or
Join Now!
|
|
Home/Government/Politics
|
| Forum |
Ask A Question |
Question Board |
FAQs |
Search |
Return to Question Board
| Question Details |
Asked By |
Asked On |
| An Article I saw... |
ETWolverine |
10/14/04 |
Hello all,
I first saw this article in the Houston Chronicle on Friday Oct. 8, 2004. I found it reprinted here.
I will first print the article here.
Then I'll rip it apart.
Your comments are appreciated.
-------------
Israel Wins the Debates
More of the Same
By TARIF ABBOUSHI
John Kerry and John Edwards used their debates with George W. Bush and Dick Cheney to tell America that if the incumbents are re-elected, as far as Iraq goes we can expect 'More of the same.' Those four words exemplify the essence of the Democrats' argument for regime change in the U.S., a Kerry-Edwards mantra, if you will, that defines the Bush administration's plan for dealing with the debacle they got us into in Iraq. But there's another mantra that bodes equally ill for our efforts to win the peace in Iraq, one that is used by Democrats and Republicans alike to encapsulate their approach to dealing with the mother of all issues in the region: 'Israel has a right to defend itself.'
When John Edwards was pointedly asked to explain his party's plan for dealing with the Israel-Palestine conflict, he ignored the question to wax indelible about Israel's right to self-defense. Offered his opportunity to articulate the incumbency's position, Cheney could only agree with his opponent. It would be closer to the truth for both parties to acknowledge that their plans for Israel-Palestine are one and the same: whatever Israeli prime minister Ariel Sharon's foot-soldiers inside the beltway tell them it's going to be. At its heart, more of the same twisted logic that ascribes the right to self-defense to the occupier, but not the occupied.
A point of contention during the vice-presidential debate was John Edwards' barb that the Bush administration has outsourced the capture of Usama Bin Laden to Afghan warlords. But there is no arguing that it has outsourced the Israel-Palestine conflict resolution to Israel. After repeatedly asserting that he would do whatever it takes to ensure that Israelis and Palestinians comply with his peace plan, the much-vaunted but ill-fated 'Road Map', President Bush has shown he was only talking the talk. When it came time to walk, he toed Sharon's line--all the way around the illegal Israeli colonies on the West Bank.
Our leaders on both sides of the aisle trip over themselves to trumpet another of Sharon's hypnotic mantras: 'Israel has no partner for peace.' The truth is Sharon can find no Palestinian who will accept Israel's definition of peace: a Palestinian entity the contours of which are defined by Israeli settlements, the borders, airspace and aquifers of which are controlled by Israel, and the disjointed non-contiguity of which more resembles Apartheid South Africa's reviled Bantustans than any viable state in the world today. For all its despicable corruption and ineptitude, the Palestinian Authority would ink a peace deal tomorrow if Israel would withdraw from the territories it occupied in 1967, but that is a step Israel has never countenanced--not in Oslo, not at Camp David, not even as a theoretical response to the cessation of Palestinian violence. It is truly the Palestinians who have no partner for peace.
While it is refreshing to hear the Democratic team of Kerry and Edwards join Republican Senators John McCain, Chuck Hagel and Richard Luger in articulating self-evident truths about the quagmire in Iraq (and in doing so highlight the Bush administration's dastardly delusional denial) the truth is neither party has a hope of turning things around for America in the Middle East without first confronting the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in a manner that puts America's interests ahead of Israel's. Focusing on Iraq as the core issue of this election misses the point, for we cannot win the region's hearts and minds through a war conceived and championed by avowed pro-Israel zealots like Paul Wolfowitz, Douglas Feith, David Wurmser and Richard Perle. The folly of their approach continues to unfold before us on a daily basis. In the bigger picture, it is perhaps best captured by President Bush's pre-war claim that the peace train to Jerusalem goes through Baghdad. How Jerusalemites must be praying to their sacred heavens that Bush's train never reaches their holy city.
During his debate with John Edwards, Dick Cheney cited Saddam Hussein's support for Abu Nidal and for the Palestinian suicide bombers as evidence of the deposed Iraqi dictator's links with terror. But Abu Nidal and the suicide bombers are enemies of Israel, not of the U.S. It is the Bush administration's neoconservatives that have succeeded in defining our enemies as Israel's enemies, and not, as is painfully clear, to our benefit. Unfortunately, both the Democratic challengers and the Republican incumbents define their future approach to Israel--and, unwittingly, its consequences for our nation--with the same dreaded four words: More of the same.
Tarif Abboushi lives in Houston. He can be reached at: TAbboushi@aol.com
-----------
Let's see... where to begin....
I know... let's start with some of the basic assumptions made by Mr. Abboushi.
1) That Palestinian terrorism (o terrorism by any other group of terrorists) can ever be justified.
2) That Israel (or any other country) should be forced to negotiate while under the gun of terrorism.
These two assumptions go hand in hand. Without them, Abboushi doesn't have a leg to stand on.
So let's be clear about this: Terrorism is NEVER justified. Deliberate attacks against non-combatants are unjustifiable without exeption. Furthermore, no country should negotiate with terrorists while under the influence of terrorism. To do so is a failure of the government to protect the security of the nation it governs. It doesn't matter whether we are talking about Israel or Africa. The rules and the responsibilities are the same.
3) Israel does not have the right to defend itself.
This assumption is made clear in the fourth paragraph when he lambasts Edwards for saying that Israel DOES have the right to defend itself, and lambasts Cheney for agreeing. Clearly Mr. Abboushi does NOT believe that Israel has the right to defend itself.
In this belief, Mr. Abboushi denies Israel the right of every soveriegn government in the world... the right to secure and safe borders, and the right to defend against attack from its enemies. Not only does Israel (and every other country) have the right to defend itself... it has the RESPONSIBILITY to do so. Anything less is a shirking of that responsibility to its citizens and a monumental failure of the government.
4) That the USA is under duress from Israel, and that Israel is forcing the USA to take actions that are counter to its own best interests.
Mr. Abboushi makes it very clear that he believes that Paul Wolfowitz, Gouglas Feith, David Wurmser and Richard Perle and other prominent no-cons are puppets of Ariel Sharon and are influencing the US government in directions that are not good for the USA.
First of all, if Israel has any influence over the USA, it is as an ally and a peace partner, and a partner in the war on terrorism. It is NOT as a master over a puppet state. It never has been, and it never will be.
Second, supporting Israel in its battle against terrorism is good for America for quite a few reasons.
a) Israel is the USA's only completely reliable and safe port of call in the entire region.
b) Israel is a partner in the war on terror. Anything that supports the elimination of terrorists is good for America and Israel.
c) Israel is an economic ally as well. Anything that can bring stability in the region and eliminate the terrorist threat is good for American business.
Plus, let us not forget that the "support" that Bush has offered Israel until now is simply a hands off policy rather than any affirmative support of any kind. That is the best type of support to give Israel... just stay out of their way, and let them do what they need to do. So the idea that Bush is "supporting" Israel against the Palestinian terrorists is ludicrous. What Mr. Abboushi REALLY means is that the Bush government has refused to oppose Israel, and that is what makes him so angry.
Then there are the factual problems with Mr. Abboushi's article.
I - Mr. Abboushi claims that "The truth is Sharon can find no Palestinian who will accept Israel's definition of peace: a Palestinian entity the contours of which are defined by Israeli settlements, the borders, airspace and aquifers of which are controlled by Israel, and the disjointed non-contiguity of which more resembles Apartheid South Africa's reviled Bantustans than any viable state in the world today."
Clearly, he has not seen the Sharon plan if he can say that. While it is true that some settelements will remain, most of the smaller ones are being disbanded... especially where it effects the congruity of Palestinian territories. Furthermore, the plan will open up Palestinain borders and airspace, and clarify Palestinian water rights. To say otherwise is a clear lie.
II - Then there is the claim that "For all its despicable corruption and ineptitude, the Palestinian Authority would ink a peace deal tomorrow if Israel would withdraw from the territories it occupied in 1967, but that is a step Israel has never countenanced--not in Oslo, not at Camp David, not even as a theoretical response to the cessation of Palestinian violence. It is truly the Palestinians who have no partner for peace. "
Actually, in September 2000, Ehud Barak offered Yassir Arafat 98% of the territories represented by the 1967 borders. The last 2% was withheld for security reasons, but other lands were offered in lieu of that 2%.
Arafat rejected the offer and pulled out of the Camp David talks. He didn't make a counter offer. He didn't debate the issue. He just rejected it and pulled out, claiming that Israel was being unreasonable in its negotiations.
Now I don't know about you, but if someone offers me 98% of what I'm looking for at the negotiating table in any business deal, I jump at it. I certainly DON'T try to pull out of the deal. Yet that is what Arafat did.
So for Mr. Abboushi to claim that Palestinians would "jump at the chance" to take a deal that brought them back to the 1967 borders, but that Israel has "never countenanced" such a deal is another clear lie. Even Clinton, who was at the time an unabashed Arafat supporter, said that Arafat pulling out of the negotiations after being offered the moon was insane and completely unreasonable. Sorry, but the facts are NOT what Abboushi claims they are.
Your comments are appreciated.
Elliot |
Clarification/Follow-up by tomder55 on 10/15/04 6:34 am:
Martin Sherman in The American Spectator proposes a Meir Kahane like solution to the Palestinian Issue. He would resettle the Palestinians elsewhere with adequate monitary compensation for them .
Clarification/Follow-up by ETWolverine on 10/15/04 6:51 am:
When Meir Kahane said it, he was called insane or a facist. People thought he was nuts. Yet every prediction that he put forward has come to fruition, and now people are calling for his relocation plan as if they were the first ones to come up with it. They are calling for a security wall like he proposed as if they were the first to come up with it.
Kahane would have no problem giving others credit for his ideas, as long as they get implemented, and so I have no problem with it either. I'm just wondering what the hell took everyone so long to figure out what Kahane predicted 30 years ago.
Elliot
|
| |
|
Your Options |
Additional Options are only visible when you login! !
|
|
|
|
