Time To Engage Syria
Once upon a time the adage that they "never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity" seemed to apply to only one side of the Arab-Israeli divide: the Arab side.
After all, Israeli officials – at least in the first 20 years of Israel's existence – were emphatic that Israeli representatives would go anywhere in the world, at a moment's notice, to negotiate without preconditions with any Arab government willing to talk with Israel.
Prime Minister Levi Eshkol re-stated that principle immediately following the 1967 war, indicating that the lands captured in that war would be on the table if the Arabs would agree to talk. But the Arab League rejected Eshkol's offer with the famous "three noes" -- "no peace with Israel, no negotiations with Israel, no recognition of Israel...."
Talk about a missed opportunity. Eshkol viewed the West Bank, Gaza and the other occupied territories as valuable primarily because Israel could give them up in exchange for peace and security. Before the '67 war, Israel had no surplus land to spare and hence nothing to offer the Arabs. Suddenly it did and Eshkol was willing. But the Arabs foolishly let the moment pass.
Israel's major missed opportunity came in 1971. Up to that point, no Arab leader (except Jordan's King Abdullah back in the 1940's) had indicated a clear willingness to negotiate with Israel. But then, Anwar Sadat, Egypt's new President, announced that he was ready to negotiate with Israel. Furthermore, he did not link negotiations to Israeli withdrawal from all the occupied territory.
Sadat was primarily interested in the formerly-Egyptian Sinai Peninsula and, particularly, in regaining the east bank of the Suez Canal so he could re-open the canal to international shipping. As for Israel's occupation of the West Bank, Gaza, Golan Heights and the Palestinian issue, that was for negotiating about later.
Israel took note of Sadat's stated willingness to talk. Prime Minister Golda Meir acknowledged that Sadat was "the first Egyptian leader to say he was ready to make peace." But she was not interested in negotiating with Sadat over Sinai, not in 1971. As Meir said later: "We never had it so good." Israel had security and the territories. Who cared what Sadat offered or withheld?
So when Sadat said that in return for an Israeli pullback of 2-3 miles from the east bank of the canal he would begin negotiations toward a full peace, the Israeli government said "no."
President Nixon pushed hard to get the Meir government to explore the offer, as did Israel's Defense Minister Moshe Dayan. But the majority of the Cabinet felt that Israel should reject the pressure and reject the peace offer too. The pro-Israel community in America backed Israel and told Nixon to butt out. The Prime Minister knew best, or so the thinking went.
It was at that point that Sadat decided that the only way he would regain his territory would be through war. He spent two years preparing an attack and then, on Yom Kippur 1973, the Egyptians crossed the canal, wiped out the Israeli defenders, and – with Syrian assistance -- came close to defeating Israel itself.
The war cost Israel 3,000 young lives - all of whom would likely have been spared if Israel had taken up Egypt 's offer. In the end, Israel got peace with Egypt but at the price of surrendering not a mere 2-3 miles of the Sinai, but every last inch of it. And thousands of lost sons, fathers, and brothers. (It is worth noting that the pro-Israel community’s backing of Israel’s resistance to Nixon’s “pressure” contributed to the worst disaster in Israel’s history–a demonstration that unthinking and uncritical “support” is, in fact, anything but).
It is just possible that another colossal missed opportunity is in the making right now. According to the highly respected and well-connected Ha'aretz correspondent, Akiva Eldar, Israeli and Syrian representatives – meeting secretly over a two year period ending in July 2006 – agreed on the framework of a peace treaty.
According to Eldar, the plan provides for a full Israeli withdrawal from the Golan Heights. Syria and Israel would be separated by a buffer zone in the form of a nature park, open to citizens of both countries.
Israel would retain exclusive control over the coveted waters of the Jordan River and the Sea of Galilee. Demilitarized and reduced military presence zones, provisions for early warning stations and international security oversight, would be established. And, of critical importance, Syria would end its support for Hezbollah and distance itself from Iran. Likewise, Hamas leader Khaled Meshal would be forced to leave Damascus.
Once these mutual commitments are met, a full peace treaty would be signed and normal relations established.
The Eldar story sounds like a fantasy but it isn't. We know it isn't because key figures mentioned in Eldar's piece – Americans, Israelis and Syrians – have confirmed that the meetings took place.
Most notably, Alon Liel , a former Director General of the Israeli Foreign Ministry and Geoffrey Aronson, the American director of the Foundation for Middle East Peace, who facilitated the meetings, confirm that they happened. Liel told Ha'aretz that "Syria is serious about resuming peace talks with Israel and even proposed holding secret high-level talks during the war in Lebanon last summer, which Israel rejected. "
The most significant piece of evidence attesting to the significance of these meetings is that senior US officials say that Vice President Cheney was kept up-to-date about the meetings and indicated no opposition to them. This is critical because some Israelis claim that it is the Bush administration that is preventing Israel from responding to Syrian overtures. Apparently not in this case.
Perhaps, the Bush administration is moving away from its hard-line on dealing with Syria. Perhaps, taking a page from the Baker-Hamilton report, it is concluding that our disdain for the Assad regime should not prevent us from engaging Syria. Not if doing so will lead Syria to stop its trouble-making on the Iraq and Israeli borders and drive a wedge between Iran and Syria (not to mention Hamas and Hezbollah).
Unfortunately, the Israeli government responded to the Ha'aretz report with instant rejection which almost immediately produced a negative response in Damascus.
Obviously, Syria was not going to own up to negotiating with Israel if the Israeli government was in full rejection mode.
By why would it be? Prime Ministers Rabin, Peres, Netanyahu and Barak all pursued the idea of trading the Golan for peace. And Ariel Sharon was aware of the talks that were going on at the time of his stroke and did nothing to halt them
Why not explore how far Damascus will go? The answer is, almost surely, politics.
A weak Olmert government may not feel it can pursue negotiations with Syria right now.
Nevertheless, Olmert should not hesitate to explore the Syrian option.
The possibility that Syria is ready for peace is too important to ignore.
Any peace feeler is worthy of exploration, especially one as promising as this.
By pursuing the Syrian track Israel could succeed in eliminating the threat from its most implacable neighbor. Peace with Syria would remove Iran's entry point into Israel's immediate neighborhood and halt its arms supply, virtually destroying Hezbollah. And Hamas would be almost totally isolated.
Anyone who believes this is not a gamble worth considering simply does not understand what the stakes for America and Israel really are.
But wait. There's good news. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice is, according to media reports, ready to make a major push for Israeli-Palestinian negotiations with a view toward reaching an agreement by the time President Bush leaves office. That explains why the Vice President has, apparently, encouraged the unofficial Israeli-Syrian talks (or, at least, not opposed them).
Bush, Cheney and Rice may understand that success in Iraq looks increasingly unlikely and that, by comparison, achieving a final status Israel-Palestinian agreement would be relatively easy. It's legacy time. The Bush administration should go for it.
As for the pro-Israel community and the Congress, it should recall the lesson of 1971. Supporting Israel by supporting the status quo is no support at all. Just visit the military cemetery on Mount Herzl in Jerusalem and imagine it without the 3000 graves of soldiers who died heroically in an utterly preventable war.
Comments (47)
There is no doubt that Sadat offered many opportunities to negotiate a deal with the Israelis and the Israelis drunk with the victory of the Six Day War blew the opportunity. It then took the Yom Kippur War and both another Israeli victory and the fiction of an Egyptian victory that led Sadat to Jerusalem.
It is now well known that Israelis and an American of Syrian descent acting with the knowledge of the Israeli government, the Syrian government and the U.S. government spent two years negotiating a peace plan. This deal was side tracked by Syria's backing of Hezbollah in the war in Lebanon.
The failure of Israel to crush Hezbollah and the disputes within Olmerts government as a result of the wars less than stellar outcome has made them very weak. One must presume that the Assad government is even weaker and being increasingly isolated by their fellow Arabs. Since the politically weakest of the trios is Bush wouldn't the smartest thing be for secret negotiations to begin again? Let Peretz be shoved out and Olmert face an electorial challenge homely bringing a stronger Israeli government.
In the meantime Lebanon looks like it is collapsing as Hezbollah can't deliever and its government can't stop Hezbollah. This is likely to increase the pressure on Syria by Egypt and the Saudis to make a deal with Israel.
When those outside the pro-Israel community should not be ignored when their ideas are correct.
Daniel A. Greenbaum
January 22, 2007 1:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
MJ,
It makes alot of sense. It could even benefit the US by securing the Iraqi-Syrian border. But help me understand why Olmert would publically exploit the appearance of White House intransigence over Israeli-Syrian negotiations if truly none exists.
January 22, 2007 1:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
That 1971 story is amazing (though I have read it before). It is instructive. The Israeli government ignores the US when the US tells it of a promising peace offer. The lobby (AIPAC) backs Israel in the name of the security of the Jewish people, etc.
And then 3000 Israelis get killed because the peace offer was rejected.
Does the lobby ever admit it's wrong? Does it ever apologize for blindly accepting whatever dumbass policy the Israelis are pursuing. I mean, Golda Meir and Moshe Dayan both lost their jobs due to the '73 war disaster.
But AIPAC just goes from blunder to blunder. What do they care how many Jews and Arabs die? They've got Jimmy Carter to censor.
I hope Hillary sees this post. If she continues to spout the AIPAC line. we need to make sure that primary voters in Iowa and New Hampshire and the others know it. I think she would be a fine nominee and President. But I heard her speech at AIPAC a couple of years ago and it shook me badly. Does she still believe this stuff?
http://clinton.senate.gov/news/statements/details.cfm?id=239816
You don't really have to read it. It's simple. The Israeli-Palestinian war will end when the Palestinians accept Israel's positions on everything. Israel is 100% right and the Palestinians are 100% wrong. That's it. I'm not make it up.
January 22, 2007 1:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
It could be that he is too weak politically to pursue this so he blames the US.
He now has Avigdor Lieberman in the Cabinet who, as you know, is an old fashioned fascist (he wants all Arabs out of Israel including Arab citizens). Lieberman would probably walk if Olmert negotiated with Assad. So Olmert blames the US.
Nevertheless, I have no doubt that there definitely are powerful neocons in the administration (not Rice) who would split a gut if Olmert pursued peace with Syria.
They are the same people who pressured Israel to continue last summer's Lebanon war when, after 2 weeks, Israel was ready to call it quits.
The administration's Bill Kristol types are always ready to fight to the last Israeli. That is what neocon means (obviously the self-same neocons will fight to the last American soldier or Marine, as well).
January 22, 2007 1:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
I wonder if this Syrian agreement meets Bush's precondition to US-Syrian talks about Iraq? Personally, I'm dubious, in general, about preconditions to talks.
--
Howard
*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*
January 22, 2007 2:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
For once, an MJ Rosenberg post that actually makes some sense. Yes, if the Syrians are serious, Israel should not blow the opportunity. But my question has to do with the quality of the "peace" that Syria is likely to offer. Will it be like the "peace" with Egypt, which is a ticking time bomb?
Personally, I have my doubts that support for Hezbollah will cease. The Lebanon/Syria border is notoriously porous and arms smuggled in through there all the time. During the Lebanon war last summer, this was the main supply route. Let's also not forget that Egypt, which is supposedly the model for an Arab country at peace with Israel, routinely lets arms get smuggled in to Gaza. Are we going to assume that the Syrians will be more trustworthy than the Egyptians? Somehow I doubt it.
I think the likely outcome will be a similar cold peace that doesn't remove the key strategic threat to Israel, which is the incurable hatred and anti-Semitism of Arab society. If Israel is serious about peace, it should push for international monitoring of not only the borders of Syria, but its media outlets as well.
In short, I'd be all in favor of peace with Syria, but Israel should drive a hard bargain and make sure that the peace with Syria doesn't resemble the hollow shell that peace with Egypt has become. Sure it's great that there'll be a treaty and a nice demilitarized zone. But it's not the military threat from Syria that should matter in any case. It's the hate.
January 22, 2007 3:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
--
Howard
*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*
January 22, 2007 3:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Prime Minister Levi Eshkol re-stated that principle immediately following the 1967 war, indicating that the lands captured in that war would be on the table if the Arabs would agree to talk. But the Arab League rejected Eshkol's offer with the famous "three noes" -- "no peace with Israel, no negotiations with Israel, no recognition of Israel...."
All I can do is shake my head. It reinforces my pessimism on this topic when even someone who will criticize Israel does so only after re-affirming Israel's own talking and propaganda points. How can progress be made on the subject when people don't even start with a firm grip on the facts? It's like trying to add two numbers to get to "four," without understanding fractions, or the values of one, two, or three. You can do a whole lot of playing around with the numbers, but your odds of success aren't real promising.
January 22, 2007 3:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
January 22, 2007 4:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
"But AIPAC just goes from blunder to blunder. What do they care how many Jews and Arabs die? They've got Jimmy Carter to censor".
For a toddler with a hammer, everything looks like a nail.
For Bush, everything is global war on Terror.
For a every enemy looks like AIPAC.
January 22, 2007 4:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khartoum_Resolution
The resolution contains in paragraph 3 what became known as "the three nos" of Arab-Israel relations at that time.
No peace with Israel
No recognition of Israel
No negotiations with Israel
January 22, 2007 5:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Assuming that is the threat, what non-genocidal means do you propose to remove it?"
Develop energy conserving technologies and cut oil prices in half. There is no other solutions possible, The irony is that only haters of Israel on the Left can save Israel.
January 22, 2007 7:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
So MJ, if I kidnap your two children and offer to sell one of them back to you, you would not be so foolish as to pass up such a great opportunity?
Of course we both know what davai would do, he'd send AIPAC to kill your children to liberate you from having deal with the problem.
January 22, 2007 9:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
It ought to be ABC knowledge to anyone who chooses to regularly discuss this topic (as does Rosenberg, frankly I expect no better from most people, particularly those of a certain outlook), that the Khartoum Resolution was passed after Israel had indicated it would give back Sinai and most of Syria, but left Jerusalem and the West Bank off the table. The narrative Rosenberg types above is a one-sided, propagandistic presentation of Khartoum, stripping away the context from the document. You are what you are; I'd expected more from Rosenberg.
January 22, 2007 9:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
"The narrative Rosenberg types above is a one-sided, propagandistic presentation of Khartoum, stripping away the context from the document. You are what you are;"
Yes it's true, Me and wikepedia are what we are, I guess, Jewish lobby pressured wikepedia to hide the truth.
January 22, 2007 9:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Of course we both know what davai would do, he'd send AIPAC to kill your children to liberate you from having deal with the problem".
I would never do that, instead I would send AIPAC to capture children alive so that I can drink their blood.
January 22, 2007 9:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's easy to overlook the fact that Syria has it's own reasons for doing things that may have nothing to do with our parochial interests. Few Americans know anything about Syria, and probably know more about the "Hermit Kingdom" of North Korea.
The dominant Ba'ath Party in Syria shares a socialist economic philosophy with Iraqi Ba'athist, but little else. Indeed, Syria was a member of the original "Coalition of the Willing" joining the U.S. during Desert Storm. Syria's insistence that Saddam resign was a major problem during the Madrid peace conference that ended Desert Storm.
65% of Syrians are Sunni. During the 1980s the government fought a fierce war against Moslem Brotherhood terrorists for control of the country. Since 1949 a solid wall has separated church and state where Sunni, Shi'a, Druze, Alawis, and other sects coexist with roughly the same friction one finds between Mormons and Catholics (somewhat less than the gulf between a Rhode Islander and a South Carolinian). Women have had the vote, and not the veil, since 1949. Syria can easily claim to be the most secular of Arab states.
My daughter, who lives in a foreign capital, frequently works and socializes with Syrian foreign service personnel at the Syrian embassy. Many of those career diplomats have refused being posted in their embassy in Saudi Arabia, referring to Saudis as "barbarians" because of their adherence to Wahabbist Sharia law. They have the same contempt for Iranians.
It may be comforting to believe that every person on this planet decides what to wear each morning based on what America may think of it, but it's really not true. Syrians are more concerned with checking the influence of Wahabbist and Iranian religious fanatacism than Bush's silly preconditions. And even more concerned about the 1,100,000 refugees it has taken in from the civil war in Iraq.
January 22, 2007 11:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's wikipedia--anybody with a keyboard and access to the internet can change it. To quote wikipedia on a subject at all controversial is a waste of time.
January 23, 2007 5:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
Of course, I'm one of Luigi's "people of a certain outlook." But still, why does it always come down to Jews stealing babies with you people?
January 23, 2007 5:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thank you; that is a constructive and positive suggestion.
I would like to draw attention, however, to the way you are presenting it, reminiscent of Orwell's doublespeak category of newspeak. You say only the Left haters of Israel can save Israel.
Perhaps you are using some definition of "hater" besides mine, which would be someone that specifically wishes ill for Israel. What seems much closer here is that a "hater" is someone that has different priorities than the Israeli government, and is looking at regional rather than national issues. That's far from hate in my set of definitions.
If you are not using irony with the term "hater", I suggest either you are giving it contradictory meanings, or you are using it in the sense that "hate" means disagreeing with the current policy of the State of Israel's government.
Are there regional or world steps in which you'd start this solution? Clearly, Israel, between scientific talent and location, should have considerable expertise in solar energy alternatives.
--
Howard
*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*
January 23, 2007 5:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
Are you saying a cookbook is more important than a treaty?
--
Howard
*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*
January 23, 2007 6:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
I was referring to US preconditions levied on Syria, not Syria's national right to do more or less as it will.
This is a phenomenon I've notice a good deal at TPMcafe. There is an interaction between the US and Country A. I make a statement about what I might understand to be country A's action or changed position, purely based on my understanding of the policy and sensitivities of country A.
A response is posted complaining that the US is demanding something of Country A, which was not, in the slightest, the thrust of my post. When it seems to be impossible to think about a country's own policy because the US has said something eminently ignorable, I suspect there is a case of US-as-master-villain afoot, rather than anything reality-based.
--
Howard
*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*
January 23, 2007 6:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
Are you saying that the following is not a correct text of the resolution?
"The Arab Heads of State have agreed to unite their political efforts at the international and diplomatic level to eliminate the effects of the aggression and to ensure the withdrawal of the aggressive Israeli forces from the Arab lands which have been occupied since the aggression of June 5. This will be done within the framework of the main principles by which the Arab States abide, namely, no peace with Israel, no recognition of Israel, no negotiations with it, and insistence on the rights of the Palestinian people in their own country"
January 23, 2007 7:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
If its correct, you can find a better source than wikipedia.
January 23, 2007 8:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
"Perhaps you are using some definition of "hater" besides mine, which would be someone that specifically wishes ill for Israel"
Yes, this definition applies to most of the people commenting on
MJ blogs.
What seems much closer here is that a "hater" is someone that has different priorities than the Israeli government, and is looking at regional rather than national issues."
This definition applies to you.
January 23, 2007 8:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
xxx
January 23, 2007 8:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
Let me rephrase the terms then.... I and a group of common thugs kill two of your neighbors attempting to terrorize you and your neighbors into leaving. Since my son has married the police chief's daughter, the police side with me instead of you. They order you and your neighbors to leave in the interest of "peace". I move into your house. In all "fairness" I then offer to let you camp out in MY backyard.
Do you have any idea how many Palistinian families still possess the key to their house, a house a Zionist has been living in for two generations?
January 23, 2007 11:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
Who cares?
How many Germans still possess they key to their house, a Polish or, Czech or Russian
has been living in for two generations?
How Many Hindi Indians still possess they key to their house, a Muslim in what’s today Pakistan has been living in for two generations?
How many Greeks in Cyprus still possess they key to their house, a Turkish has been living in for two generation.
How many Serbs still possess they key to their house a Croat or Kosovar has been living in for a generation
The answer is NONE (or very few)
They and their children are all today much better off without f-ing keys.
January 23, 2007 12:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
In that case, what is your rationale for things from Biblical times being justifications for Zionism?
--
Howard
*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*
January 23, 2007 1:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't know. I'm just don't understand, why would I send my children, grandchildren, grandgrandchildren to die so that I can keep dream that some day some of them would be able to move 20 miles from where I live today.
January 23, 2007 1:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm sorry, but I can't understand what you are saying.
As an American, with a history of westward expansion and high population mobility, if you are suggesting that it is important that descendants be able to live within 20 miles, I am utterly confused.
Where are you sending them to die? How and why?
--
Howard
*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*
January 23, 2007 1:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
Never mind my last post, You made my point better then I could.
January 23, 2007 2:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
You're playing his game by getting bogged down in trivialities. Do what Rosenberg apparently did not, and actually read about the Khartoum Resolution. The document itself is ordinary, but the circumstances surrounding it, and in particular, how it has been used as a propaganda weapon since, are instructive, and provides insight into why well-intentioned people like Rosenberg are always on the losing side on this issue.
Here's the Resolution from the U.N.'s web page:
http://domino.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/0145a8233e14d2b585256cbf005af141/1ff0bf3ddeb703a785257110007719e7!OpenDocument
And here's the passage the "Three Nos" are lifted from, with a suggestion of the context Rosenberg sidestepped bolded:
January 23, 2007 2:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Howard,
Zionism was and remains a predominantly poltical movement, concerned much more with history than theology. Further, the national rights of Jews and Arabs in former British Mandatory Palestine are not mutually exclusive. There is simply no other place on the planet beside what we know today as Israel where the Jewish people is not alien. Simply put, Zionism is justified by the consistent existential vulnerability of the Jewish people through the history of its exile.
January 23, 2007 2:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
If you were to say that certain Jews felt they needed a defensible homeland after the Holocaust, I might accept that idea, if the homeland were in any arbitrary place on the earth. As soon as one brings up the aspect of exile, then there is a biblical connotation, and, in my mind, the same right that the Lenni Lenape Indians have to Newark, NJ. Mind you, the Lenni Lenape show good sense in not wanting Newark. Newark is a place to be from, as opposed to a rational destination (I was born there). To put it in UK terms, Newark is Slough but with crime and pollution.
The reality that most American Jews do not feel an existential vulnerability as American citizens supports your argument that Zionism is a political movement. I really can't think of any political movements that have an inherent right to territory, although there is a reality that various groups can claim territory by force of arms.
--
Howard
*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*
January 23, 2007 2:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Kache,
And Jews can relate. The Jewish people has endured a long and largely unpleasant exile itself. It wasn't simply to make the lives of Arabs in Palestine miserable that the Jewish people began to assert its national self-determination in the only place it ever had before. Further, and once again, the national rights and aspirations of both Jewish and Arab peoples within former British Mandatory Palestine are not mutually exclusive. Once more of us can wrap our heads around the fact that Zionism is not an expression of evil for evil's sake, perhaps we may achieve a productive dialogue, and maybe even solve the conflict.
January 23, 2007 2:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
It was Clausewitz, I believe, who asked at Versailles, "Must every little language have its own country?" Believe me, I am not singling out Zionism. I am dubious about the claims of any group to "historical homelands" from which they cite exile, or even domination in place.
--
Howard
*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*
January 23, 2007 3:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Howard,
I would agree that the same historical standard applies to the Sauk, Fox and Pottawatamie as well. And as soon as the nations emerge with a viable movement comparable to Zionism, they will have my full-throated poltical support.
Mentioning the Holocaust, it should be noted that history does not happen all at once and the Final Solution was a culmination of a chronic socio-political and historical pattern, to which Zionism was only one of the more successful responses.
January 23, 2007 3:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Howard,
We all look forward to your passionate defense of the Xizang Liberation Organization if and when the Tibetans reclaim their national self-determination.
January 23, 2007 3:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
You seem to misunderstand. i I don't particularly care what either side does in most cases of "national self-determination," unless the conflict spreads. Spreading conflicts need to be treated on a case-by-case basis.
--
Howard
*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*
January 23, 2007 3:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
I treat the Sauk, Fox, Pottawatamie, and Zionist claims equally -- no special right when others have held the territory, but a certain right if a group holds it by force of arms. If that possession creates conflict outside the region, other powers deal with it as consistent with their national interests.
--
Howard
*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*
January 23, 2007 3:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
I have no idea what you want.
--
Howard
*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*
January 23, 2007 3:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Howard,
It's really not hard to understand your statement proclaiming yourself "dubious about the claims of any group to 'historical homelands' from which they cite exile." The only thing I find curious is why anyone would bother developing an opinion about it if they really don't care. Enigma, mystery, riddle..., y'know?
January 23, 2007 4:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Their freedom to wave their fists ends where my nose begins. When their desire for a homeland triggers border disputes that spill into other countries, or their support organizations create questionable loyalties in other countries (e.g,, the IRA in Boston), then they very much deserve an opinion -- a negative one.
--
Howard
*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*
January 23, 2007 5:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Indeed. And you are one lucky American that the Fox and Sauk Nations have no more viable expression of national aspirations than the name of a mediocre hockey team from Chicago.
January 23, 2007 6:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
I see. I thought I was lucky to have fellow Americans of Fox and Sauk ancestry.
I trust, therefore, that you regret they are not in a position to carry out a separatist political expression? Funny...I thought Americans, with obvious tribal exceptions, had a symposium on national aspirations between 1861 and 1865, and came to some consensus. There is no question it took longer for some Americans to get full rights, but, somehow, I doubt they would have gotten them had the Confederacy successfully expressed its national aspirations.
--
Howard
*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*
January 23, 2007 6:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Heck, the Sauk and Fox nations owe what is left of their precarious existence to the national aspirations of Americans. It's all so very convenient. National aspirations are apparently good for us, until they aren't.
January 24, 2007 11:33 AM | Reply | Permalink