Thursday, October 10, 2002

 

Part VI and VII of NPR's, The Mideast: A Century of Conflict

Basically, the last two parts of the series deal with the last two decades in the Mideast, after the 1979 Camp David Peace Accords. The Palestinians no longer feel they have allies among the Arab states and begin to take action on their own to press their rights. In 1987 their anger and frustration broke out in the first Intifada, or uprising. The rebellion and the subsequent Israeli reprisal gained a lot of International sympathy for the Palestinian cause. At the same time it sent a message to the Israelis that the situation in the Middle East required acknowledgement of the Palestinians if there was to ever be peace. That peacemaking would be attempted in 1992 by Israeli prime minister, Yitzak Rabin and and Yasser Arafat of the Palestinian Liberation Organization. Their efforts culminated in the Oslo Peace Agreement in 1993 where an end to the conflict and a Palestinian state were envisioned. Though there was a clear intent expressed, there wasn't a clear plan on how to acheive these goals. These goals would be derailed two years later in 1995 by the assassination of Yitzak Rabin.

After Rabin's death, the Oslo plan slowly followed. Benjamin Netanyahu was elected as Prime Minister of Israel, and though he gave lip service to the Oslo plan, his actions and the actions of Arafat and the PLO only added fire to the conflict. In 1998, President Bill Clinton tried to resurrect the peace process by bringing Arafat and Netanyahu together in Maryland. Arafat and Netanyahu both signed an agreement affirming the Oslo process but failed to follow through. Ehud Barak replaced Netanyahu in 1999 as Prime Minister and in 2000, Barak met with Arafat at Camp David under Clinton for another round of negotiations. Those negotiations fell through and shortly afterwards a second Intifada broke out in the Mideast.

Now, Israel is led by Ariel Sharon who has dealt with the new attacks by invading and occupying Palestinian territories. Yasser Arafat is precariously still in charge of the PLO. Who knows whether peace is possible?

</Aurelius> <!--3:56 PM-->

 

I love National Geographic maps

I found this great map, showing the location of Palestinian refugees in the Middle East. National Geographic makes great maps and some of them are available online in PDF format (like this one.)

Some things I noticed from this map:

• The West Bank refers to the west bank of the Jordan River. The territory itself is East of Israel.
• Many of the towns that I recall from the Bible are in the West Bank.
• The Sea of Galilee is in Northern Israel.
• The big refugee camps that I keep hearing about; Jenin, Tulkarm, Nablus, and Ramallah are north of Jerusalem in the West Bank.
• Hebron is south of Jerusalem in the West Bank.

</Aurelius> <!--3:08 PM-->

Tuesday, October 08, 2002

 

Usually I disregard forwarded e-mails like this...

...and this shouldn't really be an exception except that it addresses issues I've been struggling with regarding the situation with Iraq. My Angelic Friend forwarded me 10 Reasons Why The US Should Not Invade Iraq. As I said, I've been struggling with issues surrounding the political situation with Iraq. While I tend to be anti-war, I do think that war can be justified and, from listening to NPR reports from Washington, have been trying to figure out for myself whether a war against Iraq might be justified. I'm still not sure but the link above helped me formulate the arguments in my head a bit more clearly.

Listening to President Bush's speeches (to the UN a few weeks ago and then to the American people lately) I've been impressed with the argument that he makes for moving against Saddam. Moreso, I think that the president has been very effective at forcing the hand of the UN and making a case against Iraq. Despite my admiration for his arguments, I've harbored ongoing unease with them and I'm starting to understand where that stems from. The arguments are founded on propositions that I don't agree with.

• I'm not convinced of Iraqi involvement in the September 11 attacks. While I'm sure that Iraq does have involvement with terrorists, unless it could be proved conclusively that they were involved with the 9/11 attacks I don't think the 'War on Terrorism' is justifies an attack on Iraq.
• Saddam may possess weapons of mass destruction (and I'd like to see convincing evidence of that) but it doesn't follow that he presents a clear and present danger to the US.
• If the goals of the US are disarmament and regime change, what plans is the US making for any post-Saddam government? If Iraq is as large an oil producer as I think it is, there's no way that we could leave it in a state of disarray. But the current administration has shown no plan or vision about what might fill any vacuum created by removing Saddam.
• If the goal is making Iraq comply with UN resolutions (16 of them outstanding?) then isn't that a job for the UN?

I'm sure my own reasoning isn't completely thought through. But for something as serious as war, people need to feel like they have the moral directive to follow through. And I don't feel that way in this situation.

</Aurelius> <!--4:23 PM-->

 

So the entry that I lost was my synopsis of part five of the NPR series, The Mideast: A Century of Conflict. I missed yesterday and am now a day behind and starting to feel bogged down by all this information. It's good to know the history but it doesn't really give me much hope about current events. If this has been going on for the last half century, if not the past few millennia, then how can we hope to resolve it? At any rate, I left off at the end of the Six Day war in 1967. The Israelis basically kicked the Egyptian's ass after the Egyptians tried to pressure Israel with a show of military force under the leadership of Gamel Abdel Nasser. In the process of kicking Egyptian ass, the Israelis expanded their occupation into the Sinai penninsula and Jerusalem, as well as other territories. This victory basically established Israel's military might in the region and they were pretty confident that they would be able to handle any further problems with their Arab neighbors with a show of force. This was challenged in October 1973

Egypt, led by Anwar Sadat was itching to reclaim the Sinai territory taken by the Israelis in the Six Days War. On October 3, 1973, together with Hafez Al Assad of Syria they attacked on Yom Kippur, the Jewish holy day of atonement, catching the Israelis completely off-guard. The Egyptians were able to establish a foothold into the Israeli-held territory and Syria made progress into the Golan Heights but after 19 days of fighting the Israelis were able to deny Egypt and Syria the territory they sought. In the process of fighting off the attack the Israels realized that they had vastly underestimated the Arab forces and also realized that they wouldn't be able to maintain their security through force alone. This ushered in a new era of political compromise, facilitated in large part by the efforts of the US. Soon after the Yom Kippur War, US Secretary of State, Henry Kissinger began his "shuttle diplomacy" which laid the foundation for later diplomatic progress. In 1979 at Camp David under the guidance of President Jimmy Carter, Anwar Sadat of Egypt signed a peace treaty with Manachem Begin of Israel giving Egypt its land in the Sinai in return for recognition of the Israeli state.

The Palestinians were aghast. They were not consulted at all throughout the peace process and felt betrayed when Egypt signed the Camp David agreements. Palestine did not want to recognize the Israeli state and came to believe that it could no longer rely on the Arab states to support their goal of regaining their own state. This fostered a DIY attitude that would characterize future clashes in the Middle East.

</Aurelius> <!--2:52 PM-->

 

Consider me pissed...

I just lost an entry somehow. It wasn't extremely important but it was a bit of work that I'll now have to redo. I'm pissed.

</Aurelius> <!--2:25 PM-->