Yes, I can see how such a military intervention would be quite feasible especially compared to the neocon adventure in Iraq you're always bitching about. :hmm:
http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2010/01/sick-of-the-israelis-and-the-palestinians.html#more
Quote06 Jan 2010 02:08 pm
"Sick" Of The Israelis And The Palestinians
Ben Rhodes has denied that Rahm said this to the Israelis. Well, it sure sounds like Rahm.
More to the point, who wouldn't be sick of the Israelis and the Palestinians at this point?
I too am sick of the Israelis for their contempt for the interests of their most important ally, their continuation of brutalizing colonization of the West Bank, their shameless ethnic engineering in East Jerusalem, their pulverization of Gaza, the direct manipulation of domestic American politics by their ambassador, and on and on. And, yes, I'm also sick of the war crimes and theocratic insanity of Hamas, and the lame passive-aggression of the PA, and the inability of the Palestinian leadership to prepare for actual governance as opposed to the victimized preening and theatrics and violence they prefer to the difficult compromises required if we are to move forward.
And if Rahm Emanuel is sick of them all, one can imagine how the average American feels. My own view is moving toward supporting a direct American military imposition of a two-state solution, with NATO troops on the borders of the new states of Palestine and Israel. I'm sick of having a great power like the US being dictated to in the conduct of its own foreign policy by an ally that provides almost no real benefit to the US, and more and more costs.
Share This
There will be a one state solution.
Siegebreaker would shoot up whatever military base he was at.
I'm waiting for Andrew Sullivan to drop dead from the AIDS.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on January 07, 2010, 07:59:55 AM
Yes, I can see how so such a military intervention would be quite feasible especially compared to the neocon adventure in Iraq you're always bitching about. :hmm:
This is different. He is sick of them.
The post quoted by Tim seems like something I could disagree with 100%.
There are only 2 long term solutions to this endless conflict:
- either the jews close the shop and abandon Israel
- or they offer full union with the palestinians.. in which case they'll be outbred before long and become a minority.
Well a 3rd outcome *is* possible; if Iran launches nukes against Israel the israelis will retaliate and the whole region might blow...
G.
Sigh. Sullivan's the reason I regret that the US lifted the HIV travel ban.
Quote from: Grallon on January 07, 2010, 09:59:11 AM
- either the jews close the shop and abandon Israel
- or they offer full union with the palestinians.. in which case they'll be outbred before long and become a minority.
You do know that the Jewish women in Israel breed at a rate of 2.88 children per woman, you know, almost twice that of Quebec. That is ridiculously high for a country with western style life expectancy. How the Palestinians will manage to outbreed that 'before long' boggles the mind.
So unless the Arabs have cloning machines Israel/Palestine will collapse due to water shortages or mass starvation long before the Arabs outbreed them.
Quote from: Faeelin on January 07, 2010, 10:03:57 AM
Sigh. Sullivan's the reason I regret that the US lifted the HIV travel ban.
WTF. He seems like a decent bloke.
Edit: Actually I just read his wiki entry and he seems like someone who would fit on Languish. :P
Quote from: Martinus on January 07, 2010, 10:27:13 AM
Quote from: Faeelin on January 07, 2010, 10:03:57 AM
Sigh. Sullivan's the reason I regret that the US lifted the HIV travel ban.
WTF. He seems like a decent bloke.
Eh. I don't approve of HIV+ people who engage in unprotected sex via online hookups and then ramble on about gay families.
I also don't approve of the fact that he called me an "authoritarian part of the left" over the summer.
Did he refer to you specifically? :P
Quote from: Faeelin on January 07, 2010, 10:30:41 AM
I also don't approve of the fact that he called me an "authoritarian part of the left" over the summer.
It seems he sized you up pretty well - you alway striked me as the log cabin type. :P
G.
Quote from: Grallon on January 07, 2010, 10:33:01 AM
Quote from: Faeelin on January 07, 2010, 10:30:41 AM
I also don't approve of the fact that he called me an "authoritarian part of the left" over the summer.
It seems he sized you up pretty well - you alway striked me as the log cabin type. :P
G.
Wouldn't a log cabin type be the opposite of the "authoritarian left"? In fact, Sullivan is the log cabin type.
Besides, as the gay rights movement progresses, I imagine more and more gays will come out as "log cabin" types. A lot of gays are upper middle class professionals who are only in an alliance of convenience with the left. Once we get what we want we will jump off that bandwagon and demand lower taxes instead.
Quote from: Faeelin on January 07, 2010, 10:30:41 AM
Eh. I don't approve of HIV+ people who engage in unprotected sex via online hookups and then ramble on about gay families.
I also don't approve of the fact that he called me an "authoritarian part of the left" over the summer.
I'm hoping these two pieces of information aren't related. :ph34r:
He is a bit prone to anger and not thinking straight; I won't use the word "hysterical", because as he pointed out, it is too often used on gays for...questionable reasons. Besides that I like him quite a bit; he was one of the few great sources during the Iranian Election fuckaroo, and he's maintained pretty good coverage.
Quote from: Grallon on January 07, 2010, 10:33:01 AM
It seems he sized you up pretty well - you alway striked me as the log cabin type. :P
I am touched that the guy who favors genocide finds me conservative.
And yea, he did refer to me specifically:http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2009/07/confusing-speech-and-action.html
Quote from: Queequeg on January 07, 2010, 10:38:24 AM
I won't use the word "hysterical", because as he pointed out, it is too often used on gays for...questionable reasons.
I'm a victim of this too. :(
Quote from: Martinus on January 07, 2010, 10:43:28 AM
Quote from: Queequeg on January 07, 2010, 10:38:24 AM
I won't use the word "hysterical", because as he pointed out, it is too often used on gays for...questionable reasons.
I'm a victim of this too. :(
:lmfao:
I'm hoping this is very clever self-deprecation.
Quote from: Martinus on January 07, 2010, 10:43:28 AM
Quote from: Queequeg on January 07, 2010, 10:38:24 AM
I won't use the word "hysterical", because as he pointed out, it is too often used on gays for...questionable reasons.
I'm a victim of this too. :(
Bullshit.
Hey, I've been called "hysterical" on Languish too, have I not? :P
Quote from: Martinus on January 07, 2010, 10:47:10 AM
Hey, I've been called "hysterical" on Languish too, have I not? :P
True but you have been called basically everything on Languish at one point or another. :P
Quote from: Valmy on January 07, 2010, 10:13:04 AM
Quote from: Grallon on January 07, 2010, 09:59:11 AM
- either the jews close the shop and abandon Israel
- or they offer full union with the palestinians.. in which case they'll be outbred before long and become a minority.
You do know that the Jewish women in Israel breed at a rate of 2.88 children per woman, you know, almost twice that of Quebec. That is ridiculously high for a country with western style life expectancy. How the Palestinians will manage to outbreed that 'before long' boggles the mind.
So unless the Arabs have cloning machines Israel/Palestine will collapse due to water shortages or mass starvation long before the Arabs outbreed them.
You do know that the birth rate of jewish women in Israel was at a rate of 2.7 children per mother while that of the Arabs was at a rate of 3.8 children per mother, right?
"How the Palestinians will manage to outbreed that 'before long'" will be by having a higher birth rate, which they have. "Before long" is now. This isn't rocket science.
Quote from: Martinus on January 07, 2010, 10:47:10 AM
Hey, I've been called "hysterical" on Languish too, have I not? :P
Yeah, but you are hysterical, Mr. Sixteen Hours.
I'll give the jews breeding tips.
*shrug* The Atlantic publishes crap all the time.
Quote from: Ed Anger on January 07, 2010, 11:10:05 AM
I'll give the jews breeding tips.
:lol: Multi-task! Get more bang for your fuck with twins!
Quote from: Martinus on January 07, 2010, 10:43:28 AM
Quote from: Queequeg on January 07, 2010, 10:38:24 AM
I won't use the word "hysterical", because as he pointed out, it is too often used on gays for...questionable reasons.
I'm a victim of this too. :(
:lol: :console:
I see where Sullivan's coming from (generally I like him) not least because this issue is more like a civil war than a normal war.
Quote from: Judas Iscariot on January 07, 2010, 11:14:40 AM
Quote from: Ed Anger on January 07, 2010, 11:10:05 AM
I'll give the jews breeding tips.
:lol: Multi-task! Get more bang for your fuck with twins!
After seeing the Jewess businesswomen out of Tel Aviv, I'd gladly volunteer.
Because of course force has really helped the Palestine problem in the past...
Quote from: Faeelin on January 07, 2010, 10:41:45 AM
Quote from: Grallon on January 07, 2010, 10:33:01 AM
It seems he sized you up pretty well - you alway striked me as the log cabin type. :P
I am touched that the guy who favors genocide finds me conservative.
And yea, he did refer to me specifically:http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2009/07/confusing-speech-and-action.html
I agree with him.
Our opposing views on the issues of speech are becoming a trend.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on January 07, 2010, 12:19:06 PM
I agree with him.
Our opposing views on the issues of speech are becoming a trend.
Eh. I think free speech is a red herring. The Dean stated he wouldn't hire an outspoken racist or anti-semite. Sp ,u beef was equality of treatment, not anti-semitism.
I do hope that as a teacher you tell students that that they convert to find happiness.
Quote from: Faeelin on January 07, 2010, 12:21:37 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on January 07, 2010, 12:19:06 PM
I agree with him.
Our opposing views on the issues of speech are becoming a trend.
Eh. I think free speech is a red herring. The Dean stated he wouldn't hire an outspoken racist or anti-semite. Sp ,u beef was equality of treatment, not anti-semitism.
I do hope that as a teacher you tell students that that they convert to find happiness.
Totally different issue.
Also, you didn't respond to my last post in that thread.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on January 07, 2010, 12:23:33 PM
Totally different issue.
How is it a different issue? I think it's unprofessional for a reporter to declare religions are wrong. You apparently don't.
Quote from: Faeelin on January 07, 2010, 12:25:45 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on January 07, 2010, 12:23:33 PM
Totally different issue.
How is it a different issue? I think it's unprofessional for a reporter to declare religions are wrong. You apparently don't.
I hardly consider folks on cable "news" programs like that legitimate reporters. It's just infotainment for the masses.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on January 07, 2010, 12:28:32 PM
I hardly consider folks on cable "news" programs like that legitimate reporters. It's just infotainment for the masses.
Eh. That's fine, but then I think it's wrong to portray yourself as anything else, as Hume does. And I wuv when you act all elitist.
Quote from: Faeelin on January 07, 2010, 12:29:47 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on January 07, 2010, 12:28:32 PM
I hardly consider folks on cable "news" programs like that legitimate reporters. It's just infotainment for the masses.
Eh. That's fine, but then I think it's wrong to portray yourself as anything else, as Hume does. And I wuv when you act all elitist.
By the way I answered yes to the last question you posed in that other thread.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on January 07, 2010, 12:30:49 PM
Quote from: Faeelin on January 07, 2010, 12:29:47 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on January 07, 2010, 12:28:32 PM
I hardly consider folks on cable "news" programs like that legitimate reporters. It's just infotainment for the masses.
Eh. That's fine, but then I think it's wrong to portray yourself as anything else, as Hume does. And I wuv when you act all elitist.
By the way I answered yes to the last question you posed in that other thread.
Yes, you said so two times now in this thread.
:huh: No I didn't.
Quote
I agree with him.
Our opposing views on the issues of speech are becoming a trend.
Quote
Totally different issue.
Also, you didn't respond to my last post in that thread.
Neither address the specifics of my last post in that thread.
EDIT: Anyways it's almost 3am, going to bed.
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 07, 2010, 11:23:10 AM
Quote from: Martinus on January 07, 2010, 10:43:28 AM
Quote from: Queequeg on January 07, 2010, 10:38:24 AM
I won't use the word "hysterical", because as he pointed out, it is too often used on gays for...questionable reasons.
I'm a victim of this too. :(
:lol: :console:
I see where Sullivan's coming from (generally I like him) not least because this issue is more like a civil war than a normal war.
Personally, I am all in favour of outsiders forcibly solving *all* complex world problems, particularly ones that annoy me when reading the morning paper.
There is absolutely nothing that could go wrong with this plan.
I favor a two state solution, with Andrew Sullivan kicked back to England.
Quote from: Malthus on January 07, 2010, 01:36:41 PM
Personally, I am all in favour of outsiders forcibly solving *all* complex world problems, particularly ones that annoy me when reading the morning paper.
There is absolutely nothing that could go wrong with this plan.
Well the problem is that in a normal two-state problem they self regulate because both have militaries that will guard against breaking treaty commitments within a peace and generally the international community will care. I think Israel and Palestine is closer to a civil war because both sides don't or won't have a military to watch, small things can cause a drift from crisis to conflict, there's a number of non-state actors in the region that can precipitate further violence or are trying to bounce the two leaderships and despite international involvement (and meddling) a collapse into violence is largely seen as 'man bites dog'. Peace treaties are based on trust. With two states you basically each other acting as a guarantee; in civil wars, and I believe in Israel-Palestine, there's no such guarantee which is why it's easy to fall back into conflict without some form of international intervention.
But, you're right, intervening in situations like this to keep two sides apart and within their commitments is always incredibly difficult and not always the right thing to do. I don't see Israel-Palestine as any more of a complex world problem than the former Yugoslavia, or Lebanon, for example. We don't intervene in all complex world problems and lots can go wrong, but we do intervene in some and I don't think this one should be seen as wholly separate and different.
A little genocide never hurt anyone.
We already have a two-state solution.
Actually it is a three state solution, with Israel, Gaza (Hamas) and the West Bank (Fatah).
Careful what you wish for . . .
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 07, 2010, 02:18:03 PM
Quote from: Malthus on January 07, 2010, 01:36:41 PM
Personally, I am all in favour of outsiders forcibly solving *all* complex world problems, particularly ones that annoy me when reading the morning paper.
There is absolutely nothing that could go wrong with this plan.
Well the problem is that in a normal two-state problem they self regulate because both have militaries that will guard against breaking treaty commitments within a peace and generally the international community will care. I think Israel and Palestine is closer to a civil war because both sides don't or won't have a military to watch, small things can cause a drift from crisis to conflict, there's a number of non-state actors in the region that can precipitate further violence or are trying to bounce the two leaderships and despite international involvement (and meddling) a collapse into violence is largely seen as 'man bites dog'. Peace treaties are based on trust. With two states you basically each other acting as a guarantee; in civil wars, and I believe in Israel-Palestine, there's no such guarantee which is why it's easy to fall back into conflict without some form of international intervention.
But, you're right, intervening in situations like this to keep two sides apart and within their commitments is always incredibly difficult and not always the right thing to do. I don't see Israel-Palestine as any more of a complex world problem than the former Yugoslavia, or Lebanon, for example. We don't intervene in all complex world problems and lots can go wrong, but we do intervene in some and I don't think this one should be seen as wholly separate and different.
My plan is to sit back, buy popcorn, and giggle like an idiot when the US/UK/Euro troops start dealing with Hamas in Gaza.
This isn't even remotely like a "civil war". There is no conflict within Israel; Israel in no way resembles Lebanon or former Yugoslavia. What this is, is Israel occupying bits of other countries (Gaza=Egypt; the WB=Jordan) that contain populations so fractious and ungovernable that their former owners don't want them back.
Having UN, UK, Euro, US soldiers (take yer pic) patroling Gaza will do exactly nothing to create "trust" and "compliance" by Hamas, and why should it? What exactly will the UK, US or UN do if Hamas does what it always does? Threaten to root them out with massive force? I doubt it.
Euro troops would join forces with hamas to shove jews into ovens.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on January 07, 2010, 02:41:25 PM
We already have a two-state solution.
Actually it is a three state solution, with Israel, Gaza (Hamas) and the West Bank (Fatah).
Careful what you wish for . . .
I take it your next avatar will be "Daniel Pipes" then?
Quote from: Ed Anger on January 07, 2010, 03:15:57 PM
Euro troops would join forces with hamas to shove jews into ovens.
I like the cut of your jib.
Quote from: Viking on January 07, 2010, 05:27:32 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on January 07, 2010, 02:41:25 PM
We already have a two-state solution.
Actually it is a three state solution, with Israel, Gaza (Hamas) and the West Bank (Fatah).
Careful what you wish for . . .
I take it your next avatar will be "Daniel Pipes" then?
My statement is descriptive, not proscriptive.
Quote from: Malthus on January 07, 2010, 03:07:31 PM
This isn't even remotely like a "civil war". There is no conflict within Israel; Israel in no way resembles Lebanon or former Yugoslavia. What this is, is Israel occupying bits of other countries (Gaza=Egypt; the WB=Jordan) that contain populations so fractious and ungovernable that their former owners don't want them back.
I don't think that Gaza can be considered part of Egypt - in fact the real blockade of Gaza is taking place because of the Egyptian, not the Israeli government's policy. Similarly I don't think even the Jordanians now buy into Abdullah's goal of a greater Jordan. Israel is occupying land that presents a fundamental problem for Israel as either a Jewish state or as a democracy - I think both are worth defending and ultimately require a two state solution.
QuoteHaving UN, UK, Euro, US soldiers (take yer pic) patroling Gaza will do exactly nothing to create "trust" and "compliance" by Hamas, and why should it? What exactly will the UK, US or UN do if Hamas does what it always does? Threaten to root them out with massive force? I doubt it.
No, it's as problematic as, for example, trying to contain Hezbollah or intervening in any number of African states to enforce an international peace.
Edit: Incidentally I'd note that Sullivan says he's only moving towards this position and my view would be that I'd support an international force operating in support of a peace deal, especially in Gaza, at least until the PA could build up the security forces necessary.
Quote from: Malthus on January 07, 2010, 03:07:31 PM
This isn't even remotely like a "civil war". There is no conflict within Israel; Israel in no way resembles Lebanon or former Yugoslavia. What this is, is Israel occupying bits of other countries (Gaza=Egypt; the WB=Jordan) that contain populations so fractious and ungovernable that their former owners don't want them back.
Agre about the civil war aspect - the mere assertion of it strikes me as somewhat suspicious.
West Bank and Gaza were never formally part of any state, which is one of the problems. Their former owners were the Brits, who held them as part of the mandate. They are, as you note, hot potatoes that have burned everyone who tried to hold on to them.
Quote from: grumbler on January 07, 2010, 06:44:08 PM
Quote from: Malthus on January 07, 2010, 03:07:31 PM
This isn't even remotely like a "civil war". There is no conflict within Israel; Israel in no way resembles Lebanon or former Yugoslavia. What this is, is Israel occupying bits of other countries (Gaza=Egypt; the WB=Jordan) that contain populations so fractious and ungovernable that their former owners don't want them back.
Agre about the civil war aspect - the mere assertion of it strikes me as somewhat suspicious.
West Bank and Gaza were never formally part of any state, which is one of the problems. Their former owners were the Brits, who held them as part of the mandate. They are, as you note, hot potatoes that have burned everyone who tried to hold on to them.
They were part of the Ottoman Empire. :smarty:
Quote from: grumbler on January 07, 2010, 06:44:08 PM
Agre about the civil war aspect - the mere assertion of it strikes me as somewhat suspicious.
I mean it's like a civil war in that it presents the same challenges and problems that a civil war has, as opposed to an interstate wa, in sustaining a peace deal.
Quote from: Barrister on January 07, 2010, 06:47:26 PM
They were part of the Ottoman Empire. :smarty:
Well, they were a bit annoying to the Sultan late in the Ottoman period. The Ottomans were happy to sell vast swathes of modern Israel to the Zionists, but found the idea of an independent territory there to be understandably unpleasant.
QuoteI too am sick of the Israelis for their contempt for the interests of their most important ally, their continuation of brutalizing colonization of the West Bank, their shameless ethnic engineering in East Jerusalem, their pulverization of Gaza, the direct manipulation of domestic American politics by their ambassador, and on and on. And, yes, I'm also sick of the war crimes and theocratic insanity of Hamas, and the lame passive-aggression of the PA, and the inability of the Palestinian leadership to prepare for actual governance as opposed to the victimized preening and theatrics and violence they prefer to the difficult compromises required if we are to move forward.
This part I agree with, but the solution makes no sense. If you're sick of both of them, why the hell would you want to militarily intervene to forcibly separate them? Just cut them both loose and let them kill each other.
Quote from: HisMajestyBOB on January 07, 2010, 07:25:52 PM
This part I agree with, but the solution makes no sense. If you're sick of both of them, why the hell would you want to militarily intervene to forcibly separate them? Just cut them both loose and let them kill each other.
Yeah, Andy didn't think it through. If there's nothing but downside you dump your losses and walk away.
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 07, 2010, 06:49:33 PM
Quote from: grumbler on January 07, 2010, 06:44:08 PM
Agre about the civil war aspect - the mere assertion of it strikes me as somewhat suspicious.
I mean it's like a civil war in that it presents the same challenges and problems that a civil war has, as opposed to an interstate wa, in sustaining a peace deal.
I think the challenge is more like that of the indeterminate border variety than the civil war variety, but if by "civil war" you mean African tribal-based civil wars due to the artificiality of the borders, then I suppose the analogy might have some utility.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 07, 2010, 08:02:18 PM
Quote from: HisMajestyBOB on January 07, 2010, 07:25:52 PM
This part I agree with, but the solution makes no sense. If you're sick of both of them, why the hell would you want to militarily intervene to forcibly separate them? Just cut them both loose and let them kill each other.
Yeah, Andy didn't think it through. If there's nothing but downside you dump your losses and walk away.
I don't think there is any thinking reflected in this piece. It seems purely polemical to me.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on January 07, 2010, 02:41:25 PM
We already have a two-state solution.
Actually it is a three state solution, with Israel, Gaza (Hamas) and the West Bank (Fatah).
Careful what you wish for . . .
Four states solution, actually.
Israel, Jordan, Gaza, and the West Bank.
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 07, 2010, 11:23:10 AM
I see where Sullivan's coming from (generally I like him) not least because this issue is more like a civil war than a normal war.
Anti-semitic Europeans would, because it validates Palestinian terrorism as "not really terrorism".
Quote from: grumbler on January 07, 2010, 06:44:08 PM
West Bank and Gaza were never formally part of any state, which is one of the problems. Their former owners were the Brits, who held them as part of the mandate. They are, as you note, hot potatoes that have burned everyone who tried to hold on to them.
Also interesting to note how neither Jordan nor Egypt never seem to get any anti-semitic Eurocriticism about their respective behavior towards the Palestinians on the borders of those territories.
Quote from: grumbler on January 07, 2010, 08:25:02 PM
I think the challenge is more like that of the indeterminate border variety than the civil war variety, but if by "civil war" you mean African tribal-based civil wars due to the artificiality of the borders, then I suppose the analogy might have some utility.
Well there are elements of this.
Incidentally - I'm going to return to the civil war thing in a minute - has 60 years of occupation, initially by Egypt and then by Jordan, turned the Palestinians into one of the very few nations in the Arab Middle East? In terms of nationalism the Arab variety I think focuses overwhelmingly on the Arab nation because, with the exception of Egypt (and maybe a couple of the North African states, maybe Yemen too - I don't know about them - and maybe Lebanon) no real Arab nations can be said to exist. Jordan is, especially, a joke. But so too are Syria and Iraq. They're states but they're not nations. Have the Palestinians a nation?
To come back to the civil war thing what I mean is not that it is like a civil war in its nature as a war or in the reasons for conflict; but that resolving it presents the same challenges as resolving a civil war. Even with border wars the peace is regulated and enforced by two armed states who are able fight again if necessary and if not try and negotiate a more fixed border line (Iran and Iraq are currently doing this for example), so peace is sort-of guaranteed by the threat of a return to war.
In civil wars, historically, the end comes when one side is destroyed, with the creation of other states, or with international guarantees on the peace deal. Now that's because they share a country but I also think it's to do with the fact that you can't have two opposing forces regulating a peace deal. You also have groups that have varying degrees of state legitimacy but that can derail a peace deal, that can try and bounce their own side into action or provoke the other and at the end of a civil war the lines between crisis and conflict are far more blurry than when you're dealing with two states. Similarly in any two state solution I believe the idea of a Palestinian armed forces is already off the table, you have non-state, and almost state actors with varying motivations within both Israel and Palestine and I think you will have, after any peace deal, a very blurry line between when a crisis moves to a resumption of conflict.
As I've said I don't think Israel can remain Jewish and democratic and be occupying territory with several million Palestinians. Therefore I don't support imposing a two-state solution but I do think that we should push for them and the PA to work out a deal and that international arbitration and peacekeeping in, for example, Gaza would help Israel and the PA. If there's an international guarantee between the two sides it will help make them both engaged in a bit more like a normal bilateral deal.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 07, 2010, 09:03:53 PM
Anti-semitic Europeans would, because it validates Palestinian terrorism as "not really terrorism".
I don't think I've ever said that. Terrorism is terrorism. Not that that gets anyone very far.
QuoteAlso interesting to note how neither Jordan nor Egypt never seem to get any anti-semitic Eurocriticism about their respective behavior towards the Palestinians on the borders of those territories.
I've criticised the Egyptians for the blockade of Gaza and the Jordanians for their expansionist conquest of the West Bank in this thread. The difference is Egypt and Jordan can occupy Gaza and the West Bank respectively without threatening their identity because neither are designed a majority Jewish state, a Jewish homeland and neither are democracies.
Save it, Balfour. I've already labelled you.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 07, 2010, 09:13:14 PM
Save it, Balfour.
I don't know what this means :mellow: :(
Quote from: citizen k on January 07, 2010, 10:54:42 PM
Foreign Secretary Arthur James Balfour
:lol: I got that.
Quote from: HisMajestyBOB on January 07, 2010, 07:25:52 PM
QuoteI too am sick of the Israelis for their contempt for the interests of their most important ally, their continuation of brutalizing colonization of the West Bank, their shameless ethnic engineering in East Jerusalem, their pulverization of Gaza, the direct manipulation of domestic American politics by their ambassador, and on and on. And, yes, I'm also sick of the war crimes and theocratic insanity of Hamas, and the lame passive-aggression of the PA, and the inability of the Palestinian leadership to prepare for actual governance as opposed to the victimized preening and theatrics and violence they prefer to the difficult compromises required if we are to move forward.
This part I agree with, but the solution makes no sense. If you're sick of both of them, why the hell would you want to militarily intervene to forcibly separate them? Just cut them both loose and let them kill each other.
Well, if you separate political leadership from ordinary people who will be made to suffer (and are suffering now), then his proposed solution, while obviously costly (and not necessarily in the US best interest), makes sense.
I guess it depends on whether you think the US (or, more broadly speaking, the West) has a moral obligation to prevent a humanitarian catastrophe where it is possible, even though we are not guilty of it happening.
What can CIA offer in terms of solutions? AIDS worked reasonably well against gays and Africans, surely something could be deployed against Jewrabs?
Iran is the final solution. Glass the Jewrabs and world peace will ensue.
Quote from: grumbler on January 07, 2010, 06:44:08 PM
Quote from: Malthus on January 07, 2010, 03:07:31 PM
This isn't even remotely like a "civil war". There is no conflict within Israel; Israel in no way resembles Lebanon or former Yugoslavia. What this is, is Israel occupying bits of other countries (Gaza=Egypt; the WB=Jordan) that contain populations so fractious and ungovernable that their former owners don't want them back.
Agre about the civil war aspect - the mere assertion of it strikes me as somewhat suspicious.
West Bank and Gaza were never formally part of any state, which is one of the problems. Their former owners were the Brits, who held them as part of the mandate. They are, as you note, hot potatoes that have burned everyone who tried to hold on to them.
Unless I'm mistaken, that is not entirely the case. It is true that the Brits held them under Mandate, but they were arguably parts of Egypt and Jordan, respecively, after the Mandate ended.
On the WB:
QuoteThe country was under British supervision until after World War II. In 1946, the British requested that the United Nations approve an end to British Mandate rule in Transjordan. Following the British request, the Transjordanian Parliament proclaimed King Abdullah as the first ruler of the Hashemite Kingdom of Transjordan. Abdullah I continued to rule until a Palestinian Arab assassinated him in 1951 as he was departing from the al-Aqsa Mosque in Jerusalem.
During the 1948 Arab-Israeli war, Jordan occupied the area of Cisjordan now called the West Bank, which it continued to control in accordance with the 1949 Armistice Agreements and a political union formed in December 1948. The Second Arab-Palestinian Conference held in Jericho on December 1, 1948 proclaimed Abdullah King of Palestine and called for a union of Arab Palestine with the Hashemite Kingdom of Transjordan.[39] The Transjordanian Government agreed to the unification on December 7, 1948, and on December 13 the Transjordanian parliament approved the creation of the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan. The step of unification was ratified by a joint Jordanian National Assembly on April 24, 1950. The Assembly was comprised of 20 representatives each from the East and West Bank. The Act of Union contained a protective clause which persevered Arab rights in Palestine without prejudice to any final settlement.[40][41]
Many legal scholars say the declaration of the Arab League and the Act of Union implied that Jordan's claim of sovereignty over the West Bank was provisional, because it had always been subject to the emergence of the Palestinian state.[42][43] A political union was legally established by the series of proclamations, decrees, and parliamentary acts in December 1948. Abdullah thereupon took the title King of Jordan, and he officially changed the country's name to the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan in April 1949. The 1950 Act of Union confirmed and ratified King Abdullah's actions. Following the annexation of the West Bank, only two countries formally recognized the union: Britain and Pakistan.[44][45] Thomas Kuttner notes that de facto recognition was granted to the regime, most clearly evidenced by the maintaining of consulates in East Jerusalem by several countries, including the United States.[46] Joseph Weiler agreed, and said that other states had engaged in activities, statements, and resolutions that would be inconsistent with non-recognition.[47] Joseph Massad said that the members of the Arab League granted de facto recognition and that the United States had formally recognized the annexation, except for Jerusalem
On Gaza:
QuoteAccording to the United Nations' 1947 UN Partition Plan, proposing a partition of the British Mandate of Palestine, the areas of the Gaza Strip and the West Bank were to become part of a new Arab state. However, the Arab members of the UN stated that the plan was unjust and contrary to the UN Charter, and that they would not abide by it, presaging the 1948 Arab-Israeli War. (See also Proposals for a Palestinian state.) The "All-Palestine Government" was recognised by Egypt, Syria, Lebanon, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, and Yemen, but not by Jordan or any other country in the world. However, it was little more than a façade under Egyptian control and had negligible influence or funding. Palestinians living in the Gaza Strip or Egypt were issued with All-Palestine passports until 1959, when Gamal Abdul Nasser, president of Egypt, annulled the All-Palestine government by decree.
Both quotes are from Wikipedia, but the facts are not really in dispute.
Summary: in both cases, it is the fall-out of the aborted UN partition plan. The notional existence of a Palestinian state was given the nod, but only in the most prefunctory of manners, and that soon abandoned; Jordan formally annexed the WB and the king of one declared himself the king of another (an annexation acceded to by the UK); Egypt maintained the legal fiction of a "Palestinan" government until it was abolished by Nasser.
Quote from: The Brain on January 08, 2010, 05:23:31 AM
...Jewrabs
:lol: So apt! Both groups are stiff-neck bastards - dixit God.
G.
Quote from: Grallon on January 08, 2010, 12:38:08 PM
Quote from: The Brain on January 08, 2010, 05:23:31 AM
...Jewrabs
:lol: So apt! Both groups are stiff-neck bastards - dixit God.
G.
Personally, I think there is nothing more hilarious than ethnic slurs. :D
Now, about those folks in Quebec ...
Quote from: Malthus on January 08, 2010, 12:33:33 PM
Unless I'm mistaken, that is not entirely the case. It is true that the Brits held them under Mandate, but they were arguably parts of Egypt and Jordan, respecively, after the Mandate ended.
Certainly the Jordanians and Egyptians argued this, but their assertions of sovereignty were just that, and their legal fictions that the peoples of these lands were forming governments to ask for Jordanian and Egyptian rule are not credible (and are no longer maintained).
Quote from: Malthus on January 08, 2010, 12:43:17 PM
Personally, I think there is nothing more hilarious than ethnic slurs. :D
Now, about those folks in Quebec ...
Quepuquois?
Quote from: Valmy on January 07, 2010, 10:13:04 AM
You do know that the Jewish women in Israel breed at a rate of 2.88 children per woman, you know, almost twice that of Quebec. That is ridiculously high for a country with western style life expectancy. How the Palestinians will manage to outbreed that 'before long' boggles the mind.
That's another thing. The Israelis that breed are ultra-religious, and are not exactly caught up on the whole western lifestyle thing. I wonder what will happen to Israel when those Israelis outbreed the secular Israelis (whose demographics are very much European).
Quote from: grumbler on January 08, 2010, 12:44:11 PM
Quote from: Malthus on January 08, 2010, 12:33:33 PM
Unless I'm mistaken, that is not entirely the case. It is true that the Brits held them under Mandate, but they were arguably parts of Egypt and Jordan, respecively, after the Mandate ended.
Certainly the Jordanians and Egyptians argued this, but their assertions of sovereignty were just that, and their legal fictions that the peoples of these lands were forming governments to ask for Jordanian and Egyptian rule are not credible (and are no longer maintained).
Clearly there was no actual democratic ratification worthy of the name - but then, neither countries were democracies in the first place. Their ownership of and sovereignty over these two bits of land was about as legitimate as their sovereignty over the main bits of Egypt and Jordan. Though it pissed off other countries, those other countries were in no position to dispute their ownership, and so they had sovereignty de facto if not necessarily de jure (though in the latter case it is arguable particularly in regards to Jordan, whose ownership was in fact widely recognized).
Quote from: grumbler on January 08, 2010, 12:44:11 PM
Quote from: Malthus on January 08, 2010, 12:33:33 PM
Unless I'm mistaken, that is not entirely the case. It is true that the Brits held them under Mandate, but they were arguably parts of Egypt and Jordan, respecively, after the Mandate ended.
Certainly the Jordanians and Egyptians argued this, but their assertions of sovereignty were just that, and their legal fictions that the peoples of these lands were forming governments to ask for Jordanian and Egyptian rule are not credible (and are no longer maintained).
Their assertions of sovereignty where pretty credible because they were backed by lots of guys in uniforms with guns, and no one else was going to scruple about the disappearance of another "state" that had never come into existence in the first place. The assertions are no longer maintained only because the former asserters no longer have any interest in doing so, and in fact have the contrary interest,
Quote from: Malthus on January 08, 2010, 12:55:22 PM
Clearly there was no actual democratic ratification worthy of the name - but then, neither countries were democracies in the first place. Their ownership of and sovereignty over these two bits of land was about as legitimate as their sovereignty over the main bits of Egypt and Jordan.
Are you actually abandoning the concept of legitimacy, or simply saying that no non-democratic regime can be legitimate? I have never seen anyone take a position this strongly against the legitimacy of the Egyptian and Jordanian governments before.
QuoteThough it pissed off other countries, those other countries were in no position to dispute their ownership, and so they had sovereignty de facto if not necessarily de jure (though in the latter case it is arguable particularly in regards to Jordan, whose ownership was in fact widely recognized).
Yiou are shifting goal posts here. I am saying "formal ownership" and y6ou are saying "de facto sovereignty." There have been many examples of de facto sovereignty that didn't translate into formal ownership - the Falkland Islands from April to May 1982 spring to mind.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on January 08, 2010, 01:18:43 PM
Their assertions of sovereignty where pretty credible because they were backed by lots of guys in uniforms with guns, and no one else was going to scruple about the disappearance of another "state" that had never come into existence in the first place. The assertions are no longer maintained only because the former asserters no longer have any interest in doing so, and in fact have the contrary interest,
I am not sure what this has to do with anything, though. The ability to control an area by force does not make that area formally part of one's own country. AFAICT, only the UK recognized Jordanian sovereignty over the West Bank.
Not that this matters greatly, as even Jordan has acknowledged my point.
Quote from: grumbler on January 08, 2010, 02:20:05 PM
Quote from: Malthus on January 08, 2010, 12:55:22 PM
Clearly there was no actual democratic ratification worthy of the name - but then, neither countries were democracies in the first place. Their ownership of and sovereignty over these two bits of land was about as legitimate as their sovereignty over the main bits of Egypt and Jordan.
Are you actually abandoning the concept of legitimacy, or simply saying that no non-democratic regime can be legitimate? I have never seen anyone take a position this strongly against the legitimacy of the Egyptian and Jordanian governments before.
Perhaps this could be made easier if you told *us* what you consider a proper assumption of sovereignty.
To my mind, if you are the head of a state and have ownership of a piece of land, are able to defend it against all comers, declare yourself the sovereign of it, and that sovereignty is not successfully contested by others - then you own it. Doesn't matter if you are a democracy, dictatorship, or what.
Whether that ownership is morally correct or not is of course another story.
QuoteYiou are shifting goal posts here. I am saying "formal ownership" and y6ou are saying "de facto sovereignty." There have been many examples of de facto sovereignty that didn't translate into formal ownership - the Falkland Islands from April to May 1982 spring to mind.
What "formalities" are you insisting on? The Jordanians for example quite formally annexed the WB. There was no-one to dispute this and the former "owners" - the British - recognized this annexation as
valid.
The example of the Argentinians and the Falklands is a good one for the discussion - they
unsuccessfully disputed the UK's sovereignty over those islands.
Quote from: Malthus on January 08, 2010, 12:43:17 PM
Personally, I think there is nothing more hilarious than ethnic slurs. :D
Now, about those folks in Quebec ...
As I said - the 'stiff necked' comment is from the horse's mouth as quoted in the bible (I think it was after the golden veal bit - my bible lore is rusty). And it is exact that israelis and palestinians are ethnically similar. Ha! For all we know they're jews converted centuries ago. :P
G.
Quote from: Malthus on January 08, 2010, 02:41:51 PM
Perhaps this could be made easier if you told *us* what you consider a proper assumption of sovereignty.
I was under the impression that the concept of legitimacy under international law was pretty well-known. Sorry, but I have neither the time nor the interest in going into what it means, though, so I will withdraw my observations.
Quote from: grumbler on January 08, 2010, 03:19:10 PM
Quote from: Malthus on January 08, 2010, 02:41:51 PM
Perhaps this could be made easier if you told *us* what you consider a proper assumption of sovereignty.
I was under the impression that the concept of legitimacy under international law was pretty well-known. Sorry, but I have neither the time nor the interest in going into what it means, though, so I will withdraw my observations.
It's just about one of the most
unclear concepts around.
The problem with "international law" is of course that, when it comes to 'sovereignty', there exists no 'sovereign' power with the ability to enforce it; if there did, there would be no need to examine the issue of how 'sovereignty' is created in the first place: ownership of a territory would simply be mandated by some sort of world court (presumably following some sort of interest balancing and democratic procedures) backed up by the military might of the world-sovereign.
As it is, national 'sovereignty' both de facto and de jure more resembles the dark ages notion of sovereignty in Scandinavia: you collect a bunch of your friends, all armed, go to the local Thing, get up on a shield, and announce that you are king and you are going to tax everyone.
If you survive, you *are* king. :D
The UN currently hides this reality behind a fig leaf of formalism and gives the appearance of being a world-sovereign, but that's basically what it amounts to. When the King of Jordan announces he's also King of the West Bank, and his soldiers patrol the place, and no countries with sufficient power to force him out object - why, he's king of the West Bank. It helps if the power that formerly owned the place doesn't object: see "acquisition of sovereignty by prescription" and "acquisition of soverienty by cession".
Quote from: Malthus on January 08, 2010, 04:00:11 PM
Quote from: grumbler on January 08, 2010, 03:19:10 PM
Quote from: Malthus on January 08, 2010, 02:41:51 PM
Perhaps this could be made easier if you told *us* what you consider a proper assumption of sovereignty.
I was under the impression that the concept of legitimacy under international law was pretty well-known. Sorry, but I have neither the time nor the interest in going into what it means, though, so I will withdraw my observations.
It's just about one of the most unclear concepts around.
The problem with "international law" is of course that, when it comes to 'sovereignty', there exists no 'sovereign' power with the ability to enforce it; if there did, there would be no need to examine the issue of how 'sovereignty' is created in the first place: ownership of a territory would simply be mandated by some sort of world court (presumably following some sort of interest balancing and democratic procedures) backed up by the military might of the world-sovereign.
As it is, national 'sovereignty' both de facto and de jure more resembles the dark ages notion of sovereignty in Scandinavia: you collect a bunch of your friends, all armed, go to the local Thing, get up on a shield, and announce that you are king and you are going to tax everyone. If you survive, you *are* king. :D
The UN currently hides this reality behind a fig leaf of formalism and gives the appearance of being a world-sovereign, but that's basically what it amounts to. When the King of Jordan announces he's also King of the West Bank, and his soldiers patrol the place, and no countries with sufficient power to force him out object - why, he's king of the West Bank. It helps if the power that formerly owned the place doesn't object: see "acquisition of sovereignty by prescription" and "acquisition of soverienty by cession".
Not a shield. Big rocks.
Quote from: Grallon on January 08, 2010, 02:44:01 PM
Quote from: Malthus on January 08, 2010, 12:43:17 PM
Personally, I think there is nothing more hilarious than ethnic slurs. :D
Now, about those folks in Quebec ...
As I said - the 'stiff necked' comment is from the horse's mouth as quoted in the bible (I think it was after the golden veal bit - my bible lore is rusty). And it is exact that israelis and palestinians are ethnically similar. Ha! For all we know they're jews converted centuries ago. :P
G.
hey Grallon, check this out. You can buy a copy. :D
http://www.georgetownbookshop.com/georgetown/display2.asp?id=34
Quote from: Malthus on January 08, 2010, 12:33:33 PM
Summary: in both cases, it is the fall-out of the aborted UN partition plan. The notional existence of a Palestinian state was given the nod, but only in the most prefunctory of manners, and that soon abandoned; Jordan formally annexed the WB and the king of one declared himself the king of another (an annexation acceded to by the UK); Egypt maintained the legal fiction of a "Palestinan" government until it was abolished by Nasser.
Well the problem with the UN plan was that the only Palestinian leader, the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, would have nothing to do with it. He refused to accept it at all. King Abdullah wanted all of Palestine (indeed he wanted the Jews to accept an autonomous Jewish canton within a Kingdom of Transjordania) but he also claimed Syria. For him it was because Arab 'nations' didn't exist, only an Arab nation did and claiming Palestine and Syria was his first step to the reconquest of the Arabian peninsula and replacing the Saudis with the Hashemites.
I don't know about Egypt and Gaza so I can't comment.
QuoteTheir ownership of and sovereignty over these two bits of land was about as legitimate as their sovereignty over the main bits of Egypt and Jordan. Though it pissed off other countries, those other countries were in no position to dispute their ownership, and so they had sovereignty de facto if not necessarily de jure (though in the latter case it is arguable particularly in regards to Jordan, whose ownership was in fact widely recognized).
Surely they are the sovereign governments of Jordan and Egypt because they were recognised by most nations (all nations I imagine) as being the sovereign government. So if no-one recognised their conquest of the West Bank or Gaza while their ownership of that territory may not be disputed I don't think their sovereignty necessarily would be.
To use a modern example Morocco may have ownership of Western Sahara but I'm not sure that they're recognised as the legitimate state of Western Sahara.
Quote from: Malthus on January 08, 2010, 02:41:51 PM
The Jordanians for example quite formally annexed the WB. There was no-one to dispute this and the former "owners" - the British - recognized this annexation as valid.
Yeah, but the status of Gaza was a lot hazier. AFAIK, Egypt never formally claimed Gaza as part of Egypt, nor was it administered as such, even after Nassar did away with the nominal Palestinian government.
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 08, 2010, 08:55:14 PM
Well the problem with the UN plan was that the only Palestinian leader, the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, would have nothing to do with it. He refused to accept it at all. King Abdullah wanted all of Palestine (indeed he wanted the Jews to accept an autonomous Jewish canton within a Kingdom of Transjordania) but he also claimed Syria. For him it was because Arab 'nations' didn't exist, only an Arab nation did and claiming Palestine and Syria was his first step to the reconquest of the Arabian peninsula and replacing the Saudis with the Hashemites.
I don't know about Egypt and Gaza so I can't comment.
That's interesting, but merely supports to point: the WB was claimed by Jordan.
QuoteSurely they are the sovereign governments of Jordan and Egypt because they were recognised by most nations (all nations I imagine) as being the sovereign government. So if no-one recognised their conquest of the West Bank or Gaza while their ownership of that territory may not be disputed I don't think their sovereignty necessarily would be.
To use a modern example Morocco may have ownership of Western Sahara but I'm not sure that they're recognised as the legitimate state of Western Sahara.
Recognition by other nations is an indicia of sovereignty, but not the only one. Fact is that de facto sovereignty very quickly becomes de jure where other nations are in no position to contest it, no matter how they happen to feel about it (see Tibet).
In the case of Jordan, the previous owners - the Brits - were one of the few nations that officially recognized Jordan's sovereignty. As they were the previous "owners" of the territory in issue, their recognition carried considerable weight; see "soverignty by cession", the example of Hong Kong, etc.
Moreover, those territories were not "won" in battle against their inhabitants, but against the nacient state of Israel. There was no "state of Palistine" at the time, as even their own leaders refused to countenance the creation of the same.
Quote from: Malthus on January 11, 2010, 10:15:28 AM
That's interesting, but merely supports to point: the WB was claimed by Jordan.
In all fairness Abdullah claimed the entire Arab world :lol:
QuoteRecognition by other nations is an indicia of sovereignty, but not the only one. Fact is that de facto sovereignty very quickly becomes de jure where other nations are in no position to contest it, no matter how they happen to feel about it (see Tibet).
I didn't realise there was ever much of a debate about recognising the Chinese conquest of Tibet, once the decision was made to recognise the PRC over the ROC. But I'd still argue that international recognition is the single most important factor. I think the lack of it was a huge part of what denied Indonesia legitimacy in Timor-Leste, for example, and, as I mentioned earlier, what causes problems for the Moroccans in Western Sahara.
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 11, 2010, 03:23:59 PM
In all fairness Abdullah claimed the entire Arab world :lol:
However, he wasn't in a position to station soldiers loyal to him in the rest of the Arab world.
QuoteI didn't realise there was ever much of a debate about recognising the Chinese conquest of Tibet, once the decision was made to recognise the PRC over the ROC. But I'd still argue that international recognition is the single most important factor. I think the lack of it was a huge part of what denied Indonesia legitimacy in Timor-Leste, for example, and, as I mentioned earlier, what causes problems for the Moroccans in Western Sahara.
I would argue that the
single most important factor is actual physical occupation of the territory by one's
uncontested armed forces.
International recognition is nice, but it doesn't do shit if there is no state willing to back it up with force. Conversely, force is often recognized as conferring legitimacy,
once it is proved successful - that usually and except in truly odd cases leads, eventually, to recognition being granted.
In both cases you mention, there is (or was) an ongoing armed dispute over ownership that muddies the water. Timor-Leste became independant in 2002, after a brutal independance war against a Portuguese-backed resistance movement. In neither case was the occupying army able to prove uncontested occupation.
China is actually a pretty good example here.
What is the answer to the question of who has sovereign control over Taiwan?
If answered according to the standard of recognition, the answer is the PRC. But that immediately runs up against the very practical problem that the PRC in fact does not control jack there. If sovereignty is to have any meaning at all, it is clear that the ROC is sovereign on the island.
As for "legitimacy", the PRC/ROC split is illustrative as well as to the limits of that concept. If all "legitimacy" means is who recognized who, then it is a rather narrow and technical concept trying to carry more weight than it can bear. If it means something more, then that meaning has to be specified - but as a matter of positive law, it clearly has not been.
Sovereignty is one of the hard "facts" of inter-state relations. The Supreme Court's recent decision in the Gitmo cases (Boumediene) recognized that and correctly (in my mind) based its ruling on the de facto realities of America's presence rather than de jure legal and technical fictions.
Needless to say, I tend to come down more on the Malthus side of this discussion.
Heh, sometimes it seems to me that in matters of war and peace, the very concept of "international law" is nothing more than the state of nature dressed up in the Emperor's New Clothes.
Sadly, nothing better illustrates the absolute impotence of notions of international law (and conversely the necessity of possessing the means for self-defense) better than the history of the Jews of Europe and the Middle East in the course of the 20th Century.
International law did nothing to help them faced with the Holocaust, international law did nothing to restrain their enemies when Israel became a state (indeed "recognition" was the signal for invasion and war by all of its neighbours), international law and the organs of the UN did nothing to prevent two further wars (the case pf '67 is particularly instructive - the towering example of courage provided by the UN in the face of Nassar's insistance that it move aside so he could attack Israel was certainly not lost on Israelis!); and international law, in spite of years of attempts, has done nothing to help create a Palestinian state, or a permanent state of peace in the region.