EDITORIAL: Two-tongued diplomacy

The last thing the Middle East needs is a wall.

The cardinal rule of high-wire Middle East diplomacy is this: Never talk out of both sides of your mouth. During World War I, Britain promised to give land and independence to both Jews and Arabs after the collapse of the Ottoman Empire. The memory is still vivid in the region that Britain's two-tongued diplomacy sowed the seeds of the long-running blood feud between Palestinians and Jews.

But U.S. President George W. Bush has violated this precept of Middle East diplomacy. Bush's diplomatic blunder concerns a security fence Israel is building in the West Bank to separate its people from Palestinians, saying it is needed to protect its people from suicide bombings.

http://www.asahi.com/english/op-ed/K2003081300250.html
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pretty much my viewpoint on this issue. Great editorial.

You may be interested to know that Ma'ariv reported yesterday that Ari'el is almost certainly going to be outside the wall, and (as I've speculated many times, now confirmed), the "neighbourhoods" to the east of Jerusalem will be included within it. To translate, that means settlements (Ma'ale Adummim, Kefar, Mizpe etc).

According to GOI estimates, it will be built within 11 months. If that estimate is true, Israel is clearly intending to draw a de facto border before final status negotiations even begin (supposed to be in Phase 3 of the Roadmap, 2005).

Needless to say, annexing the area to the east of Jerusalem renders stillborn any hope of a viable Palestinian state, since such a measure would cut East Jersualem off from Jericho, Bethlehem, Ramallah etc. and visa versa. Couple that with expropriation of additional funds for Jordan Valley settlements. IMO, the GOI is sending a very, very clear message to the world and especially the Palestinians.

that Sharon will use this wall as a suggested border. Until it is torn down, there will be no real Palestinian state. As long as Sharon remains in power, it will not be torn down. Therefore, in order for there to be real peace, Sharon must be removed. Not that that wasn't obvious from the start.

I love the way the victim is blamed for sel-defense. No terrorism=no wall.

is terrorism. What else can you call a large barrier in the middle of the Palestinians' land, seperating them from their farmland and causing them to become homeless refugees? And all for some security concerns that are probably not legitimate.

The Palestinian farmers living here in a tiny collection of squat homes built on steep, narrow roads of broken asphalt used to be considered wealthy, at least by the standards of their neighbors.

Expansive olive groves stretched out over the hilltops, tomatoes grew large and cucumbers tasted sweet. The 500 families enjoyed the benefits of eight water wells, sunk deep into the hard ground, enough to irrigate the parched soil even as the sun baked it dry in the rainless summer.

But a 215-mile security fence being built by Israel to protect against suicide bombers has cut Jayyous off from all but one of its wells, turning the once succulent fields from bright green to dusty brown.

The wells, though still firmly in the West Bank, are now on the Israeli side of the fence. While the army allows farmers to cross to tend their crops, soldiers along the 95 miles of fence already built refuse to open the gates for tanker trucks, which in the past carried water from the wells to village cisterns.

http://www.sunspot.net/bal-te.israel12aug12,0,3615614.story?coll=bal-home-headlines

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

1. The concept of de facto border

As there is no actual border, in the absence of a true peace agreement, such as the Camp David II would have authorized, any wall location would be called de facto border.

2. Sharon or the Likud party is not the only supporter of the wall- barrier, other Israeli parties, and the majority of Israelis see the necessity of the barrier.

3. The wall is not permanent. The wall can be altered with the same labor and technology with which it is built. If in three years time negotiations begin, and if in 5 years time, there is a de jure border agreement, then the de facto border will also change. The location of the wall will be altered.

The article talks about the double message of diplomacy. This is a standard diplomatic technique to bring two opposing sides closer together. Bush cannot be blamed for the conflict between Arab and Jew, and neither can the British government. The conflict is much more ancient than the British Empire itself.

Why would Israeli's ever care again about Palestinian issues once they have them locked in their cantons?

1. Israelis are sensative to oppresion of others.
2. Israelis have been the employers of Palestinian labor for more than 100 years.
3. The israelis and Palestinians are inter-dependent populations.

I don't even know where to start with "Israeli's are sensitive to oppression of others" since for some reason Israeli's never gave a damn about what their government did to help the Apartheid regime in South Africa or when it trained and armed terrorists across Central and South America in the 1980's. These things apparently didn't arouse the ire of the deeply sensitive Israeli voting population.

I assume the conditions the Palestinians used to enjoy working for Israel are another example of Israeli sensitivity but the tender mercy of working for less than half of minimum wage in conditions of indentured servitude from ages ten and up are now enjoyed by Chinese and Thai guest workers so they don't really need to help the Palestinians with that sort of thing any more.

This is a standard diplomatic technique to bring two opposing sides closer together. Bush cannot be blamed for the conflict between Arab and Jew, and neither can the British government. The conflict is much more ancient than the British Empire itself.

Really? You sure that Arab and Jew were not living peaceably prior to Balfour and the Mandate?

Really now.....

Yes, there were times of peace, largely because the two groups could ignore one another and live separate lives. They were able to inteact on business negotiations. However, the 1929 Hebron maasacure cannot be considered conducive to peace.

Will you admit that both Arab and Jew lived in peace (in whatever capacity) prior to the advent of Zionism?

Or at least retract the statement that the feud is older than the British Empire as that is just absolutely incorrect.

I mentioned that the conflict predates the British Empire. 1929 is within the the Mandate (1922) not the British Empire, and not the conflict itself which can be traced to Palestinians' ancestors who claim the be descendants of Ishmael, who lived more than 5000 years ago.

Look at the holy sites where Moslems built their shrines to conflict with the Jewish sites.

I admit that there were times of peace. If it were not for Arafat who molded the Arab population into a radical militant terrorist organization, the PLO, there would be peace today. It is the PLO, not Zionism that has endangered the peace of the reagon for over 50 years. Zionism predates the British Mandate.

Zionism is a source of progress in the Middle East, and is not a militant concept.

was an attempt to get out of what you said previously. The second part is absolutely untrue and borders on desparate and ridiculous.

I would have said that the PLO has/had it's share of preventing peace. To say that some zionism is not militant is extremely false. There are some forms of militant zionism which completely destroyed in hope for peace since its very inception!

I'm not sure who you are trying to fool, however, the original sin is what prompted outfits like the PLO to form.

Why would you utter falsehoods? Riddle me that.

I think it was, but I could be wrong. (If I'm wrong please let me know)

If Gimel does think this way, it could explain the "view" that the conflict "predates" the British Mandate, etc.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

I don't know how one can defend Israel at all costs and still have logic, morality, historical knowledge, or any sense of humanity or concern for others.

Did Gimel say that God gave the land to Jews - yes or no?

1929 was during the British Mandate, which of course doesn't show that any conflict predates the British Empire, which only faded into oblivion after WWII. Palestine was indeed a part of the British Empire at the time, though not a part the British really wanted...

Violet...

The conflict is much more ancient than the British Empire itself.

Assuming the British Empire predates the 20th century, this statement is simply not supported by historical fact. The present conflict between Jews and Arabs arose in the early 20th century.

Now the ongoing, thousand-year Holy War conflict between Europen Christians and Muslims -- that may predate the British Empire and actually dates back to the Crusades.

The Brits have caused so much dissention in the world. Divide and conquer. At home they are such nice people but as "masters"...?

I'm sorry...as masters, who?