25 thoughts on “New Hamas Platform May Offer Prospect of Referendum to Recognize Israel – Tikun Olam תיקון עולם إصلاح العالم
task-attention.png
Comments are published at the sole discretion of the owner.
 

  1. Richard — For me, skepticism means posing useful questions and then watching for answers that shape further questions. You’ve helped in putting Hamas’ political platform in context and asking those initial questions for me. Thank you so much . . .

  2. Good as usual, turning to a referendum sounds like a smart tactic, but one thing that hardly anyone has pointed out is that the whole question of Hamas recognizing Israel is a bit crazy. (A piece by Jimmy Carter is perhaps an exception; think I’ve seen something by a Hamasnik that shows a small, but not complete understanding of the silliness of the request.) It is just another example of the Palestinians being forced to jump through hoops that nobody else has to – and this is so usual that no one even realizes it! The foreign relations of the Palestinians are still essentially in the hands of President Abbas. The treaties between Israel and the Palestinians were with the PLO, which is the only Palestinian entity that has even the right to recognize Israel, and of course it still does. Asking Hamas to recognize Israel is like asking the Democratic party to “recognize” the new Iraqi government, with Bush still the President, if the Dems won the 2006 congressional elections. Absurd. Hamas has no right or ability to recognize Israel in the first place, and if they did, the way these things work is that they automatically recognize until they explicitly withdraw the prior PLO recognition. Another parallel would be a Palestinian demand for the Likud or Kach, not just Israel, to recognize the state of Palestine.

  3. Well, since there is no state of Palestine, it would be difficult to ask even Meretz to recognize it.

    As a former Canadian I have some experience with referenda. It’s all in how you frame the question…

  4. There is no “State of Palestine” for most purposes as a reality on the ground, but as a legal fiction there certainly is – having been proclaimed in Algiers in 1988. It is a member of the Arab League, and many nations formally recognize it, at one point, before the 1991 Madrid Conference, more nations than recognized Israel. Sometimes such entities do turn into genuine UN member states e.g. the Baltic republics, which only the US, not even the UK recognized throughout the Cold War, until the breakup of the USSR. Just noticed the fine post in an earlier thread with another Hamas quote making similar points to my ones above, btw. It would be a real victory for peace if Israel or the US or some European nations recognized this “state”, although this is of course just a vain hope.

  5. I think The Middle & John R raise interesting points:

    since there is no state of Palestine, it would be difficult to ask even Meretz to recognize it.

    And the Palestinians argue from a mirror opposite perspective that while there is a State of Israel almost no one in the world recognizes its territorial ambitions beyond the Green Line. So you have a State that is one, but stands outside the norms that most other states observe (i.e. it does not have recognized borders). So Hamas argues, which State of Israel are you asking us to recognize? The Israel+ state or the 1967 state?

    Just noticed the fine post in an earlier thread with another Hamas quote making similar points to my ones above,

    John R. may be referring to this quote from Mahmoud Zahar:

    [The] PLO, in 1988 accept[ed] existence of two states.

    Since that time, Israelis expanded the borders, occupied ‘67, confiscated our right in Jerusalem, put a separating wall between the people and their own homeland. And since that time nobody is able to live as a human being.

    They [the PLO] accepted that and they signed an agreement…But, tell me, what is the border of Israel right now? What is the official border to accept this state?…

    If we are going to say we are accepting the two states, on what border? Border of ‘67? It is already taken by the big settlement around Jerusalem. Mr. Olmert, just yesterday, said Jerusalem is an eternal capital for Israel. Jerusalem is a united city for Israel. So, about what are we going to accept these argument?

    If Israel is ready to tell the people, the international community, what is the official border, after that we are going to answer the question.

  6. Why should Israel comply with a demand to declare its borders when UNSCR 242 clearly states that this shall be done when the Arabs recognize it and do so peacefully? Even then, Israel is not expected, according to 242 to return to its Green Line but rather to retain an unnamed portion of the territories. The notion that most of the international community does or does not recognize its borders, etc. is laughable considering the instant majority Israel’s enemies enjoy in the UN.

    Also, until I see the official PLO/PA charter outlining a recognition of Israel as a Jewish state, the only fiction around here is the fiction that they have accepted the right of Israel to exist as a Jewish state in any form much less in its 1949/pre-Six-Day-War configuration. The onus is upon those of you who believe that the Palestinian position has changed in the past 20 years to provide evidence. A platform or a charter would be a good beginning in terms of providing this evidence.

  7. Why should Israel comply with a demand to declare its borders when UNSCR 242 clearly states that this shall be done when the Arabs recognize it and do so peacefully?

    I find debating the content of UN resolutions a very unproductive use of my time, damn tedious if you ask me. But if what you say is true, then why is Olmert ready to declare Israel’s borders (which he has all but done in saying he expects that they will follow the path of the Separation Wall)?

    The notion that most of the international community does or does not recognize its borders, etc. is laughable

    Then you have a strange sense of humor. International recognition is a critical factor in legitimizing a nation. Without it, Israel will remain the partial pariah that it is.

    A platform or a charter would be a good beginning in terms of providing this evidence.

    I look to deeds and less to words in terms of understanding politics. The president of a university I once fundraised for said something very true when he spoke of members of Congress and how you can tell their real political priorities. He said: “Don’t pay attention to their speeches. Pay attention to how they vote on budget bills. Where they spend their money tells you what they really believe.”

    It’s about the same regarding Hamas. You can focus all you want on charters and other damning evidence against the group. But I’m much more interested in what they do. As Tom Friedman says: if they keep the peace and are willing to negotiate with Israel in good faith why do I need them to stand and sing Hativah??

  8. They are not willing to negotiate with Israel. They don’t even call Israel “Israel.” They are also not benignly belligerent, they are building up stockpiles of weapons. And if I go by what they do, all I can point to is that this Hudna came into place when Israel had all their leaders in its sights and they were on the run. Why make it into anything more than opportunism?

    Israel will remain a partial pariah not because of international borders. It is their weakness and small size that makes them international pariahs. It is a century long conflict where one side is being coddled for 60 years as refugees when no other group of refugees in the past century has received similar treatment. It is oil and money that makes them partial pariahs. It has nothing to do with real politics or real intentions or the world would make Russia and Saudi Arabia into pariahs. Do they?

    As to the question about Olmert declaring borders, it is clear that he’s doing it within the context of 242 if you look at it legally. He has said that in the future the fence might move to the East or to the West depending on developments on the Palestinian side. That is pretty much in line with 242. Of course, the real reason he’s doing it is that demographics and the burden of maintaining the settlements are two significant problems for Israel and the fence essentially provides what has become a semi-consensus border for many Israelis since Camp David.

  9. They are not willing to negotiate with Israel.

    Either a serious error on yr part or a deliberate lie. Just this week, Abbas reiterated his often repeated offer to negotiate with Israel. It is Olmert who’s said “Nyet.” All Palestinian polls show a strong majority of respondents who want Hamas to negotiate with Israel. Like most democratic political parties they listen to what their constituents want them to do though you reject that notion.

    they are building up stockpiles of weapons.

    And you conviction comes fr. what source? That much vaunted IDF intelligence apparatus which is known (as was the CIA during the Cold War) for embellishing its security warnings in order to justify all those spanking new weapons systems they feel compelled to buy or develop?

    I simply will NOT let you repeat propaganda unless you can provide a source. I asked you to do this twice last night in comments to no avail. I view this as a serious breach and EXPECT you to provide authentification for your claims. Otherwise, they will be discounted.

    this Hudna came into place when Israel had all their leaders in its sights and they were on the run.

    No, this hudna came about because of a marked turn in Palestinian public opinion (verified by many polls) against suicide bombings. The groups honoring the ceasefire do so because they know this is what their public expects.

    It is their weakness and small size that makes them international pariahs.

    Cue those violins and the self-pity. Israel as “weak” or “small?” Small perhaps in territory but a lion in every other aspect. There are SCORES of weak small countries in the world who are fully accepted into the community of nations. Israel too will be one some day.

    one side is being coddled for 60 years as refugees

    You are so pathetically misinformed about Palestinian life. I dare you to visit ANY refugee camp and then come back & tell me the refugees are “coddled.” That term is beyond insulting.

    oil and money that makes them partial pariahs.

    Ah yes the old “oil conspiracy theory” of 20th century Middle Eastern history. Did you know that was why we invaded Iraq (as some conspiracy mongers believe)? Now, it’s the reason Israel is “hated” by the nations. What blissful times you must have luxuriating in your ignorance.

    It has nothing to do with real politics or real intentions or the world would make Russia and Saudi Arabia into pariahs. Do they?

    We can argue about all those nations which have used terror to subjugate their subjects & their neighbors. But right here & right now I’m focused on Israel & the Palestinians.

    BTW, I’ve excoriated Vladimir Putin for his abysmal human rights record here in this blog & feel he (& his generals) deserve to go before a Hague tribunal both for Beslan and Chechnya.

    International legitimacy isn’t always a status that happens overnight. Sometimes, it takes nations a long time to establish it. The diff. between Israel, China & Russia is that the latter two have a long history of being a nation state. While they have had horrible disputes with their neighbors as the Israelis do, the individual disputes haven’t endured for the entire history of the nation. Not for some time have Russia or China annexed territory of their neighbors as Israel has done. While there have also been border disputes between these two and their neighbors, they again haven’t endured for the entire life of the nation nor have they been as lethal as the I-P “border dispute.”

    As for Saudi Arabia, aside from some support for Osama bin Laden, the PA & Hamas, what “crimes” are you accusing it of?

    As to the question about Olmert declaring borders, it is clear that he’s doing it within the context of 242

    Crap. It is NOT clear. It is only clear to you and similarly minded pro-Israel hawks. There is hardly a single nation in the world that would accept this contention. The UN would not accept it. So how in hell will Israel persuade the world that it is right? It won’t of course, but Olmert sits firm in the notion that it doesn’t matter what anyone says, they’ll just do it their way & tough shit if you don’t like it.

    He has said that in the future the fence might move to the East or to the West depending on developments on the Palestinian side. That is pretty much in line with 242.

    “Pretty much” in line w. 242? More horse crap.

    the fence essentially provides what has become a semi-consensus border for many Israelis

    Absolutely wrong. The Wall perhaps is a semi-consensus security entity necessary to protect the nation (though the idea is debatable). But it is by no means a “semi-consensus border.” In Olmert’s mind and the minds of some of his followers perhaps that is the case. Perhaps even many Israeli would like the border delineated by the Wall. But they understand that this is a wish and not necessarily what will happen.

  10. I don’t know why you want sources since you don’t believe them if they’re Israeli anyway and it’s not as if the Palestinians are going to make it public knowledge. It’s a joke that you’re disputing that they’re doing this considering the fact that they were doing it before when they had the Israelis there endangering them. According to your logic, now that it’s easier for them to bring in arms, they’re going to stop. That doesn’t make too much sense, does it?

    Anyway:

    http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?F=1457719&C=landwar

    http://72.14.203.104/search?q=cache:0HkB_BRICn8J:www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/668581.html+smuggling+into+gaza+since+pullout&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=5

    http://web.israelinsider.com/Articles/Security/6842.htm

    http://www.dailyalert.org/archive/2005-09/2005-09-15.html

    http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewForeignBureaus.asp?Page=%5CForeignBureaus%5Carchive%5C200601%5CFOR20060103c.html

    http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2005-09-14-gaza-palestinians_x.htm

    On to the rest of it:

    How can Abbas negotiate anything? Right now Hamas refuses to agree that he even has the right to speak to the Israelis much less the authority to negotiate anything. In case it’s still unclear, the Palestinian population has elected a government that refuses to accept Israel’s existence and rejects all previous agreements with Israel. As Livni said, why let the Palestinians put on a show that somehow a moderate face represents them when the opposite is true (presuming you can even call Abbas a moderate, since he simply kept the war going).

    Opinion polls created this hudna? Are you kidding? You mean Hamas is governed by opinion polls among the Palestinian public? And all this time I thought the Palestinian leadership was taking advantage of the average Palestinian. I was wrong and Hamas had the hudna happen not because they were on the run and their success rate for bombing dropped but because the Palestinian public asked them nicely. In opinion polls yet. I wish our democracy here in the US was that effective.

    With all due respect, the Palestinians are still in refugee camps for reasons that have little to do with Israel. UNWRA is a unique entity in the annals of refugees. The refusal of Arab states to accept refugees is a significant mark of shame. The refusal of Palestinian leaders to use the billions and billions in aid that they have received to improve the lives and infrastructure of many camps is their mark of shame. The refusal to make peace in Israel which would have provided compensation to refugees was a Palestinian refusal. My family is also a family of refugees and you know what they did? They moved to different countries and started new lives. Sometimes things went well and sometimes they didn’t, but they moved on and forward without looking back. There are plenty of Palestinians who are doing just fine here in the US and in Jordan and in Europe. They are educated, well off and still proud of their heritage and history. I see them often at church gatherings where they provide every single negative piece of information about Israel and its supposed horrors they can. Israel has no interest in keeping refugees around or refugee camps around. In fact, throughout the West Bank and Gaza, you have many areas with buildings that suggest that not everyone has agreed to live in camps.

    I’m sorry that you don’t believe oil has a significant impact on the votes at the UN. Surely, all these countries must think that they actually care about that little country over there with the Jews in it. I don’t think so, Richard. Those countries think of energy supplies and good relations with a much larger group of people than the Jews of Israel. They think of wealthy Arab kingdoms that will invest in their companies and states. If you think that is conspiracy minded, that’s fine, but if you were right and somehow the world actually cared about human rights abuses, there would be a couple of dozen states ahead of Israel in terms of resolutions against. There aren’t however. Explain that please.

    Now other than telling me that my assertions about 242 are crap and wrong, do you mind telling me why. I don’t mean that you should tell me the world won’t accept it but that you go and reread the resolution and tell me what I’m misreading here. In fact, I’ll go a step further. According to 242, Israel can maintain a military presence in the territories until all its Arab neighbors agree to recognize it and live in peace with it and then negotiate a deal where Israel gives up some (undefined how much) of the territory it conquered. Don’t tell me this is crap. Read the damn thing and tell me why I’m wrong.

    Finally, as for this fence and what it means. Please understand that now Olmert has stated his plans. The result has been an increase in the polls from 37 to 42 seats. Considering the number of splinter groups around as well as the two historic parties of Labor and Likud with their constituencies, this is an extraordinary number and can be viewed as a vote of confidence in his plans. Ultimately, it reflects a border similar to Camp David and in concept if not size, similar to Taba. It’s essentially 7.5% vs. 2.5% of Taba and comes after a brutal war launched by the Palestinians. Tell me again why they get to launch wars and in your mind not suffer any consequences?

  11. The Middle – as Richard implies, you are bringing up issues often argued very futilely: But here is a brief response. As to the PLO charter, what right do you have to disagree with the goverment of Israel? The government of Israel says the PLO changed its charter, getting rid of the offensive clauses a long time ago. Proof: go to Wikipedia ( I wrote much of this article, after being disgusted by its previous propagandistic version.) Most of what you say about SC 242 is nonsense. Whether Israel wants to be a Jewish or Muslim or Bahai or Christian or Buddhist state is no business of the Palestinians or anyone else but the Israelis. At least they have the self-respect to not ask like frightened children for anyone else’s say so for this.
    SC 242 says – basically full peace for basically full withdrawal. The Arabs have been offering this for more than 30 years, Israel has been refusing. Proof: See Sadat’s 1971 peace offer ( refused, setting off the 1973 war, so in 1978 Israel accepted Sadat’s 1971 terms), 1976 vetoed SC resolution, scads of Arab League Resolutions etc. For the content of SC 242 – take a look at any of Mitchell Bard’s : (Complete Idiot’s Guide, Myths and Facts, Jewish Virtual Library) propaganda crap – he has lots of quote’s saying Israel’s nonsense interpretation you quote above is the correct, original one. Then look up his sources. You will see he has edited the quotations to make them say the opposite of what they really say – that Israel has to withdraw fully, with some minor and mutual border adjustments / straightenings, just because the original Green Line was kind of silly and didn’t respect the lay of the land. Israel was supposed to keep a net 0% of the territories. Additional proof: Little known, but should be much better known fact: Jordan and Egypt immediately accepted SC 242 in 1967. Israel only did later, grudgingly, only accepting publicly and saying the word “withdrawal” in 1970. If the original understanding was the favorable to Israel, Israel can keep some land, BS propaganda interpretation, this makes no sense at all, Jordan and Egypt and Israel acted insanely.

  12. I don’t know why you want sources since you don’t believe them if they’re Israeli anyway

    Again, not what I said. I said I accept Israeli intelligence reports only when they’re backed up by independent sources. In this case, you’ve provided some of those. Your links prove that Palestinians are smuggling weapons into Gaza. But I’m not sure what types of weapons (aside fr. the proverbial AK-47s which are already a readily available commodity in Gaza) they are and how sophisticated they might be. I’m opposed to weapons smuggling and hope Israel can do something to stop it. But running AK-47s into Gaza doesn’t exactly indicate a major escalation of the arms race–especially if the hudna holds.

    However, I’m just as frightened if not more so about Palestinians turning around & using these weapons on each other. There is ample evidence of this already happening with the armed gangs roaming the streets attempting to intimidate any police forces or political leaders who stand in their way.

    the Palestinian population has elected a government that refuses to accept Israel’s existence and rejects all previous agreements with Israel.

    More imprecise overstatement. Hamas refuses to formally accept Israel’s existence but does so tacitly by accepting the hudna. Hamas has NOT rejected “all previous agreements with Israel.” It has reserved the right to review such agreements to determine whether it feels they serve the needs of the Palestinian people. Look, I don’t like or agree with this Hamas position. But if you want to criticize it at least characterize it accurately.

    Opinion polls created this hudna?

    Again with the mischaracterizations. I didn’t say “polls” created the hudna. I said that Palestinian opinion turned against suicide bombing and Hamas followed suit. The public opinion polls only serve to formally confirm the shift in Palestinian opinion.

    You mean Hamas is governed by opinion polls among the Palestinian public?

    Would you get the goddamn opinions polls out of your mind, please. I’m talking about public opinion, not polls. And no, Hamas is not “governed” by such opinion. But certainly advised by it. Kadima is no different. Olmert hears from his advisors that the electorate wants a tough security position vis a vis the Palestinians and he obliges. If Olmert heard that Israelis want an immediate two state solution implemented that would be his party’s position or he’d be out of office right quick. Hamas is no different.

    You seem to know almost nothing about the last Palestinian election campaign. Hamas ran a fairly masterful campaign in which it tailored its electoral platform quite deftly to the prevailing political mood in the electorate. You’ll say it cynically manipulated the people by hiding its true agenda. But I’m not at all certain that’s what was going on. Contrary to what you may believe, there are smart, pragmatic leaders in Hamas (I’m not saying all of them are). I hope & believe that they will move their party in a more pragmatic direction regarding relations with Israel. But I don’t expect this to happen this week or this month. But I do believe it will happen in the not too distant future.

    the Palestinians are still in refugee camps for reasons that have little to do with Israel.

    The Palestinians became refugees because of reasons that very much had to do with Israel. Whether they are STILL in refugee camps for reasons to do with Israel we can debate till the cows come home. But the fact is that Israel’s expulsion of tens of thousands during the 1948 war helped create the refugee crisis. We can also debate how many of the refugees left voluntarily. You’ll say perhaps that it was all or most. But the Israeli historians I trust say differently. The one I find most entertaining because he is most horrifying is Benny Morris who says that Israel did indeed expel many Arab residents and that it should have expelled all of them if it could.

    Just because your family were refugees and adapted to their status in what you believe was a productive way does NOT mean you have the right to judge how another set of refugees in entirely different circumstances reacts to those circumstances. Further, I don’t believe you care a whit for the actual refugees. You only care about them insofar as they are a potential black mark against Israel. You resent the fact that the Arabs may be using the refugees as a weapon to get back at Israel (& no doubt they are and I don’t like or defend this if they are). If the Arabs would only absorb the goddamn refugees then there’d be one less embarrassment for Israel to have to deal with on the world stage.

    reread the resolution and tell me what I’m misreading here.

    I have very little interest in debating dry, old UN resolutions. If I were an international human rights lawyer or diplomat I’d do so till the cows come home. But I find such an exercise tedious. I know there are arguments like this all over the web between those who are pro-Israel and pro-Palestinian (yes, I believe the left does its share of such hairsplitting too). But it bores me to tears.

    now [that] Olmert has stated his plans the result has been an increase in the polls from 37 to 42 seats…This…can be viewed as a vote of confidence in his plans

    I don’t care whether Olmert declares that Israeli policy will be to bring the Messiah and 100% of Israelis endorse it. They can propose whatever the hell they want. But if neither the Palestinians nor anyone else in the world accepts it, then it’s the sound of one hand clapping, which is no sound at all.

  13. So Richard, you are willing to reject Israel’s democratic choices but would like us to respect and excuse the Palestinians’ democratic choices?

    John R, I am positive that Wikipedia is a resource that isn’t at all biased by the motivations of the article’s authors. 😉 I am happy to read your article if you would provide the link. I am not sure which propaganda that you reject has captivated me, but as you well know when the Charter was supposedly modified, it was done behind closed doors and nobody was privy to the actual outcome or the language of the new Charter. Later on, if I recall, they made the public claim that the Charter was amended but I don’t believe anybody has seen it. If this is the article you wrote:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinian_National_Charter
    then I’m afraid it doesn’t give me any more confidence that they did indeed modify their charter.

    As for 242:

    Affirms that the fulfillment of Charter principles requires the establishment of a just and lasting peace in the Middle East which should include the application of both the following principles:

    Withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict;
    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;

    Affirms further the necessity

    For guaranteeing freedom of navigation through international waterways in the area;
    For achieving a just settlement of the refugee problem;
    For guaranteeing the territorial inviolability and political independence of every State in the area, through measures including the establishment of demilitarized zones;

    I think it’s hard for you to argue that Israel needs to remove itself from any territories until the termination of all states of belligerency and right to live in peace, etc. are fulfilled. As you know, the question is one about whether they used territories instead of the territories on purpose. Let’s listen to Mr. Rostow, former Undersecretary of State who was a key drafter of 242 in 1967:

    http://www.take-a-pen.org/english/Articles/Art27012004.htm

    and

    http://www.take-a-pen.org/english/Articles/Art13122003.htm where he writes:

    Nothing could be further from the truth. Resolution 242, which as undersecretary of state for political affairs between 1966 and 1969 I helped produce, calls on the parties to make peace and allows Israel to administer the territories it occupied in 1967 until “a just and lasting peace in the Middle East” is achieved. When such a peace is made, Israel is required to withdraw its armed forces “from territories” it occupied during the Six-Day War–not from “the” territories nor from “all” the territories, but from some of the territories, which included the Sinai Desert, the West Bank, the Golan Heights, East Jerusalem, and the Gaza Strip.

    Five-and-a-half months of vehement public diplomacy in 1967 made it perfectly clear what the missing definite article in Resolution 242 means. Ingeniously drafted resolutions calling for withdrawals from “all” the territories were defeated in the Security Council and the General Assembly. Speaker after speaker made it explicit that Israel was not to be forced back to the “fragile” and “vulnerable” Armistice Demarcation Lines, but should retire once peace was made to what Resolution 242 called “secure and recognized” boundaries, agreed to by the parties. In negotiating such agreements, the parties should take into account, among other factors, security considerations, access to the international waterways of the region, and, of course, their respective legal claims.

    Resolution 242 built on the text of the Armistice Agreements of 1949, which provided (except in the case of Lebanon) that the Armistice Demarcation Lines separating the military forces were “not to be construed in any sense” as political or territorial boundaries, and that “no provision” of the Armistice Agreements “Shall in any way prejudice the right, claims, and positions” of the parties “in the ultimate peaceful settlement of the Palestine problem.” In making peace with Egypt in 1979, Israel withdrew from the entire Sinai, which had never been part of the British Mandate.

    For security it depended on patrolled demilitarization and the huge area of the desert rather than on territorial change. As a result, more than 90 percent of the territories Israel occupied in 1967 are now under Arab sovereignty. It is hardly surprising that some Israelis take the view that such a transfer fulfills the territorial requirements of Resolution 242, no matter how narrowly they are construed.

    Resolution 242 leaves the issue of dividing the occupied areas between Israel and its neighbors entirely to the agreement of the parties in accordance with the principles it sets out. It was, however, negotiated with full realization that the problem of establishing “a secure and recognized” boundary between Israel and Jordan would be the thorniest issue of the peace-making process.

    Sorry, my friend, this isn’t about Myths and Facts, although it’s a fairly solid source on many topics. There are numerous other sources out there and you can explain to me now why you know better than Rostow what an agreement he helped negotiate actually meant.

  14. No, Rostow was not a key drafter of SC 242. Nobody else remembers him as being one. It was not related to his job title. If you look at papers Rostow wrote before he became a total Israeli apologist, you will see that he hewed to the evil Arab basically full withdrawal interpretation, like practically everyone else at the time. (Take a look at the paper he wrote in the American Journal of International Law referred to in the Wiki article on SC 338) You can see how antiIsrael this Rostow article is from the title – “The Illegality of the Arab Attack on Israel of 1973.” IIRC. It’s also in JN Moore’s Readings/Documents volume(s) on the conflict, an invaluable source for genuine history.

    The actual author of the resolution was Hugh Foote, Lord Caradon. He said many times what he meant. As I said, you can find edited quotations from him in any of Bard’s propaganda crap books. Look up the references and see what he actually said!
    This will have the effect to you of proving that these books are consciously deceitful propaganda crap, very useful, but only as a compendium of the usual lies. I have not come across a single non-blank page of Myths and Facts without an error.

    Wikipedia articles are created by a long process of negotiation and checking by many editors. The ones I have contributed to are no exception.
    If you take a look at the Wiki article you linked to, you will see that Israel officially accepted that the PLO changed its charter a long time ago, shown by copious, exhaustive links to Israeli government sites.
    You will see a link to the new, modified text of the charter at a PA site – modified exactly as the US constitution is modified, by presenting the “original” , actually the modified 1968 version, and then the amendments anulling the offensive clauses.
    What on earth more do you want?
    Again I ask you – why do you think you have a right to disagree with the official position of the State of Israel?

  15. As for some stuff you mention on another thread: – maybe you should learn a little more about the history of the conflict.

    You seem to think GA 194 is a big problem. Don’t you know that Israel voted for GA 194, basically written by the USA, 50+ years ago? (The Arabs voted against it, but thought better of it in a few months, and voted for GA 302 (or 03) forget the exact number, which passed unanimously, repeating the key paragraphs of 194.) Israel kept voting for such recapitulated versions of 194 for a long time. (I think there was one restatement it voted for or abstained on as late as the 90s!) If you’re talking about recognizing Israel, well, the Letters of Mutual Recognition (Oslo) of 1993 are what sane people point to. (after many years of PLO and Arab offers of recognition and peace in return for the 2 state solution, all refused by Israel. You could go to Wiki if you wanted some education on say, Oslo.

  16. Uh, yes, of course I know Israel accepted 194, and the Arab states rejected it. Does it make you feel better to keep proclaiming my supposed ignorance when it’s clear I am very familiar with the topic? Time has made the 194 resolution take on a very different importance because the conflict has slowly become an Israeli-Palestinian one and not only an Israeli-Arab and that is why today Israel opposes it while the Arabs want iSrael to accept it. By the way, the Road Map does include 194 as one of the bases for the agreement because it accepts the offer made by the Saudis a couple of years ago at the Arab League summit.

    I’m sorry that you and I do not view the issue of the Charter in the same way. Just count me among the obstinate fools who want to see the both the recorded vote and the document which was supposedly agreed to by the Palestinians in some session that never took place. Sorry, but things intended for public consumption in the West are not always the same as what happens behind closed doors and the wikipedia article only confirmed my hesitation.

    As for wikipedia and 242, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UN_Security_Council_Resolution_242 I believe that once again you tell me with great confidence one thing but then when I incredulously go to look, I see something else. Read the segment debating the exclusion of all from the pro-it-wasn’t-supposed-to-be-there-intentionally side. And yes, Caradon is quoted in that section…probably because he’s been quoted on both sides, so maybe he’s become an Arab shill? I mean, you feel free to accuse Rostow of dishonesty. Anyway, whether you like it or not, the language in this instance is precise and was debated. With that knowledge alone, we know that the Council intended there to be some give and take in any negotiations that lead to the fulfillment of this Resolution.

    Now here’s my suggestion to you, John. Instead of the blustery overconfidence which instead makes you seem petty and insecure, why not revisit these topics you are so confident about and simply approach them from the point of view that you may be wrong. I mean, I can continue to type from here to tomorrow about Oslo, Wye, Camp David, 1948, 242 and 338, 1917, 1920, 1929, 1937, 1947, 181, 194, 1397, disputed territories versus occupied territories, Judea and Samaria, 1973, Oslo, Taba, Abbas’s lovely dissertation, etc. without looking up a single source. When Richard wants me to, I can find him the sources as well because they are there. So why not cut it out with the crap about how I don’t know anything and deal with the sad fact that I do know something but disagree with you.

    Gotta tell you, Richard, compared to some of your guests, you’re a saint. 😉

  17. Instead of the blustery overconfidence which instead makes you seem petty and insecure, why not revisit these topics you are so confident about and simply approach them from the point of view that you may be wrong.

    The Middle: First, John R seems “petty & insecure” to you alone. Not to me. And as for asking him to revisit topics with the understanding that he might be wrong about his view of them–have you ever thought of doing that yourself?

    Ah, yes you wouldn’t need to do that now would you because you are supremely confident in the rightness of your views? I’m not going to get into the minutiae of you guys’ debate about the contents of UN resolutions because they make my eyes glaze over for reasons I’ve stated here. But I see nothing in what John’s written and or that you’ve attempted to rebut which merits his reconsidering his views because they are wrong.

    As for being a “saint,” I realize you said that jocularly and somewhat facetiously but I appreciate the sentiment.

  18. Why shouldn’t he reconsider that his interpretation of 242 is mistaken? He claims it is an absolute slam dunk as to the intentions of that clause and yet so far, even in the article at Wikipedia it turns out that the argument against his position is stronger and the source he cites is cited on my side of the debate.

    And if you don’t think it’s petty and insecure to keep saying to somebody that they don’t know what they’re talking about, then…you don’t know what you’re talking about.

    How did that sound to you, like I’m cocky and right or like I’m petty and insecure?

    Oh, as for revisiting things, John came on so strong with his attacks on my ignorance that I actually had to revisit all of my claims as well as his. I can see why in a couple of instances there may be enough ambiguity that you could choose either side of the debate, but I don’t see enough to come on with the kind of certitude he displays.

  19. I can see why in a couple of instances there may be enough ambiguity that you could choose either side of the debate, but I don’t see enough to come on with the kind of certitude he displays.

    Actually, you came on pretty strong regarding the certitude of yr position too. And your admission that there may be ambiguity in the UN resolution text is the first time I’ve heard you admit this. I commend you for being willing to change or amend your views.

    Now, if we could just get to the point where we acknowledge that while we may have our own opinions about the I-P conflict, the views of our opponents might, just might, have some validity as well. I’m not saying this directed at you alone. This is meant as a general statement about the many hundreds of such arguments I’ve participated in regarding the conflict.

    I too have a degree of certitude or firmness in my opinions, but I always try to understand the Israeli pt. of view in its basic elements. That doesn’t mean that I find it ultimately compelling. But one must acknowledge a certain level of validity to Israeli fears or else one is not being intellectually honest.

  20. Wait a minute, I did not indicate that the language in 242 is something I have any confusion about. That is not where I consider the ambiguity to be noticeable and relevant. I was referring to the issue of the PLO/PNC charter.

    But either way, we agree that openness of mind is important here for both sides.

  21. Middle, I did not refer you to the Wiki SC 242 page. It needs work, and I haven’t had the time or energy to contribute there for months. (I note it has recently suffered from removals of accurate info, look at the talk page.) You obviously did not check the references I suggested. E.g. Bard, and Wiki refer to Caradon’s statements, as usual, edited. Find a copy of “Case study in Diplomatic Ambiguity” symposium about 242 and see what he really said. Take a look at e.g. Finkelstein’s Image and Reality for contemporaneous quotes supporting the universal interpretation,( perhaps he overstates the case, but it is a very strong one, unlike the “proIsrael” one) – which is that, as you say, there would be some minor give and take on the Israel- WB border, but that territorial aggrandizement was not envisioned. Lots of people can quote some predigested Rostow webpage. Not many have read what Rostow said earlier. Here is the paper I meant, from the SC 338 page, not SC 242: Rostow, Eugene V. The Illegality of the Arab Attack on Israel of October 6, 1973. The American Journal of International law, 69(2), 1975, pp. 272 – 289. I don’t recall reading the earlier paper mentioned at the SC 242 page, but it would be truly strange if it were different from the 1975 one.

    Immediately after saying things like that quoted in the SC 242 page, Rostow 1975 says that the resolution basically meant the Rogers Plan – minor and mutual adjustments along the Green Line. In the real world, the Arabs have been fine with this for decades. Israel refuses. The Arabs have the world’s crappiest propaganda, while Israel has just about the world’s best, so the general picture seen in the USA reverses the truth.

    Your statements about the charter are incomprehensible, everything you say you want to see IS IN THE ARTICLE. I left the flaky fringe arguments from both sides against the fact of acceptance because I’m a very conciliatory guy; what is important is what IS now in the article :

    “I’m sorry that you and I do not view the issue of the Charter in the same way. Just count me among the obstinate fools who want to see the both the recorded vote and the document which was supposedly agreed to by the Palestinians in some session that never took place. Sorry, but things intended for public consumption in the West are not always the same as what happens behind closed doors and the wikipedia article only confirmed my hesitation.”

    The recorded votes, the document, the sessions which DID take place etc are all linked to there. Often to Israeli and Palestinian government websites. For the umpteenth time, who the **** are you to disagree with the government of Israel? ISRAEL SAYS THE PLO CHARTER WAS AMENDED. ISRAEL SAYS THE VOTES, THE DOCUMENTS, THE SESSIONS HAPPENED AND WERE GOOD ENOUGH FOR ISRAEL. Sure, if you want, you can argue about how the evil Arabs didn’t follow their own procedure perfectly. Crazy southrons refighting the civil war say the same about the Civil War Amendments, with similarly “reasonable”, similarly moot arguments. So what? Smart lawyers can have fun showing how every law ever passed anywhere is void because it wasn’t done exactly right. Big deal. God alone can do things right, can do things to the satisfaction of netloons.

    Sorry, Richard, if your eyes glaze over. Mine often do too. It’s just that the “case for Israel” is weakest and easiest to defeat on precisely these political/legal/diplomatic points. Often enough the “pro-Israel” position is the exact opposite of the very obscure, never mentioned official Israeli position! That is why there is such an armamentarium of lies, fabrication, misdirection, deception, edited quotations and half-truths, so easily available to people like Mike/Middle, who lap them up without ever checking primary and alternate sources, which sometimes can be very obscure. Fictional, nonexistent events like, say, the 1921 partition of the Mandate into Palestine and Transjordan (one of my favorite examples of successful propaganda fabrications) have become the standard story in even reputable reference works. You aren’t going to find out what really happened prepared for you on the web. So Mike/Middle, I think that if you wanted to argue with me about the facts, you would lose, it’s a lot harder to know what happened in this corner of the world than just reciting predigested propaganda. You have to read tons of books and papers from all sides, and examine them critically. I do not believe you have.

    Right now I am pretty weak and tired, though recovering thanks to some expensive, made in Israel, Azithromycin, which I took as a divine sign to an atheist to write some stuff about Israel. 🙂

  22. John R: I thank you immensely for your contribution here. You are far more adequate to the task of discussing these historical documents than I. I didn’t mean to diminish the importance of debate about them. I read your comments & Middle’s response to them with great interest.

    It’s just that they drive me to distraction because, as you said, just about anyone–when it comes to the Mideast–seems to be able to argue just about anything when it comes to parsing these documents. It’s almost like “how many angels can dance on the head of a pin?”

  23. which is that, as you say, there would be some minor give and take on the Israel- WB border, but that territorial aggrandizement was not envisioned.

    Ta da! You see, John, on this we agree.

    As for the rest of it and your comments about what I’ve read and haven’t read, I did provide you with source material, I have researched 242 and how it came to be extensively (in the past, anyway), and I have a different reading than you. You know, some people read Morris and see one thing and some people read Shlaim and see one thing and some people read Karsh or Shapira and see one thing. With all due respect, none of this history is all that clear but there is enough on the table that sometimes broad strokes are enough. Your new tack is to say “That is why there is such an armamentarium of lies, fabrication, misdirection, deception, edited quotations and half-truths, so easily available to people like Mike/Middle, who lap them up without ever checking primary and alternate sources, which sometimes can be very obscure” which again posits that I know little or just enough to be dangerous while you are a wise consumer of all information and terribly clever at knowing the truth.

    If it makes you feel better about yourself to believe that, good for you.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *