Click to Listen to the Show (24 MB MP3)
Everyone’s talking about Syria. And talking about talking to Syria. They’re echoing a refrain started this summer, that the road to peace in Jerusalem and Beirut goes through Damascus. Now the Iraq Study Group is saying the road to peace in Baghdad may go that way too, and Syria’s own President Bashar al-Asad has been emphasizing his country’s importance for Middle East stability:
This summer’s war in Lebanon has lent urgency to President Bashar al-Asad’s repeated calls for a resumption of peace talks, culminating in his statement in a recent BBC interview that Syria was ready to live side-by-side with Israel. “No Syrian has ever said that before,” Vice-President Farouk el-Shara’ reminded me in an interview this week.
…The Syrians…appreciated German Chancellor Angela Merkel’s recent remark that “We can’t deny that Syria is a main player in the region.”
Such statements accord with Syria’s own sense of its regional role, and of the positive influence it can bring to bear on Iraq, Lebanon and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict — if its own interests are addressed. A top Syrian priority is the recovery of the Golan seized by Israel in 1967. Secondly, and perhaps more immediately, is the need to maintain Syrian influence in Lebanon and prevent a hostile power establishing itself there.
Patrick Seale, Syria’s Peace Offensive, Agence Global, 11/8/06
As we did in our Lebanon show, we’re aiming for a deeper understanding of this country and its role in the region. Is it a linchpin for solving the US’s problems in Iraq or Israel’s in Lebanon? Can the US accomplish its foreign policy goals in the Middle East without involving Syria? What has been the historical relationship between Syria and the US, and how does this latest chapter fit into that dynamic? Is Syria now part of the axis of inevitable partners?
Rime Allaf
-
Associate Fellow, Royal Institute of International Affairs (Chatham House)
Blogger, Mosaics
Nasser Rabbat
-
Aga Khan Professor of the History of Islamic Architecture, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Najib Ghadbian
-
Associate Professor, University of Arkansas
Author, Democratization and the Islamist Challenge in the Arab World
- Extra Credit Reading
-
Rime Allaf, Patching things up with the neighbours, The Guardian, November 16, 2006: “Even if they’re not willing to rejoin the world of diplomacy, London and Washington should at least become more level-headed and factually think of Syria and Iran as the ‘axis of inevitable partners’.”
via Potter: Joshua Landis, Is Syria Asking Too Much?, SyriaComment.com, November 17, 2006: “Last year a leading Syria told me that the attitude of the countries leaders was that if the US believed that it could use Iraq and Lebanon as a base from which to launch an anti-Syria campaign, Washington would be sorely disappointed.”
Imad Moustapha, Weblog of a Syrian Diplomat in America, “The journal of Imad Moustapha, Syria’s envoy to the US.”
Patrick Seale, Syria’s Peace Offensive, agenceglobal.com, November 8, 2006: “This summer’s war in Lebanon has lent urgency to President Bashar al-Asad’s repeated calls for a resumption of peace talks, culminating in his statement in a recent BBC interview that Syria was ready to live side-by-side with Israel. ‘No Syrian has ever said that before,’ Vice-President Farouk el-Shara reminded me in an interview this week.”
Sami Moubayed, Syria also wants carrots, Mideastviews.com, November 17, 2006, “The Syrians are confused. They are indeed getting contradicting signals from the international community, and particularly the US. Democratic Senator Joseph Biden, who is expected to head the US Senate’s Committee on Foreign Relations, said the US should convene an international conference on Iraq with the participation of both Syria and Iran. These positive remarks are drowned out by the remarks of Rice and McCormack.”
Samir Aita, Syria: a monopoly on democracy, Le Monde diplomatique, July, 2005: “It is worth recalling how Syria was built on a democratic compromise after the first world war.”
Reuters, Syria, Iraq Restore Ties to Combat Militants, New York Times, November 21, 2006: “Saying the United States appeared to be “trapped in Iraq,” unable either to stay or go, United Nations Secretary General Kofi Annan urged Iran and Syria to be “part of the solution.”
James Bennet, The Enigma of Damascus, The New York Times, July 10, 2005: “‘When you talk about upgrading society, you talk about open-minded,’ he said. ‘When you talk about open-minded, you mean freedom. Freedom of thinking.’”
A couple of selections from Middle East Transparent’s cache of Syria-related articles:
The Syrian-American Rift By Akiva Eldar – opening paragraphs:
As the U.S. congressional elections approach, thousands of party activists are shuttling between synagogues and Evangelical churches, competing with their pro-Israel declarations to garner votes and money. But as of next Tuesday, the rules of the political game in Washington will change: In come the political advisers seeking to rescue Client Number One from the Iraqi vale of tears. James Baker, Bush Sr.’s secretary of state, is expected to present Bush Jr. with a plan detailing an escape from the quagmire.
Edward Djerejian, who heads the James Baker Institute for Public Policy and is involved in drafting the plan, has said in private conversations that the document will recommend Bush lift the boycott on Syria and advance Israeli-Palestinian negotiations. Djerejian, who was American ambassador to both Syria and Israel, has maintained close relations with the regime in Damascus. He wrote in the last issue of Foreign Affairs: “Syria poses both a danger and an opportunity. The [Bashar] Assad regime could undermine security arrangements in southern Lebanon, hinder progress in Iraq and continue to support Hezbollah, Palestinian Islamic Jihad and radicals in Hamas. But it could also play a constructive role in the region – a possibility that has yet to be fully explored. The Bush administration’s engagement with the Syrians from 2003 to 2005 left both sides frustrated. Washington felt that Damascus offered too little too late, and Damascus felt that Washington constantly increased its demands and refused to be satisfied.(â€)
(originally from Haaretz)
Wary of U.S., Syria and Iran Strengthen Ties By MICHAEL SLACKMAN – opening paragraphs:
SAYEDA ZEINAB, Syria, June 24 — For a long time, the top-selling poster in Hassan al-Sheikh’s gift shop here showed President Bashar al-Assad of Syria seated beside the leader of Hezbollah in Lebanon. A few weeks ago a slightly different poster overtook it, this one with the Syrian president, the Hezbollah leader and Iran’s president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.
Mr. Sheikh’s shop is on a bustling street in Sayeda Zeinab beside the entrance to a Shiite shrine that shares a name with the town, and both have been packed with Iranian pilgrims, many more than in years past.
Those changes illustrate what may well be a worrying phenomenon for Washington as it seeks to contain Iran and isolate Syria: the two governments, and their people, are tightening relations on several fronts as power in the region shifts away from the once dominant Sunni to Shiites, led by Iran.
This is, in part, the result of the American installation of a Shiite-dominated government in Iraq after the overthrow of Saddam Hussein and his Sunni-led government. But it is also spurred by the growing belief in Arab capitals that the Bush administration may soon negotiate a deal with Tehran over Iraq and nuclear weapons.
(originally from the New York Times)
More from ME Transparent:
Kiss goodbye to a liberal Middle East By Michael Young
“…Prepare for more of what a realist paragon, Brent Scowcroft, national security adviser to President George H.W. Bush, told The New York Observer in summer 2004. “It’s not that I don’t believe Iraq is capable of democracy. But the notion that within every human being beats this primeval instinct for democracy has not ever been demonstrated to me.”
In that phrase lies much contempt and a fundamental justification for tying America’s wagon to Arab dictators. That is perhaps why Scowcroft, his colleague James Baker, who now co-chairs the Iraq Study Group, and their boss, the elder President Bush, never expressed noticeable remorse for two of their more callous decisions in the Middle East. One was their irresponsible encouragement of Iraqis to revolt against Saddam Hussein’s regime in early 1991, after its army’s defeat in the Gulf War. Bush’s unwillingness to follow up on that invitation with American assistance led to a savage Baathist counterattack that killed tens of thousands of Shiites. And, prior to that, in October 1990, the Bush administration effectively ceded Lebanon to Syria so that President Hafez Assad would agree to join the international coalition convening to oust Iraqi forces from Kuwait.
There are two problems with a return to realism past. The first is that 9/11, whichever way you cut it, was a by-product of that approach. Because militant Islam thrives in repressive Arab societies, because America can only appear more hateful to peoples who see it bolstering their absolute rulers, nothing prevents another terrorist attack against the US. That is the fatal flaw in the realists’ approach. For them 9/11 was a glitch in the international order, albeit a substantial one, an event that should have merely brought retaliatory police action designed to re-establish an equilibrium. Realists were incapable of gauging the importance of ideas, of understanding that militant Islam is perilously eschatological in its ambitions. In their fixation on power, realists never see beyond the dry instruments increasing or lessening power.…â€
(originally from The Daily Star)
The noose tightens around some necks in Damascus/On the repercussions of the Lebanese Cabinet decision – by Iqbal Latif
opening paragraph:
Regardless of the Syrian bare proxy, Hezbollah’s, enormous pains to bring down the Lebanese government through political blackmail of resignations, the Lebanese Cabinet approved a UN draft to form an international tribunal to try former Premier Rafik Hariri’s assassins. It is part of a comprehensive western effort to bring massive pressure on the Syrian Allawite cabal. Former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri’s cold-blooded murder in Beirut reminded me of one episode of The Simpsons where Bart dials 911 and is greeted with a recording, “If you know the name of the crime being committed, press 1 now.” To which he exclaims, “I don’t have time for this!” and hits several random buttons on his phone to which the recording replies, “You have selected regicide. If you know the name of the king or queen being murdered, press 1 now.” If Bart was in Beirut on Feb. 14, he could have pressed 1 and said “Hariri.” One really needs several buttons to press for explanations of “Regicide” especially when the ruling underworld clique of a dreadful Baath p arty undertakes it. Rafik Hariri’s liquidation was a classical Regicide la Baath.
(Latif’s English is imperfect, but his content is worth reading – and it sports wry illustrations to boot.)
I wish pleasant reading to you all…
“[Brent Scowcroft : ]‘It’s not that I don’t believe Iraq is capable of democracy. But the notion that within every human being beats this primeval instinct for democracy has not ever been demonstrated to me.’”
But as I’ve pointed out countless times on these forums, it IS necessary to address this fundamental problem. These exists no science worthy of the term for understanding human or social behavior. We simply do not know what social, historical, economic, or cultural conditions must be met to have a successful democracy.
As a result, any effort to promote democracy in nondemocratic societies is truly an example of a “faith-based” government program. Actually. “faith” doesn’t quite describe it – “wishful thinking” is more like it.
On the other hand, this does not mean we should get it bed with terrorist-sponsoring tyrannies like Syria, either. The main thing is, in Washington’s words, to “avoid foreign entanglements”. This means, for example, to not become dependent, as we are now, on oil from dangerous, unstable parts of thr world. It also means to not invade, and get stuck up to our necks, in wacko places like Iraq where people’s idea of a fun afternoon involves a bound prisoner and a fully-charged battery on their cordless drill.
To plnelson: Good post I agree with you. One question, when you say we should not become dependent on oil from dangerous unstable parts of the world I agree, but I’m not sure their is a viable alternative at this moment or in the past. Which is when we began our dealings with these countries. They have the oil, we need it. This is a problem for both dem and gop administrations. I know Canada,Norway, and others have oil deposits but I’m not sure it is enough to satisfy our needs. The sooner we realize nuclear power is the way to go along with wind and other sources, the better off we will be.
“The sooner we realize nuclear power is the way to go along with wind and other sources, the better off we will be. “
Nuclear power in the US is currently blocked by an unholy and downright weird alliance of environmentalists and big-government anti-free-market Republicans. This history on this subject reads like something out of “Alice in Wonderland”.
The French, a country many Americans love to hate, derive 76% of their electricity from nuclear power. While I don’t advocate doing it in their oh-so-French/oh-so-leftist manner, at least they show that it can certainly be done if people want to. And if we did we could happily thumb our noses at the Syrians, Iranians, the Saudis and other such regimes.
Above, I wrote
“The French, a country many Americans love to hate”
Remember, folks, you heard it here first: the French are a country.
Let’s make that: “France, a country . . . “
America’s hard-line stance, so inelegantly posited by our POTUS as “You are either with us or against us,” is detrimental to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness — of just about every other person on the planet.
America has a hard-liner streak these days, a Politburo it can only be called, that can only cause more problems than it thinks it can solve.
“Don’t negotiate with terrorists,” is a horror show of a foreign policy. There are very few actual (real) terrorists bent on hurting the U.S. via suicide bombings — groups within states and not states themselves. No terrorist in their right mind — and many are in their right mind in this respect — believes that they could ever “destroy” the West (or Israel) through suicide bombings. They simply want to hurt us in order to wear us down into leaving them alone; i.e. to relenquish their grip on what they perceive as their land and their way of life.
So to is the “Support terrorist” line a horror show that too many Americans swallow. Considering America’s military interventions in the Middle East and in Latin America over the last hundred years and try to count the number of civilian dead. Guess who produced and sold chemical weapons to Saddam Hussein of Iraq?
(Take a look also at the United State’s U.N. voting record to see just how arrogant the U.S. really is.)
The Iranian President full well knows that Israel can not ever actually be physically “wiped of the map.” However, their policies and ideologies perhaps should be.
A hard-line stance that the only solution is to use economic sanctions, or military actions to force all these “rogue” nations into American-like Democracies is a terror-ible idea that only makes people want to fight us all the more.
No person in America would ever put up with their neighbor telling them how to raise their kids, let alone landscape their yard. Yet these very same people back the U.S. as it tries to do just that with many other countries.
So what that another country is Socialist or Communist or Monarchy or Democratic republic, Direct democracy, Participatory democracy, or Representative democracy. So what. Yet America somehow wants to force every country to be like it. Considering the West’s history of invasion and resource mongering (which many Americans are entirely ignorant of) most countries are correct to be wary of U.S. intentions.
CORRECTION TO LAST POST – A line in the 4th paragraph should read:
Consider America’s military interventions in the Middle East and in Latin America over the last hundred years and try to count the number of civilian dead.
To Ga Jennings;The Iranian president full well knows that Isreal cant be wiped off the map. What are you saying. Isreal should just ignore Iran?
The US is not forcing any type of government on anyone. Please tell me what countries we currently control. The answer is zero.
” There are very few actual terrorists bent on hurting the US via suicide bombing” Would it make you feel better if they just use poison gas? And how many is very few. Is 19 very few?
“They just want to be left alone”. Right you are so very right. I wonder what would happen to Isreal if they all the sudden decreed” we will no longer bother any terrorists,just do as you like.”
You are right terrorists are really a nice bunch of guys. It is the USA and Isreal that are the real monsters of the world.
Patrick Seale, Syria’s Peace Offensive, Agence Global, 11/8/06
Almost everything the British “news” writer and apoligist for the Syrian strongman, Patrick Seale, wrote is demonstrably false.
His anti-Israel bias is so well known that I am surprised OSR would quote him and broadcast a program around his views.
I wouldn’t mind the broadcast if they invited someone who was unabashedly pro-Israel, and not on the left, on the show at the same time.
ISRAEL not ISREAL
So Lydon’s want to send Bush to Syria.
Does he also want him to stand idly by as the Syrian strongman delivers an anti-Semitic attack as he did when the late Pope visited that tyrannical regime.
Correction:
So Lydon’s want to send Bush to Syria.
Does he also want him to stand idly by as the Syrian strongman delivers an anti-Semitic attack as he did when the late Pope visited that tyrannical regime?
Does he also want him to stand idly by as the Syrian strongman delivers an anti-Semitic attack as he did when the late Pope visited that tyrannical regime?
But they are ALL antisemitic there! The Saudi’s, the Iranians, the Egyptians, the Palestinians – etc. The same people who ran amuck burning things down when the Dane’s published a cartoon making fun of Mohammed see antisemitic op-ed pieces and cartoons every day in their own newspapers or in the Arabic version of Al Jazeera that would make a brownshirt blush!
My friend, you’re probably driving your car with antisemitic oil.
Right now the Syrians and Iranians are giddy with glee that they might be able to pull our particulars out of the fire. Personally I think Bush should be brought up on treason charges for allowing the US to get into such a situation!
“But they are ALL antisemitic there! The Saudi’s, the Iranians, the Egyptians, the Palestinians – etc.”
Yes, of course, but even the Saudis have learned to hide it in public diplomacy. Not so the Syrian regime.
Besides, no one is asking the prez to go to Iran and shake the hand of Ahmadinejab.
Besides, no one is asking the prez to go to Iran and shake the hand of Ahmadinejab.
Right now Iran is hosting a meeting with the Iraqi prez to try to fix things in Iraq. If it looks like Iran might succeed, no one will HAVE to ask him; he’ll cheerfully do it on his own. He’s desperate.
It’s hard to know what with all the posturing on both sides what is going on: who is shooting at who’s feet and who is about to dance. Or is everybody desperate enough to dance while denying their desperation?
For sure Syria is in a very strong postion (ie less desperate) with Iraq falling apart and especially after the results of the Lebanon War this summer. Bush and Olmert despite their “very very very” good meeting a few days ago, have made their respective countries less secure while claiming the opposite in LA (unbelievable!)
A good blog to read is Joshua Landis SyriaComment
[This comment has been deleted. Please refer to the commenting guidelines]
Anti-Syrian Minister Is Assassinated in Lebanon
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/21/world/middleeast/22lebanoncnd.html?hp&ex=1164171600&en=9f7167b70dac932f&ei=5094&partner=homepage
And it’s not even April Fool’s Day:
“EU: Those behind Gemayel killing must be punished
By ASSOCIATED PRESS
BRUSSELS, Belgium
“The European Union condemned the killing of Lebanese minister Pierre Gemayel on Tuesday, and said those behind the slaying of the prominent anti-Syrian politician must be brought to justice.
“Those responsible for this cowardly assassination … must be found and judged,” EU foreign policy chief Javier Solana said.
“Once again, Lebanon has paid a heavy price for its determination to live in peace and independence,” Solana said in a French-language statement.
“In my name, and that of the European Union, I pay homage to the courage and determination of all those who are struggling for an independent, sovereign and united Lebanon,” Solana said.”
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1162378451038&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull
Get ready for more tough talk.
Meanwhile, Blair’s road to Damascus moment:
“Blair welcome’s Syrian’s visit to Iraq
LONDON (Reuters) – Prime Minister Tony Blair welcomed Syrian Foreign Minister Walid al-Moualem’s visit to Iraq on Tuesday and encouraged Damascus to play a helpful role in its neighbour’s affairs.”
….
“I welcome the fact that the Syrian foreign minister went to Iraq,” Blair said at a news conference after a meeting with the visiting president of Kazakhstan.
“The very thing that we have been seeking is to ensure that Syria becomes a help to Iraq … rather than a hindrance. So from our perspective this is the right thing to do.”
He was speaking before news of the assassination of Lebanese government minister Pierre Gemayel in Lebanon. Gemayel was an opponent of Syria’s influence in Lebanon.
Any bets on the chances of the Euroes taking “tough action” against Syria?
http://today.reuters.co.uk/news/articlenews.aspx?type=topNews&storyID=2006-11-21T150938Z_01_L21813884_RTRUKOC_0_UK-IRAQ-BRITAIN-SYRIA.xml
Correction,
“He was speaking before news of the assassination of Lebanese government minister Pierre Gemayel in Lebanon. Gemayel was an opponent of Syria’s influence in Lebanon.”
Should also have been in quotes.
Yet another topic I’m compelled to post on. You guys had better stop enticing me with these shows – you do know I’m trying to lead at least a semblance of a life?
Both of my parents being from Syria, and having been there myself about 9 years ago, I thought I could offer some impressions of the texture of the country itself, as opposed to viewing it – the land, the lives, the history – exclusively through the lens of competing political claims.
OK, so here’s my little walking tour. Feel free to tune out and take pictures instead.
My dad is from a village on the Mediterranean called Tartous. His childhood home is across the street from a park dedicated to Basil al-Asad, the son originally groomed to succeed his father Hafez in the military-monarchy that is the Syrian regime. A fan of fast cars, he died in an accident in 1994, leaving his brother Bashar, training in ophthalmology in London, as next in line for the effective throne. The town is littered with buildings stalled halfway through either construction or destruction – it’s difficult to tell. The beaches, with their warm Mediterranean waters, could be a pleasant tourist attraction, but they’re strewn with trash. This at least was how I saw it almost a decade ago. There was hope of economic openness and improvement when Bashar took power, but apparently very little has been forthcoming.
If you look off the coast of Tartous you can see an island called Arwad, which was my first encounter with the region’s deep and rich history. If you look closely you can literally see layers of history, from the ancient Phoenician walls to fortresses built by the Knights Templar during the crusades. There are castles from the crusades scattered throughout the country, the preeminent example being the Crac des Chevaliers. There are the ruins of Palmyra, along with several others from Roman times. And there are the waterwheels, or noria, in the city of Hama, site also of the Hama massacre of 1982, where Asad brutally suppressed an insurrection of the Muslim Brotherhood. The numbers vary, but most likely upwards of 30,000 were killed, the bodies reportedly paved over as a parking lot.
My mom is from Latakia, Syria’s largest port city. The buildings along the shore are very nice and modern, but if you move a few miles inland you’ll find what are essentially ghettos.
Damascus and Aleppo are probably the most prosperous urban areas. And pretty much every city has at least a few large statues of Hafez al-Asad. I remember one especially grotesque one, looming on a high cliff on the side of a freeway, about as tall as the cliff itself. At the time I was there, posters of his face were pasted practically everywhere, even on the doors of churches and mosques.
Most meals seem to be a steady stream of items. It’s very difficult to distinguish distinct phases, such as appetizers and desserts. It’s all pretty much one big blur. Almost every evening people gather to sit in a circle and eat and talk.
Many Syrian drivers have yet to grasp the concept of lanes.
I hope you’ve enjoyed the tour. And, as you step off the bus, please remember that these countries are actual places with actual people, and not just pawns and players in political maneuverings.
Briefly on political entanglements.
When confronted with complexity, it’s tempting to fall into conflation. It’s important to see that these situations involve distinct yet interrelating entities.
The Asad family, as well as much of the upper echelons of the Syrian government, are from the Alawite sect of Islam. While some Alawites are religious, the Asad family is more or less secular, and in general, at least within the country itself, maintains an uneasy relation with the more fanatical strains of Islam. At times this tension erupts into open hostility, as with the events leading to the Hama massacre. However, the Syrian government allows Hezbollah to operate in Lebanon pretty much with their blessing, albeit at arm’s length, an alliance arising out of the 1982 Lebanese war.
Yet the rulers of Syria and Hezbollah represent different phenomena. The relationship arose more from political and tactical convenience, not from a sense of shared identity. The former is an example of an effectively secular military regime interested first and foremost in fortifying its own power and sustaining its own survival. I tend to think of Hafez al-Asad as a rather less maniacal, more calculating version of Saddam Hussein, both with sons similarly in line for succession, both coming to power after coups, both creatures of old school pan-Arab nationalism gone bad.
In other words, the Syrian government, it seems to me, being less ideologically driven, would be more amenable to practical deal making, more willing to enter into the nasty little game of mutual back-scratching. At the very least, it has the virtue of concerning itself primarily with its own survival and continuity, as opposed to grand overarching “eschatological†aims.
Both of my parents being from Syria, and having been there myself about 9 years ago, I thought I could offer some impressions of the texture of the country itself
. .
please remember that these countries are actual places with actual people, and not just pawns and players in political maneuverings.
I’m not sure what the point of your little travelogue is. Also I would note that being “an actual place with actual people” is not mutually-exclusive with being “pawns and players in political maneuverings”. Plenty of actual places with actual people are still pawns in political maneuverings – Lebanon, for example.
Both of my parents are from the US and what I’ve always found interesting about the US is that Americans like to make THEMSELVES pawns in political maneuvering. “Lie to us!”, they beg their political leaders. “PLEASE make us pawns in your political meneuverings.” Americans don’t seem happy or fulfilled unless they are letting someone whip them up into a patriotic froth and leading them off on some harebrained scheme.
This is a very useful article written in 1997 when Asad was still alive, about the time that mynocturama recalls in the informative posts above .
I assume the point of the travelogue was to share, to give a first hand account. It’s very much appreciated by this reader and I can connect it to what I know about the eastern mediterranean landscape of Israel to the south with all it’s Roman and Crusader ruins.
Why Syria Must Regain the Golan to Make Peace by Alon Ben-Meir.
Here is a quote on the historical dimension:
“More than a year ago when I first visited Syria, I met with Syria’s minster of information, Muhammad Salman. Salman, a learned man with a deep sense of his nation’s history, recalled chapters of glory and periods of gloom. In a low voice, but with calm precision and deliberation, he recounted the five decades of Israeli-Syrian struggle:
It took Syria nearly 50 years to finally accept the Israeli reality. Two generations have passed and even then, only following sweeping changes in the Middle East and around the globe, have we come to slowly digest the Israeli existence. We have moved from a determination to destroy Israel to acceptance, to accommodation, and now even reconciliation. In the interim, yes, we had to swallow some of our pride. But remember, a nation, a people, can change course when changing the course promises to lead to a better life, to progress, prosperity and peace. Now we are asked to make peace by perpetuating a national humiliation, by surrendering part of our land that the whole world recognizes is ours and ours alone.
Our President has stated the condition for peace, and this condition, namely, full withdrawal for full peace, will always be required. Israeli leaders can come and go, but we are very patient people. We measure time, not in years, but in centuries. Empires come and go. In this century alone we have witnessed the collapse of three empires — the British, the German and the Soviet — but the Arab nation has more than quadrupled in the last 50 years. By the year 2020 there will be more than 250 million Arabs and 10 to 12 million Jews. This is a demographic revolution that no one can stop or change. It is Israel, not the Arab states, that must make the necessary adjustments to become Middle Eastern and an integral part of this region. Under what conditions, may I ask, should Syria or any other Arab entity accept Israel as a member state and welcome its people to our homes when they represent occupation and are a permanent reminder of our national humiliation?
I cannot tell you what will happen if Israel misses this historic opportunity to make a real peace. How intense the violence will be, how many more innocent people on both sides will die, and what kind of peace Israel will be able to achieve with the rest of the Arab states? But one thing I know for sure: if it takes another 1,000 years, we will recover our land. Time is with us. The sooner Israel recognizes this fact of life, the sooner we can fold our president’s formula — the peace of the brave — into a comprehensive peace agreement.
PLN, I’m with you, to the hilt and beyond, regarding the “This I Believe†thread. Here, however, I beg to differ…
Thanks for the humanizing sketch of Syria, John. Thanks especially for this caveat: “When confronted with complexity, it’s tempting to fall into conflation†– which I’m all too often guilty of.
One observation on the travelogue: I appreciated the irony of Syria’s astonishingly rich history (Phoenicians, crusaders, etc.) juxtaposed with the comical, redundant statues of the tinpot dictators currently befouling that history. It wasn’t funny enough to make me laugh, but it earned a rueful smile.
Thanks again.
“I’m not sure what the point of your little travelogue is.”
No good reason really, other than self-indulgence. And, seeing as Robin wrote above, “we’re aiming for a deeper understanding of this country and its role in the region,” I thought I’d offer another angle, and a bit of a respite from the rigid acrimony accompanying discussions about the Middle East.
“Also I would note that being “an actual place with actual people†is not mutually-exclusive with being “pawns and players in political maneuveringsâ€.”
Never said they were. It’s just that we seem to need to be reminded of the former.
[This comment has been deleted because it failed to follow our commenting guidelines. - Brendan]
Someone should ask Allaf about the Palestinian and Hezbollah attacks on Israeli civilians.
If Syria didn’t lob artillery shells into Israel from those very Heights in a group attack in ’67, they’d still be Syrian today. Why should Israel trust them now?
a note, the alawites ruling caste is tacitly treated as ithna asharia shia muslims by the iranians. this is not necessarily warranted by alawite beliefs, which exhibit a lot of syncretism, but shiism is a bit broader in its tent and the political alliance between iran and syria made this advantageous in the 1970s.
“but shiism is a bit broader in its tent and the political alliance between iran and syria made this advantageous in the 1970s. ”
When in the 70′s? Under the Shah?
The Shiites didn’t take power till 79!
Sir Otto Says:
November 21st, 2006 at 8:29 pm
“If Syria didn’t lob artillery shells into Israel from those very Heights in a group attack in ‘67, they’d still be Syrian today. Why should Israel trust them now?”
Exactly so.
But history is something the anti-Israel folk don’t care much about.
Regarding Sir Otto’s comment above about Syria lobbing artillery shells from the golan Heights here is the whole story ( from the linked Ben-Meir article above):
(quote) Correspondent Rami Tal of the widely circulated Israeli newspaper Yediyot Aharonot, published a private conversation he had in 1976 with Israel’s former chief of the General Staff and defense minister, Moshe Dayan. Dayan’s account of the situation along the Syrian border from the time of Israel’s establishment until the Six-day War of 1967 was nothing less than astounding:
After all, I know exactly how at least 80 percent of the incidents began. We would send a tractor to do some ploughing work in some spot in the demilitarized zone where farming activities were out of the question, and we knew in advance that the Syrians would start shooting. If they held their fire, we would instruct the tractor drivers to keep moving forward until the Syrians would lose their temper and start shooting. Then we would begin artillery shelling and, at a later stage, we would bring in the Air Force. This is what I did, and what Laskov and Tchera (chief of staff Zvi Tzur) also did, and what Yitzhak Rabin did as well. We thought then, and we continued to do so for a considerable while, that we could alter the armistice lines through military operations that would be just short of actual war. In other words, by seizing some land and holding it until the enemy would despair and let us keep it.
Sadly, even after such astonishing revelations, there was very little public debate, and Israeli leaders from the left to the right of the political spectrum remained muted. Three decades of public brain washing had created a national state of mind that found comfort in a lie perpetuated even at the cost of losing the opportunity for a peace treaty with Syria.
Thus, from the Israeli perspective, the Golan has provided, and continues to provide, the buffer the Israelis feel they need to prevent the Syrians from repeating their attacks. And so Israeli leaders deny that today’s advanced weapons (missiles and supersonic bombers) would render the Golan inconsequential. The Syrians would still have to depend on their infantry to consolidate any military gain resulting from massive air or missile attacks. The Gulf War shows clearly that regardless of how devastating the allied missile and aerial attacks on Baghdad and other Iraqi targets were, the infantry was necessary to chase the Iraqis out of Kuwait. The 1973 Yom Kippur War proved that having the Golan as a buffer zone gave the Israelis both the time they needed to mobilize forces and the strategic advantage that permitted them to stop the advancing Syrian army.
These arguments remain valid only if Syria is as belligerent as it is portrayed by the Israelis and as long as Syria remains unwilling to make peace. Under conditions of full and sustainable peace, however, the Golan becomes much less relevant. In fact, if Syria is ready to deliver the full peace that Israel wants and the Israelis refuse to offer full withdrawal in return, the Golan will no longer be (if it ever had been), a security asset. It will become a liability.
Narratives die hard….. the Syrians on the other hand have been told other stories about why they lost the Golan.
Sorry, the Moshe Dayan quote within the quote above ends with “In other words, by seizing some land and holding it until the enemy would despair and let us keep it.”
(quotes unattributed b/c I forgot where I got it, probably Ben-Meir) “It should also be stressed that whereas an all-out war to recapture the Golan could be disastrous for the Syrians, Syria still retains the option of waging a war of attrition causing havoc to Israeli communities. The Syrians can tolerate a considerably higher level of casualties that may result from Israeli retaliations than the Israelis can absorb from Syrian attacks. The democratic nature of Israeli society lowers considerably the threshold of acceptable casualties.”
Regarding the Syrian narrative, they were told that the ’67 War was a “war of aggression [by Israel] that exacted a heavy national tollâ€
Other articles:
The Syrian Channel:Pros and Cons/Aluf Benn
Thomas L. Friedman’s Talking Turkey with Syria
[This comment has been deleted because it failed to follow our commenting guidelines. - Brendan]
Another really good and positive article:
Syria is the Key by Avi Primor
The author is head of the Center for European Studies at the Herzliya Interdisciplinary Center and formerly Israel’s ambassador to the European Union and ambassador in Germany.
David Grossman is right when he says there are two sides: those who want peace and those who do not. Peace means survival. Survival without peace is meaningless.
Regarding whatever was deleted above: I cannot understand how anyone, especially someone otherwise intelligent, who might have something worthwhile to say, or other facts to present, would sabotage their own message. I did not read it as it was already deleted, but if there was a valid point in it, it was entirely lost.
[This comment has been deleted because it failed to follow our commenting guidelines. - Brendan]
From Helena Cobban’s trip in 1998 , “Golan Days” http://justworldnews.org/archives/golan.html
The tour directors on the many Israeli tour buses which cruise around the excellent road system up here…… like to stop at the numerous ‘Lookout’ points established along the western edge of the plateau, often in positions the Syrian army occupied until 1967, in order to explain to their Israeli and foreign tourists how easy it was from here for the Syrians to shell what they describe as ‘Israel’s northern settlements’. (What they do not tell, which is well described in the memoirs of the U.N. chief at the time, the Norwegian General Odd Bull, is that most or all of those ‘Israeli’ settlements that were attacked were actually settlements being established by Israel in contravention of the Armistice agreements, inside the demilitarized zone evacuated by the Syrian Army in 1949.)
The true title of the article is:
“Golan Days
by Helena Cobban
April 1998
This text is a series I published in Al-Hayat (London), after spending some time in Israel and Golan doing research for my book The Israeli-Syrian Peace Talks: 1991-96 and Beyond.
Al Hayat of London isn’t exactly Jewish friendly.
Nor does quoting a Norwegian General land credibility to the claims in the article?
If that is the case here is another article quoting this same General Bull:
“Since the ICJ’s starting point is a question that defines the territories as occupied, it behooves any analyst to ask about the precise nature of the occupation and the powers that flow from the occupier’s status as such. United Nations personnel have confirmed that Israel’s occupation of the West Bank arose as a defensive one. The chief U.N. truce supervisor in June 1967 was Norwegian General Odd Bull, perhaps the most appropriately named U.N. official in the history of the world body. General Bull, in a straight shooting interview that he saved for just after his retirement in 1970, confirmed that as late as the morning of June 5, 1967 – the first day of the Six Day War, before fighting erupted on the Jordanian front – he personally conveyed to Jordan’s King Hussein the Israeli offer of a peaceful resolution to the crisis.”
The author of this article is “Ed Morgan is a law professor at the University of Toronto and is Chair of Canadian Jewish Congress, Ontario Region.”
http://www.cjc.ca/template.php?action=oped&Rec=84
Fishing the internet for quotes that prove that Israel was responsible for the 67 war is in and of itself a sign of antisemitism.
If the above was referring to my quotes, obviously NONE of them say that Israel was responsible for the ’67 war, and also because I don’t think that is so, or say that. It was a war of preemption and of necessity.
However, at the end of the war when a ceasefire agreement by the Arab side was real, Israel stalled long enough to allow the conquering of the Golan, a decision taken by Dayan who was going back and forth about the need of it, finally deciding to go for it. The Syrians were afraid that Israel was going on to Damascus and they retreated from the Golan, the population fled. This Israeli move was apparently as much about greed for the lush fertile agricultural land and the water rights as anything else. I ask myself, coming from a religious family who are also Zionists, and being one who believes that Jews belong in Israel, what about the commandments of not coveting thy neighbor’s property, and not stealing?
But it may, after all, be an opportunity as well for peace in a “land for peace” deal. It seems to me that the time is arriving if it is not already here and both sides will be tested.
That the Cobban piece was published in Al-Hayat is immaterial. It does not cancel out what she was saying, much descriptive. this is another attempt at guilt and indictment by association. What Cobban describes is either so or not so regardless of where it is reproduced and it’s title. Arab towns were destroyed or they were not. Syrians fled or they did not. Israel intends to trade land for peace or it does not.
Recognizing what may be ugly facts ( in place of myths and self-serving narratives) are the first steps towards peace on both sides.
Fishing further, because these are disturbing facts (they disturb me but I at least want to know enough to fish…) I come up with this article by Sheldon L. Richman in an issue of WRMEA (1991) with the painful title: The Golan Heights: a History of Israeli Agression
(quote)
Yes, there was shelling from the Heights. But an important question is, what preceded the shelling? The answer is: much.
We have to go back to the aftermath of the 1948 war between the new state of Israel and the Arab countries. In that war, fighting occurred between Israel and Syria along their border. Although the Israeli side of the border was part of the land allocated to the Zionists by the 1947 UN partition resolution, it contained fertile farmland and villages long occupied by Palestinians. Syria occupied a small part of this land during the war, but withdrew under an armistice agreement, which also required the demilitarization of the territory by both sides. Under the agreement, the Jewish and Arab villages were to coexist, protected by police forces drawn from their respective communities. The armistice agreement was to be temporary, pending a peace treaty. Syrian President Hosni Zaim offered a full peace agreement in return for concessions on Palestinian land, but Prime Minister David Ben-Gurion turned him down.
Instead of negotiating for peace, Israel declared sovereignty over the demilitarized zone. To carry this out, it violated the prohibitions on having military forces and fortifications in the zone by disguising soldiers as police. It also aggressively developed the area, draining water from Arab farms, leveling Arab villages, driving out residents, building roads and transplanting trees in order to move the frontier eastward to the old Palestine border. Israel refused to let the protests of the UN observers stand in the way. Swedish General Carl von Horn, of the UN peacekeeping forces, observed that “gradually, beneath the glowering eyes of the Syrians, who held the high ground overlooking Zion, the area had become a network of Israeli canals and irrigation channels edging up against and always encroaching on Arab-owned property.”
This policy continued well into the 1950s. Most of the 2,000 Arabs living in the zone had been forced out by 1956. Many moved to the sloping land below the Golan Heights. In response to the expulsion of Arabs from the zone, the otherwise helpless Syrian forces on the Heights began firing on Israelis, particularly when, each year, their tractors plowed further into the demilitarized zone. General von Horn was convinced the instances of firing would not have occurred without the specific Israeli provocations.
This finds some concurrence with former Israeli General Matityahu Peled, who said that more than half of the border clashes before the 1967 war “were a result of our security policy of maximum settlement in the demilitarized area.”…………
( end quote)
I am over my limit…….
This tendentious article was published in the Washington Report founded by a former British Officer Edward Firth Henderson who never forgave the Jews for creating their own State.
The article of course doesn’t mention the basic fact that Syria attacked Israel in 1948 and refused to acknowledge the UN partition plan. Hence Israel and Syrian were and still are in a State of conflict.
When a country attacks a sovereign State as Syria did Israel or Germany did Poland and is finally repulsed the losing country cannot claim under international law any rights to the territory it lost in the war.
All the claims by Syria and their flunkies to be the aggrieved party is not sustained by the history of the conflict.
Only antisemites will accept at face value the claims of the tyrannical Syrian State.
This is how the Syrians fight wars:
“…In the eyes of al-Assad, this was total war. The army was mobilized, and Hafez again sent Rifaat’s special forces and Mukhabarat agents to the city. After encountering fierce resistance, they used artillery to blast Hama into submission. After a two-week battle, the town was securely in government hands again. Then followed several weeks of torture and mass executions of suspected rebel sympathizers, killing many thousands, known as the Hama Massacre. Robert Fisk, who was in Hama shortly after the massacre, estimated that between 10,000 to 20,000 people were killed, but according to Thomas Friedman Rifaat later boasted of killing 38,000 people. Most of the old city was completely destroyed, including its palaces, mosques, ancient ruins and the famous Azzem Palace mansion. After the Hama uprising, the Islamist insurrection was broken, and the Brotherhood since operates in exile. Government repression in Syria hardened considerably, as al-Assad had spent in Hama any goodwill he previously had had left with the Sunni majority, and now was compelled to rely on pure force to stay in power…”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hafez_al-Assad
Far more people were massacred by Assad in one day than dies in all the Syrian Israeli wars combined.
As I said no one but an antisemitic hypocrite would carry water for this disgusting regime.
[This comment has been deleted because it failed to follow our commenting guidelines. - Brendan]
Syria is an evil country, jdyer, period.
Caroline Glick has the facts to back this assertion up,
“Hours after Gemayel was murdered, his killers issued a communiqu calling themselves the “Fighters for the Unity and Liberty of Greater Syria.” They said that they killed Gemayel because he was “one of those who unceasingly spouted their venom against Syria and against [Hizbullah], shamelessly and without any trepidation.” Gemayel, they threatened, would be the first of many victims. As they put it, “Sooner or later we will pay the rest of the agents their due…”
The hit this week was not a bolt from the blue. For the past several weeks Hizbullah chief Hassan Nasrallah and his bosses in Syria and Iran have made it brutally clear that they intend to bring down the anti-Syrian government of Prime Minister Fuad Saniora and replace it with a pro-Syrian, pro-Iranian coalition led by Hizbullah. ” http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1162378471759&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull
jdyer should argue the points. Regardless of who helped found the Washington Report and what his thoughts may or may not have been is totally irrelevant.
Whether Syria attacked Israel in 1948 is again totally irrelevant to whether or not the substance of these revelations are correct and myth-busting or not. Either Israel did or did not obey a ceasefire and international law regarding a UN demilitarized zone (armistice lines). Either Israel did or did not settle Syrian farmlands illegally and provoke the Syrians. Either Israel did or did not covet this fertile land and it’s water. Several respected people who should know have said or written that this was so. Where is believable counter-argument?
So far on this thread there has been NO evidence to the contrary beyond remotely related attempts at character assassination, charges of guilt by the remotest of association directed at the messenger to divert attention from the argument which was a challenge to the claim that (jdyer) “history is something the anti-Israel folk don’t care much about.â€. So where is the history??? I assume from the deletions there have been more of the same attacks offered up in place of believable refutation.
(jdyer) “When a country attacks a sovereign State as Syria did Israel or Germany did Poland and is finally repulsed the losing country cannot claim under international law any rights to the territory it lost in the war.â€
An ancient notion. International law, the UN Charter, and Security Council Res 497 refutes this. Post World War 2, any country signing the UN Charter has to abide by it.
http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/un/un497.htm
The 1981 Knesset “annexation†is not recognized internationally either.
According to the Wikipedia entry on the Golan Heights:
The governmental Jewish Agency for Israel states that “Although reported as a annexation, it is not: the Golan Heights are not declared to be Israeli territory.” On the other hand, the Benjamin Netanyahu government’s Basic Policy Guidelines stated “The government views the Golan Heights as essential to the security of the state and its water resources. Retaining Israel’s sovereignty over the Golan will be the basis for an arrangement with Syria.”
So there is and has been division in Israel on this matter, including amongst the populace who have to offer their children to the military. The cost of keeping the Golan in place of a peace treaty with Syria is rising.
“Whether Syria attacked Israel in 1948 is again totally irrelevant…”
Of course its relevant. It’s the main point.
When two states are at war talking about who spat first where is what is irrelevant.
Let the Syrians acknowledge Israel’s right to exist and let come to the peace table without preconditions.
In addtions it matters a great deal who founded “The Washington Report.”
Any magazine founded by a bigot will naturally post articles detrimental to the group it hates.
Who would take seriously a magazine abut race issues founded by a member of the KKK?
All the other comments posted by the antisemitic poster above is also irrelevant since the Israel had said that it would negotiate the status of the Golan in a final peace deal.
The posts quote from the UN is equally taken out of context.
The UN resolution, btw is contigen upon Syria adhering to the original resolution 338,
“United Nations Security Council Resolution 338
The Security Council,
Calls upon all parties to present fighting to cease all firing and terminate all military activity immediately, no later than 12 hours after the moment of the adoption of this decision, in the positions after the moment of the adoption of this decision, in the positions they now occupy; Calls upon all parties concerned to start immediately after the cease-fire the implementation of Security Council Resolution 242 (1967) in all of its parts;
Decides that, immediately and concurrently with the cease-fire, negotiations start between the parties concerned under appropriate auspices aimed at establishing a just and durable peace in the Middle East.”
It all goes back to reslotution 242 which Syria has conveniently refused to abide by.
Potter should hire herself as a negotiator for the Assad regime!
Here is what wikipedia said about resolution 497 cited above:
“United Nations Security Council Resolution 497
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
“United Nations Security Council Resolution 497 (December 17, 1981) calls on the State of Israel to rescind its annexation of the Golan Heights. The most important provision is “the Israeli decision to impose its laws, jurisdiction and administration in the occupied Syrian Golan Heights is null and void and without international legal effect” (section 1). However, not being based on Chapter VII of the U.N charter, it is generally regarded as not binding despite the fact that many Arab states have used this resolution as a tool to condemn the Israeli occupation of Palestinian territories.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Security_Council_Resolution_497
In addition, it is still a fact of international custom that an aggressor country upon being defeated does not have the right to claim any territory it had lost.
If this were not the case than wars would never end. Germany would seek to regain terrotory from the Czech republic and Poland, Russia from Poland, Greece from Turkey and vice versa.
Asking Israel to return the Golan on those grounds will open up other international contentious issues and will lead to chaos.
Still, Israel has said that it will be ready to negotiate the final status of the Golan.
It’s up to Syria to come to the negotiating table.
“Let the Syrians acknowledge Israel’s right to exist and let come to the peace table without preconditions.â€
This is contradictory since the first part of the sentence is a pre-condition itself. In other words the advice above is that Israel’s precondition should be that Syria come to the table without pre-conditions while Israel retains the right to it’s own pre-conditions before talking.
“Any magazine founded by a bigot will naturally post articles detrimental to the group it hates.â€
Faulty reasoning again and based on conjecture (no proof). First this person you call bigoted is one of many you loosely call bigoted simply because you do not like their opinion. So you need to prove this. I don’t take your word because of your reputation, nor should any fair-minded person.
The appropriate bold on the actual Res 497 (not the wikipedia article exposition): The most important provision is “the Israeli decision to impose its laws, jurisdiction and administration in the occupied Syrian Golan Heights is null and void and without international legal effect†(section 1). The UNSC resolution demands that Israel rescind the annexation. Not being based on Chaper 7 means no military action and this was presumably b/c of the US objection, the US playing it’s protecting role. (I don’t object to the US protecting Israel when it is being piled on and it really does serve Israel’s interests).
“In addition, it is still a fact of international custom that an aggressor country upon being defeated does not have the right to claim any territory it had lost.â€
International custom??? Where do you get this? Who? When? What? That would be contrary to international law.
In addition the examples above are from the era prior to the international law.
Res 497 is based on the UN Charter and the customary “inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war.” Israel holds onto the Golan legally for security only, and until a peace agreement, not for water or fertile land and until a peace agreement.
“Asking Israel to return the Golan on those grounds will open up other international contentious issues and will lead to chaos.â€
The grounds are “land for peace†as you know.
“Other contentious issuesâ€? “Chaos”? isn’t that what we have?
“It all goes back to reslotution 242 which Syria has conveniently refused to abide by.â€
Conveniently Israel’s lack of compliance has been ignored in this complaint.
“Still, Israel has said that it will be ready to negotiate the final status of the Golan.
It’s up to Syria to come to the negotiating table.”
This must be news. I thought it was Syria now that wanted to talk and both Israel and the US refuse ( without pre-conditions).
(quote) Olmert said “We are not against negotiations with Syria. We would love to be able to have negotiations with Syria, but that must be based on a certain reasonable, responsible policy, which is not preformed by Syria for the time being. Everything that they are doing is to the other direction — in Lebanon, in Iraq, and the sponsorship of Hamas and Khalid Mashaal as the main perpetrators of terror against the state of Israel. With some changes in the Russian — I’m sorry, in the Syrian attitude on these major issues, I hope that one day the conditions for contacts between them and us will be created. But to be honest, I don’t think at the present time they manifest any such attitude. And that makes it impossible.” (end quote)
[This comment has been deleted because it failed to follow our commenting guidelines. - Brendan]
The Security Council [Res 242],
Expressing its continuing concern with the grave situation in the Middle East,
Emphasizing the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war and the need to work for a just and lasting peace in which every State in the area can live in security,
Emphasizing further that all Member States in their acceptance of the Charter of the United Nations have undertaken a commitment to act in accordance with Article 2 of the Charter.
1. 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:
(i) Withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict;
(ii) 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;
2. Affirms further the necessity:
(a) For guaranteeing freedom of navigation through international waterways in the area;
(b) For achieving a just settlement of the refugee problem;
(c) For guaranteeing the territorial inviolability and political independence of every State in the area, through measures including the establishment of demilitarized zones;
3. Requests the Secretary General to designate a Special Representative to proceed to the Middle East to establish and maintain contacts with the States concerned in order to promote agreement and assist efforts to achieve a peaceful and accepted settlement in accordance with the provisions and principles in this resolution;
4. Requests the Secretary General to report to the Security Council on the progress of the efforts of the Special Representative as soon as possible.
——————————-
It’s pretty obvious in reading the above that the violations have been on both sides. With regard to Israel, the last 6 years have been devoted to teaching the enemy a lesson, settling more land, and collective punishment of Palestinians, driving moderates away. I do not apologize for Palestinian militants in saying this but just point out that Israel has it’s own internal disagreements about whether endless war is preferable to compromise on the issues that are unresolved.
The above posts by jdyer well exceed the guidelines with such disrespect and impunity not only for myself but for the ROSblog that to keep on answering them only brings on more of same. I have objected using the email link below this thread.
I have tried to present some facts to add to the common assumptions with regard to the Golan specifically where it is claimed (as above) that territory is still necessary for Israel to hold onto for security reasons. This claim on the Israeli side is bolstered by continued settlement and lack of any progress regarding making peace with Syria or Palestinians in the last six years.
Palestinian guerillas were attacking from the Syrian side prior to 1967. There is no question about that. But also there were provocations and a desire to “bring it on†and have it out by 1967. Moshe Dayan was not lying.
Childish name-altering, personal attack in a transparent and not so transparent not so clever oblique way does not alter the facts. The telling, to be sure, is varied and more or less biased but also the facts are corroborated by for instance Israeli and Jewish historians (see Howard Sachar’s “History of Israel†and Michael B Oren’s “Six Day Warâ€).
The responses above include once again the use of anti-Semite with abandon on anyone who presents anything jdyer disagrees with, coupled with the egregious lack of substance or proof of his counter claims. This boils down to what amounts to pronouncements: an Israel-friendly-only version of history intolerant of nuance or greys.
It’s this Israel-can-do-no-wrong version that this thread and other such threads get bullied into without any response. I object to that.
[This comment has been deleted because it failed to follow our commenting guidelines. - Brendan]
Potter: (quoting myself from above)
“It’s pretty obvious in reading the above that the violations have been on both sides.”
I agree that to insist that only the other side is in the wrong is a sign of a prejudice.
I am complaining about personal attacks because they are against the guidelines. I have tried not to attack anything but the argument, not the person. Personal attacks are a sure sign of desperation. It means to me that there is no substance, no argument of worth and nothing left other than discrediting the messenger ( here poster Potter), attempts at discrediting the sources (based on flimsy supporting evidence or pronouncements), and discrfediting by degrees of separation, discrediting anyone associated with someone who allegedly has or had views that may be contrary or that may raise questions about certain one-sided narrative ( that exist on both sides).
One is “anti-Semitic” therefore in feeling that Israeli policies are not in her own interest ( survival) and focussing on that when the rightness of those policies are apparently unquestioned. One is “anti-Semitic” by daring to read and quote from other viewpoints ( in addition to profusely using the Israeli POV).
How on earth is one supposed to make peace if there is no understanding, no agreement or admission about facts?How if there are these petty defensive arguments about the missing “the” in a UN Res???
Some parse Res 242 and point to the squabble over the missing article “the†in this phrase: “Withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict†and it’s meaning.
This is a distinction without much difference to most everyone else but important to those (including lawyers) resistant to the peace process, resistant to any compromise, resistant to any risk giving up anything at all for peace. They would lean heavily on the poor little “the†that was left out of this one phrase. Such a load to bear for an article!
However it is sliced and diced the important part is the “establishment of a just and lasting peaceâ€.
[This comment has been deleted because it failed to follow our commenting guidelines. - Brendan]
This very helpful article is long and as unbiased as they come imo. Though it was written in 1999, by Sami Hajjar who was director for Middle East Studies in the Department of National Security and Strategy at the U.S. Army War College, it is background and analysis to what was discussed on the program. The basic issues are essentially the same.
The Israel-Syria Track
[This comment has been deleted because it failed to follow our commenting guidelines. - Brendan]
PS- the above linked article does mention how Netanyau did not want to abide by agreements that the previous Israeli administrations had made. He rejected the “land for peace” formula which was the basis of the peace process. So there is no guarantee on either side. It has to be in everyone’s greater interest for peace agreements to succeed.
Below is a quote within the article not by it’s author. Regarding Netanyahu 1996 and forward:
“Specifically, he did not embrace the U.S. land for peace formula or agree to curb settlements, to lift the closure of the Palestinian territories, to withdraw troops from Hebron or the Golan Heights, to meet Yasir Arafat or to recognize Palestinian statehood. Instead he emphatically asserted that Jerusalem would forever be Israel’s capital. His unabashedly hard line must have come as a surprise to many Americans, who have been assured by much of the U.S. media that he is simply a “pragmatic politician” whose views will be “tempered by high office.”
Below a quote from the article:
“Between the time of Netanyahu’s election and the meeting at the Wye River Plantation, there were many attempts to move the peace process forward. However, despite many meetings between regional leaders, trips by several U.S. and European envoys, and the floating of new and fresh proposals, the peace process was no further along than it was when Netanyahu took office in May 1996. For in this time period, Netanyahu’s hard-line stances were designed to change the basis on which the peace process was predicated. On the Palestinian track, he objected to the Oslo agreement entered into by the previous government as endangering Israeli security, and gave the green light for the building of a new settlement on Har Homa in East Jerusalem. The decision to build this settlement was the primary reason for the freezing of the peace process.
On the Israeli-Syrian track, Netanyahu declared that negotiations must begin anew and not proceed, as the Syrians demanded, from where they left off with the previous government. Netanyahu also proposed the “Lebanon First” option — a non-starter for the Lebanese and Syrians, who considered it a trick designed to split the Lebanese-Syrian tracks and therefore weaken the negotiating position of each side.”
Israel has not always been a willing partner nor willling to keep on the peace track. The last six years have seen opportunities come and go. This is contrary to the claim that Israel has been willing but, but but…………
By any reasonable standard Netanyahu is a hard-liner, that’s his claim to fame, that’s what his appeal is. He was to the right of Sharon.
The Walt/Mearsheimer paper may make some see red, but publishing it is a service to those who would like to read and decide for themselves. It’s not indicative of any general bias in a forum that appears to be concerned with US foreign policy. This guilt by association smear ( once again) and has nothing to do with the article linked above.
jdyer you are so disrespectful you do not deserve decent replies. I don’t know why I am bothering. I should follow Hurley’s advice on the other thread. You are intelligent but when it comes to Israel you cannot see past red and this makes all your defenses ludicrous.
“By any reasonable standard Netanyahu is a hard-liner…,”
Netanyahu was not a good PM, but that is not the point.
The media may call him what they wish, however, no so called “impartial and objecitve account” of the Arab Israeli conflict can do so.
It would be like some scholarly paper calling the reigning Palestinian leader du jour a terrorist.
As for the M/W paper (which was attacked even by Chomsky) no impartial journal should publish such a piece of trash.
There are pleny of antisemitic publications where they can print their screed. But then they did choose one didn’t they?
“…when it comes to Israel you cannot see past red and this makes all your defenses ludicrous.”
This what I was thinking about you.
Your position on Israel is off base, completely. You are just following the anti-Zionist academic herd.
As far as the peace process goes, Israel has been upfron about wanting to negotiate and end to the conflict while the Syria and the Palestinians have been unwilling to do so.
Ok, let’s go one more round, or not as you wish.
Don’t fret, Potter. I found a son of Holocaust survivors who’s got your back.
A Field Guide to Accusations of “Anti-Semitismâ€
(quote)
To evade the obvious, another stratagem of the Israel lobby is playing to The Holocaust and the “new anti-Semitism†cards. In The Holocaust Industry: Reflections on the Exploitation of Jewish Suffering, I examined how the Nazi holocaust has been fashioned into an ideological weapon to immunize Israel from legitimate criticism. In this book (Beyond Chutzpah) I look at a variant of this Holocaust card, namely, the “new anti-Semitism.†In fact, the allegation of anti-Semitism is neither new nor about anti-Semitism. Whenever Israel comes under renewed international pressure to withdraw from occupied territories, its apologists mount yet another meticulously orchestrated media extravaganza alleging that the world is awash in anti-Semitism. This shameless exploitation of anti-Semitism delegitimizes criticism of Israel, makes Jews rather than Palestinians the victims, and puts the onus on the Arab world to rid itself of anti-Semitism rather than on Israel to rid itself of the Occupied Territories. A close analysis of what the Israel lobby tallies as anti-Semitism reveals three components: exaggeration and fabrication; mislabeling legitimate criticism of Israeli policy; and the unjustified yet predictable “spillover†from criticism of Israel to Jews generally. I conclude that if, as all studies agree, current resentment against Jews has coincided with Israel’s brutal repression of the Palestinians, then the prudent, not to mention moral, thing to do is to end the occupation. A full Israeli withdrawal would also deprive those real anti-Semites exploiting Israeli policy as a pretext to demonize Jews—and who can doubt they exist?—of a dangerous weapon as well as expose their real agenda. And the more vocally Jews dissent from Israel’s occupation, the fewer will be those non-Jews who mistake Israel’s criminal policies and the uncritical support (indeed encouragement) of mainline Jewish organizations for the popular Jewish mood.
Norman Finkelstein, Beyond Chutzpah: On the Misuse of Anti-Semitism and the Abuse of History , pages 15-16.
Professor Finkelstein concludes the introduction of his tissue of self-loathing lies with this:
(quote)
The purpose of Beyond Chutzpah is to lift the veil of contrived controversy shrouding the Israel-Palestine conflict. I am convinced that anyone confronting the undistorted record will recognize the injustice Palestinians have suffered. I hope this book will also provide impetus for readers to act on the basis of truth so that, together, we can achieve a just and lasting peace in Israel and Palestine.
(unquote, p.18)
The nerve! A son of Holocaust survivors laying the flame of critical scholarship to Israeli national myth and exceptionalism!
(Chris ought put Norm Finkelstein into his rolodex of possible show guests, hmmm…?)
[This post has been deleted. Please refer to the rules. -- Greta]
“The nerve! A son of Holocaust survivors laying the flame of critical scholarship to Israeli national myth and exceptionalism!”
There are tens of thousands of sons and daughters of Holocaust survivers in the US and most of them think the Abnorm F. is either very sick or full of hatred towards his fellow Jews.
[This comment has been deleted because it failed to follow our commenting guidelines. - Brendan]
[This comment has been deleted because it failed to follow our commenting guidelines. - Brendan]
jdyer, I ceased careful readings of your posts a while back. I know what you write mostly from reading Potter’s (or others’) reactions to it. Tonight I made an exception.
So, I’m an anti-Semite, hmmm? Thanks! By your definition, I’m in excellent, humanistic company: Norman Finkelstein’s only ‘flaw’ seems to me that he blows the whistle on Jewish-Israeli exceptionalism as hard as Irshad Manji blows it on Muslim and Palestinian exceptionalism. I think it as fortuitous as heartening that I’ve found a Jew who loathes Jewish-Israeli exceptionalism as much as progressive Muslims like Manji (and Ayaan Hirsi Ali) loathe the exceptionalisms native to her own ethnic/religious origins.
I think it speaks volumes for their credibility. Imagine: people whose love of humanity and peace prompts them to focus not on their people’s putative “enemies’†excesses and exceptionalisms, but on their own people’s.
How radical.
How Sweet.
Thanks so much for the slur. If wanting peace and mutual, interdependent prosperity for Israelis and Palestinians alike is “anti-Semiticâ€, then I’m your “anti-Semitic†star! Proudly! Superstar, if you’ll let me!
Dang!
Once more, properly!
jdyer, I ceased careful readings of your posts a while back. I know what you write only from reading Potter’s (or others’) reactions to it. Tonight I made an exception.
So, I’m an anti-Semite, hmmm? Thanks! By your definition, I’m in excellent, humanistic company: Norman Finkelstein’s only ‘flaw’ seems to me that he blows the whistle on Jewish-Israeli exceptionalism as hard as Irshad Manji blows it on Muslim and Palestinian exceptionalism. I think it as fortuitous as heartening that I’ve found a Jew who loathes Jewish-Israeli exceptionalism as much as progressive Muslims like Manji (and Ayaan Hirsi Ali, ftm) loathe the exceptionalisms native to her own ethnic/religious origins.
I think it speaks volumes for their credibility. Imagine: people whose love of humanity and peace prompts them to focus not on their people’s putative “enemies’†excesses and exceptionalisms, but on their own peoples.
How radical.
How Sweet.
Thanks so much for the slur. If wanting peace and mutual, interdependent prosperity for Israelis and Palestinians alike is “anti-Semiticâ€, then I’m your “anti-Semitic†star! Proudly! Superstar, if you’ll let me!
Before I end my participation in this thread, a subject that interests me obviously, I would like to clear up some things. I wish this very beautiful fertile land, the Golan, would belong to Israel but the cost of having it is now becoming very high. Israeli’s will realize this if they do not already and itwill be very painful to give up. If Syria wants it back, Syria has to give a lot in return in the way of peaceful relations with Israel with regard to Lebanon, Hezbollah, Hamas, and water rights. If Israel makes peace with Syria it would connect to Syria’s relations with the US and the West as well. It’s all becoming one ball of wax in my view and the ball needs to roll in the right direction- the way of peaceful relations.
“impartial and objective” as quoted by jdyer never appeared in my post on the Israeli-Syria Track article. I said unbiased. I said that because to my reading this was unbiased, giving both sides ( Israel’s and Syria’s) legitimate strategic concerns straightforwardly. I still highly recommend the article for background. It also refutes the claim, so much repeated in right-wing so-called “pro-Israeli” websites, that Israel has always been ready for peace. This is just not so. The history above recalling Netanyahu’s short reign is exhibit A. (Saying that does not mean that Arabs have always been ready either.) I offer the last 6 years under Sharon and Olmert as exhibit B when the Saudi offer was alive and now Exhibit C we have Syria asking for talks with doublespeak from Olmert and agreement with Washington NOT to talk until conditions are met. These conditions rightfully should be part of the agreement, not demands made a priori.
In addition all along, Abbas has been asking for negotiations. Instead of strengthening a moderate, Israel’s policies helped to bring Hamas to power. Not that this is bad becuase now the extremists are in the limelight, not behind the scenes. But certainly over the last several years Israel’s policies have weakened moderates.
So what is one to think?? Who is willing and who is not? The fact is that there is desperation all around. This word â€desperation†was mentioned on the show. Mutual desperation is good for talking.
Next- Please note that the London Review of Books as well as Harvard University published the Walt -Mearsheimer Jewish lobby paper. The back and forth about that, accusing anyone who publishes that paper of being anti-Semitic may have been deleted above. I read the paper and thought it had some points to make. Regardless- none of the venues that published it become anti-Semitic by the mere fact of publishing a paper that is controversial. The paper certainly caused discussion about the lobby and that was good, imo. That is what a forum is about. So to the MEPolicy Council.
And so I think of this place as a forum where views can be aired and if they differ from one’s own are to be respected and argued respectfully.
Old Nick says: “Imagine: people whose love of humanity and peace prompts them to focus not on their people’s putative “enemies’†excesses and exceptionalisms, but on their own peoples.”
I criticize my own first: my own family, my own tribe, my own country. That’s where I think I have to begin. That does not make me, or anyone who does so, self-hating or anti-Semitic or anti-all the rest. The real self-hate comes with stubborn refusals to look beyond selfish needs and by advocating actions and policies that do not even work but that bring suffering down upon oneself, one’s tribe, one’s country.
[This post has been deleted. Please refer to the rules. -- Greta]
[This post has been deleted. Please refer to the rules. -- Greta]
[This post has been deleted. Please refer to the rules. -- Greta]
[This post has been deleted. Please refer to the rules. -- Greta]
[This post has been deleted. Please refer to the rules. -- Greta]
[This post has been deleted. Please refer to the rules. -- Greta]
Here is the link to Harvard University’s (published) PDF version of the Walt- Mearsheimer Paper.
http://ksgnotes1.harvard.edu/Research/wpaper.nsf/rwp/RWP06-011
When you download the paper true, the Harvard logo is missing. But you get to the paper through the Harvard Kennedy School website. This was the compromise ( I assume) reached after so much protest.
I went back to my own responses written on the ROS Israel Lobby? thread after reading the paper:
http://www.radioopensource.org/the-israel-lobby/#comment-8748
Though I am very reluctant to call anyone anti-Semitic (I can think of only once that I have in recent memory) I did feel that the paper leaned in that direction and I say why. What I object to is censoring which Harvard has not done to their credit, despite the pressure.
Greta you are just an ugly censor pure and simple.
You deleted all my posts, but not the posts that occasioned my replies nor the replies to my posts.
You would have done well working in any totalitarian country.
Potter you and Old Nicholas have got a big problem with Jews and that is a fact.
They can delete my posts but they can’t change that.
Intereting most of Old Nicholas posts are addressed to my comments but my comments and their replies have been deleted.
This is the work of a Jew hating censor pure and simple.
“You would have done well working in any totalitarian country.”
LOL!!!
I can’t believe the stunning, myopic irony!
From he who stalks and harrasses any who dissent from his positions!
Oh, what I’d give for webcam video of how hard I’m laughing!
I can barely type.
Wow!
Old Nick it is useless for me to respond to a bigot like since my post will be deleted any way.
You and Potts claim to believe in free speech but you run to the censor Greta any time someone says anything you consider harsh.
It’s Ok for you and Potts to attacke me heaven help anyone who responds to you..
You are a hypocrite and so is Potts.
I want be replying to either of you any more since there is no sense in typing posts which will deleted by our antisemitic hostess.
“Oh, what I’d give for webcam video of how hard I’m laughing!
I can barely type.”
Antisemites have always had a good laugh when a Jew was being lynched.
Enjoy your schadenfreude!
What goes around will come around.
jdyer, my posts were not deleted because they kept within the guidelines. I tried. You did not. You allowed yourself to indulge. I did not attack you, I tried to respond to your points and I introduced my own. if you had refrained from attacking me personally your posts would not have been deleted. I thought you understood this when we had this discussion a short while ago on a separate thread devoted to flagging comments. You protested, but you agreed to abide by the guidelines. or so I thought.
When you attack the person in lieu of the argument you sabotage your message. It gets lost. What comes across is not in the spirit of inquiry, respectful discussion and learning. When you attack, it gets defenses up or turns people away. I held onto this discussion but it felt like riding a bucking bronco. And we got nowhere and lost everybody else once again.
Greta is not at fault. She is just doing what the community wants. We want a place where we can have a civil discussion. Noone wants to have to deal with your personal issues, issues that you cannot control.
It’s a shame because at times you have something to offer but you don’t know how to offer it in a civil manner.
“jdyer, my posts were not deleted because they kept within the guidelines.”
Screw the guidelines. They are being arbitrarily enforced. Only the posts of those who disagree with the prevailing anti-Zionist antisemitic ideology of this website and radio program are being deleted.
There was no reason in hell why all my post should have been deleted. None.
Not everything I wrote was against their precious guidelines.
It is censorship which you favor when it means deleting posts in which you are shown to be in error. I wouldn’t be suprised if this post too were to be deleted.
You have got some kind of problem with your family and with Jews, Potter. That is your private business. .
Mine is to call you own it and I will till I am banished.
There is a wonderful cartoon in the Times of London which sums up the situation in Gaza today:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/TGD/slideshow/0,,2-103,00.html
Peter Brookes, November 27, 2006
jdyer says:
“There was no reason in hell why all my post should have been deleted. None.”
This is a double standard you demand. You claim you should be allowed to name-call, demean and generally act disrespectfully while demanding all your priviledges here while everyone else must obey the rules. You were very quick to complain when attacked back ( and I got deleted). Your deletions have nothing whatsoever to do with your point of view which is represented on this website by others who know how to behave much better.
jdyer says: “You have got some kind of problem with your family and with Jews, Potter. That is your private business.”
I have no problem with loving and respecting my family, nor do they have a problem with me. When we differ, we do so respectfully. What is happening here is about your problems, not mine.
“This is a double standard you demand.”
You are very good at turning things around.
My posts were deleted. That is an infringement of my freedom of speech.
You are against censorship, you say. Yet you use it when it suits you.
Take all your rationalizations and stuff ‘em.
“I have no problem with loving and respecting my family, nor do they have a problem with me. When we differ, we do so respectfully. What is happening here is about your problems, not mine.”
More excuses and lies. You said you did.
I’d like to hear what they say about you.
From what I read of your posts, and your denials not withstanding, you are so full of hatred towards your family and towards Israel that you can’t tell any more what is legitimate critic and what is antisemitic.
You can stand on a street corner and say what you like. This blog belongs to ROS and the listeners been invited to participate. There are rules of conduct on the air and so too on this blog that we have agreed to abide by. No one is free to use abusive and hateful language by agreement. You are not free to make personal attacks. If you were so free you would be the only one here. That’s why you got deleted it has nothing to do with your point of view.
Regarding family positions on Israel, they have given me intimate knowledge of the divisions within the larger Israeli/Jewish community and an understanding particularly on an emotional level of actions and policies. The basic arguments have all been aired out long ago. Love and respect prevail always. Life is too short.
Since I am not being allowed to post here anymore thanks to people like you, this will be my last reply.
Of course you will be able to abuse me at leisure since I will no longer be here.
People like you, Potter, don’t do well in intellectual exchanges and need censors to keep you going.
Enjoy your one sided conversation!
Potter.
I for one enjoy your posts, and not just because we often agree.
I will note one thing in passing: In a recent thread, you (Potter) and I had a heated but very polite exchange with PLNelson regarding Israel. PLN took a very strong pro-Israel stance with respect to both of us but kept to the issues and avoided personal attacks. Not one of his posts was deleted.
Thanks Sutter, it’s a real pleasure to read your posts and I am not just returning the compliment.
I fear the “pro-Israel” term is being stolen by one side in this heated ongoing discussion. No, they can’t have it. I know you understand what I mean. I feel I am pro-Israel. I want Israel to survive, very much so.( I want this country to suvive!). But I believe deeply and strongly that Israel cannot survive without making peace, and peacemaking cannot happen without steadiness towards that goal and finally compromise and risk. Both sides have proven well enough they are not going away.
More on language : jdyer says he was “censored”. No he was not censored. He was deleted many times, too many times, as warning, after our group discussion, in which he partook, about the rules. He took advantage despite that and defied his hosts and posters who flagged him again and again. Finally finally after being given a long long rope, he hung himself all the while protesting about his rights. Other’s rights to live here free of his abuse mattered not at all. In the end he asked for this, practically begged for it to prove to himself how unjust we are.
And no it does not feel good. I don’t feel any schadenfreude., I doubt anyone does. I feel sad. I and a reckon others here would much rather have a civil discussion with him aboard. He did not want it that way, convinced that we are against him. I will not abuse him at leisure; this is not about him, not anymore.
About the use/abuse of language- some use “peace†or â€pro-peace†as a dirty word. Anyone who advocates peace or even talking is “appeasing” which brings us back to the subject we left, talking to Syria.
This censoring /deleating of peoples posts is quite disoncerting. Has jdyer also been banned?
Potter, you are of course completely right, and I was sloppy. I, too, have Israel’s interests at heart when I criticize its policies, and I, too, am wary of handing over the “pro-Israel” label. Great point.
On the censorship issue, I wonder whether it would make sense for the ROS folks to create a separate thread — a land of lost posts, or whatnot — in which deleted entries were deposited for viewing by those who are interested. My own approach would be to disable posting on that thread (so as not to simply move ad hominem personal flame wars from one thread to another). This way, those of us who care only for the substantive debate can simply ignore the other thread, and those of us who want to evaluate claims that this or that post was deleted based on mere substantive disagreement can do so. Under the current policy, folks can assert that there was nothing offensive in the deleted post, and unless one happened to read it before it was deleted, there’s no way to tell. Sadly, this may give too much power to the offender in framing the debate.