Thinking Right

By Van

November 28, 2007 12:27 PM | Link to this

Finally, after 4 hours the link works.

While on the one hand, I think it is a masterful piece of work, to get so many different arab states to join in a conference with Israel, I do not think it will solve the whole middle east situation.

As to the Right of Return that the arab “refugees” are claiming, we must also ask about the right of compensation for the Jewish population that was forcibly ejected from the arab world when Israel declared itself a nation. Hmm, didn’t the folks living in the UN mandated arab state in Palestine have that same opportunity?

By ron

November 28, 2007 12:30 PM | Link to this

When I was 4 years old,the Western powers gave part of Palestine to the Jews for a country of their own.The Arab world didn’t like it then,they don’t like it now,and they haven’t liked it anytime in between.They won’t like it in the future either,unless one side or the other changes it’s religion.Of course this accord is doomed to failure.Israel is not a good neighbor.It keeps stealing land.No one should have to put up with that.The solution is a sobvious as the nose on ones face.Give the Jews part of Mexico.The part along the U.S. border.

By Dennis

November 28, 2007 12:32 PM | Link to this

Mr. Wooten writes, “Doomed to failure” may be too fatalistic. But that assessment will change when the states represented at Annapolis acknowledge Israel’s right to exist and when they stop pursuing another strategy aimed at eliminating the Jewish state — and that is insisting that Palestinian refugees be allowed to settle in Israel.

“Anybody see a solution?”

Mr. Wooten’s point of view is JOURNALISTIC HYPOCRISY at its finest. The “solution” was not to “establish” an “Israel” in the first place at the put down of the Palestinians who were already there.

Would Mr. Wooten roll over and let his neighbors take his South Georgia farm in the same manner?

Unfortunately, neither the Israelis nor the Palestinians have any other place to go anymore than those of us born in the U.S. and the Indians who were already here have another place to go.

From another blog, but appropro to this topic;

malcontent wrote on November 28, 2007 10:46 AM:

“Can we finally just agree that we’re living in a banana republic, where only political foes face justice?

How do we change this? Peacefully, or through internal subterfuge?”

Care to comment, Mr. Wooten?

You don’t have to be a blind conservative not to see it, just an ignorant one to deny it.

By jbmlaw

November 28, 2007 12:32 PM | Link to this

Good afternoon all. My prejudices and observations: (1) The self-destruction of a Palestinian “state,” which should now be evident to all, alters the traditional Middle East calculus. The dysfunctional Hamas – whose sole political and economic policy is a futile dedication of all resources to the destruction of Israel – as successor to Arafat’s financially corrupt Fatah, is an embarrassment to the increasingly-civilized nations of the Middle East. (Wealth civilizes most people, excepting those like Castro and Chavez who, although corruptly wealthy, share a perverse agenda, a lust for expanding political power over others.) (2) The average non-Gaza Palestinian now yearns for nothing so much as the freedom and financial opportunity he knew as an “underclassman” in Israel. (3) Israel’s recent separatist effort [to wall itself away from the state dedicated to its destruction] is condemned by those who, knowingly or otherwise, would destroy Israel. All peaceful people, not necessarily including Nobel Peace Prize winners, should applaud Israel for introducing separation between deadly opponents. Why do leftists reject a principle validated daily by kindergarten teachers and divorce court judges? (4) Yesterday Taranto led with a darkly sarcastic essay noting the unwillingness or political incapability of the Saudi to shake hands with the Israeli rep, an action reflecting nothing so much as Saudi weakness. (5) The single irrefutable truth about the Middle East is that representative democracies, such as Israel and Iraq, will not see emissaries from the emirs; the latter suspect, correctly, that freedom is contagious.

To the core of Jim’s essay, I do not affirm that discussions are always doomed to failure, but that is the case 95% of the time. Usually it is a good thing, as when Reagan walked away from Reykjavik, or when the US rejected LOST and the Kyoto protocols. It seems to me that the only time agreements hold together is when there is a clear winner negotiating generous terms with a clear loser, e.g., the Late Unpleasantness, or maybe Israel in its wars with Egypt. Of course, as often as not in that circumstance, no particular agreement is even necessary, such as USSR v US – peace reigns without negotiations. We may be approaching that same point in the Middle East, both in Iraq and with Palestine. The only true purpose of any particular political negotiation is to magnify the “importance” of the negotiators; it’s all about ego.

Special note to our friend MidSouth Philosopher: Dr. Williams theorizes contrary to one of your preferred arguments on education, in an essay he calls “Bitter Partisan Politics.” http://www.townhall.com/columnists/walterewilliams/archive.shtml. The provocative argument is in a section referring to F-22 Raptor fighter jets. I note this without comment otherwise; I always want to know how people disagree with my arguments, and I infer you hold a similar attitude.

By Dennis

November 28, 2007 12:42 PM | Link to this

jbmlaw@12;32 wrote; ” Why do leftists reject a principle validated daily by kindergarten teachers and divorce court judges?”

What principal would that be, that it’s ok to take over another country by force; or, it’s ok for the United Nations to say that Palestine is no longer Palestine but is now Israel and if the Palestinians don’t like it, that’s too bad?

Because, that’s exactly what happened.

You don’t have to be a blind conservative not to see it, just an ignorant one to deny it.

By Van

November 28, 2007 12:52 PM | Link to this

ron,

When you say, “Israel is not a good neighbor.It keeps stealing land.” are you referring to the land won in the many wars waged against the country of Israel?

What many people seem to forget, the Jews have lived in this part of the world for a very long time. When Israel declared itself a nation, there were many Jewish families that in the 19th century migrated to this desert land and turned it into a thriving farm community. Look at the writings of Samuel Clemens, Mark Twain for those lefties in Mid Town, when he visited there.

When Israel declared independence, the “palestinians”, the locals, living there were a mixture of Muslims, Christians and Jews.

I do wish those that hate Israel would at least read some valid history.

By jbmlaw

November 28, 2007 12:53 PM | Link to this

Dear Dennis @ 12:42, your kindergarten teacher and your divorce judge clearly had a different style than any I have ever seen.

By Van

November 28, 2007 1:00 PM | Link to this

Dennis,

When the UN partitioned the area known as palestine, it was part of Trans-Jordan and Egypt.

It was partitioned into three sections. A jewish state, an arab state and Jerusalem was set aside as an International City, belonging to neither.

The Arab League did not agree and stated the first war against Israel.

I guess blind aggression is counter-productive.

By Shar

November 28, 2007 1:04 PM | Link to this

I have often wondered what the effect would be of the United States splitting the gleaming millions of our annual government aid for Israel, 50/50, with Palestine. Among the many strings to be attached would be the stipulation that acts deemed antagonistic (such as suicide bombings or failure to remove illegal settlements) would result in the other side getting a chunk of the offenders’ allotment. Plus, the money could only be used for specified purposes designed to ameliorate the living conditions of the population, with spending to be overseen and verified by an international body.

Putting qualifications on US support for Israel and improving the lives of Palestinians (thus giving them more of a stake in supporting peace) could be an effective way to cut down on each side’s hubris and increase the likelihood of successful negotiations. Plus, the chance to deprive the other of money might just put a brake on provocative action between the two.

By Dennis

November 28, 2007 1:04 PM | Link to this

By jbmlaw November 28, 2007 12:53 PM Dear Dennis @ 12:42, your kindergarten teacher and your divorce judge clearly had a different style than any I have ever seen.”

By all means, elucidate, Counselor. Show us what you’ve got.

You don’t have to be a blind conservative not to see it, just an ignorant one to deny it.

By Redneck Convert

November 28, 2007 1:10 PM | Link to this

Well, the one thing that will bring peace to the Middle East is: nuke ‘em all except the people that are our friends. That’s how a good Southrener would take care of things. Just fight first and then take care of the rest.

Its a tough thing for us rednecks to deal with. You got a bunch of Jews and a bunch of towelheads and we don’t like neither one, but I guess you got to choose sides and it looks like the towelheads lose.

Anyway, war is the answer even if there ain’t a question. So we got to turn Iran into a bunch of cinders and the same goes for Syria and Saudi Arabia for that matter. When we’re finished with them they’ll be begging to shake the hand of that Jew cause they won’t have no country to return to.

Course, I ain’t the real expert on this. Sister Dusty is. She can chime in and tell everybody why its anti-American to be against war and My President and such.

So people need to get it thru their head that the towelheads and the Jews ain’t never going to get along together and it don’t matter how many peace treatys get signed. They will always be bombing each other and lobbing shells into each others land. So let’s get it over with and start the bombing. The bible says the end of the world will start in the middle east, and the sooner it starts the sooner the Rapture will come and me and the missus and little Sonny Zell George can get took up to be with the Lord and let the rest of you deal with the mess. You can have my trailer after I’m gone and my beer truck too.

By jbmlaw

November 28, 2007 1:16 PM | Link to this

Dear Dennis @ 1:04, I wrote; “All peaceful people, not necessarily including Nobel Peace Prize winners, should applaud Israel for introducing separation between deadly opponents. Why do leftists reject a principle validated daily by kindergarten teachers and divorce court judges?” You evidently did not read the sentence about “separation between deadly opponents” and you asked, “What principal would that be, that it’s ok to take over another country by force; or, it’s ok for the United Nations to say that Palestine is no longer Palestine but is now Israel and if the Palestinians don’t like it, that’s too bad?” I do not wish to humiliate you, but no, the principle I refer to is that it is wise to separate opponents. Do you reject that simple principle?

By Democrat Windsock Puppet

November 28, 2007 1:18 PM | Link to this

The latest finger wagging Clinton lie is that Slick Willie was completely against the Iraq war from the start. Will any media outlet bring up Slick quotes prior to March of 2003 on Saddam and Iraq? Will any of them bring up any Hillarity quotes? Like hell.

Sometimes I wonder if the Clintons are real people and not some sort of secret lab experiment created by Republicans as a stupidity barometer of America. No, pathological liars and their followers just can’t be made up - they are simply born naturally with a serious gene flaw.

By Jackie

November 28, 2007 1:19 PM | Link to this

We must understand that the modern-day Israel is a compilation of lands given to the Jewish population for a homeland. If one reads the King James version of the Bible, it clearly articulates the Jews lived throughout the Middle East with their greatest concentrations being in modern-day Iraq, Iran and Egypt. So, given that historical tidbit, it would be in everyone’s best interest if the agreement would be structured where the state of Israel recognizes the rights of the Palestenians, the return of the Golan Heights, the Palestenians recognize the right of the existence of the State of Israel and the removal of the settlements in the West Bank and Gaza. More than 80% of the Jews want to trade land for peace, yet, the Zionist refuse to make any concessions to achieve that goal. The Palestenians had a little more than 6 Thousand square miles of territory before the 1967 war and they have said they are willing to make concessions on borders if they are left with roughly the same amount of land. A little known fact about the Palestenians is, 40% of their population are Christian.

By Dennis

November 28, 2007 1:22 PM | Link to this

By Van November 28, 2007 12:52 PM “I do wish those that hate Israel would at least read some valid history.”

Israel was declared a nation by the U.N., not by Israel per se.

You are correct that there was a mixture of “cultures” living in that region prior to WWII.

But the declaring of an “Israel” goes back to the Balfore Declaration after WW I and the British willing to deal with Jewish Zionist who were willing to give the British oil rights in that region in return for military and politcal support to establish an “Israel”.

That, is “valid history”.

You don’t have to be a blind conservative not to see it, just an ignorant one to deny it.

By getalife

November 28, 2007 1:29 PM | Link to this

Going thru the motions.

Hamas was elected but not represented.

PR stunt.

Geez.

By Mike12

November 28, 2007 1:31 PM | Link to this

Muslim “youths” are rioting in Paris again. Apparently this time around, two kids were on a motorcycle and collided with a cop car. Well the cops didn’t stop to offer aid. Boo hoo! That’s probably because the “youths” were torn in half or had their brains splattered on the pavement. Motorcycles hits on cars are ugly scenes. But, why not just another excuses to riot? RIP Europe and UK; it was great knowing you. http://www.kgan.com/template/inews_wire/wires.international/392ee7c4-www.kgan.com.shtml

By Dennis

November 28, 2007 1:38 PM | Link to this

jbmlaw@1:16 I do not wish to humiliate you, but no, the principle I refer to is that it is wise to separate opponents. Do you reject that simple principle?”

I think we’re on the same page here that the opponents need to be separated as the only possible way for peace between the two cultures.

The problem I see, however, is Israel’s unwillingness to return what was not Israel’s in the beginning.

And it is an ESTABLISHED FACT that for years and years Israel provoked a lot of Palestinian farmers into defending their land and then declared “self-defense” when the Palestinian farmers did so. Even Israel’s own generals have admitted that.

Let’s admit it, American policy towards Israel is guided by AIPAC who give large sums of money to “go along” congresspersons who want to stay elected.

You don’t have to be a blind conservative not to see it, just an ignorant one to deny it.

By Curious Observer

November 28, 2007 2:21 PM | Link to this

It is sheer folly for Israel even to consider giving back the Golan Heights. Doing so will merely result in a resumption of the Syrian shellings that killed and maimed so many Israelis. The same goes for Jerusalem. Yielding any part of that city or even sharing occupation of it will inevitably result in the blockage of access for Israelis, no matter what a treaty says.

Maybe some of the more naive posters here need to read up on a history of 1967, rather than assuming that the nation of Israel merely decided to commit a gross act of aggression against its Arab neighbors. A lot of Israelis shed their blood and sacrificed their lives to relieve citizens of the merciless shelling by Syrians on the Golan Heights and to make Jerusalem accessible.

I have absolutely no trust in the word of the Arab nations, nor in Iran. Any peace treaty that Israel signs will not be worth the ink used in printing it. And anyone who thinks that giving Palestinians their own nation will resolve the conflict is an utter fool.

In short, the history of the last 50 years demonstrates that Israel is surrounded by nations that will settle for nothing less in the long run than Israel’s complete destruction. I hope that the United States is not foolish enough to pressure Israel to return to the pre-1967 status. That would be a recipe for the outbreak of a new war.

By Phil

November 28, 2007 2:41 PM | Link to this

First and foremost, who is to say that we must provide (or are even capable of providing) the solutions to all the world’s problems.

Second, perhaps the true problem and its solution do not even lie in plain sight. As you so aptly stated, perhaps the “whipping boy” is but a device - a means to an end.

Third, who are we to presuppose that we even know the true problem(s), much less their solutions.

By DemDems4Ever

November 28, 2007 2:41 PM | Link to this

I am off to the Grady ER for some tests, I must be ill, I agree with Curious Observer @ 2:21.

By @@

November 28, 2007 2:47 PM | Link to this

Uh Jim, the AJC’s server is on the fritz.

I came in earlier with the indisputable solution to Peace in the Middle East but alas it disappeared into cyberspace. I don’t like repeating myself so the world is on its own.

Why is it always your conservative site that has server problems? You might wanna check into that.

Conservatives and liberals are in the midst of a blogWAR afterall.

By jm

November 28, 2007 3:09 PM | Link to this

Funny thing about the Golan Heights, that is also the location of a large water aquifer. In fact, if you look at most of the land that Israel has chosen to occupy, you will see it is where the water is. In fact, mush of that land is the land they wish to keep (one of the reasons the palestinians have not been too keen on the land swaps that have been offered).

By Glenn

November 28, 2007 3:30 PM | Link to this

Yeah, Jim, actually I do have a suggestion:

Whereas violence is so necessary to the coherence of the embryonic Palestinian culture that Palestine would dissolve without it; and

Whereas were state sovereignty forced upon the Palestinian people they would continue to know nothing other than aggression toward Israel; and

Whereas a neonatal Palestine, if only to maintain the culture of violence that is its very reason for being, would immediately make preparations for a future attack upon Israel; and

Whereas the new Palestinian military almost certainly would stike the Jewish State impulsively and prematurely; and

Whereas Israel, if attacked, would squash Palestine like a bug before Palestine’s allies could respond to an Israeli counterattac; and

Whereas no nation in the Middle East gives a damn what happens to Palestine, but only what happens to Israel,

Now therefore be it resolved that Israel shall without further delay vouchsafe an extravagant offer of peace to a future Nation of Palestine, await the inevitable military attack from that new nation, and stamp out that problem once and for all, to the everlasting relief and relative peace of all nations.

By deegee

November 28, 2007 3:49 PM | Link to this

Condi Rice might be the only person in Annapolis right now that believes that this big Middle East pow wow has anything to do with peace, love and understanding. It’s about the nation that isn’t there, Iran. Saudi Arabia is pulling the strings. They want to be sure that Ahmadinejad doesn’t get too full of himself. The Sunnis in Iraq have united to help rid their country of outsiders from Iran. The Saudis have made it clear that they are not going to support any Shia power grab in Iraq and Iran. Saudi Arabia is on a roll. Look what just took place in Pakistan after Saudi Arabia delivered the exiled Sharif on Musharraf’s doorstep. If anyone thinks that George Bush is driving the bus in Annapolis, think again. He peaked yesterday when he got his photo op holding hands with Abbas and Olmert. Too bad he looked like freakin Howdy Doody.

By Steven Daedalus

November 28, 2007 3:53 PM | Link to this

Jim, how come you didn’t mention the protests in Israel, they are just as much a threat to peace as Hamas.

By Van

November 28, 2007 4:06 PM | Link to this

Dennis,

These poor farmer you speak of - are they the more than one million non-jewish arab living in Israel as citizens? Could it be you are referring to the members of the Israeli political partys called The Arab List or Hadash?

Could it be you are talking about the folks that were told by the Arab League to flee Israel in 1948?

By Van

November 28, 2007 4:15 PM | Link to this

Dennis,

These poor farmer you speak of - are they the more than one million non-jewish arab living in Israel as citizens? Could it be you are referring to the members of the Israeli political partys called The Arab List or Hadash?

Could it be you are talking about the folks that were told by the Arab League to flee Israel in 1948?

By deegee

November 28, 2007 4:39 PM | Link to this

Does anyone ever stop to wonder what life would be like today if Harry Truman could have convinced the anti-semitic American congress to just avoid the whole mess in Palestine and allow the 250,000 displaced jews that needed a homeland to settle in south Florida? In hindsight, what would have been so bad about that?

By Glenn

November 28, 2007 4:59 PM | Link to this

deegee, your analysis of the summit being a rag doll for the Saudis sounds just right. That is, yes indeed, the way they like to manipulate things.

(And their too small to hold sway by means other than aloof manipulation. The ‘73 and their role in ending it must’ve been a wake-up call for them in this regard.)

What do you think’s going to come of the doings in MD?

By Tiny Tim

November 28, 2007 5:37 PM | Link to this

“f-f-find ‘em”. (Alright, who taught Tiny Tim the 4 F’s?)

“f-f-fool ‘em”. (Shut up, Tiny Tim, I’m hating you right now).

“ff-fff-f-f-feel ‘em” (Dang it, will you stop saying the 4 F’s?)

“f-ff-f-f-forget ‘em” (I really hate that kid, I really do.)