tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1414025411716568353.post5646223075483768571..comments2023-10-17T05:20:29.635-04:00Comments on Shadowed Forest of World Politics: Reality-Based Policy-Making: The Case of Israeli HardlinersWilliam deB. Millshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07103937881679464836noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1414025411716568353.post-25540956095284486652011-06-17T13:24:05.494-04:002011-06-17T13:24:05.494-04:00Thanks for mentioning Res. 242. My mistake for omi...Thanks for mentioning Res. 242. My mistake for omitting it. It would be nice to see Israeli willingness to put adherence to its word on the table with the Palestinians. I suspect the vast majority would gladly negotiate on that basis.<br /><br />Concerning your point about Israel having never threatened the legitimacy of another country, it has frequently done so toward Lebanon and does so regarding Palestinian aspirations to have a country. Israel cannot look forward to peace without coming to terms with both issues.<br /><br />You say, "many Israelis fear that the current conflict is about the 1948 borders and not 1967." An interesting and important point that I had not clearly understood.<br /><br />Your question about Iran posing a regional risk is fundamental. I have discussed it many times, but briefly at the moment, Iran, Israel, and Saudi Arabia, and now even tiny Bahrain pose risks to regional stability. Discriminating against or marginalizing is in my opinion more likely to enhance such a risk, so we are by boxing Iran in making matters worse. It is a key issue and deserves far more serious, open-minded attention from decision-makers than it has had. The bottom line is that Iran's regime is fractured, changeable, and open to influence on occasion. We are making it worse than it need be.William deB. Millshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07103937881679464836noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1414025411716568353.post-2439986907287367222011-06-17T05:52:17.840-04:002011-06-17T05:52:17.840-04:00The 1948 borders are not armistice borders. These...The 1948 borders are not armistice borders. These borders are from the 1947 UN partition plan and the Arabs rejected them. The armistice borders are from 1949- the end of the war in which Israel was attacked by 5 Arab armies.<br /><br />UN resolution 242 explicitly calls on Israel to "withdraw from territories occupied in the recent conflict." It does not say <i>all</i> the territories and this was deliberate.<br />It also states that all states have a "right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force."<br /><br />The PLO rejected that resolution too. Israel, on the other hand, officially <i>accepted</i> it.<br /> Then there was the Arab League summit in 1967 and their resolution that called for "no peace with Israel, no recognition of Israel, no negotiations with it."<br />These rejectionist positions also have "implications that need to be considered."<br /><br />In light of the above, are Israel's security concerns not understandable? Sure, Israel isn't the only country entitled to have security concerns, but she never posed or tried to pose an existential threat to any other country in the region.<br />Mind you, Israel is the only country in the world whose very legitimacy is questioned and many Israelis fear that the current conflict is about the 1948 borders and not 1967.<br /><br />Furthermore, Israel has indeed withdrawn from territories occupied in 1967 and has proposed further withdrawals. The fact that the other side believes these proposals do not go far enough requires resolution through negotiations and compromises on both sides. Not an easy thing by any standards and both sides share responsibility for the inability to resolve this. I am not saying that Israel is perfect, but since we are mentioning legalities, there are certainly mitigating factors involved here.<br /><br />The comparison to Iran is out of context. Iran's agenda does not include peace and security for Israel or other Sunni Arab regimes in the area. Do you not believe that Iran poses a risk to regional stability?<br /><br />The reference to Hitler is unfortunate and your point could have been made with equal clarity without it.John Ryannoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1414025411716568353.post-33717952193149419332011-06-16T15:46:02.419-04:002011-06-16T15:46:02.419-04:00Interesting question. Perhaps I should have said, ...Interesting question. Perhaps I should have said, "legally recognized by the consensus of most actors" - not including Palestinians, who still do not have a vote.<br /><br />Apologists for Israeli expansion take the view that Israel cannot return to the 1948 armistice borders because that would be prejudicial to Israeli security, as though only Israel had legitimate security concerns. This has been the historical argument of every conqueror, including Catherine the Great and Hitler. It is both a moral and a logical non-starter. Obviously, Palestinians have an equal right to security. Learning to be civilized is all about figuring out how to share a degree of insecurity with one's neighbors.<br /><br />As for the legal status of Israel, in 1967 the UN General Assembly called for an Israeli return to its 1967 borders. That would seem both to require Israel to do so and implicitly to recognize Israel’s conquests in 1948 as legal (to the degree that the world has any authority for judging the “legality” of anything). Does not Israel’s rejection of that 1967 UN decision open the can of worms about whether or not it even has the right to the 1948 borders? That complicated issue related to when initial states recognized Israel and when the expansion of Israeli territory ended, I won’t get into here.<br /><br />I'll point out one other consideration in this whole can of worms. If Israel chooses to argue that it is not required to obey the UN, then Iran also cannot reasonably be so required and could "legally" ignore all UN/IAEA demands for nuclear transparency. Rejecting the rule of law, especially when the rule of law is so imperfect in our world, can be defended as a position, but there are implications that need to be considered.William deB. Millshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07103937881679464836noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1414025411716568353.post-89456399870726770822011-06-16T08:35:27.667-04:002011-06-16T08:35:27.667-04:00Hi,
You mentioned Israel's
"legally-reco...Hi,<br /><br />You mentioned Israel's<br />"legally-recognized 1967 borders."<br /><br />I am curious to know when,where and by whom these borders are "legally-recognized."John Ryannoreply@blogger.com