all your comments totally miss the mark and prove not only your ignorance about the Middle East conflict, but your bias.

Bill: I'm not sure calling me "ignorant" and "biased" is what I would call "staying on higher ground", but let's let that pass.

Yuval:I have no contempt for anybody, it is a feeling I do not posses. I was raised by an Arab woman and on the personal level I have absolutely no animosity to anybody, nor bad thoughts. Quite the contrary, I admire the Arabs for the success they have in their propaganda which is aimed at gullible people like yourself. The only feeling I have towards our mortal enemy is epitomized in a Talmud saying: "Respect and suspect."

Bill: Excuse me again, but wasn't it you who said: "The Arab-Palestinians, as they should be called, have no distinct attributes or characteristics separating them as a nation from other Arabs in the Middle East?" If denying a people's existence as a distinct group with a distinct consciousness and identify is not contempt, then I do not know what is.

Yuval: What we are dealing with is a conflict between two peoples, one whose goal is to destroy the other and one whose goal is to reach reasonable and honorable solution. I and ALL Israelis belong to the latter.

Bill: Here is the core of our disagreement. I do not believe the Palestinian goal is to destroy Israel any more than I believe that is the goal of Egypt, Jordan, Syria, Lebanon or Iraq. All of these countries/entities did at one time have that goal. But things have changed. Today, all that any of them want is a return of the land they lost in 1967 (except for Jordan which doesn't even want that) and a State for the Palestinians on the West Bank, a symbolic nod to the "right of return", a capital in East Jerusalem, and some sort of agreement on access to and control of the Temple Mount. To them, that is the "reasonable and honorable" solution and to them it is Israel that wants to "destroy" those aspirations. Talk of destroying Israel, even of the right of return, is a mixture of propaganda and posturing for purposes of negotiation. Israel does a bit of that as well, as does any party to a negotiation.

Yuval:"Race" has nothing to do with anything (this more than everything reveals our bias). Nationality on the other hand has everything to do with it.

Bill: I intentionally put "race" in quotes to denote that I was using it in other than its normal sense. Even so, it was not a good choice of words. I should have said "people" or "nation."

Yuval: Just like the French, the Australians, the Americans and any other national unit, the Jewish people are entitled to their own land, particularly their 3000 years historical land.

Bill: Have I ever disagreed with this? My question is, why is not the same true for the West Bank and Gaza Palestinians? Your answer is, apparently, that they are not "distinct" enough. However, I think they believe you are wrong in that. And it is what they believe, not what you or I believe, that is what matters. The issue I have is not the right of the Jewish people to a land of their own. The issue is how much of Palestine that land should include, given the rights and interests of the non-Jewish people who live there.

Yuval: Resettling the refugees with compensation is an option in UN Resolution 194. Read it and see for yourself.

Bill: Actually, what UNR 194 authorizes is a right of return. Compensation is to be paid only if a refugee chooses not to return:

11. Resolves that the refugees wishing to return to their homes and live at peace with their neighbours should be permitted to do so at the earliest practicable date, and that compensation should be paid for the property of those choosing not to return and for loss of or damage to property which, under principles of international law or in equity, should be made good by the Governments or authorities responsible.

There is nothing in this resolution -- or in any other principle of international law -- that authorizes or even contemplates a "resettlement "of an indigenous population in order to make room for the expansion of another state.

Yuval: Exchanges of populations happened many times in history.

Bill: When exactly? Certainly, there have been expulsions of populations many times in history, but I am not aware of any "population exchanges".

Yuval: I remind you lest you forgot, that close to one million Jews became refugees from Arab countries and were absorbed in Israel after 1948.

Bill: Are you suggesting that the Arab countries were right to do this; that this is how countries should act? The expulsion of the Jews from Arab countries was no more justified than the expulsion of Palestinians from Israel or from the West Bank would be. In addition to the moral and legal issues, though, there is an immense practical difference: The Jews had a place to go that wanted them when they were expelled. The Palestinians do not.

Yuval:No reason why the Palestinian refugees should not have the same opportunity to resettle in other Arab countries or elsewhere.

Bill: "Opportunity?" Do you really think the Palestinians would consider leaving their own homes and villages to be refugees in some other county to be an "opportunity"? No reason? Except for the fact that they don't want to resettle in other Arab countries or elsewhere. They want to live where they are living now.

Yuval:This solution is much more humane and universal than the continuation of the conflict in which innocent people continue live in camps and get killed.

Bill: Now we have gone completely through the looking glass. Resettlement is humane?

Yuval: I am not subjecting any people to war.

Bill: You would be if your ideas were accepted. Do you really think that "relocating" the Palestinians to Jordan (or elsewhere) would end the conflict? Isn't this simply a reprise -- on a larger scale -- of what happened in 1948?

Yuval:By your bias and attitude it is you who encourages those who wish to destroy Israel.

Bill: You do like that word bias, don't you? Against whom am I biased? Against what? Not all who disagree with your position are "biased". Also, there is nothing in anything I have ever said or written (or thought for that matter) that could possibly be construed as encouraging those who wish to destroy Israel.

Yuval: Since 1947 Israel accepted all solution imposed on her by the international community. The Arabs did not. Elementary Dr. Watson!!!

Bill: Well, even that is not exactly true, since I assume that Israel is not prepared to return to the 1948 Partition borders. And you at least would not be comfortable with a return to the 1967 borders, even though that is the solution preferred by most of the international community. More to the point, though, we are discussing your ideas, not Israel's. (They are not synonymous, thank goodness). And your idea is to resettle the Palestinians to some other country and incorporate the entire West Bank (and Gaza?) into Israel. That idea defies the international community.

Yuval: The Arabs have 99.9% of the territorial mass of the Middle East.

Bill: I doubt if the percentage is really that high, unless you are counting North Africa as a part of the Middle East, and maybe not even then. But sure, the area of the Arab States is much larger than the area of Israel. I admit, though that the significance of that fact escapes me. Russia is bigger than Estonia. Does that mean Estonia is entitled to more land?

Yuval: They have 22 countries although they are single nation.

Bill: So you keep saying. A "nation" is defined not by culture or language but by how the people themselves identify themselves. Culturally and linguistically, Americans and Canadians are all but indistinguishable; yet I do not think anyone would claim that Americans and Canadians comprised a single "nation." Regardless of how the Arabs perceived themselves at the end of WWI, is there any doubt that the Jordanian, Syrian, Lebanese, Iraqi, Saudi, etc. Arabs all today see themselves a comprising separate "nations"? But, even if you are right and the Arabs do all comprise a single "nation", what significance does that have in terms of what we are talking about? Should they all be required to unite? How would that help resolve anything?

Yuval: Asking to have a land for the Jewish people that is smaller than New Jersey is hardly "lebensraum."

Bill: As small as Israel is, it is not the smallest country on earth. Indeed, it is considerably larger than Lebanon, right next door. Lebensraum is a belief that "my people need more room and we are entitled to take it from others". Such a belief is no less offensive when espoused on behalf of a small country that it is when espoused on behalf of a large one.

Yuval:The Germans conquered foreign sovereign nations.

Bill: True, but so what? Displacement of an indigenous population in order to make room for another is OK so long as the people being displaced are not "sovereign"?

Yuval:Israel is only claiming its own historical land which was recognized by England, the League of Nations and the UN.

Bill: Neither the Balfour Declaration nor the League of Nations Mandate, nor most especially the UN Partition plan recognized or even contemplated the inclusion of what you refer to as Judea and Samaria into the State of Israel. Israel's right to that part of Palestine has never been recognized by anyone.

Yuval:Israel is in Judea and Samaria because Israel was attacked from there in 1967.

Bill: True. And no one, least of all me, disputes that Israel was entirely justified both in going to war and in occupying the West Bank (and Gaza, and the Golan, and the Sinai for that matter). What is not justified is the idea that Israel should keep it.

Yuval: The attacker, Jordan, had no claim to that territory and relinquished it in the peace agreement in 1983. Thus at best, the territory is disputed.

Bill: The Partition Plan, which is the document that created Israel -- in legal contemplation at least -- also confirmed the existence of Transjordan and assigned Judea and Samaria to that country. You cannot deny Jordan's "claim" to that land without simultaneously undermining Israel's "claim" to the land allocated to it by the same Plan.

Yuval:It was never a "Palestinians" sovereignty, and except privately owned lands, which Israel NEVER touched, they have no claim on the land until the fate of the territories are determined by negotiations as mandated in UN Resolution 242. Nothing, but nothing, I said in my piece is in contradiction to these principals.

Bill: Now this is interesting. Are you saying that neither the Palestinians nor Israel currently exercises sovereignty over the West Bank:and that the question of sovereignty is to be negotiated in accordance with UN 242? If so, then we are in complete agreement. But what mystifies me is how you can then say that "Nothing, but nothing, I said in my piece is in contradiction to these principals." Are "relocation" of the Palestinians living on the West Bank to another country and the incorporation of the the entire West Bank into Jordan consistent with UN 242?? I thought UN 242, (in addition to calling for "Termination of all claims or states of belligerency and respect for and acknowledgement of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every State in the area and their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force") "Emphasiz[ed] the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war" and "Affirmed that the fulfillment of Charter principles requires the . . .Withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict." It is hard for me to see how the solution you are advocating is at any point consistent with these principles.

Yuval: You should be ashamed of yourself invoking Hitler and Nazi terms.

Bill: I am sorry is used the Hitler allusion. Slobodan Milosevic would have done quite nicely. But, in making that analogy, I was not talking about Israel. I was talking about how YOU sounded. Fortunately, so far as I know, Israel itself has had the good sense to reject your ideas for how this conflict should be resolved.

Yuval: I have not advocated the killing of anybody, and never will.

Bill: I am sure that this is true and it was way out of line for me to suggest that this might be otherwise.

Yuval: I base my opinions on reality and careful study of the facts. I wish you had the objectivity and ability to doing the same.

Bill: I do and I do and I do. Unfortunately, disagreeing with you does not ipso facto make me ignorant, stupid or biased -- much less all three.

Yuval: The only idea that lurks in my heart is that people like you will stop spewing hatred and poisonous comparisons. That will make the world a much nicer place to live in.

Bill: Having already apologized for the "poisonous comparison", I do not feel compelled to do so again. I do not apologize for the point, however; only for the allusion. I remain steadfastly, passionately opposed to and appalled by a proposal to solve the Palestinian problem by relocating the Palestinian people to another country. That is a poisonous idea and it deserves to be repudiated in the strongest possible terms.

Yuval: Now go do some homework: Google Palestinian National Charter, UN Resolution 194 and 242 and study it.

Bill: Been there. Done that. And, a lot more besides. Nothing in any of them supports the idea that the solution to this conflict is to relocate the West Bank Palestinians.

The Latest From Yuval

Here is the latest from our self-proclaimed "Truth Provider." It is a continuation of the thread, posted yesterday, regarding what Yuval considers to be Arafat's "embezzlement" of money donated to the PA by other countries. However, it quickly develops into something far broader. As I feared, Yuval's' preferred outcome is the "Slobadon Solution." I can only hope he speaks for very, very few Israelis.

I will let the man speak for himself, since there is nothing I could add that would more clearly and forcefully indict him and his beliefs that the language he himself chooses to use:

From Bill (continuing earlier thread):
Just want to note that neither the word "embezzle" nor "stole" appears in the article. That is apparently your contribution. I suspect there is no pejorative adjective that you would consider over the top as applied to Arafat.

Are you suggesting that the West adopt the Israeli strategy of insisting that the Palestinians do everything before the it does anything? Given how well that strategy has worked for Israel, I would be very reluctant to see the West adopt it as well.

Enough for today.

Bill

PS. If you are interested, I've posted this exchange to my blog: www.parentheticals.blogspot.com. Feel free to comment there are well. (You don't have to sign up for an account; just post anonymously and put your initials at the bottom if you are so inclined).

From Yuval: Thank you for letting me contribute to your blog.

As to the subject, are you suggesting that Arafat and his cronies did not steal any moneys? Are you ignoring the mountain of evidence on the subject, including a major CBS piece on 60 Minutes and the BBC, both not known as great friends of Israel? No, the words 'embezzle' and 'stole' do not appear in the article. The article only deals with some of what was done with the stolen money after it was stolen.

As for the sequence of requirements, in the so called 'Road Map' all sides adopted, including the Arab-Palestinians, stopping the terror and reforming the PA are pre-requisites imposed on the PA leadership.

Best,
Yuval.

From Bill:
No, I am not suggesting that Arafat and his cronies never stole any money. Almost certainly they did. On the money issue, my point was simply that the particular money talked about in the article you distributed did not appear to be stolen, since the PA had records of it and was presumably in control of the "investments" (however foolish) that were made with it. Stolen money, by contrast, would either be entirely gone or in the hands of individuals other than the PA.

But my larger point was: so what? Why are we still beating up on a dead man? I assume your argument is that Arafat's successors are really just clones, that they too are utterly corrupt, and that they too are not fit to receive foreign aid largesse from the West.

From Yuval: Precisely!

From Bill: But, even if true, where does that leave us? Israel's official position for 3 years was that Arafat was irrelevant and that no progress could be achieved until he was replaced. Israel has now gotten its wish. Arafat is gone. Are we now to say "Oh well, never mind. Any successor to Arafat is going to be just like him so we won't deal with him either?"

From Yuval: Nothing has changed and will not for generations. The point is why do WE have to do anything? We only need to advance our national goals, just like they do. We owe nothing but to ourselves in our tiny little only country. As far as they are concerned, their goals are made clear in their National Charter of which I am sure you are familiar. Add to it the religious Islamic point of view that the Muslims are forbidden to give away "their holy lands" and the first Islamic command of Jihad against all infidels, and you will understand that a solution on the basis you dream about is impossible.

From Bill: I really do wonder what you think the solution to all of this is? Where do you thing things should end up? And, how do you think we should get there?

From Yuval: To me, and many with me, the road ahead is clear. Israelis are facing years of more struggle. Contrary to common beliefs, the Arab demographic threat is a fallacy. We have been hearing about it from Peres and his friends since 1956 and none of his predictions materialized. In fact, the Jewish population of Israel is growing and the Arabs in the Judea and Samaria are dwindling.

Israel should offer the Arab-Palestinians resettlement elsewhere with compensation. This option is in accordance with UN Resolution 194. At the same time, more Jews should be encouraged and helped to emigrate to Israel. Israel should establish conversion to Judaism schools and recruit non Jews to come to Israel and become Jewish. These people will be settled in Judea and Samaria and render it Jewish.
Those Arabs who choose to remain and live peacefully among us, will enjoy all the rights and privileges their Jewish neighbors enjoy, just like the Israeli Arabs in Israel today.

That would be my solution, the only solution that considers Israel's interests and national aspirations. The ONLY solution that any other country around the globe would accept for itself.

From Bill: As to my final remark about the order of things, it was a bit intemperate and I apologize. But I do get frustrated by Israeli demands that Palestinian violence completely cease as a prerequisite to any further progress. That's not a realistic demand. The power asymmetry between Israel and the Palestinians so overwhelmingly favors Israel that violence is the only tool the Palestinians have to work with. If the violence completely ceased, what incentive would Israel have to do anything more?

From Yuval: I totally fail to understand why people have the audacity to suggest that Israel just lie down and accept her citizens being murdered. We do not need to apologize to anybody or any country. Show me one country on earth that would accept such a travesty. Furthermore, both you and I know full well that if Arafat chose peace in 2000, he would now sit behind his desk, in a suit and tie, in Palestine's presidential mansion. But as I told you above, neither Arafat, nor anybody on the Palestinian side, has any intention to allow a Jewish Israel to exist and be satisfied with a non viable small enclave state with severely curtailed independence.

From Bill: The history of the Oslo accords is a case in point. Following those accords, the violence did pretty much stop and the PA did take some pretty aggressive steps against Hamas et al. And what happened? Barak failed to implement redeployments that even Netanyahu had agreed to. I understand why Barak did this: He was trying to preserve his own internal political capital for a big push to land a comprehensive deal -- and he almost succeeded. But, can't you see how that whole history looks to the Palestinian "street"?

From Yuval: The Arab-Palestinian violence after Oslo did not stop. Bringing Arafat and his gang from Tunis was a major historical mistake, if not a calamity. The PA relative calm had one purpose only, to arm themselves and establish their grip and terrorist networks in the territories. They never had any intentions for real peace, just a Hudna. Just as Abu Mazen explained just yesterday. He said violence was a mistake. Not because he is against violence, but because it caused damage to Palestinian image in the world. In other words, let us be calm for a while and let the world pressure Israel to make concessions that weakens her. Than we, the Palestinians, will proceed with our agenda. Don't you see that, Bill? How can you ignore the risk?

The "Palestinian street" is the least of my concern.

From Bill: Precisely because I am such a huge fan of Israel, I expect a lot of her. She needs the courage to go forward despite the violence; to believe that, in the end, the only way to achieve peace is to address the Palestinian sense of grievance and humiliation; and the only way to do that is to help them fulfill their aspiration for a State of their own; to give them something to lose as it were.

From Yuval: The Arab-Palestinians have already a state of their own (Jordan). If you were a real friend of Israel you would not wish upon her yet another pressure-cooker-Islamic-hostile-state, 8 miles from the center of Tel Aviv. Israel needs only one sort of courage, to continue its fight and prevail until she defeats all her enemies. Until they bag her to stop. Until they prove that they really really really mean peace this time.

Humiliation has nothing to do with national interests on either side. It is a term between privates, not two countries fighting for the same territory. I feel humiliated by the Arabs, so what? Do they care? Of course not. They want "their" land and So do I. Furthermore, the term humiliation is reminiscent of 1933 Germany. The Germans were "humiliated" therefore they saw themselves justified to murder the entire Europe. Come-on Bill...

I appreciate your comments and am happy to receive them. The discussion is interesting. Thanks.

Yuval.

I suppose it would be interesting -- if it weren't so damn scary.

I can't decide if I will bother to respond to this. On the one hand, it is pretty clear there is no reaching the man. On the other, I somehow feel obligated to renounce, publicly, his beliefs: As someone once said, "All that is required for evil to triumph is for enough good people to remain silent." In any event though, I find one thing is interesting: Yuval seeks to invoke the memory of Nazi Germany -- in a way that totally baffles me, but that's not really the point. Reading Yuval's theory of an appropriate solution to the Palestinian issue evokes but one word: Lebensraum. Like Hitler, Yuval has nothing but contempt for the indigenous people whose land he wants. Like Hitler, he believes his "race" is entitled to that land. And, like Hitler, he is prepared to subject both his people and his enemy's people to interminable war and suffering in order to achieve his goal of Lebensraum. The only difference is that, unlike Hitler, Yuval would pay "compensation". There is in this the makings of a very tasteless ethnic joke, but I will resist.

Update: I did respond. Here it is:

Do you have any idea how much like Hitler you sound? Like Hitler, you have nothing but contempt for the indigenous people who live on the land you want. Like Hitler, you believe your "race" is entitled to that land. You even have marshaled ethnic mythology to justify this claim. Like Hitler, you believe those people should be "relocated." Even the direction is the same: East. And, like Hitler, you are willing to subject your own people and the people of your enemies to interminable war and suffering in order to achieve your "lebensraum". True, you have not (yet) advocated actually killing these people. But then, neither did Hitler at first. Like Hitler, though, I suspect that the idea lurks in your heart and will eventually find vocalization as well.

It is pathetic that any person -- most especially a Jew -- would espouse such a "solution." Thank God you do not speak for Israel.

This discussion is not "interesting." It is repulsive.

I suspect that will be the end of that "discussion."

Correspondence With An Israeli Right-Winger

A Jewish friend with whom I have been discussing the Israeli-Palestinian situation placed me on an e-mail subscription list maintained by Yuval N. Zalihouk. Yuval sends out nearly daily e-mails to those on the list in which he purports to provide his readers with the "truth" about Israeli-Palestinian situation. In fact, Yuval refers to himself, with no hint of irony (or modesty) as "Your Truth Provider."

Over the past couple of weeks, I have gotten a number of these e-mails, many of which I simply deleted. A couple of days ago, though, I decided to respond to those still resident in my in box. I thought the messages and my responses might provide some interesting reading for anyone remotely interested in these issues. I am posting these in the order of my responses rather than Yuval's messages:

===================================================================

From Yuval (12/22/04):

Dear friends,

The latest rosy noises from the Middle East are just that, noises. Your Truth Provider, Yuval. [Attaching "Dangerous Liasons" By Frank Gaffney ]


From Bill (12/23/04):

What is the difference between the Palestinian desire for a state in 2004 and the Jewish desire for a state prior to WWII?

From Yuval (12/23/04)

1) Prior to 1964 there was not a national unit called "Palestinians." Jews lived and aspired to re-gain their land for 2000 years.

2) Even since 1964, the "Palestinians" see themselves as an integral part of the Arab nation (see clause one of the Palestinian National Charter).

3) The Arab-Palestinians, as they should be called, have no distinct attributes or characteristics separating them as a nation from other Arabs in the Middle East, particularly Jordan, in which 70% of the population is also so-called Palestinian.

4) There is already a Palestinian state in the Middle East in 78% of the former territory of the British Mandate. It is called Jordan. Why do the Arab-Palestinians deserve two countries?

Please respond to each point.

From Bill (12/27/04):

YNZ writes: "Please respond to each point."

Since there is considerable redundancy among the four numbered points, I have taken the liberty of rearranging some of the sentences so that what I believe to be the three basic "points" are a little clearer:

1. Jews lived and aspired to re-gain their land for 2000 years.

Jews have been able to maintain their ethnic identify for 2000 years, despite dispersions and despite -- or perhaps in part because of -- horrific persecution.. Certainly that much is true, and it is one of history's most remarkable accomplishments. However, I don't think it is accurate to go on to say that Jews have aspired to re-gain "their land" [by which I presume you mean Biblical Israel] for 2000 years. Perhaps there have always been individual Jews who had such aspirations, but Zionism as a movement, as an aspiration of large numbers of Jews, is less than 150 years old. Further, the focus of Zionism originally was not exclusively on Palestine. All Herzl wanted was a country somewhere. It was not until the early part of the 20th century that Zionism, and Weizman in particular, decided that only Palestine would do. Even then, though, Zionism could hardly be called an aspiration of "the Jewish people". Indeed, until the Second World War, Zionism as a movement was wildly controversial even among Jews. It was not until the Holocaust that the idea of a Jewish homeland in Palestine emerged as something that could legitimately be called a shared aspiration of the Jewish people as a whole.

But all of that is largely beside the point. I did not mean to -- and did not in fact -- demean the legitimacy of the Jewish aspiration for a land of their own. What I asked was, why is that aspiration so very different from the aspirations of the Palestinians for a home of their own. Is your answer really that they haven't waited long enough? Haven't suffered enough?

2. Prior to 1964 there was not a national unit called "Palestinians." Even since 1964, the "Palestinians" see themselves as an integral part of the Arab nation (see clause one of the Palestinian National Charter). The Arab-Palestinians, as they should be called, have no distinct attributes or characteristics separating them as a nation from other Arabs in the Middle East.

Basically, you are denying that the Palestinians exist as a separate ethnic group. Of course Palestinians are Arabs. But that does not mean that they have no "national" identity apart from the Arabs. Serbs, Croats, Bosnians, Bulgars, etc. are all Slavs. Yet each considers itself a separate ethnic group with the right to a separate Nation State. Jordanians, Saudis, Iraqis, Yemeni's, Lebanese, etc. are all Arabs as well. Yet, I do not suppose you are suggesting that they should be denied their own states. It is not for you or me or Israel to decide which ethnic group a given people should be assigned to. Ethnic identification is internal. Surely, Jews above all people should recognize that much. Perhaps it is true that Palestinians in the occupied territories have only lately come to think of themselves as a separate ethnic group with an identity different from Jordanian Arabs, or Syrian Arabs, or Saudi Arabs. But, it is a little hard to deny that that is how they think of themselves today. And, having come to this conviction, why is their self-identification as a separate nation any less legitimate than Jewish self-identification as a separate nation? Is it really, again, that they haven't waited long enough? Haven't suffered enough?


3. There is already a Palestinian state in the Middle East in 78% of the former territory of the British Mandate. It is called Jordan. 70% of the population [of Jordan] is also so-called Palestinian. Why do the Arab-Palestinians deserve two countries?

What a strange, strange question! What does "deserving" have to do with anything? Is Israel's claim to a right to exist dependent on what the Jews "deserve." Surely not. It is based on what the Jews want, coupled with their ability to achieve that. Do the English-speaking Caucasians deserve 5 countries? Do the Armenians deserve none? Why are there seven countries in Central America? Perhaps we should reconstitute the Ottoman empire, since, I suspect, well over 70% of the people living in the lands than comprised the Ottoman empire are Arabs?

It seems to me that what lies behind the 2nd and 3rd of your points is something very, very ugly. Do you seriously suggest that the "right" answer to all of this is to deny that the West Bank Palestinians exist as a distinct "nation" and then drive them across the Jordan River? If not, then what, pray tell, is you vision of a "just" solution to all of this?

==================================================================

From Yuval (12/27/04):

Dear friends,

As I have repeated many times in my bulletins, the one Arab nation is divided into twenty two separate countries. Likewise, the Arab-Palestinians are by their own definition an integral part of the Arab nation. Moreover, they already have an independent country called Jordan, in which 70% of the population is, you guest it, Arab-Palestinians. WHY DOES ONE ARAB NATION DESERVE 22 COUNTRIES, AND WHY DO THE ARAB-PALESTINIANS DESERVE TWO? Historically, we know what happened: The European colonialists, mainly Britain and France, divided the Middle East between the various tribes they favored for one reason or another. But Britain also allocated a national home for the Jewish people in the British Mandate territory, an ancient and distinct nation with all the typical and acceptable attributes of a separate nation. This territory was than, yet again, chopped off by Britain who gave 78% of it to Emir Abdallah, thus creating the country of Jordan.

This huge country of Jordan is a viable, independent Arab-Palestinian state, yet they now wish to chop off another part of what's left of the Jewish homeland, the Biblical regions of Judea and Samaria, and create yet another Arab-Palestinian state in them, and the short-sighted, if not the blind, West , is pressuring Israel to concede these regions and allow a murderous state 8 miles from the center of Tel-Aviv. Now you tell me please, have they all in the West gone totally crazy?

Attached, is an important article on the subject by Dr. Yoram Shifftan.

Your Truth Provider,
Yuval.

From Bill (12/27/04):

Excuse me, but this is complete claptrap.

First, who are you to decide what defines a "nation" for another people? Would the Jews allow anyone to do that for them?

Second, would you really like all 22 of those countries to be united? Hee Hee. The very idea is laughable. Israel owes its very existence to the fact that the Arab states are as much at odds with each other as they are with Israel. "Clever Israeli diplomats" indeed!

Third, Dr. Shifftan asserts that "The Balfour declaration was codified in international law by the League of Nations' Mandate for Palestine"? Oh, good Lord. Does he (do you?) you actually believe that, or is it just a convenient fiction that allows him/you to maintain the delusion that Israel has a legal right to "Judea" and "Samaria"? In either event, nothing could be further from the truth. The "codification" of the Balfour Declaration, if there ever was one, came in the 1948 UN partition plan. Should we return to those lines?

Fourth, it might be possible to argue that the Mandate was intended to facilitate implementation of the Balfour Declaration. But, even if so, what did that Declaration actually say? "His Majesty's Government views with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object. It being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country."

Is there anything in this intentionally vague statement that would lead any reasonable person to believe that even the British, to say nothing of the rest of the world, intended all of what became the British Mandate to be included in the Jewish homeland? What of the statement that "[i]t being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine?"

Fifth, Dr. Shifftan also claims that: "It is an axiom of international relations that one nation deserves one state only." Whenever a person starts a sentence by claiming something is "axiomatic" what he really means is that has absolutely no basis for what follows. This sentence is no exception. It might be axiomatic that each member STATE in the UN is entitled to only one vote. But it is far from axiomatic that each "nation" -- in the sense of a people -- is entitled to one, but only one, state. Just ask the Sioux. Or the Armenians. Conversely, ask the Canadians why they are entitled to a state, rather than being part of the United States. Or ask the United Kingdom, United States, Canada, Australia and New Zealand why they should be separate States. Some peoples who are arguably part of a single "nation" have many states; some peoples who are unquestionably comprise a single "nation" have none. And these allocations have far less to do with what a given "nation" deserves than it does with raw power. Witness the State of Israel.

Finally, and most broadly: will you ever get real? If you were King, what would you do? Obviously, the idea of a Palestinian State on the West Bank and Gaza is anathema. So, what do you propose? Here is a list of the alternatives. Pick one:

Option 1: Give the West Bank back to Jordan. Jordan doesn't want it, of course, and neither do the West Bank Palestinians. But lets ignore that for the moment. Would Israel want it? What, and give up "Judea" and "Samaria" and the West Bank settlements and put a real Arab state 8 miles from Tel Aviv?? I doubt it.

Option 2: Annex the West Bank and its Palestinian population? I doubt that too. That would be the death of Israel as a Jewish state much more quickly than Arab hostility ever would, unless of course you are prepared to implement a full blown apartheid and/or forced sterilization of the Palestinians.

Option 3: Annex the West Bank and drive the Palestinians across the Jordan? Let's just call this the "Slobodan Solution".

Option 4: Maintain the status quo? Maybe you like that answer. Maybe it appeals to some need to suffer, or to perceive your "nation" as persecuted. But, be that as it may, the West is not going to tolerate this outcome. With good reason. Even the Bushies are coming to understand (a) that the continued existence of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict poses a genuine threat to vital Western interests (oil being one and security another) and (b) that the creation of a Palestinian State on the West Bank is the only possible means for defusing that conflict.

Let me say this in closing: I am a HUGE fan of the Jewish people. I can think of no people who have contributed more to the development of western civilization, especially on a per capita basis. I am also a huge fan of Israel. What Israel has accomplished in its brief history, against seemingly insurmountable odds, is nothing short of stupendous. And, because I am such a fan of both the Jews and Israel, I choose to believe that people who think the way you appear to are a tiny minority. But, even as a minority, this kind of thinking is giving Israel a bad name and is threatening to undermine support in the last friend Israel has on earth. Is that your goal?

Instead of just ranting, why don't you try to be constructive?

Bill

Please feel free to share this with your readers. (giggle!)

==================================================================

From Yuval (12/25/04):

Dear friends,

The following article is about a shot in the right direction, even if the Dutch ambassador's remarks come decades late. But as the cliche says, better late than never... The Dutch ambassador is of course correct: The number of UN anti-Israel resolutions is ridiculous and always has been. Knowing what the UN is all about, political interests of the free world in the 50 or so Muslim countries with their 1.3 billion population and petroleum in the ground, the ambassador remarks should be taken with a very large grains of salt. I hope this does not turn out to be yet another lonely cry in the desert from a true friend, drowned in the usual chorus of anti-Semitic anti-Israeli bias.

If you belong to the cynics, you will probably look at it as a form of European bribery to Israel for making concessions to the Arabs.

Your Truth Provider,
Yuval.

EU to help Israel in UN, Dutch envoy says

Tovah Lazaroff - Jerusalem Post.

Dec. 23, 2004

Calling the number of anti-Israel resolutions in the UN "ridiculous," Netherlands Ambassador Bob Heinsch told reporters on Wednesday the EU was committed to reducing those numbers.

"We all agree that it is ridiculous that we have 19 to 20 resolutions every year, it is a ritual and we should get rid of that," he said at a Tel Aviv press conference to promote the new European Neighborhood Agreement approved between Israel and the EU on December 13.

It offers Israel many of the same rights afforded states within the European Union. The plan opens Europe's economic, cultural and scientific doors to Israel in exchange for an enhanced EU involvement in the Middle East diplomatic process. Within the context of the plan the EU also promises to combat anti-Semitism and to help Israel normalize its relations with international organizations including the UN.

Hiensch, whose country now holds the EU presidency, said that the EU is so serious about combatting anti-Semitism that it would be committed to that battle even if there were no action plan.

"We condemn it on our own," he said.

The three-year process set out in the Neighborhood Agreement brings Europe and Israel closer, said Hiensch, but is separate from the question of membership in the EU. Nor does it preclude it, he added.

"Israel has not applied for membership," said Hiensch.

If it were to do so, an EU aide explained, it would have to agree to take on all the rules of its institutions, including freedom of movement, which allows Europeans of all religions to settle in EU member states in a way that would run counter to Israel's Law of Return, which grants special status to Jews.

The Neighborhood Agreement with Israel as well as a similar document agreed on between the EU and the Palestinian Authority reflects Europe's desire to play a larger role in the Middle East, said Hiensch. "I expect the EU's role [in the Middle East] to increase," he continued.

He pointed that the EU is already very involved in pushing for free elections and financial reform within the Palestinian Authority.

"It is in the interest of Israel to work together with Europe and we want to work together with Israel," he said. He added that any EU initiatives in the Middle East would be coordinated with the other three Quartet members - the US, UN and Russia.

When it comes to the right of return for Palestinian refugees, he said, the issue can only be settled once there is a Palestinian state.

"We understand that the Palestinians, when there are no negotiations, at this stage are not willing to give up the right of return. That is something that has to be solved in the final status. Like Israel has the settlement question which is parallel to that and Israel has not been willing to give up settlements," said Heinsch.

Within the document, Hiensch said one of the more sensitive issues was the section in which the EU and Israel promise to "cooperate on nonproliferation of weapons of mass destruction."

"We are pleased that Israel was willing to put it on the agenda," said Hiensch.

"It is such a touchy subject that I do not want to make any interpretation of the text other than what is written there," he said. When asked by a reporter if the EU wants Israel to get rid of its "nukes," he said it was difficult to answer the question because Israel "does not confirm publicly that it has any nukes."

But he added, "We would like Israel to join the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty."

The document, which also sets out ways for Israel to cooperate on many international issues such as drug and human trafficking as well as the fight against terrorism, is not a formal contract. It sets out a blueprint for Israel and the EU to work together on issues of mutual interest through subcommittees that have already begun to meet.

Similar actions plans were drawn up between the EU and Moldova, Ukraine, Morocco, Tunisia and Jordan.

From Bill (12/27/04):

I wonder if you noted -- and agreed with -- the following quote from the article:

"We understand that the Palestinians, when there are no negotiations, at this stage are not willing to give up the right of return. That is something that has to be solved in the final status. Like Israel has the settlement question which is parallel to that and Israel has not been willing to give up settlements," said Heinsch.

Do you see the Palestinian claim to a "right of return" as being comparable to the Israeli claim to a right to create and maintain settlements on the West Bank and Gaza. Would you be willing to give up on the Settlememts if the Palestinians abandoned the right of return?

I also wonder if you noticed -- and agreed with -- the fact that the EU has worked out a similar "Neighborhood Agreement" with the Palestinian Authority.

I hope the answer to both questions is "yes", since it seems to me that it is just this sort of equlity of treatment by the West of both Israel and the Palestinians is exactly what is needed.

I for one, find nothing to agrue with in the entire article. However, I must admit to being somewhat surprised that you cited it so unreservedly.

===================================================================

From Yuval: (12/25/04):

Dear friends,

Issue One:

When you ask those Israelis who support Sharon's retreat from Gaza plan despite the obvious political and national dangers, the response of the majority of them is: To spare the lives of Israel's young soldiers. Our young sons and daughters, they say, should not be killed in order to protect some 8000 "settlers." This, my friends, is a fallacy if not a lie!!! After the retreat, when Hamas will transform what's left of Gaza into a huge ammunition dump and continue to shell Israel with intensified ferocity, the IDF will be forced to act at much greater disadvantage compared with protecting Israel from within. Think FALUJA, only much worst! Also think that every Israeli soldier killed equals 60 American casualties. This is no longer a question of whether Gaza is part of our Biblical land, the issue is our lives and the survival of Israel. Caroline Glick's brilliant article on the subject is attached. Please make an effort to read it.

Issue Two:

Israel is doing all it can to facilitate "free and democratic" elections for an Arafat replacement. Hundreds of observers from Europe and the USA are expected here to monitor the "elections." What for? I ask. Only one candidate is running unopposed, Arafat's crony for 40 years, Abu Mazen. Is this a democracy? Does it really matter if 80% or 87% vote for him, or whether the elections are fully or partially free? What is the difference between these elections and those for Stalin, Mubarak or Saddam?

Do you wonder in amazement about this charade as I am? Are we to cry or to laugh?
Excuse me, but who are they kidding?

Your Truth Provider,
Yuval.

From Bill(12/27/04):

On Issue 1:

Do you not find the following passage from the Glick article even a tad bit ironic:

"How are they to imagine that the lands they have cultivated, the communities they have built and the homes where they have raised their families are set to be turned over to the same people who are bombing them around the clock?"
This sentiment is remarkably similar to the sentiments expressed in the Palestinian press regarding the Palestinian's loss of their own lands 50 years ago.

As to the overall message of the Glick article: Yes there is danger in pulling out of Gaza and the West Bank. But what is the alternative? Another 50 years of war and killing? And, how pray tell could it get any worse than it already is?

As to Issue 2:

How are the Palestinian elections different from those of Stalin, Mubarak or Saddam? Well, for one thing there are multiple candidates running. Sounds pretty democratic to me. The fact that one candidate is far ahead of the others in the polling doesn't mean the process is a sham. If what you want is a closer election, maybe you would be in favor of releasing Marwan Barghouti?

But, besides that, what would you propose? Canceling the elections? Raising Arafat from the dead? At some point you have to stop just saying what you are against and start saying what you are for.

===================================================================

From Yuval (12/23/04):

Dear friends,

Where did all the millions Arafat stole from his people go? Here is Bloomberg's published article of today, December 23, 2004.

Your Truth Provider,
Yuval.

From Bill (12/27/04):

"Stole" seems a little over the top since the article is apparently based on records released by the Palestinian authority -- which presumably now has control over these investments. Investing foolishly might be a better description. But, even if "stole" is the right verb, what possible difference could it make?

The man is dead.

From Yuval(12/27/04):

Stole refered to embazzling many millions of PA moneys and transfering them to Swiss private accounts. Some of these moneys were invested by him personally in the various investments mentioned in the article. I do not think "stole" is over the top.
It does make a difference for now because the PA should claim the money back. Also, why should the West pour even more money into the PA before the PA gurantees to stop the corruption??

===================================================================

From Yuval (12/23/04):

Dear friends,
I am reminded of the following quote by one of my exceptional readers. Please read it, then scroll down to discover the author.

Your Truth Provider,
Yuval.

"I see with sorrow and great anger how a part of the people still clings to hopes of reaching a peaceful settlement with the Arabs. Common sense tells them, too, that the Arabs haven't abandoned their basic aim of destroying the State; but the self-delusion and self-deception that have always plagued the Jews are at work again. It's our great misfortune. They want to believe, so they believe. They want not to see, so they shut their eyes. They want not to learn from thousands of years of history, so they distort it. They want to bring about a sacrifice, and they do indeed. It would be comic, if it wasn't so tragic. What a saddening and irritating lot this Jewish People is!"

The writer goes on, "The Wars of the Jews" are always the ugliest and hardest of all. These are the wars of apologetics and futile bickering, suppression or distortion of facts, and procrastination in making decisions. There is no doubt that what's called for is new leadership, a more correct perception of the realities, a sound recognition of the enemy's aims, and clear, definitive strategic-political planning. There must be no fumbling in the dark and no more tactical expedients, for these will get us nowhere. If we don't have a well-defined, realistic objective, we won't have to fight the Arabs for our survival. The Arabs won't need to fight. The Jews, as usual, will destroy themselves."

He ends by saying, "In the main, the people, as a body, lacks the perserverence while it abounds in political and military blindness. But I repeat, maybe this time we'll sober up."

CLEARLY, NOTHING HAS CHANGED!

(Scroll down for name of author.......................)

Yoni Netanyahu, in letter to his Mom and Dad, 11/17/73

From Bill (12/27/04):

"I see with sorrow and great anger how a part of the people still clings to hopes of reaching a peaceful settlement with the Arabs."

I see with sorrow and great anger how a part of the people still clings to the hopes of "Greater Israel" and would prefer to consign two peoples to endless violence and bloodshed rather than give up on that idea and seek peace.

"Common sense tells them, too, that the Arabs haven't abandoned their basic aim of destroying the State; but the self-delusion and self-deception that have always plagued the Jews are at work again."

Common sense tells them that the Arab states no longer have even the remotest desire to destroy Israel -- and that no one else has even the theoretical capability of doing so; but the self delusion and the self-deception (not to mention the joys of feeling sorry for oneself) that have always plagued some of the Jews are at work again.

"It's our great misfortune. They want to believe, so they believe. They want not to see, so they shut their eyes."

It's our great misfortune. They want to believe their survival is in jeopardy, so they believe. They want not to see how secure they really are, so they shut their eyes.

"They want not to learn from thousands of years of history, so they distort it."

They want to preserve thousands of years of persecution, so they distort the present to convince themselves that nothing has changed.

"They want to bring about a sacrifice, and they do indeed. It would be comic, if it wasn't so tragic."

How true. How true.

"What a saddening and irritating lot this Jewish People is!"

What an inspiring and admirable lot the Israeli People could be.

"The Wars of the Jews" are always the ugliest and hardest of all. These are the wars of apologetics and futile bickering, suppression or distortion of facts, and procrastination in making decisions."

Can't speak to that, but it has the ring of truth.

"There is no doubt that what's called for is new leadership, a more correct perception of the realities, a sound recognition of the enemy's aims, and clear, definitive strategic-political planning."

I couldn't agree more. Where is Labor when we need them?

"There must be no fumbling in the dark and no more tactical expedients, for these will get us nowhere."

Agreed.

If we don't have a well-defined, realistic objective, we won't have to fight the Arabs for our survival. The Arabs won't need to fight. The Jews, as usual, will destroy themselves."

Agreed again.