Giuliani wants to add Israel to NATO

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Ramo

LOTM- Now Im not saying the above is what a settlement will look like, but one cant address this issue without some awareness of the various solutions that have been discussed thus far. I think its quite unfair to interprate Hillarys words apart from that history.

That looks like a joint-sovereingty deal over the entire city. Clinton said that an undivided Jer would be Israel's capitol.

If you read the deal closely, you see it makes Jerusalem undivided, while recognizing that "Yerushaliyim" the western half, would be Israels capital.


IOW reconcile everyones need for autonomy, and for historic capitals, with practical desires to avoid certain forms of division, and make everyone comfortable that this fits with what their red lines really mean.

[Ramo]

Well, an undivided Jer being an Israeli capitol doesn't imply anything about Pals sharing sovereignty. Quite the opposite.

I do like that better than a partition, but there's absolutely no reason to think that this is what Clinton's statement actually means.

[BeBMan]

It's a step into the right direction. Everyone in NATO = world peace.

[lord of the mark]

[QUOTE] Originally posted by Ramo

East Jerusalem was annexed in 1967. I take it you DONT follow the situation that closely, then.

I obviously meant an annexation in the permanent sense.

Im sorry I didnt find it obvious.

No, its not a statement by Israeli politicos, its an assertion by many influential (and not particularly fringy) israeli pundits. Barak cant say it as a starting position, but its clearly something he understands and that conditions future negotiations.

A sense that Olmert is walking into a trap, where the US is advocating major Israeli concessions from the start, would strengthen the Likud position in the elections that are likely soon.

That's a really bizarre reading. How is a US that's willing to back a hardline Israeli negotiating position not beneficial to the Israeli right?

You seem under the impression that a starting point of a united jerusalem is a hardline Israeli negotiating position. Its not. The hardline Israeli position is no Pal state, or a Pal state including only about half the West Bank.

The notion that the US, while pushing for negotiations and a peace settlement, is at least sympathetic to past Israeli red lines, to the Israeli opening position, makes negotiations and a settlement more enticing to middle Israel.

Why doesn't exactly the same principle apply on the Pal side? Shouldn't the US support RoR as official policy to make the Pals more open to negotiation?

The other Arab states, who have been invited to the November conference, and whos participation will be important, all support the RoR.

And I'm not even arguing that Clinton should've said something to the effect of supporting a moderate, realistic resolution. Just not saying ridiculous statements like that the unity of Jerusalem is inviolate.

A. She did not use the word inviolate. B. At some level, a return to the division of Jerusalem is unacceptable to ANYONE serious on the Israeli spectrum. No one will accept the status quo antie 1967, when the city was divided by barbed wire, when the halves of the city might as well have been on different planets, when Jews were denied access to THEIR holy sites, when people could not move freely around the city, when the Jewish cemetaries on the Mount of Olives were maliciously vandalized. At some level the city needs to remain united. And it needs to be the capital of Israel.

Did Hillary say it couldnt ALSO be the capital of Palestine? If not, then her statement is not at all incompatible with the kinds of solutions outlined in the Beilin-Abu Mazen document, and IIRC, in the unoffical Geneva Accords.

Ultimately, you're saying that Clinton should endorse the Israeli negotiating position

No, that she should endorse the notion of united city, that is the capital of Israel.

- one that's unreasonable in a final settlement -

No, it will have to be interpretated to get to the final settlement. Everyone knows that.

because they're an ally? Why should we support every stupid position an allied country happens to have?

As a starting principle, its not stupid.

[MarkG]

Originally posted by BeBro
It's a step into the right direction. Everyone in NATO = world peace.

we've got everyone in the UN so we're already enjoying world peace

[LordShiva]

Originally posted by MarkG
we've got everyone in the UN so we're already enjoying world peace

We got everyone in teh League of Nations, so we've had world peace since 1919

[lord of the mark]

[QUOTE] Originally posted by Ramo

East Jerusalem was annexed in 1967. I take it you DONT follow the situation that closely, then.

I obviously meant an annexation in the permanent sense.

No, its not a statement by Israeli politicos, its an assertion by many influential (and not particularly fringy) israeli pundits. Barak cant say it as a starting position, but its clearly something he understands and that conditions future negotiations.

So there isn't a single prominent center-left politico (in terms of foreign policy) who has made the argument that an undivided Jerusalem specifically excludes East Jerusalem? If that's the case, that can hardly be seen as some sort of ubquititous interpretation...



The closest position to this is the Geneva Accords. The only major Zionist party to support the accords, is Meretz-Yachad, which, I suppose, must be considered left, not center left. Labor, according to Wiki, has neither accepted nor rejected the accords as a party. However I would note that at least some of the criticism of the accords I have seen is not aimed at their substance as far as a final settlement, but that it was mistake to make concessions in advance of actual negotiations.

There are in effect three Israeli POVs on Jer. 1. Keep it united, in the sense of NO real Pal control, no Pal capital in Jer, and no Pal sovereignty anywhere in the areas currently part of the Jer municipality. That, IIUC, is the Likud position 2. Accepting the concessions of the Beilin-Abu Mazen doc and the Geneva accord, and not caring too much that whether its called a divided city or not. - The Meretz-Yachad, or Israeli left position. 3. The position of calling for a united Jerusalem as a starting point, and then being willing to negotiate in good faith the exact final status of Jerusalem. That is, IIUC, the Labor party position, and the position of most of Kadima, and of Olmert.

Now the question is, does Hillarys statement make her a supporter of position 1, or of position 3? I think any view of her history, her husbands history, etc, makes it clear that shes close to the Israelis who take position 3. I dont think position 3 is a stupid position, nor do I think its unreasonable for a US presidential candidate to support it.

[Winston]

For what it's worth, the territory of Algeria was part of NATO's potential zone of operations before it gained its independence in the early 1960s. Countries like Hungary and Slovakia have less of a geographical connection to the North Atlantic than Israel.

The considerations should be military and political primarily, and viewed as such, I find Giuliani's thoughts to be highly interesting, and my confidence in him as a candidate has grown because of it.

Israel
Japan
Australia

India..

Could we have a :swallows hard: smiley please?

[LordShiva]

Originally posted by Winston
Could we have a :swallows hard: smiley please?

We have a :swallows: smiley already: :desire:

[Aeson]

If we could move Israel to the North Atlantic somehow, I think it would solve a lot of problems.

[Zkribbler]

Originally posted by Aeson
If we could move Israel to the North Atlantic somehow, I think it would solve a lot of problems.

Exodus to Bermuda!!


Yamulkas & Bermuda shorts...now there's a bold fashion statement!

[GePap]

Ain't going to happen, so who gives a **** what Giuliani says?

[BeBMan]

Originally posted by LordShiva


We got everyone in teh League of Nations, so we've had world peace since 1919

Bah, not everyone. See, no wonder there were still wars....

[TheStinger]

The med is techniacaly part of the atlantic ocean, so they could join. But then I suppose Lybia could

[lord of the mark]

Heres another statement for you, Ramo. From today, (how timely) and by no lesser a figure than Dep PM Haim Ramon (ex Labor, now Kadima)

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070921/...l_palestinians;_ylt=AoAB5z4azRiufhPMBqPtQWFvaA8F

but so far its dividing Kadima, whether it divides or unites Jerusalem:

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/906065.html