Wednesday, December 10, 2008



At December 11, 2008 12:53 AM, Anonymous Chris Collins said...

This could provide the basis for a "Grand Bargain".

Desalination plants require huge amounts of energy, which will require a new electrical plant. So we...

Build a modern nuclear power plant in Israel, that will feed power to the desalination plant we build on the Palestinian side. Built-in symbiosis.

Naturally this could only occur by fixing the borders of a palestinian state.

The entire muslim league - including Iran and Syria - have offered complete peace and recognition for Israel IF they make a fair settlemnt with the Palestinians. Whatever one may think of the sincerity of that promise, in the very worst case, it would provide a ready-made diplomatic justification for any future Israeli military action if any of the signatories failed in letter or in spirit to uphold the agreement.

So, if the Israelies accept the 1967 border with minor modifications and agree to share Jerusalem, then they get peace - no palestinian terror, no Hezzbollah attacks, no Hamas rockets, nothing - a modern nuclear power plant, and a large new supply of water. The Palestinians get a viable state with a nonviolent strategic counterweight to Israel. The other Arab states get to claim some credibility with their restless populations but they also forfeit their right to blame Israel for their domestic problems, such as anti-state terror. Let's see, anyone left? Yup - Iran.

If Iran plays nice they will want - and deserve - some special consideration. I say that Iran, Israel, and the US agree to a non-aggresion pact. Iran will submit to a rigorous UN inspections regime for its nuclear program, but will be entitled to its full nuclear fuel cycle in accordance with the nuclear nonproliferation treaty that they have signed. This could be a very tough sell to both sides, but I think it will probably make the entire region feel a lot better if the Israelis would sign the NPT, make full disclosure on their nuclear programs, and also agree to inspections. Furthermore, it would make sense for Israel to agree to a limit on their nuclear arsenal.

Israel's strategic justification for their nuclear program is the "Sampson Option". The implication from the biblical story is that if they are truly in danger of being wiped out, they will nuke the entire middle east. They currently have an arsenal that can do exactly that. If there's one thing we learned from the cold war, is that there must be a mutual threat of destruction in order to prevent escalation. Crazy idea, but it worked for about 45 years. In order to maintain a reasonable balance, Israel should retain a minimal number of active war heads - say 2. This would forclose the remote possibility that Israel would wage an aggressive nuclear war on any of her neighbors. With such conditions in place, and a good advance warning system for any plutonium diverstions on either side, then we really weaken the forces driving for proliferation.

What's the one thing that really sticks out in each of these points? It would require Israel to compromise - somewhat - on a few strategic points. What's the one element missing from this? American leadership. IF Obama wants to make a real imact on world peace and security this is a way to do it. All it takes is the guts to stand up to the Military Industrial complex and the Israel Lobby. Of course, that's no small task, but strategic considerations in the middle east were a major topic of debate from the primaries to election day. With clear eyes the American people voted for an alleged Muslim, alleged antisemite, alleged black guy. He was stamped thoroughly un-kosker, and he got elected anyway. I think he has a mandate for change - BIG change, not back to Clintontime.

Carpe Diem, Barack. And don't forget - there are plenty of folks who build nuke plants and desalination plants in lots of electorally strategic American communities.

(Just Sayin')

At December 11, 2008 6:07 AM, Anonymous Mairead said...

One of the best tools psychopaths have is the cringing willingess of people who should know better to accept a fait accompli rather than fight back against predation.

The 1948 Partition forced on the innocent Palestinian Arabs was a massive crime against the right of self-determination embodied in the new UN Charter.

The subsequent Naqba was a crime against peace for which the entire Zionist leadership should have followed their Nazi role models to the gallows.

The "1967 border" is a result of that continued crime against peace and self-determination, and should serve as evidence at trials, not accepted as a minimal border to a legitimate state!

At December 13, 2008 12:51 AM, Anonymous Chris Collins said...

Your argument is very passionate. I just think we have to make a choice between what is righteous and what choices minimize human suffering going forward. That doesn't mean that I am not outraged by past injustices, it just means that I am more interested in breaking the cycle and reducing the ongoing suffering on all sides as much as possible.

At December 13, 2008 1:17 PM, Anonymous Mairead said...

Why do I think that, if someone turfed you out of house and home at the point of a gun, and then some third person urged you to accept a cardboard box to "minimize your suffering", you might have a very "passionate" reaction.

Thieves and killers should not be rewarded. We hanged a lot of Germans in 1946 for doing no more, mutatis mutandis, than the Zionists did to the Palestinians.

Crimes against humanity and peace are crimes. They should never be ignored or glossed over and they damnsure shouldn't be rewarded!


Post a Comment

<< Home