Text of President Bush's speech to the Israeli parliament

Text of President Bush's speech to the Israeli parliament


Needs to be read.......he definately knows how to piss off the bee hive.

Syria's Nuclear Facility

The Bush administration has made a strong case that Syria built a nuclear reactor with North Korean help but should not have waited until months after Israel destroyed the suspected facility to share its intelligence with Congress, two U.S. lawmakers said Sunday.

I have a problem with this. Why is this being offered now? The facility was destroyed last year, but now they offer proof of the claim that was a nuclear site. But 7 months is plenty of time for doctoring these photos to tell the story they want to tell.

Why am I suspicious? WMDs come mind. Saddam's involvement in 9/11 also. Basically, they have lied before and they could be lying now.

My suggestion is to have the photos checked out by experts and look for tampering.

Trust come to mind and the Bush clan has none to offer.

An Iraqi Withdrawal Plan

I have been neglecting my posts on crap happening around the world. US politics and this election cycle is just so fascinating that I get caught up in the manure spreading of the candidates. I have not seen this much crap in one place for a long time, It is GREAT!

But I had a thought about a new plan to withdraw from Iraq almost immediately.

Withdraw all troops from Iraq and leave Blackwater in place to handle the drudgery of being the back-up force for the Iraqi military and PD. This would accomplish two things, first, it would take our troops out of harm's way and leave the real security force in place. Second, this would eliminate the US from getting the blame for any crap that happens. The US could say that it is a private firm and the government had nothing to do with their actions.

Any failure would not be the fault of the President, but rather that of a corporation. The troops would be safe--the Iraqis would not--but at least the president could have acceptable deniability. This could go a long way at repairing out image in the Middle East.

As long as the US has a private army, why not use them and discard them, pretty much the way they treat the wounded vets.

Is It War Or Not?

For months now there has been a war of words between Israel and Syria, both sides say the other is preparing to launch a strike across the border. and both sides have said No-No-you need rehab. This is from the UK's Independent newspaper:

Syria was considering its response last night after an Israeli warplane violated Syrian air space and was accused of dropping ammunition inside the country. The incident, near the Turkish border on Wednesday, came just after midnight at a time when tensions are running high between the two neighbours. It prompted Syrian air defence units to open fire on the Israeli jets, Syrian officials said.

The Israeli aircraft "infiltrated Syrian air space through the northern border, coming from the direction of the Mediterranean, and headed towards northeastern territory, breaking the sound barrier," said the official Syrian news agency, Sana. "The Syrian Arab Republic warns the government of the Israeli enemy and reserves the right to respond according to what it sees fit."

A Syrian official added: "They dropped bombs on an empty area while our air defences were firing heavily at them." Residents said they heard the sound of five planes or more above the Tal al-Abiad area on Syria's border with Turkey, about 100 miles north of the Syrian city of Rakka.

The Israeli army refused to comment on the incident but no casualties or damage were reported. "We cannot discuss military operations," a spokesman said.

Syria has not responded yet to the incident. But if true, who fired the first shot in this new conflict? Is this a provocation by Israel, to force a head to head with Syria? What purpose did the incursion into Syrian airspace serve?

I will look forward to the answers.

US Arms Deals For The Middle East

What can I say? Who comes up with these schemes? Do we pay their salaries? If so, we need to re-negotiate their contracts.

Our so-called friends in the ME will be getting massive amounts of weapons and stuff. Is it just me or is the Bush foreign policy two fold; first we either blow them up or we bribe them. Where do they get this sh*t? I have a dog that could come up with a better plan than those.

So the ME policy of the Bush admin is if we cannot buy the friendship of a country, we go in and blow it up and stir up a hornet's nest. Please someone out there explain it to me. I have spent many hours in the INKWELL, debating with policies of this admin. (Oh sorry, the INKWELL is my office that my daughter named because of the amount of stuff I write.)

I am sorry but the present foreign policy is nothing more than a type of imperialism. Call it what you will but a rose by any other name is still imperialism. The policy leaves no room for compromise or negotiation, it only helps military contractors and authoritarian assholews stay in power. And somehow that is suppose to make the world a better place. At best a delusional way of thinking.

Somebody out there has to have a better plan and course for the US policies, we need to hurry and find them before it is way too late to change the directions that Bush has given us.

CHUQ

Can A Palestinian Compromise Be found?

I do sincerely hope that my readers are aware of the situation in the Palestinian territories. If not then this post will make little sense to them.


I realize with the media attention being drawn onto this situation, it will be hard for some to contemplate some of the proposals that are offered here. Hamas according to the world is a terrorist org, but it was thrusted into a leadership role by participating in the election process, which the peoploe voted them into the role of leaders. For this reason an attempt needs to be made to include them in the process, for they were put into the fray by the democratic vote of the Palestinian people. For whatever reason that they were voted into power, they are a legit group. Yes, they seem to support terrorist aims and tactics, but there has got to be a way to include them in the political outcome.

I like the following tactics:

A more promising course would be for Fatah and Hamas to immediately cease hostile action against each other and begin to reverse steps that are entrenching separation between Gaza and the West Bank and undermining democratic institutions. In the longer run, they should seek a new power-sharing arrangement, including:

• a clearer political platform, explicitly endorsing the Arab Peace Initiative;
• a commitment to a reciprocal and comprehensive Israeli-Palestinian ceasefire;
• reform of the security services, to include de-factionalisation and integration of Hamas’s Executive Security Force;
• reform of the PLO, expanding it to include Hamas and Islamic Jihad;
• formation of a new unified government approved by the parliament; and
• consideration of early presidential and legislative elections, although not before one year before the establishment of new government.

To facilitate this, Arab states and other third parties should offer their mediation and monitoring of any agreement. If an agreement is reached, the Quartet should be prepared to engage with a new government politically and economically.

Peace has got to be found for the region, there has been enough death, destruction and suffering.


CHUQ

05 August 2007

Freed Reporter Thanks Abbas

Did I miss something? I was under the impression that he was held by a Hamas associated group.

BBC correspondent Alan Johnston has met Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas to thank him for helping to free him from 114 days in captivity in Gaza.

He met Mr Abbas in the West Bank city of Ramallah, a day after he was freed in a deal between his kidnappers, the Army of Islam, and the Hamas movement.

Appatrently, it is important to make Abbas look good in the media. That is all I got!

An Answer For Lebanon

This proposal has been offered, but it is not a good idea, IMO.


Lebanon: A New Federal State?


Since the census of 1932 the political breakdown of Lebanese politics is thus:

President is a Maronite christian

Prime minister is Sunni

Speaker of the Chamber of Deputies is a Shi'a.


This is one of many problems in Lebanon. opponents say this formula is out-dated and should no longer apply. The cite the changing demographics of the country. There has been a move or at least the suggestion that Lebanon could benefitr from the Federal system. Not everyone agress. But many political analysts see federalism as a formula to effectively divide Lebanon into sectarian cantons, with ethnic divisions dislodging the unity of the country.

Nadim Shehadi, associate fellow for Chatham House's Middle East Programme, said: "The question of federalism was brought up [during the civil war], at a very different time when divisions of the country were of a more sectarian nature. I think it's come back because of the political deadlock, whereby the differences with Hezbollah are seen to be irreconcilable.

"But federalism wouldn't work as the assumption of federalism is sectarian division and right now the division within the country is political and cuts through all confessions."

Kamal Salibi, a Lebanese historian, says Lebanon is too small for federalism to be effective and advises the country to be patient. But many political analysts see federalism as a formula to effectively divide Lebanon into sectarian cantons, with ethnic divisions dislodging the unity of the country.

Nadim Shehadi, associate fellow for Chatham House's Middle East Programme, said: "The question of federalism was brought up [during the civil war], at a very different time when divisions of the country were of a more sectarian nature. I think it's come back because of the political deadlock, whereby the differences with Hezbollah are seen to be irreconcilable.

"But federalism wouldn't work as the assumption of federalism is sectarian division and right now the division within the country is political and cuts through all confessions."

Kamal Salibi, a Lebanese historian, says Lebanon is too small for federalism to be effective and advises the country to be patient.


If federalism will not because of sectarian divide, then what makes the world think it will work in Iraq? It is failing and no one wants to admit it. People are dying to test an experiment that will not work. Why not try a different tact? surely, well paid analysts can find a better way or here is a novel idea, why not ask the Iraqi people? Silly I know bu they may have a good idea.


CHUQ

26/06/07

Blair To Be The New Middle East Envoy

Who's plan is this? Got to be a Bush/Cheney/ Rove thing! Why would he be a good ME envoy?


The quartet gathering came a day after the Israeli, Palestinian, Egyptian and Jordanian leaders held a summit in a unified stance against Hamas and its stunning takeover of the Gaza Strip. Monday's summit at an Egyptian resort on the Red Sea was meant to bolster Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, whose Western-backed Fatah party was severely weakened by the Hamas victory. The Hamas takeover has left the Palestinians with two governments: Abbas' new Cabinet based in the West Bank, and the Hamas rulers of Gaza, who are internationally isolated.


Is this an attempt to try and find peace? Or is it just a pay off for all his "blind" support of the Bush game. Since Blair is a Bush mouthpiece, why would he be an asset in a region that Bush has f*cked up?


CHUQ

Hey Candidates! How About A Plan?

Hamas has overwhelmed Fatah in the Gaza Strip and sent the fragile coalition government in Palestine into a tailspin; the ability of President Abbas to lead Palestine is severely undermined. Stability in Palestine is critical for the entire Middle East and especially for Israel.

The United States must play a diplomatic role in guaranteeing unified statehood for Palestine and security for Israel. The Bush administration has missed multiple opportunities to exercise leadership in this area.

At no point during the recent Democratic and Republican debates did any candidate outline a comprehensive plan to address Palestinian issues.

The conflict in Palestine has serious implications for the United States. The challenges are complex and will not be resolved by military intervention. Constructive diplomatic engagement is the answer. Any serious candidate for the presidency must demonstrate the knowledge, fortitude and leadership to utilize diplomacy in the Middle East and elsewhere as the primary means to peace and security.

I mean, Bush's plan seems to be that all the countries in the region must go through a civil war and then look for democracy.

Cedars Of Lebanon Are On Fire

(sniff, sniff) Something Is Burning!

I may be the only one who actually gives a sh*t about what happens in Lebanon, but I will continue anyway.

If there is an overabundance of dandilions--Syria did it! Or if a politician gets a bad case of piles--Syria did it! Syria gets blame for everything that goes astray in Lebanon. The newest "Syria Did It" is the probs in the Pals refugee camp north of Tripoli.

Ok let us look at the organization--Fatah al-Islam. It is not part of the al-Qaeda organizational network. It is however using the connection for reasons of PR and recruitment. The leader of the group, Shaker al-Abssi is a felon in several countries, including Syria. He was in prison for plotting against the Syrian government, when he was released he fled to Lebanon and currently wanted on further charges in Syria. He is also convicted in absentia in Jordan to death for his part in the killing of American Lawerence Foley.

The Syrians have rejected this organization and has stated that it does not represent the feelings of the Palestinian people. They, as well as Jordan, are working through Interpol to try and apprehend the convicted felon.

There are indications, acoording to Seymour Hersch, that the US had help equip some Sunni groups in Lebanon to aid in the isolation of the Shi'a Hezbollah.

If this is true, then it is another "blowback" in their policies that the Bush administration did not count on. Does anyone in Washington learn fro past mistakes? (that is a rhetorical question)


CHUQ

31/05/07

Lebanon--Part II

As I reported earlier--Lebanon is burning again! This time it is interesting, the US indirectly support Fatah al-Islam in an attempt to confront Hezbollah. Now Hezbollah is supporting the government in the stand off with the militants. Hey! I can make up this stuff!

So the question now is, if Hezbollah is supporting the government and the US is a supporter of the government, are they now "good guys"? If so, what of Israel? they still have a beef with Hezbollah?

I recently read a book, no really, titled Samson Blinded by Obadiah Shoher, it is an Machiavellian look at the Israel-Palestine situation. One of his observations is that the world "should not discourage Arabs from killing one another". I would say that this seems tom be the plan all along. For as soon as one small fire gets extinguished another breaks out and when it is analyzed the US or Israel or both are involved on either side or sometimes boths sides. Playing each end against the middle.

OMG! What a great foreign policy ploy!


CHUQ

23/05/07

Leb anon Is Burning! -----AGAIN!

Sunday violence erupted between the Lebanese army and some Palestinians in the Nahr al-Bared refugee camp. The battle has been raging for two days, maybe three. All promoted by the search for a bank robber. Fatah al-Islam faction, is the culprit. Now the small town north of Tripoli is being bombarded by the army and the "bad guys" are fighting back.

US has said that it is unfortunate and both sides need to step back and look at the situation. Now that is excellent advice! But apparently it is only for others, the US does not need top do this.

And of course, the inevitable , SYRIA DID IT! The Lebanese government is blaming Syria, again. They say that Syria is trying to destabilze the goverment of Lebanon. I know that those who read my blog are extremely intelligent, so would someone please tell when just when Lebanon got a stable government? Apparently I missed that newsbreak!

I will be watching this situation and will probably have a lot more to say as it drags on.


CHUQ

ISRATEEN?

What Is Isratin?


OK class be seated. The lecture begins!

How many in this class have heard of Qadafi? How about the "Green Book"? ( Waiting while tapping finger tips on desk) OK, enough! Qadafi is the leader of the country of Libya; he came to power in a coup and has been the leader ever since. The "Green Book" was written by Qadafi and is about the proper way to govern the country. There are some valid points in his book and I recommend it to all for an insight into an alternate form of governing the people.


Hopefully, my classes have given a unique perspective to the ME region and the problems faced by the people of the region. In the past there has been a wealth of proposals to find a solution to the Palestine-Israel debate. Plans such as the Arab proposal of 2002, Oslo Acord and the US attempt with the "Roadmap", just to mention a few. All have been a failure or outright dismissed by either party to the conflict. While all sides debate, confront and just plain talk, many have died on both sides of the conflict.

There ws a plan that not many took very seriously. I was offered by Qadafi and/or his son. It was put forth in a document called the "White Book". Basically, it is a plan for a single country, to be called something like Israteen, Isratin. He said that there was no way a 2 state solution would work to bring peace. Why?

1) The land area is too narrow to accommodate two states living side by side.

2) Two states would come into conflict, because the land of each, they believe, forms part of the land of the other, and each statelet would feel threatened by the other party.

3) Neither could absorb Jewish immigrants and Palestinian refugees.

4) Each party has settlements on the land of the other. At least one million Palestinians live in the so-called State of Israel and about half a million Israelis, at least, currently live in the West Bank and Gaza Strip. Other sects include the Druze, Catholics, Christians and Muslims. The area provides a model for integration and co-existence.

5) The workers in Israeli factories are Palestinians.

6) Mutual reliance, if not integration, in respect of goods and services.


Here are the reasons it would work.


1) Return of Palestinian refugees and displaced persons to their homes.

2) A single state. Lebanon serves as a good example.

3) Free elections under UN supervision on the first and second occasions.

4) Removal of Weapons of Mass Destruction from the new state and, if any, from the Middle East.

5) Conflict in the Middle East would then end. The new state would be like Lebanon. It would receive recognition and could even accede to the Arab League.


OK , Isratin could bring about peace in the region. Would it last? IMO, it would not, no matter how willing the players are to achieve peace. Why, do I say that? WATER!

With the expansion of population the pull on the resource would become greater and greater, until it was a major problem and when it becomes that the conflict would reignite and with the rebirth of conflict, a civil war would be in the making. Which in turn would see increased deaths, famine, violence and , once again refugees. The cycle would start all over.


CHUQ

25/04/07

A Peace For Palestine

I recently wrote a piece about a peace for the ME--in nthe recent past I have been thinking about why a 2 state solution may not work. these are my reason.

1) The land area is too narrow to accommodate two states living side by side.

2) Two states would come into conflict, because the land of each, they believe, forms part of the land of the other, and each statelet would feel threatened by the other party.

3) Neither could absorb Jewish immigrants and Palestinian refugees.

4) Each party has settlements on the land of the other. At least one million Palestinians live in the so-called State of Israel and about half a million Israelis, at least, currently live in the West Bank and Gaza Strip. Other sects include the Druze, Catholics, Christians and Muslims. The area provides a model for integration and co-existence.

5) The workers in Israeli factories are Palestinians.

6) Mutual reliance, if not integration, in respect of goods and services.

CHUQ

A Peace For Palestine

The Two-State Solution: The problems of binationalism

The idea of binationalism - a single state comprising the entire territory of the Mandate of Palestine - is not a new one, but it has been favored by different people at different times. In the 1920s and 1930s, it was popular within certain factions of the Zionist movement; now, it seems to be advocated mainly by pro- Palestinian groups. One of its most avid modern exponents is Moammar Qaddafi, who has advocated combining the Israeli and Palestinian territories into a new country called IsraTeen.

A number of Palestinian intellectuals have lately taken up the call for IsraTeen as a means of slicing through the Gordian knot of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. A binational state would indeed resolve some of the stickiest issues very neatly - sovereignty can be parceled out according to local majorities, Jewish settlers in the West Bank and Gaza can stay where they are, and the holy sites of each religion will be accessible to all. In many ways, binationalism is an attractive option - but, at the present time, I don't think it's a realistic one.

A Dual Dilemma

Binationalist proposals often begin with the argument that a viable Palestinian state is impossible, so the best solution is to combine the two. I discussed that argument in the first article in this series. The prospects of a binational state, however, run up against two other hard facts. First, both Israeli Jews and Palestinian Arabs have developed very distinct and very strong national identities - and both have done so the hard way. Second, each believes, with some justification, that it needs protection from the other.

The "mutual protection" objection to binationalism is framed most often in terms of Jews' fear of being overwhelmed by a faster- growing Arab population, but it applies to Palestinians as well. In fact, it may be the Palestinians who would be most vulnerable during the formative period of a binational state. At present, Jews still hold a slim advantage in numbers and a much greater advantage in economic power, and a key minority, the Druze, is allied with the Jews rather than the Palestinians. The disparity in economic power will be especially telling during the early years, and if the examples of Germany and South Africa are any guide, they will last at least through the medium term. If IsraTeen were formed today, most major companies and media outlets in 2010 would probably be Jewish-owned, and this would translate into considerable political power.

Assuming that the disparity between Jewish and Arab fertility rates continues, however, the Palestinians will solidify their demographic advantage in the medium to long term - and this is where the fears of the Jewish side kick in. Jews have been a minority in nearly every place they have lived for the past two millennia; there have at times been cities or districts with local Jewish majorities, but never an entire country. The condition of being an available, easily scapegoated minority has, to say the least, often led to uncomfortable situations, and even the periods during which Jews lived congenially with their neighbors often proved temporary. It is thus natural that many Jews equate safety with being a majority in a country of their own. Call it a Jewish pathology if you will, but it will be psychologically very difficult for Israeli Jews to accept the idea of a binational state in which they will, once again, be a minority of the population.

A Unitary State?

Most binationalist proposals recognize and attempt to compensate for these factors. There are exceptions; binationalism is a continuum rather than a monolith, and one end of the continuum is represented by a unitary secular state that essentially transposes the Louisiana constitution to the Middle East. This approach may be appropriate and even optimal in a new society such as the United States, but it is highly questionable in a region where established group identities are much more central and where there is a long history of inter-group conflict.

It is not surprising that many advocates of a unitary binational state are Marxists who believe that ethnic and national identities are artificial constructs that can be reconstructed at will. Ethnic identities are certainly constructs, but they are not artificial; indeed, the fact that they are constructed in large part by the group members themselves makes them very real. This is especially so where the identities in question developed through struggle. Israelis and Palestinians will not so easily discard their identities and embrace a joint IsraTeenian destiny.

Nor would constitutional protections - even strong ones - be sufficient to paper over ethnic conflict in a binational unitary state. Many binationalists argue from the vantage point of the United States, Canada or Western Europe, where constitutionalism is an unquestioned part of civic life and where constitutional guarantees are generally respected. A constitution, however, is only a bulwark against oppression if the means and will exist to enforce it. Without those things - and especially without the will - it is only a piece of paper.

Even in countries where the rule of law is strong, a constitution is not always a guarantee of individual or group rights. My choice of Louisiana as an example above was deliberate; Louisiana is a unitary state whose constitutional history tells the story of political competition between Anglophones and Francophones. For much of the nineteenth century, Louisiana was fully bilingual, but that changed in the twentieth as the anglophone community solidified its majority. In 1915, the state government banned the use of French in public schools, followed the next year by a law making public school attendance mandatory. In 1921, both these provisions were enshrined in the state constitution. It was not until 1974 that the Louisiana constitution again recognized Francophone language rights, and bilingualism in public life remained largely a figleaf until the 1990s.

Louisiana is far from an exact analogy to Israel and Palestine; I'm sure many of you can come up with closer ones. If anything, however, ethnic identities in Louisiana are softer, and the history of group conflict less intense, than in the Middle East. If the Louisiana constitutional system could be manipulated to marginalize an ethnic group, then so could the constitution of IsraTeen.

To be sure, many of the worst fears of what might happen to a Jewish minority in IsraTeen are overblown. It is not possible to vote an ethnic group out of existence. There are many measures short of that, however, that even a democratic society can take to marginalize and ghettoize a disfavored group - and if the constitution gets in the way, it can always be amended or ignored. It may be that Jews and Arabs would live in IsraTeen in a state of mutual respect, but there are no guarantees of that, and there isn't nearly enough mutual trust for either Israelis or Palestinians to enter into a unitary relationship without such guarantees.

A Federal State?

The remainder of the binationalist spectrum attempts, in various ways, to recognize and manage intergroup competition. Further along the continuum, for instance, are proposals for a unitary state with ethnic power-sharing of the type that worked so well in Lebanon. Most modern binationalist proposals, however, involve some form of federalism, with the Mandate of Palestine divided into Jewish and Arab cantons.

Federalist proposals represent a far more serious attempt to combine Israelis and Palestinians into a single state while protecting the interests and aspirations of each national group. There would, after all, still be an Israel and a Palestine in a federal IsraTeen; the two would simply be cantons of a federal state rather than independent countries. Both cantons would be internally autonomous, and the cantonal and federal governments would have rights and powers defined by the constitution.

I'd like to be convinced that a federal state can work. I live in a federal republic myself and I'm convinced that, when properly done, federalism is the best way to combine the economy of scale and freedom of movement advantages of a single nation with autonomy and respect for minorities. Unfortunately, I have yet to see a realistic federalist plan that would be acceptable to Israelis and Palestinians without requiring an unrealistic level of trust.

A federalist state, too, requires trust to work. Federalism within a single nation is at bottom a constitutional system that, like other systems, can be manipulated and abused. To take an extreme example, one of the most progressive federal constitutions of the twentieth century was the constitution of the Soviet Union. During the Soviet era, the Russian federal republic even included a Jewish autonomous area in Birobidzhan, Siberia, which was the only explicitly Jewish political entity other than Israel in modern times. Federalism, however, didn't make the Jews of Birobidzhan notably safer from the depredations of the central government than those of Moscow.

Would a federal IsraTeen be the Soviet Union? Almost certainly not. Even the most benign federal system, however, can succumb to creeping centralism. During the discussion on Aziz' blog, for instance, Aziz cited the early United States as an example of a confederation of sovereign nations. That hasn't been the case, though, since at least the New Deal and probably since the Civil War. Open-ended powers such as the commerce clause lead naturally to a gradual accretion of power toward the center, and - given the many costly tasks that would be necessary to integrate Israel and Palestine, as well as the need to resolve disputes and protect minorities on each side - the federal government of IsraTeen would need to have such powers.

A sufficiently detailed constitution that clearly delimits the powers of all federal units might be enough to defeat creeping centralism. One thing I've noticed, however, is that the more bells and whistles that Israeli-Palestinian federalist plans include to ensure the autonomy of the cantons, the more the cantons resemble two independent states. If binationalist proposals approach the two-state solution more closely as they increase in fairness, then it should follow that the fairest possible realistic solution is one in which Israel and Palestine actually are independent.

There is, moreover, another reason to prefer independence to federalism in the Middle Eastern context. In the modern world, the basic political unit is the nation-state, and nations have certain internationally guaranteed rights - integrity and control of borders, self-defense, control over natural resources - that subnational units don't have. Moreover, given the hold that Westphalian sovereignty still has over international relations, the relationship between a federal republic and its constituent units is considered a purely internal one, and the subnational units have no internationally guaranteed rights as against their own national government. India, a federal democratic republic, can dissolve state legislatures and impose direct central rule without violating any tenet of international law, whereas an attempt to do the same thing to another sovereign state would be a grave breach of the international political order. The rights of national sovereignty are, to be sure, sometimes breached, but their existence acts as a deterrent under many - even most- circumstances. The national sovereignty package will, quite simply, make it easier for Israelis and Palestinians to protect their rights, which in turn will make long-term stability more likely.

The federal plan is not without its advantages. In response to the previous article in this series, Ikram Saeed commented:

So Israel's future is either one where a self-destructing Palestine forces it to reoccupy GZ/WB to preserve its own security, or one where a successful Palestine sends over large numbers of migrant labourers.

Either way, real separation won't happen. Better to try to come up with creative solutions now that allow the people currently living in the region to have physical and economic security (aka 'human security'). One way to do that is provide a common, Israteeny identity, laughable though that may seem.

But there are other ways (including confederation, migrant labour policies, joint-security guarantees, a common military, freedom of movement), which may accomplish the same thing without impinging on closely-held national/religious identity.

All these things are easier to accomplish within the context of a federal nation. With the possible exception of confederation, however, they are also possible between two independent nations. Indeed, Israel and Palestine might be more willing to allow joint security guarantees or freedom of movement if they know that such agreements are revocable in the event of their not working out.

Even a confederation of sorts could exist, along the model of the European Union, between independent and sovereign nations - and an EU-style common market could extend far beyond Israel and Palestine. It's possible to envision a Middle Eastern economic union involving Israel, Palestine, Jordan, Egypt and other neighboring nations; Israel and Egypt would be the natural leaders of this union as France and Germany are in the EU, but each member would have the security that comes with sovereignty and independence. The bottom line is that a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is the one that provides the most protection to each party while requiring the smallest realistic amount of mutual trust and goodwill - which means that it is both the easiest to put in place and the most stable once enacted.

What about the long term?

The only sure thing I can say about any long-term predictions is that they will be wrong. Sixty years ago, who would have predicted that the Mandate of Palestine would be in the mess it is in today? In the short term, I feel safe in ruling out binationalism as a realistic solution; in the long term, I can neither rule it out nor in.

Any of a number of things could happen to make binationalism a more attractive option. One possibility is the evolution of a new international order in which Westphalian sovereignty is abandoned and in which an international legal system to which subnational units can appeal is superimposed over the nation- state structure. In this case, it would be possible to construct a federal IsraTeen in which each canton would have guarantees of independence similar to those now available to independent states.

Another possibility is that mutual trust between Israelis and Palestinians, which is now virtually nonexistent, might develop to the level where a federal or even a unitary binational state might be sustainable. Such trust, however, cannot develop under the current circumstances, where one side is occupied and the other lives in fear of terror attacks. The trust and goodwill that are necessary to establish a binational state can only develop during a period of interaction as separate and equal entities.

If the Israeli and Palestinian people one day reach the point where they desire a binational state, then there will be one. This may happen at some time in the future, or it may not. The path to one state lies through two, however, and in the short term, the creation of an independent Palestinian state alongside Israel is the only viable resolution to the conflict.


Compiled By Chuq from Head Heeb Blog

The Professor's Classroom

Good Morning class. Take your seats and grab a pencil and paper--gonna be a test.

On the map locate the following countries:

Turkey/Iraq/Kuwait/Saudi Arabia/Afghanistan/Pakistan/Uzbekistan/Kyrygzistan/Persian Gulf

Now in red pencilo locate Iran.


What is the point? Take a look at Iran and then the countries listed. Does Iran look surrounded? The list of countries are countries with a military presence and yes, they are surrounded. If I were Iran I would be paranoid also.


CHUQ

09/04/07

The Professor's Classroom

Could Children Be The Answer?

What Of The Children?



I recently did an analysis of the Middle East situation and in that piece I wrote that the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians had become an institution; a tradition, if you will. And for that reason it was going to be difficult to find a peaceful solution to the conflict. Since the conflict has been continuously for the last 50+ years, the solution was going to have to be that of the Palestinians and the Israelis.

Now I would like to cover the same type of situation but in this I will be more concerned with that of the rearing of children. First, keep in mind that about two generations have lived with the conflict. Two generations have either grown up with refugee camp experiences or lived through wars and destruction in the Occupied Territories. Children playing have witnessed such things as homes destruction, airstrikes, dead bodies, blood and the smell of gunsmoke. These are powerful things for children to endure and it not to effect them.

On the other side of the conflict, Israeli children have witnessed suicide bombers and heard rockets results in the distance, not quite as emotionally powerful as what the Palestinian children endure. I mean the carcass of a rocket that hit in a field out of the village, is not quite as effective as a child watching as a piece of machinery destroys your home or the body of your older brother lying broken in the streets of your town.

After two generations have grown up with such vivid pictures burned into their minds, what would be their reaction be when they became old enough participate? Of course, they would want to do something that could improve their situation and that of all their people.

The Palestinian people have had no effective government in the past, so their thinking is if they did not do something, nothing would get done. Israel on the other hand, has had a government and the people have put their faith in the actions of that government. Of course, the world has , for two generations, looked the other way when it comes to the plight of the Palestinian people.


So with this said, the children have continue all the conflict as they have grown up. Their impressionable years were filled with death and destruction and as they grew older the death and destruction continues, so that when their children, who are witnessing the same circumstances, grow they continue the death and destruction, so when their children............and the cycles continues.


The only way to achieve peace in the region, is to find a way to break the cycle of death and destruction. That is assuming that all players want the cycle to be broken. The only way to break a tradition or custom, is by starting with the children. Let them know there is a peaceful way to live; show them there is a peaceful way to live.

Now, the question is, do the players in this drama really want peace? If they truly do, then it is time to prove, remove the violence and allow children to play children's games and not be witness to the obscenities of war.


CHUQ

05/04/07

Good News Travels Fast

OH HAPPY DAY! The Iranians are releasing the 15 Brits, now everyone can go back to sleep. At the beginning of a discussion forum that Iam a chartered member, when the whole nuke thing came up; everyone was up in arms saying this, that, whatever. Hopefully, you will remember the strong words from the US, Iran and whoever else could find a mike to speak into.

OK, you remember the harsh words from both sides about nukes. On the forum, there were all kinds of calls for action by the US; I on the other hand said that the Iranian pres was playing to the band that the real power was the Council. But no one would hear that, he was serious about blowing up the world. I can only so much stupidity, before I have to turn and laugh my way out of the room. All the flippin' experts knew what he was up to and he intewnded to do with the nukes; and probably only a handful could find Iran on a map. Experts my ass!

Well CHUQ, what does this have to do with 15 Brits? Good question! All the harsh rhetoric and chest thumping has lead to what? The Council, the real power in Iran and not the pres, decided enough was enough. They saw that the longer it went on the worse Iran appeared on the world stage. Iran has its hands full with sanctions, nukes and such, there was no need for further complications. Two days the Council, IMO, told the Guard and the Pres it was time for it to end. And so it ended!

In a closing shot, the Iranian Pres told the UK not to persecute the troops for anything they may have said.

Everything that I said in the Forum, was restated in the media by well paid experts. Since I am paranoid, LOL, I think my blog is being read.


CHUQ

04/04/07