What a day...

Wanted to bring up a couple of things here...

In case those of us that know Mick C., our beloved and must trusted Bund Buddy here in NEPA (and infamous pub partner) didn't know this... Mick's birthday is Sept 11. What a downer, huh? To have your big day stolen by the horror of 9/11/01, so that any celebration on future Sept 11ths seem banal or inappropriate. Next time we are together (and I sincerely hope that can happen someday), we'll have to give Mick a real "birthday" toast, preferably in the closest Irish pub, with all the bells and whistles that we can imagine. That should be a Bund imperative, I think... anyway, a BIG Bund "Happy Birthday" to Mick the Lib!

Jambo and I are partners on a fantasy football team in a League we started back in '94 on the Coast, and while we have done fairly well over the last three years... we had a very disappointing season opener yesterday, with our quarterback (Kevin Kolb, PHI) going down and out with a concussion. We lost by a healthy margin (nearly 65 points), and are hopeful that the season will improve quickly... but it sucks now, none the less.

Finally, in an effort to get Ryan to actually post a response to something I have written over the last week, I wanted to touch on the Israeli-Palestinian peace effort now.

The process seems to be going better than anyone had hoped, but (as expected) the first hurdles will be the biggest hurdles, and those are going to be settlement construction in the occupied territories.

This topic alone is usually worth a melt-down from Ryan, but I need anyone reading this to understand that I am trying to ask a real question here... I am NOT saying the Israelis are wrong, or questioning America's partnership with Israel in the modern day.

My question is this: Is it in Israel's best interest to continue with the settlement construction in the West Bank and Golan Heights, given the current pace of peace negotiations with the PA?

Carter declared the construction of settlements in the occupied territories to be "illegal" in 1978, and that was the "official" position of the US until Reagan took office in '81... but Reagan only said it was legal. He never said it was the right thing to do, and openly criticized the Israelis for promoting the efforts of settlers in the West Bank and Gaza as impeding the peace process with their presence. Until now, no President has changed that position. Obama has gone back to the Carter era and adopted (or reinserted) the term "illegal" into the formula.

Obama is wrong, no question about it... but not for that reason alone. Liberals want to see the situation in Palestine revert back to the 1947 Palestine Mandate lines... but seem to think that in all other respects, the Mandate of '47 is now null and void. That simply isn't the case, and the Israeli settlers in the occupied territories have every right to built their homes, farms and kibbutz's (and out-right cities, in the case of Ariel in Samaria) because it is spelled out so in the Mandates. Obama, Carter and anyone else that wants to call on Israel to honor the 49th Article of the Fourth Geneva Convention against the forced transportation, deportation, or settlement of occupied areas of military control must recognize that the settlers are ALL VOLUNTEERS, and are not being coerced or forced to move into the settlements, nor is Israel as a nation paying for the construction, nor are Palestinians being forced to leave the territories by the Israelis.

Jordan has removed all international claims to the West Bank territories since its "annexation" in '51, and Egypt ended its claims TWICE (seems like over-kill, huh?) to Gaza with the 1979 and 1994 treaties between Egypt and Israel. However, because Israel still administers these areas as occupied military zones (and rightly so, I feel), they do fall under the Article 49 Geneva codes, of which Israel is a signatory. This doesn't mean Israel is actually violating the accords, but it remains an issue... that's all I'm saying.

Israel isn't forcing anyone to settle the territories... but it has the capacity (as the administrative body of the territories) to continue the moratorium on construction (which is what the PA wants) or limit the construction to past levels (as Netanyahu wants to do).

There are 121 existing settlements in the West Bank, and all are growing at an amazing pace, and ALL are pumping much needed cash into the Palestinian economy (Ariel alone pumps $500 million a year into the Palestinian towns that surround it... far more than the PA gives them). Why is the construction of new settlements of such vital and urgent importance right now? Why not continue the moratorium on new construction so long as the PA will sit at the same table with the Israelis and let the 121 existing settlements continue to grow and prosper as they are? The actual threat from an invasion by Jordan or Egypt (or even Syria, for that matter) seems pretty slim right now, and continued construction of settlements does NOTHING to prevent or deter Hamas attacks via terror rockets or mortars.

What does Israel gain by building new settlements? Is whatever they gain balanced by what they risk losing at the same time? After removing the settlements from Gaza in '94, Gaza turned into a nightmare hell-hole... can't this be used to demonstrate that Israeli-Palestinian cohabitation of the same territory is GOOD by allowing the existing settlements to grow without forcing the issue with new constructions?

Anyone have any insight for me?