Annan calls Israel an expropriator of Arab land....

I like this excerpt, pretty funny.

Annan said the United Nations never would permit the destruction of Israel.

"It was to prevent such things from happening that the United Nations was founded," he said.

 

President George W. Bush drew applause as he repeatedly criticized Israel and its policies.

Kofi Annan said both Palestinians and Israelis have lost faith in the others will for peace. And one million Palestinians have been forced into poverty.

 

Let me get this right...

1948 - The United Nations establishes the state of Israel.

2002 - The United Nations' Secretary General tells Israel to give the land back.

WTF???!!!!!

 

It is unclear in the article which lands he was talking about, isn't it? West Bank, Gaza, East Jerusalem, Jerusalem, Setllements, Other appropriated lands (above and beyond the Charter)?

 

Very much so...it sounds as though he is telling the Israelis to get out of the area completely.

I can see it now:

Annan: OK Israelis...get out of Palestine and go back where you came from.

Israeli citizenry: Um....we were born here. Our grandparents came here 50 years ago.

Annan: Quit your whining...go to where they came from.

What a nightmare. The UN is getting more lampoonish daily.

 

Now, how many people think israel cares what kofi annan thinks? Will we have to into israel to "peacekeep"?

 

Originally posted by Refman
Very much so...it sounds as though he is telling the Israelis to get out of the area completely.
....


Nah. Just back to the pre-'67 borders.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20021113/ap_on_re_mi_ea/annan_mideast_1


Annan Speaks Out on Mideast Conflict
Wed Nov 13,12:31 PM ET
By BARRY SCHWEID, AP Diplomatic Writer

COLLEGE PARK, Md. (AP) - U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan (news - web sites) pledged on Wednesday that the United Nations (news - web sites) never would permit the destruction of

"It was to prevent such things from happening that the United Nations was founded," Annan said in a speech at the University of Maryland that commemorated the late Egyptian President Anwar Sadat's peace overtures to Israel 25 years ago next week.

Terror attacks have caused Israelis to lose faith in the Palestinians' will to have peace, Annan said.

And, he said, as a result, Israelis support measures against the Palestinians that Annan said have pushed more than 1 million people below the poverty line.

For their part, he said, "the Palestinians are just as firmly attached to their land as Israelis are to theirs."

"They too have a right to their own state, supported by the United Nations and by public opinion worldwide," Annan said.

The only solution, he said, is for Israel to relinquish the land the Arabs lost in the 1967 Mideast War and to live side by side with a Palestinian state.

The precise location of the borders would be negotiated by the two sides, Annan said.

"On both sides, Palestinian and Israeli, only those who believe their enemy can be defeated by force and violence show a grim confidence in the ultimate success of their chosen path," Annan said.

But, he said, they should follow the example of Sadat, who agreed to peace with Israel in exchange for recovering the Sinai, which Egypt lost in 1967.

"Somehow, we have to restore hope to both peoples by patiently rebuilding their trust in each other," Annan said.

 

Look how small Israel and Palestine are:

http://www.us-israel.org/jsource/Peace/borders.html

 

Is it just me, or does anyone else find it a little weird that land that used to be part of Egypt and Jordan is somehow Palestinian land? Why that stretch of land instead of a piece that's currently in Jordan? Or Egypt? Or Wherever?

On that same note, if that land had never been taken by Israel and was still part of Egypt and Jordan, would the Secretary General (and others) be saying that that specific land should be made into a Palestinian state?

The argument seems to be that it's their land historically because they happen to live there now (which is fine, but it doesn't really jibe with some other arguments).

But hey, I'm all for a Palestinian state. If I were running Israel, I'd give up the '67 land just so I could regain the moral high ground. Of course, I don't think it would make any difference. I don't think the attacks would stop, nor do I think the opinion of the world community toward Israel would change all that much. So, I probably wouldn't be a very good leader of Israel.

 

According to the 2002 CIA World Factbook, only 20.8% of the Jews currently residing in Isreal were born there. The other 80% came from different parts of the world, invading Arab lands by building illegal (according to United Nations Resolution 242) armed settlements as part of the dream affectionately known as "Zionism."

 

Too funny!

 

When the UN partitioned Palestine, these lands were set aside for the Palestinians. Egypt annexed the Gaza strip and Jordan annexed the West Bank. They were occupied by Israel in the 1967 War.

 

The other 80% do not all live in settlements in the West Bank and Gaza. A misunderstanding affectionately known as "ignorance" .

 

So what happens when the bombings and attacks continue after Israel pulls back to it's 1948 borders?

Think the UN will step in then?

Doubt it.

 

Israel has no reason to give up the status quo. Unfortunately, the international community is unwilling to exert enough coercive pressure to make it advantageous for Israel to do so. This requires the Palestinians to exert such coercive force.

They're sort of damned if they do, and damned if they don't.

If they continue terrorist attacks, then they're justifying Israeli oppression in the eyes of the international community and acting contrary to peace.

If they discontinue attacks, then Israel has absolutely no incentive to begin transferring land. Israel gets what they want, without a price.

It's grim, but violence is the only card the Palestinians have. Transfer of land and cessation of violence must be simultaneous. If the Palestinians stop first, Israel will not proceed. If they continue afterward, then Israel has nothing to gain from cessation of land, and might as well reoccupy.

 

Originally posted by haven
...If they continue terrorist attacks, then they're justifying Israeli oppression in the eyes of the international community and acting contrary to peace....

Agreed.

If they discontinue attacks, then Israel has absolutely no incentive to begin transferring land. Israel gets what they want, without a price.

I understand what you're saying, but I think that its worthwhile to try the peaceful route and watch as international pressure increases on Israel, particularly if the Palestinians act peacefully and the Israelis are led by Sharon and Netanyahu. The pressure will also increase on the US and within the US to pressure Israel. I think it's the Palestinian's best move.

It's grim, but violence is the only card the Palestinians have.

I think violence against civilians severely hurts their cause, as it hurts the Israelis' cause. If they feel compelled to continue attacks, attack the infrastructure, not civilians.

Transfer of land and cessation of violence must be simultaneous.

The Israelis need proof that the Palestinians are capable of ceasing violence. I imagine that they are convinced that some Palestinian factions will not cease violence, even with a Peace Treaty and nationhood. I believe that Israel can control it's zionist fanatics, but the Palestinian Authority either cannot or won't control it's own.

Not much would be accomplished towards Peace with Sharon in control, anyway, but it could force him out of office.

 

The most recent thing that I read had Sharon ahead of Bibi for control of <i>Likud</i> and <i>Likud</i> being the dominant power in another coalition government after the upcoming elections. It would be a long shot for <i>Labor</i> to be the powerbroker in the next Israeli government.

 

Cohen:

Most of my opinions on international politics come from me being a neo-Realist. I don't believe in "soft power." UN censure, international protest, speeches by Alec Baldwin (or Kofi Anan or George Bush) just don't mean that much. "Soft" pressure has been applied - and has done nothing. It failed a couple decades ago, and it will fail now.

If you want results, you need to at least hit someone with economic sanctions... and even the positive results of that is debatable. There have been various case studies... with differing conclusions. Economic leverage may be enough to affect internal policy... or it may not. My guess is that in Israel, it might be sufficient... given that their economy is so dependent upon externalities.

Unfortunately, we're a long, long, long way away from imposing economic sanctions on Israel. Could you even imagine the backlash against any US politician who brought such an issue up? He'd get laughed out of the Capitol, then out of his elected position. And even worse for the Palestinians here.. .the Party that's usually most sympathetic to the oppressed is deeply indebted to Jewish activists that they agree with on most issues.

So, that rules out international help for the Palestinians. What about internal pressure? There aren't any "proper" channels that the Palestinians can go through. They can't exactly "vote out" the conservatives and put in Labor. What about peaceful protest? They gave that a shot, once upon a time, years upon years ago... and it got them nowhere.

The only leverage they have is the threat of terrorism. Let it cease, and Israel gets what it wants w/o compromise.

This isn't right. It's not just. But unfortunately, the international system is premised on power, not morality. If we want morality... well, then it's time to implement international law with teeth. I'm ready to do that... but most people aren't. While national sovereignty rules the day... so will Kissinger's Realpolitik.