Tactical victory, strategic debacle

[bemildred]

Mr. Benn makes some interesting arguments here. I'm not saying
I agree with all of it, but it seems like clear, non-bullshitty
analysis of where we have got to now, hence worth a read.

With its meandering route, the
separation fence reflects Israel's
situation today, after four years of
warfare with the Palestinians. It
constitutes a tactical victory and a
strategic debacle.

Defying expectations held by many,
Ariel Sharon has proven that forceful
methods can be used to fight terror, and
that democracy, internal unity and
American support can be preserved at
the same time. True, terror has not been
extinguished completely; but the war
has been moved to enemy Palestinian
territory, and Israeli citizens enjoy a
relatively placid period. The flow of
suicide strikers has, for the most part,
been plugged, thanks to the fence and
preemptive, anti-terror measures.

Israel has succeeded in restraining
terror, but it has failed to translate its
tactical success into a strategic victory.
The Palestinians have not caved in,
despite the devastating blows they have
endured. Facing Israel's military
superiority, the Palestinians have turned
for support to the international arena,
where sympathy tends to be on their
side. The goal of their struggle has been
clear, and easy to explain to the world:
an end to the occupation, and the
removal of Israelis from the West Bank
and the Gaza Strip. Israel has found it
difficult to formulate the goal of its fight
against this Palestinian campaign.

Sharon invested tremendous effort in his
personal fight against Arafat. The
Palestinian leader is confined in his
Ramallah compound, and the
international community has somehow
become accustomed to this situation.
But what good does this really do? Even
without his flights to posh European
residences and his visits to the White
House, Arafat remains the Palestinian
leader; his message has not changed,
and nobody around him will be content
with anything less than Israeli
withdrawal from all the territories and
some sort of right of refugee return.

Haaretz(more)

[Jim Sagle]

1. Tony Benn Gobsmacked is half right and half wrong.

He's right about the "world sympathy" thing. That just proves how morally bankrupt world opinion really is.

As for borders, those are to be negotiated, not dictated. When Arafat or his successor realizes that, something can be worked out.

"Right of return" in ANY form is DOA - regardless of who does or does not accept it. (Compensation, of course, can be worked out.)

[Name removed]

2. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Jim Sagle]

6. The WB is occupied, not permanently annexed.

World opinion is presently a confederacy of jagoffs. If it applies sanctions to Israel for defending its citizens, it will have shown itself to be a confederacy of butchers as well.

[Classical_Liberal]

9. Israel can move the wall to the green line and still defend it's citizens

. As for the citizens beyond, if Israel gave a shit about them it wouldn't move them there.

[lefty_mcduff]

7. Wow. World opinion sucks too, huh?

Soon, the only people that will have it 'square' on Israel will be you, Bush and Sharon.

[bemildred]

11. Not that convincing an argument, is it? nt

[Classical_Liberal]

3. Why is this columnist claiming the letter from Bush to Sharon

established the 1948 cease-fire lines as the basis for final borders. That is demonsrably false. The letter officially annexes large portions of the west bank.

The other day a columnists at Haaretz claimed that the judges didn't even consider the problem of terrorism in judging the legality of the wall, then that turned out to be false.

The political spectrum in Israel doesn't go very far left either. Even the left in Israel parrots right wing spin.

[bemildred]

4. I'm not sure Mr. Benn is the "left".

He isn't the nutball right, to be sure.

[The Magistrate]

5. The Letter Does No Such Thing, Ma'am

It has long been a commonplace that there is certain to be some adjustment of the Green Line in any final settlement, and a statement this is the case does no more than state the obvious. The question is what these adjustments will be, and how they will be arrived at. The privately negotiated Geneva paper is an excellent example of this: it adjusts the boundaries in many places, most of which seem acceptable to all but the dedicated fire-eaters on both sides. Those people will never be satisfied, and no peace can be achieved until they are broken out of the argument altogether.

[Classical_Liberal]

8. Even Sharon says the roadmap is dead.

http://us.f507.mail.yahoo.com/ym/ShowLetter?MsgId=9999_1244637_44728_1910_808_0_48249_1400_3969409110&Idx=48&YY=65233&inc=50&order=down&sort=date&pos=0&view=a&head=f&box=Sent

Furthermore, the letter mentioned five specific settlements,Maale Adumim, Gush Etzion, Givat Ze'ev, Ariel, Kiryat Arba and Hebron which would be enough to split the West Bank into five bantustans.

The letter also promised to make sure any other plan such as Geneva was never implemented.

http://quote.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000103&sid=autgiBh8aECE&refer=us

Anyway I posted the links on them months ago. You sure take offence to strange things. The things you don't take offence to are even stranger.

[The Magistrate]

10. As With Most Things In This Matter, Ma'am

Written on sand, with a wind rising....

[bemildred]

12. I never saw any sign that any of the principal parties

was serious about carrying the "Road Map" out. The non-US
members of the gang-of-four that promulgated it may have
intended so. It was political theater. Sharon's words are
worth nothing, that ought to be clear by now.

[The Magistrate]

13. Well, Sir

There is the old chief's line: "The white men made many promises, but they kept only one. They promised to take our land and they took it."

[bemildred]

14. Indeed. I suppose to be fair I should mention that

Arafat's word does not carry much weight either ...