by Eric Martin
Due to recent developments in the greater NYC area, I have rounded up my family and friends and relocated to a secure bunker (at an undisclosed location) for the foreseeable future. Why this drastic action you ask? Because the Obama administration just released al-Qaeda terrorists in New York City:
Earlier today, Ahmed Khalfan Ghailani, who is suspected of taking part in the 1998 bombings of U.S. Embassies in Dar Es Salaam and Nairobi, arrived in New York where he will be charged with 286 separate terrorism related crimes. Ghailani is facing separate charges of murder for each of the 224 people killed in the embassy bombings. Ghailani had been held at Guantanamo Bay since 2006, so this marks the first time a Guantanamo detainee has been transferred to American soil for trial and custody.
Ghailani is being held at the Metropolitan Correctional Center, which according to the Justice Department has held several terrorist suspects over the years. Barring any last minute manifestations of mutant superpowers, I'd say we're safe [ed note: easy for you to say Serwer, you're in DC!!!!].
Interestingly enough, neither the Republican leadership in the House and Senate, nor the RNC have released any statements on the matter, despite having vocally opposed closing Gitmo or incarcerating terrorists on U.S. soil.
This will probably affect my blogging output, but I will do my best to put on a brave face despite the fact that al-Qaeda is now roaming the streets of my neighborhood. Wish me luck, and pray for our safety.
Eric Martin, over and out.
There is not enough land in the present Israeli borders to give Palestinians and Israelis the state each of them rightly deserve. If I’m a Palestinian, and you give me the West Bank and Gaza, I’m thinking I just got a pretty bad deal since I’m only getting 22% of historic Palestine. If I’m an Israeli, and you give the Palestinians the West Bank and Gaza, I’m thinking you just left my biggest population centers with a border that’s roughly 10 miles wide between the Mediterranean and the Palestinian state, and I’m completely exposed to attack.
So, a Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza is a bad deal for Palestinians and Israelis. That’s why this conflict has been going on forever. The solution the international community has been advocating is unappealing to both of the principal actors.
So, let’s help the Palestinians have a state of their own, but it needs to have borders that both Palestinians and Israelis are satisfied with. The Palestinian state should include territory from the West Bank, Gaza and partly from neigboring countries to make it a viable state. Israel simply doesn’t have enough land with which you can carve out a viable Israeli state and Palestinian state.
Posted by: SK | June 09, 2009 at 12:48 PM
Give Gitmo to the Palestinians?
Posted by: Oops | June 09, 2009 at 12:51 PM
I guess this explains the nasty weather this morning here in NYC.
Obviously, teh terrists can control the weather! Take that, Al Gore!
Posted by: S.G.E.W. | June 09, 2009 at 12:55 PM
SK has become unstuck in the threads.
Posted by: cleek | June 09, 2009 at 01:00 PM
The Palestinian state should include territory from the West Bank, Gaza and partly from neigboring countries to make it a viable state.
I love this idea, if only to expose the hypocrasy of the countries demanding that Israel help the Palestinians. Egypt and Jordan would never give up land to Palestinians, and I doubt whether Lebanon or Syria would either.
Posted by: Jeff | June 09, 2009 at 01:42 PM
"I love this idea, if only to expose the hypocrasy of the countries demanding that Israel help the Palestinians. Egypt and Jordan would never give up land to Palestinians, and I doubt whether Lebanon or Syria would either."
Is this really analogous though? Israel is occupying Palestinian, Jordnian and Syrian land. There is a recognized boundary (the 1967 line) that they are not respecting. Why would support for the Palestinians from neighboring countries require a willingness to cede their own territory?
Posted by: Eric Martin | June 09, 2009 at 01:51 PM
Eric -- When Israel first occupied Gaza and the West Bank in 1967, Gaza was part of Egypt and the West Bank was part of Jordan. From a strictly legal standpoint, there was no nation of Palestine, and therefore no "Palestinian land." Any land in Gaza or the West Bank that ever becomes part of a separate Palestinian state will have been ceded by Egypt or Jordan, at least in the sense that they have not asked Israel to return it to their sovereignty. (I don't think the Palestinians will ever get control of the Golan.)
Now of course I realize that Egypt doesn't want Gaza, and Jordan doesn't want the West Bank. Indeed, Jordan would be very happy to unload the bulk of its own Palestinian population anywhere that would take them. I just don't want to see conclusions drawn from faulty premises.
When Arab countries expelled about a million Jews in the second half of the last century, Israel was willing to take them all in, and did in fact absorb most of them. When the "Palestinians" of 1948 found themselves outside the post-truce Israel (let's ignore causation for a moment), no Arab country offered more than token assistance.
None of the foregoing excuses the settlements, and the current Israeli government is threatening to make some very serious mistakes. But there's a context here beyond Israelis and Palestinians, and it shouldn't be ignored.
Posted by: Bob L. | June 09, 2009 at 02:51 PM
"Any land in Gaza or the West Bank that ever becomes part of a separate Palestinian state will have been ceded by Egypt or Jordan, at least in the sense that they have not asked Israel to return it to their sovereignty..."
Agreed, I kind of referenced that in my response, though not clearly. My point being, the land is already ceded in the de facto, tacit sense (other than Golan) and is now occupied, and further, it's pointless to suggest that neighboring countries should cede more. It's not their obligation, and I consider it a non-sequitur.
Posted by: Eric Martin | June 09, 2009 at 03:08 PM
"When Arab countries expelled about a million Jews in the second half of the last century, Israel was willing to take them all in"
Yeah, but that was Israel's raison d'etre. That was one of the animating principles behind forming Israel in the first place - to offer a homeland for Jews cast adrift by localized hostility.
The rest of the Arab states did not have that mission. And for states in general, accepting large refugee populations can cause severe strains and destabilizations. As it has in Jordan.
Posted by: Eric Martin | June 09, 2009 at 03:10 PM
"...it's pointless to suggest that neighboring countries should cede more. It's not their obligation, and I consider it a non-sequitur."
The vast majority of people would agree with these statements. Governments don't want to suggest violating the territorial integrity of others. The unfortunate result is that basically the same solution to the conflict is proposed over and over again by way of UNSC resolutions, initiatives, proposals, road maps, etc. It's become insane to do the same thing over and over again and expect a different result.
The borders of the modern Middle East were created in London and Paris after WWI. The English and the French didn't get it right -- it's time for some adjustments.
Posted by: SK | June 09, 2009 at 03:43 PM
SK seems to believe that the vomiting of the state of israel on the people of Palestine was a moral and legal act, it wasn't.
Posted by: Bill Jones | June 09, 2009 at 04:07 PM
"It's become insane to do the same thing over and over again and expect a different result."
Are you really suggesting that it's more realistic to expect Egypt, Syria and Jordan to cede even more land? It's a non-starter.
"The borders of the modern Middle East were created in London and Paris after WWI. The English and the French didn't get it right -- it's time for some adjustments. "
Pointing to past mismanagement of borders by the west is not going to be a convincing appeal for future border re-writing by the west.
Posted by: Eric Martin | June 09, 2009 at 04:11 PM
Eric, you're right that it's not very realistic to expect Syria and Jordan (or others) to cede land for a Palestinian state. However, it's also not realistic to expect a resolution to the Israeli/Palestinian conflict based on a formula that neither Palestinians nor Israelis find desirable.
A Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza with East Jerusalem as its capital is simply not appealing to Palestinians. How can Palestinians reasonably be expected to say this solution would be the end of all their claims if they are being given only 22% of what they consider to be historic Palestine? It's a crap deal for them.
Your reaction to my posts is the "normal" or "official" reaction you would get from most people (and definitely most governments). So..., the international community can continue to pursue a solution that hasn't worked for years. That's most likely what will continue to occur.
I hope Obama has something new to offer along the lines of my proposal or something else I haven't thought of.
Posted by: SK | June 09, 2009 at 05:00 PM
Yeah, it would have to be something other than: "Convince these 2-3 countries to lop of pieces of their territories for the formation of State X." It's creative, but also absolutely unacceptable to the 2-3 countries in question.
As for the relative satisfaction of Palestinians and Israelis, I will say this: Sometimes fatigue wears away at resistance. Also, desirable and acceptable under the circumstances are two different things. I might acquiesce to the latter even though it is not "desirable" because it is the best possible solution.
Further, there hasn't really been a good faith effort to actually resolve the crisis for almost a decade. Bush took the past 8 years off, and we don't really know what has changed in terms of the respective populations' calculus.
Posted by: Eric Martin | June 09, 2009 at 05:06 PM
How did a Gitmo thread become all about Israel/Palestine?
And without in any way agreeing with SK's position of "let's carve up the neighboring countries" (again), I also reject Eric Martin's idea that the 1967 boundary is automatically recognized and legitimate - especially as regards Jerusalem, as the Israelis did not have access to the Western Wall. I'm not defending the displacements within and land seizures around Jerusalem after 1967, but the pre-1967 boundaries, while they are the only conceivable starting point for a negotiated resolution, should not be considered inviolate.
As to "Bill Jones", who apparently has only commented once here before, also in an extreme if less incendiary fashion, his choice of metaphors is deeply inappropriate.
Posted by: Warren Terra | June 09, 2009 at 05:06 PM
Regarding the SUPERHUMAN MUTANT terrorist detainee that just arrived in NYC, did they by any chance put him in the same jail cell as the Somali Pirate Guy?
UH-OH! A VILLAINOUS TEAM-UP OF EPIC PROPORTIONS! We're ALL DOOOOMED if they're forced to team up during their impeding jailbreak!!!
Posted by: PaulW | June 09, 2009 at 05:10 PM
WT: I didn't say they were inviolate.
Posted by: Eric Martin | June 09, 2009 at 05:15 PM
Warren Terra, who unlike me is too cowardly to post under his real name thinks that I post
"in an extreme.. fashion"
So "moderation" is the refusal to acknowledge the truth?
Grow up and face reality. Grow a pair; if appropriate.
Posted by: Bill Jones | June 09, 2009 at 05:56 PM
That'll show ya, Warren.
And, boy, when someone posts under the name "Bill Jones," they're sure being bravely specific in a big way.
In any case, the key to being convincing on teh internet is being as macho as possible.
Posted by: Gary Farber | June 09, 2009 at 06:10 PM
Yup, it's a good thing that Bill Jones (1) thinks his use of his real name privileges him (where was he for the last two days of threads here?) and (2) is under the impression that anyone could figure out which Bill Jones he is, from among the thousand or so in the US, if he's even in the US.
I note that:
(a) Bill doesn't attempt to defend his repulsive comment.
(b) I could understand the metaphorical suggestion that I "grow a pair" but the odd attempt at gender equity in the suggestion makes it rather surreal. Why does it differ by gender? Does a man growing a second pair make any more sense than a woman growing a pair?
Posted by: Warren Terra | June 09, 2009 at 06:20 PM
"Does a man growing a second pair make any more sense than a woman growing a pair?"
Such mental imagery before I've even had my morning coffee!!!
Posted by: Eric Martin | June 10, 2009 at 07:12 AM
Let's start a polyorchist movement! ;-)
Posted by: Hartmut | June 10, 2009 at 08:21 AM
Warren, you probably should have tried searching for "William" as well. One thousand is definitely low.
Posted by: KCinDC | June 10, 2009 at 09:02 AM