Neither side is giving up Jerusalem. Aside from the fact that Arafat wanted to be a wartime leader and not a peacetime leader, there's your big dividing line. The Israelis will not give up the Western Wall. The Islamic countries will not be interested in peace without controlling Jerusalem either.

 

And as far as I know, Israel has given up all of its territory within the Sinai. The Camp David Accords with Carter pulled that one off.

Was Jerusalem part of the Saudi proposal? I don't recall that part.

 

I think that a deal similar to the Saudi one, combined with in some way turning Jerusalem and a couple nearby holy sites into some sort of de-nationalized heritage sites is probably the only way for it to work. But as you said, Israel is highly unlikely to give them up.

BTW: You keep insinuating that there is continuity between the Lebanese government of 2000 and the Lebanese government of 2006. Maybe you missed the Cedar Revolution last year that up until last week was held up as a sign of progress in our goal to "spread democracy" across the region.

 

Um, no I haven't. The fact remains that the current Lebanese regime is throwing away its chance to condemn Hezbollah and actually embrace the concept of democracy. Maybe you missed the point of democracy and Islamic terrorism being incompatible.

 

I've brought this up before, but I think it again bears mentioning...

 

In late 2001, Saudi Arabia, after conferring with nations of the Arab League, made a simple offer to Israel - give back the lands taken in the wars of 1968 and 1973 (Golan Heights, Gaza Strip, part of the Sinai I think, and some other areas), for the Palestinians to occupy, and all nations of the Arab League will recognize your existence AND open up to economic relations.

 

Now, obviously, the underlying issues are much more complex. But the offer appeared genuine, and if all those nations acknowledged Israel, then things would at least have a framework for dramatic improvement.

 

Israel turned it down.

 

Arafat turned down Barak's offer to turn something like 80% of the West Bank and Gaza into a Palestinian state the year before.

Edited July 21, 200619 yr by WCSox

Um, no I haven't. The fact remains that the current Lebanese regime is throwing away its chance to condemn Hezbollah and actually embrace the concept of democracy. Maybe you missed the point of democracy and Islamic terrorism being incompatible.

 

You keep using a 2000 benchmark that didn't exist for the current government because they didn't exist.

 

Now, as for this denouncing Hizbollah. Maybe it isn't so simple. From what little I know about Lebanese politics, which is next to nothing - this very thing is something that was a source of tension and debate in Lebanon since the democratic election in 2005. The problem is, denounce Hizbollah and aim the armed wing at you for a power play in a fragile state - or try to work in a peaceful matter to get Hizbollah to disarm itself and work to heal divisions between three very distinct sectarian communities coexisting.

 

It was and has been a balancing act - and when you have all of three months of tradition to back yourself up with, you can't totally upset the apple cart without sending the entire country into chaos. I won't disagree that Lebanon had, thusfar, failed to disarm Hizbollah - but not for a lack of trying.

the IDF is poised to invade southern lebanon:

http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/07/21/D8J0FQJ8N.html

 

hizbollah is about to feel some real pain. hopefully its similar to the pain of the israelis affected from hizbollah's targeting of civilian populations (thats textbook terrorism, coincidentally).

 

go on israel, my son!

Edited July 21, 200619 yr by samclemens

Arafat turned down Barak's offer to turn something like 80% of the West Bank and Gaza into a Palestinian state the year before.

Just to be clear... I in no way was defending Arafat, who was at best a thug with a lot less influence than he claimed to have, and at worst was a barbarous fiend.

Was Jerusalem part of the Saudi proposal? I don't recall that part.

 

I think that a deal similar to the Saudi one, combined with in some way turning Jerusalem and a couple nearby holy sites into some sort of de-nationalized heritage sites is probably the only way for it to work. But as you said, Israel is highly unlikely to give them up.

Jerusalem was not a full part of Israel until the 1967 war. So, any calls for Israel to return to its pre-1967 borders automatically are calls for Israel to give up significant chunks of Jerusalem, including the Western Wall. In other words, they are non-starters. The Proposal Arafat turned down basically offered up everything in the west bank except for a few settlement strips and Jerusalem.

From "The Jewish Week"

 

“There’s no way you can achieve those war aims with the present pattern of use of force by Israel,” said Lt. Gen. William Odom, who directed the National Security Agency during the Reagan administration. “If they’re bombing infrastructure and doing these punishing raids into Beirut, they’re essentially going to turn Lebanon into a failed state. And if they do that, the state is certainly not going to put an army down on the border.”

You keep using a 2000 benchmark that didn't exist for the current government because they didn't exist.

 

I don't recall using 2000 as any sort of "benchmark", except to say that the U.N. mandated that Hezbollah disarm back then. It's obviously more of the U.N.'s responsibility to enforce that decree, but that doesn't mean that the current administration can justifiably sit around with their thumbs up their asses.

 

Now, as for this denouncing Hizbollah. Maybe it isn't so simple. From what little I know about Lebanese politics, which is next to nothing - this very thing is something that was a source of tension and debate in Lebanon since the democratic election in 2005. The problem is, denounce Hizbollah and aim the armed wing at you for a power play in a fragile state - or try to work in a peaceful matter to get Hizbollah to disarm itself and work to heal divisions between three very distinct sectarian communities coexisting.

 

It was and has been a balancing act - and when you have all of three months of tradition to back yourself up with, you can't totally upset the apple cart without sending the entire country into chaos. I won't disagree that Lebanon had, thusfar, failed to disarm Hizbollah - but not for a lack of trying.

 

Of course isn't not simple, but it's necessary if Lebanon doesn't want to end up a rogue state like Syria or Iran. Hezbollah isn't going to disarm via peaceful negotiations from Beirut, so we can throw that option out the window. The short-term goal is to get them to stop firing missiles at Israel via some sort of a cease-fire. But the long-term goal would be to flush them out - and the members of the U.N. are going to have to help.

 

Just to be clear... I in no way was defending Arafat, who was at best a thug with a lot less influence than he claimed to have, and at worst was a barbarous fiend.

 

I didn't think that you were. To be clear on my end, I'm not trying to imply that Israel is beyond reproach. A (Palestinian) friend of mine grew up literally two blocks from Arafat's compound and I've heard many less-than-flattering (to put it nicely) stories about the Israeli police.

 

As was mentioned earlier, neither side is willing to give up Jerusalem and that's why the 2000 offer from Barak and the Saudi proposal a year later were rejected. I wish that they'd just divide the freaking city in half and be done with it.

Edited July 21, 200619 yr by WCSox

Dick Cheney on why the conflict in Lebanon proves you should vote Republican in November.

John Kerry:

"If I was president, this wouldn't have happened," said Kerry during a noon stop at Honest John's bar and grill in Detroit's Cass Corridor.

 

Bush has been so concentrated on the war in Iraq that other Middle East tension arose as a result, he said.

 

"The president has been so absent on diplomacy when it comes to issues affecting the Middle East," Kerry said. "We're going to have a lot of ground to make up (in 2008) because of it."

John Kerry:

 

what a tool.

John Kerry:

He's really not helping himself at all.

 

While I agree that Kerry would have been a far sight better as President than our current C-in-C, to simply say that this wouldn't have happened on his watch is kind of laughable. It is possible he could have prevented it, but unlikely. And even if it is possible, its the sort of thing you either don't say at all, or you put it in different terms. Just saying "it wouldn't have happened" makes him look like a whiner.

John Kerry:

 

More sour grapes from the person who lost. I am sure that with Kerry in power, he would of convinced Israel to sit there and let Hezbollah just pound them with rockets daily.

More sour grapes from the person who lost. I am sure that with Kerry in power, he would of convinced Israel to sit there and let Hezbollah just pound them with rockets daily.

 

If Kerry had been elected, he would have solved world hunger and brought peace to the mid-east by now. Terrorism, poverty, and drugs would be non-existant. We would live in utopia.

 

Democrats need to shut their mouths (Dean, Kerry), or they're going to end up hurting their own cause this November

I love how my pointing out of Cheney's politicizing of this mess got 0 responses and the Kerry one got 3.

Edited July 24, 200619 yr by Balta1701

I love how my pointing out of Cheney's politicizing of this mess got 0 responses and the Kerry one got 3.

 

You can turn on MSNBC or any of the major network news programs tonight for your offsetting dose of Cheney-bashing.

I love how my pointing out of Cheney's politicizing of this mess got 0 responses and the Kerry one got 3.

 

I think we all know this administration likes to politicize anything and everything to keep their party in power

Edited July 24, 200619 yr by StrangeSox

"If I was president, this wouldn't have happened," said Kerry during a noon stop at Honest John's bar and grill in Detroit's Cass Corridor.

 

Bush has been so concentrated on the war in Iraq that other Middle East tension arose as a result, he said.

 

"The president has been so absent on diplomacy when it comes to issues affecting the Middle East," Kerry said. "We're going to have a lot of ground to make up (in 2008) because of it."

 

Yeah...becasue if he was in power, Hezbollah wouldn't have captured those two Israeli soldiers and started lobbing missles, and Israel would've have retaliated by blowing the crap out of Lebanon. He acts as if tensions all of a sudden arose becasue Bush wasn't babysitting. He sure has a high opinion of himself. Granted, I'm no fan of the current administration, but GMAFB. Kerry being in office would've made no difference.

Edited July 24, 200619 yr by spawn

I think we all know this administration likes to politicize anything and everything to keep their party in power

I think your statement should read ANY administration instead of THIS. Unless something drastic changes in politics in general, whichever party is in power will do whatever it can to stay in power. And the one out of power will do anything it can to get back in power. Its a vicious cycle, kinda like Kerry Wood and Mark Prior pitching, then going on the IR, it never ends.

I think your statement should read ANY administration instead of THIS. Unless something drastic changes in politics in general, whichever party is in power will do whatever it can to stay in power. And the one out of power will do anything it can to get back in power. Its a vicious cycle, kinda like Kerry Wood and Mark Prior pitching, then going on the IR, it never ends.

Baseball calls it the DL.

i say we (the US) should let them duke it out and let the chips fall where they may. keep kicking ass, israel!

 

a rational thought from the UN?? wow!

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,205352,00.html

i say we (the US) should let them duke it out and let the chips fall where they may. keep kicking ass, israel!

 

a rational thought from the UN?? wow!

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,205352,00.html

 

I doubt you would be singing the same song if Syria, Iran, Eygpt, Jordan, and Lebannon all decided to fight back.

I doubt you would be singing the same song if Syria, Iran, Eygpt, Jordan, and Lebannon all decided to fight back.

 

im hoping they do. not only will the world finally have enough with islamofacism, but we will get to see israel kick some real ass.

Baseball calls it the DL.

Yeah, yeah, I know. That's what happens when you try to post on Soxtalk and make fantasy roster changes at the same time.

Baseball calls it the DL.

 

Regarding Prior and Wood, I believe that "ER" would be acceptable as well.