Did you know that today is the anniversary of a very infamous bombing?
At 12:01 pm, on September 16, a delivery vehicle stocked with more than one hundred pounds of high explosives and more than 500 pounds of cast iron (intended as shrapnel to inflict as much injury potential as possible across as wide an area as possible) stopped in front of the J.P. Morgan Bank at 23 Wall Street, New York City, and exploded.
The blast instantly killed 38 people that were walking along the busy sidewalks of New York's Financial District, and injured a staggering 400 others. Services and business inside the buildings surrounding the bank were interrupted, and thousands of people were without means of transportation because the subways and surface routes were closed. The bomb caused an estimated $22.9 million dollars in property damage (adjusted for inflation), and the scars of the bombing can still be seen today on the very steps of the bank building.
What is truly shocking about this story is that it occurred in 1920, and the delivery vehicle was a horse-drawn wagon. The "terrorists" who perpetrated the act were never caught, but suspicion has always lain with an anarchist group known as the Galleanists.
The terror attacks that we read about in the paper or see on TV are not new... we simply haven't ever grown to understand how close to home some of these attacks have actually been, even here in America.
Sobering thought, huh?
Thursday, September 16, 2010
Upon further review...
I recently made the post asking what Israel had to gain by continuing to build settlements in the occupied territories. No one responded, so I am following up my own musings with more musings. Here's my follow-up question:
What does the US gain by pushing Israel and the PA so hard towards "peace talks"?
Obvious answers aside (you know what I mean... peace-nik slogans like "Give Peace a Chance" and "Peace is Profitable" and the liberal view that "world peace" is an achievable goal in a world where no one but liberals give it a second thought), what is the imperative for the Obama Administration to push so hard for Palestinian/Israeli talks?
The last time Israel made concessions to the PA/PLO was in 2005, when all Israeli settlers and troops were removed from Gaza, and full, complete control of the territory was handed over to the Hamas/Fatah coalition Palestinian Authority. After months of fighting between Hamas and Fatah supporters in Gaza, all Fatah associates were either rounded up and killed or were expelled from the Strip. Gaza has since degenerated into a nightmare landscape of fear and terror, where even Palestinians do not feel safe walking the streets. Christians are kidnapped and murdered for associating or supporting the wrong "political" party within the PA, and Muslims are forced to support, supply or even participate in terror attacks against Israeli towns outside of Gaza.
Gaza is the shining example of what the "elected" Hamas leadership within the PA can provide to the Palestinian people... a war-torn landscape with frequent shortages of power, water and medical supplies, limited transportation capabilities, massive unemployment and unrest, and the forced distrust of even fellow Muslims (let alone Christian) Palestinians outside of Gaza.
Hamas refuses to recognize Israel's right to exist, demands not that Israel remove itself from the occupied territories but actually remove itself (or be removed) from the Levant entirely. Hamas demands that East Jerusalem be returned to Palestinian control without condition on the part of the Israelis... but ignores that Jerusalem was never "Palestinian" to begin with, and that the Israeli control of the City stemmed from Jordan's "retreat" in 1967... which they have never argued or protested against, either. Jordan controlled and administered East Jerusalem... not any kind of Palestinian "authority". In fact, no Palestinian was ever part of the City's administrative makeup prior to Jordan losing control in 1967... at all. Jordan treated East Jerusalem as a prized jewel in the personal possession of the King, with utter and complete authoritative control resting in Amman... not Palestine.
Jordan has since dropped all claims to East Jerusalem and the West Bank, preferring to maintain the borders at their pre-1948 position... as has Egypt, which has made the agreement to reclaim the entire Sinai Peninsula, while dropping all claims to territories outside of its 1906 borders with Israel/Palestine.
Even Syria has made no real effort to regain the Golan Heights since 1973 (the Yom Kippur War), and while Golan is almost universally recognized as Syrian territory (NOT Palestinian at all), Syria refused to talk to Israel in 1968 when Israel offered Golan back as part of a brokered peace treaty.
The PLO has, since its inception in 1964, refused to compromise with the Israelis... even considering the Oslo Accords in '94, the PLO made no actual concessions at the bargaining table, other than agreeing to leave East Jerusalem out of the discussions held in '94. All concession have been made by Israel, and none have given Israel the degree of "peace and security" that the talks promised. The PA has been completely unable to provide security within its areas of control, it has failed each and every time to stop the mortar and rocket attacks against Israeli civilians, it has proven itself utterly unable or utterly unwilling to address internal mismanagement and scandal, and it continues to support those local groups of radicals and terrorists that openly plan, organize and carry out terrorist attacks against Israeli AND Palestinian civilians.
Initial American resistance to the recognition of Israel as a nation in 1949 stemmed from State Department concerns that association with Israel would complicate or hinder Arab relations and possibly interfere with American oil interests in the region... a concern that 60 years of close diplomatic ties between Israel and America have proven unwarranted. In fact, the opposite has been found to be true: Arab belligerence and inter-regional fighting has proven a far greater threat to US interests than any associations with Israel that the US has enjoyed.
So what is the impetus behind the current Administration's goals of helping to broker "peace talks" between an Israel that has never seen a single promise by the PLO/PA deliver on and a PLO/PA that refuses to recognize the same fundamental right to exist in Israel that they demand be recognized in themselves?
I think it is as simple as Obama wanting a version of Carter's "Camp David Accords" and Clinton's "Oslo Accords" for his own Administration... because nothing he has supported or promised since his election has proven to bear any real fruit. He's bucking for a photo-op like his two Democratic predecessors had, with Israeli leadership shaking hands and hugging Palestinian leadership, with Obama smiling in the middle... so that come 2012, he can offer the American people SOMETHING worth voting for, even if its only diplomatic success in a region of the world most Americans couldn't find on a blank map.
Thoughts?
What does the US gain by pushing Israel and the PA so hard towards "peace talks"?
Obvious answers aside (you know what I mean... peace-nik slogans like "Give Peace a Chance" and "Peace is Profitable" and the liberal view that "world peace" is an achievable goal in a world where no one but liberals give it a second thought), what is the imperative for the Obama Administration to push so hard for Palestinian/Israeli talks?
The last time Israel made concessions to the PA/PLO was in 2005, when all Israeli settlers and troops were removed from Gaza, and full, complete control of the territory was handed over to the Hamas/Fatah coalition Palestinian Authority. After months of fighting between Hamas and Fatah supporters in Gaza, all Fatah associates were either rounded up and killed or were expelled from the Strip. Gaza has since degenerated into a nightmare landscape of fear and terror, where even Palestinians do not feel safe walking the streets. Christians are kidnapped and murdered for associating or supporting the wrong "political" party within the PA, and Muslims are forced to support, supply or even participate in terror attacks against Israeli towns outside of Gaza.
Gaza is the shining example of what the "elected" Hamas leadership within the PA can provide to the Palestinian people... a war-torn landscape with frequent shortages of power, water and medical supplies, limited transportation capabilities, massive unemployment and unrest, and the forced distrust of even fellow Muslims (let alone Christian) Palestinians outside of Gaza.
Hamas refuses to recognize Israel's right to exist, demands not that Israel remove itself from the occupied territories but actually remove itself (or be removed) from the Levant entirely. Hamas demands that East Jerusalem be returned to Palestinian control without condition on the part of the Israelis... but ignores that Jerusalem was never "Palestinian" to begin with, and that the Israeli control of the City stemmed from Jordan's "retreat" in 1967... which they have never argued or protested against, either. Jordan controlled and administered East Jerusalem... not any kind of Palestinian "authority". In fact, no Palestinian was ever part of the City's administrative makeup prior to Jordan losing control in 1967... at all. Jordan treated East Jerusalem as a prized jewel in the personal possession of the King, with utter and complete authoritative control resting in Amman... not Palestine.
Jordan has since dropped all claims to East Jerusalem and the West Bank, preferring to maintain the borders at their pre-1948 position... as has Egypt, which has made the agreement to reclaim the entire Sinai Peninsula, while dropping all claims to territories outside of its 1906 borders with Israel/Palestine.
Even Syria has made no real effort to regain the Golan Heights since 1973 (the Yom Kippur War), and while Golan is almost universally recognized as Syrian territory (NOT Palestinian at all), Syria refused to talk to Israel in 1968 when Israel offered Golan back as part of a brokered peace treaty.
The PLO has, since its inception in 1964, refused to compromise with the Israelis... even considering the Oslo Accords in '94, the PLO made no actual concessions at the bargaining table, other than agreeing to leave East Jerusalem out of the discussions held in '94. All concession have been made by Israel, and none have given Israel the degree of "peace and security" that the talks promised. The PA has been completely unable to provide security within its areas of control, it has failed each and every time to stop the mortar and rocket attacks against Israeli civilians, it has proven itself utterly unable or utterly unwilling to address internal mismanagement and scandal, and it continues to support those local groups of radicals and terrorists that openly plan, organize and carry out terrorist attacks against Israeli AND Palestinian civilians.
Initial American resistance to the recognition of Israel as a nation in 1949 stemmed from State Department concerns that association with Israel would complicate or hinder Arab relations and possibly interfere with American oil interests in the region... a concern that 60 years of close diplomatic ties between Israel and America have proven unwarranted. In fact, the opposite has been found to be true: Arab belligerence and inter-regional fighting has proven a far greater threat to US interests than any associations with Israel that the US has enjoyed.
So what is the impetus behind the current Administration's goals of helping to broker "peace talks" between an Israel that has never seen a single promise by the PLO/PA deliver on and a PLO/PA that refuses to recognize the same fundamental right to exist in Israel that they demand be recognized in themselves?
I think it is as simple as Obama wanting a version of Carter's "Camp David Accords" and Clinton's "Oslo Accords" for his own Administration... because nothing he has supported or promised since his election has proven to bear any real fruit. He's bucking for a photo-op like his two Democratic predecessors had, with Israeli leadership shaking hands and hugging Palestinian leadership, with Obama smiling in the middle... so that come 2012, he can offer the American people SOMETHING worth voting for, even if its only diplomatic success in a region of the world most Americans couldn't find on a blank map.
Thoughts?
Tuesday, September 14, 2010
Gotta say this...
I know we are all Netflix junkies now, and the list of "must-see" shows and movies gets longer and longer... but I gotta say that I think the best new sci-fi show on TV right now is SG-U.
Both Seasons I and II of Stargate Universe are on instant view, and both are completely family appropriate (mild language, adult situations... nothing more), and these are 100 times better than the best season of either SG-1 or Atlantis. The cast is great, the story line is addictive as hell, and the effects are top notch for the show.
I'm telling you all... especially Ryan (who is a Star Trek nerd, in all its incarnations, of the first order)... this is worth watching. Give it a whirl...
Both Seasons I and II of Stargate Universe are on instant view, and both are completely family appropriate (mild language, adult situations... nothing more), and these are 100 times better than the best season of either SG-1 or Atlantis. The cast is great, the story line is addictive as hell, and the effects are top notch for the show.
I'm telling you all... especially Ryan (who is a Star Trek nerd, in all its incarnations, of the first order)... this is worth watching. Give it a whirl...
One more shot...
It's my only day off this week, so I am going to go ahead with my last rant of the day before I throw myself into the house work that the wife is going to expect to be done before she gets home and the kids get off the bus.
Pope Benedict XVI is going to the UK, and he is going to beatify (the first step in Catholic sainthood) John Henry Cardinal Newman, a Victorian-era Anglican reformer and convert to the Catholic faith.
I have found two articles in today's headlines giving both sides of the reaction to the Pope's visit and his reasoning, and both are very telling in their stated positions.
The first is from the Financial Times of London, and it is a rather scathing indictment of Benedict's rationale for beatifying Cardinal Newman, even going so far as to refer to the beatification of Newman as a "hijacking" by the Vatican in its very headline.
The author's premise seems to be that Newman was, before and after his conversion to the Roman Catholic faith, adversarial to the office of the Papacy and its role in the life of the individual Catholic across the world. His opinions about the current Pope seem to show that he feels Benedict is immovable and stagnant in his application of dogmatic theological rules, and has no concern for what the "common man" has to say about what it means to be Catholic.
I cannot claim to be an expert on the life and writings of Cardinal Newman, as his works are so prodigious and varied that I couldn't imagine anyone outside of true full-time scholars actually having the time in their lives to read it all (he was, after all, a writer of poetry, fiction, biographies, theological tracts, commentaries, hymns and music, and thousands of letters). I do know that the established Catholic leadership in England at the time of his conversion thought him to be "the most dangerous man in England", and looked to have him removed from any position of authority... because he was too liberal (in the classical sense of the word) and too critical of Pope Pius IX.
The second article comes from an editorial in the Philadelphia Inquirer, and is far more apologetic in its approach to the actions of Benedict XVI. The author recognizes that many might question the move by Benedict as contradictory to his stated positions on many issues, and that Cardinal Newman was a contravesial figure, both during his life and after, and the author works to explain the significance of the move to beatify.
I leave the articles to be read and judged according to their content, and will only say that the first article seemed to stem from an unfavorable opinion of Benedict and his views than it did from anything else, and very few of those views are reflected in Newman's writings or teachings. Controversy over whether or not Cardinal Newman was homosexual are mute and utterly irrelevant to the discussion, for no other reason that the man was utterly committed to the path of chastity from the age of 15, and inclinations are purely personal (meaning no one's to judge but God Himself) without actions to account for sin... and inclination does not equal intention. We are all inclined to sin, but without intention and action, there is no culpable sin.
I found it telling that the American author saw the beatification of Cardinal Newman as a means by which Benedict can try and bring Europe back from a "relativism" that is growing more and more prominent in the political and social structure of the continent, while the British author saw it as Benedict "stealing" an English radical from the pages of secular history.
The Oxford Movement that Newman worked to start in England never really flourished there past the universities where it began, while the impact that movement has had in the New World can still be seen today through the thousands of Newman Centers located at non-Catholic universities across North America, and in the conscience-oriented position that so many American and Canadian Catholics (both lay and religious) take when discussing and discerning the teachings of the Magisterium. Cardinal Newman believed our final decision making tool given to us by God was our conscience, and in using our conscience, all we had to do was be as well informed as possible when making our personal life choices... be they faith oriented or not. However, to suggest that this position meant he failed to accept or understand the Magisterium's position on such matters as papal infallibility, contraception, the sanctity of marriage as a Sacrament of the Church, or the role of women within the Church is disingenuous at best, and an outright falsehood at worst.
He believed that dialogue and frank discussion partnered with charitable openness to new ideas could solve any difference of opinion and would always lead to greater understanding of whatever topic was being investigated by all involved... and I personally don't think Benedict XVI could have found a better example to hold up in this close-minded age of ours as an example for the world on how best to come to mutual understanding and acceptance.
There are more than 65 million Catholics in America today, and I am confident that were it possible for Cardinal Newman to hear the statistic that the British author used when he said the majority of American Catholics don't agree with Church teaching as they stand today, he would say that the fault lies in their understanding of the teaching (or in the Church's instructions on the teaching) rather than in the teaching itself. If that is true of America, then surely it must be even more true of Europe today.
Pope Benedict XVI is going to the UK, and he is going to beatify (the first step in Catholic sainthood) John Henry Cardinal Newman, a Victorian-era Anglican reformer and convert to the Catholic faith.
I have found two articles in today's headlines giving both sides of the reaction to the Pope's visit and his reasoning, and both are very telling in their stated positions.
The first is from the Financial Times of London, and it is a rather scathing indictment of Benedict's rationale for beatifying Cardinal Newman, even going so far as to refer to the beatification of Newman as a "hijacking" by the Vatican in its very headline.
The author's premise seems to be that Newman was, before and after his conversion to the Roman Catholic faith, adversarial to the office of the Papacy and its role in the life of the individual Catholic across the world. His opinions about the current Pope seem to show that he feels Benedict is immovable and stagnant in his application of dogmatic theological rules, and has no concern for what the "common man" has to say about what it means to be Catholic.
I cannot claim to be an expert on the life and writings of Cardinal Newman, as his works are so prodigious and varied that I couldn't imagine anyone outside of true full-time scholars actually having the time in their lives to read it all (he was, after all, a writer of poetry, fiction, biographies, theological tracts, commentaries, hymns and music, and thousands of letters). I do know that the established Catholic leadership in England at the time of his conversion thought him to be "the most dangerous man in England", and looked to have him removed from any position of authority... because he was too liberal (in the classical sense of the word) and too critical of Pope Pius IX.
The second article comes from an editorial in the Philadelphia Inquirer, and is far more apologetic in its approach to the actions of Benedict XVI. The author recognizes that many might question the move by Benedict as contradictory to his stated positions on many issues, and that Cardinal Newman was a contravesial figure, both during his life and after, and the author works to explain the significance of the move to beatify.
I leave the articles to be read and judged according to their content, and will only say that the first article seemed to stem from an unfavorable opinion of Benedict and his views than it did from anything else, and very few of those views are reflected in Newman's writings or teachings. Controversy over whether or not Cardinal Newman was homosexual are mute and utterly irrelevant to the discussion, for no other reason that the man was utterly committed to the path of chastity from the age of 15, and inclinations are purely personal (meaning no one's to judge but God Himself) without actions to account for sin... and inclination does not equal intention. We are all inclined to sin, but without intention and action, there is no culpable sin.
I found it telling that the American author saw the beatification of Cardinal Newman as a means by which Benedict can try and bring Europe back from a "relativism" that is growing more and more prominent in the political and social structure of the continent, while the British author saw it as Benedict "stealing" an English radical from the pages of secular history.
The Oxford Movement that Newman worked to start in England never really flourished there past the universities where it began, while the impact that movement has had in the New World can still be seen today through the thousands of Newman Centers located at non-Catholic universities across North America, and in the conscience-oriented position that so many American and Canadian Catholics (both lay and religious) take when discussing and discerning the teachings of the Magisterium. Cardinal Newman believed our final decision making tool given to us by God was our conscience, and in using our conscience, all we had to do was be as well informed as possible when making our personal life choices... be they faith oriented or not. However, to suggest that this position meant he failed to accept or understand the Magisterium's position on such matters as papal infallibility, contraception, the sanctity of marriage as a Sacrament of the Church, or the role of women within the Church is disingenuous at best, and an outright falsehood at worst.
He believed that dialogue and frank discussion partnered with charitable openness to new ideas could solve any difference of opinion and would always lead to greater understanding of whatever topic was being investigated by all involved... and I personally don't think Benedict XVI could have found a better example to hold up in this close-minded age of ours as an example for the world on how best to come to mutual understanding and acceptance.
There are more than 65 million Catholics in America today, and I am confident that were it possible for Cardinal Newman to hear the statistic that the British author used when he said the majority of American Catholics don't agree with Church teaching as they stand today, he would say that the fault lies in their understanding of the teaching (or in the Church's instructions on the teaching) rather than in the teaching itself. If that is true of America, then surely it must be even more true of Europe today.
What Glenn Beck does right...
I don't always agree with everything the man says, but I have to hand it to him... no one does a better job of making their critics look like idiots than Glenn Beck.
When Beck, Pat and Stu are all on the air, and have a chance to respond to what the "mainstream" media and front-line political figures have to say about Beck's comments, actions or views... there is no better program on the radio.
They have a way of systematically going down a critical comment or article, point by point, and making the author/speaker look as ignorant and idiotic as possible, using nothing other than what the speaker/author has said. Be it Robert Gibbs (a favorite target due to his obsession with decrying Beck's statements), Harry Reid, Rick Sanchez (of CNN fame), Keith Olbermann, Al Gore... the list is long and impressive and NEVER fails to make me laugh out loud on the way to work.
From the "lie" of his 8/28 rally (that he actually touched the Founding Documents) to those that say he is a "hate monger" and an Islamaphobe (Reid, Olbermann, Gibbs), he never fails to make those who attack him (or even those that simply make ignorant remarks that are unfounded in anything resembling the truth) look like jibbering fools or out-right liars... and he does it in a way that makes me belly-laugh all the way to work.
That ALONE is worth my time to listen...
When Beck, Pat and Stu are all on the air, and have a chance to respond to what the "mainstream" media and front-line political figures have to say about Beck's comments, actions or views... there is no better program on the radio.
They have a way of systematically going down a critical comment or article, point by point, and making the author/speaker look as ignorant and idiotic as possible, using nothing other than what the speaker/author has said. Be it Robert Gibbs (a favorite target due to his obsession with decrying Beck's statements), Harry Reid, Rick Sanchez (of CNN fame), Keith Olbermann, Al Gore... the list is long and impressive and NEVER fails to make me laugh out loud on the way to work.
From the "lie" of his 8/28 rally (that he actually touched the Founding Documents) to those that say he is a "hate monger" and an Islamaphobe (Reid, Olbermann, Gibbs), he never fails to make those who attack him (or even those that simply make ignorant remarks that are unfounded in anything resembling the truth) look like jibbering fools or out-right liars... and he does it in a way that makes me belly-laugh all the way to work.
That ALONE is worth my time to listen...
Oh, the irony...
I read this opinion piece today in the Huffington Post, and I was amazed at the level of frustration voiced by the author at the "bias" of the mainstream media. Imagine someone who cannot or will not refer to those with differing opinions to his as anything but "right-wingers" and "@$$holes" actually having the chutzpah to complain about a biased media... as if the vast majority of his views aren't reflected in what outlets like the New York Times, MSNBC, CNN, Newsweek, the Washington Post, ABC, et al are pouring into the ears of a sleeping America.
I'll give Mr. Linkins this much, though... it is a story with far too much attention from the media. I haven't heard any real, rational conservative voice say that the Muslim community in New York doesn't have the right to build the "community center" near Ground Zero... it is a fundamental right here in America for followers of Islam every bit as much as for followers of Christ or Moses... or anyone else. The contraversy was played by the media as far more than it needed to be, that is true, and to no good end, either.
I'll give Mr. Linkins this much, though... it is a story with far too much attention from the media. I haven't heard any real, rational conservative voice say that the Muslim community in New York doesn't have the right to build the "community center" near Ground Zero... it is a fundamental right here in America for followers of Islam every bit as much as for followers of Christ or Moses... or anyone else. The contraversy was played by the media as far more than it needed to be, that is true, and to no good end, either.
Monday, September 13, 2010
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?
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?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
