25 years ago, on 12/14/1981, the Knesset passed a law annexing the Syrian Golan heights to the state of Israel. This is a known fact, right? But it is very interesting how history gets written sometimes, specially when you read the NY Times article relating the news on that day.
JERUSALEM, Dec. 14 -- The contested Golan Heights formally became part of Israel today as Prime Minister Menachem Begin pushed a measure through Parliament to annex the strategic zone along the Syrian border. Officials said the new measure provided that ''the law, jurisdiction and administration of the state shall apply to the Golan Heights.''
[...]
The Reagan Administration said the annexation of the Golan Heights was inconsistent with the Camp David accords. A White House spokesman said the United States had been given no prior warning of the move. (Page A11.) (In Damascus, the Syrian Government called the Israeli action a "declaration of war" and asked for a meeting of the United Nations Security Council. Page A12.)
[...]
It was Syria's hard-line stance that Mr. Begin cited as an immediate reason for his action. He quoted a report in the Kuwaiti newspaper Al Rai Al Amm on Sunday that President Hafez al-Assad of Syria had expressed the determination to refuse to recognize Israel "even if the Palestinians deign to do so."
[...]
The assassination of President Anwar el-Sadat of Egypt is also seen as a factor, and the annexation as an attempt to test the new Egyptian Government of President Hosni Mubarak on its commitment to peace. The Egyptian Ambassador to Israel, Saad Mortada, objected to the move, but said the peace process would continue.
[...]
Mr. Begin initiated the annexation move after his release today from Hadassah Hospital, where he had been recuperating from a broken thigh suffered in a fall Nov. 26. He convened a Cabinet meeting in his home, and the ministers reportedly followed his lead without substantial dissent.
Parliament, with Mr. Begin attending the session in a wheelchair, was then asked to compress the three readings, votes and committee hearings required of all legislation into one evening.
The whole procedure,which took just six hours, was a display of Mr. Begin's political power and the disarray of the opposition. Mr. Begin said Israel had avoided consulting with the United States because to do so, to receive a "no" from Washington and then go ahead, "would have been much more serious" for American-Israeli relations.
"I say again to our American friends, we shall continue to be allies," the Prime Minister said, "but no one will dictate our lives to us, even the United States of America."
[...]
I don't know for you, but when I read this today, I was shocked on how the future of thousands of people was addressed. It is a shame, and this is not hatred because I believe that even some of the Israelis would feel the same if they knew this and I know of some who do. Israel is a democracy, but does a parliament hold enough power as to make such decisions??? And even if they do, how can it happen this way?
Showing posts with label Middle East. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Middle East. Show all posts
Friday, December 14, 2007
Sunday, June 17, 2007
Blaming Democracy!!
When someone tries to analyze a situation from one angle, you can get to very disturbing conclusions. When you ignore 60 years of conflicts, wars and political maneuvers, and focus on the last few years, you will be misleader. The Middle East conflict is a tool used for leverage by many countries, by the communist block, the imperialists, the pacifiers, the extremists from both side and the dictators of the region. All took benefit from it, but the population of the region. And today someone is trying to blame the current situation on Democracy. In my opinion that's short sighted, but I can't blame the person who wrote the following article. In fact, did the Arab leaders succeed in proofing that Democracy is not the solution?? I think they did :(
FROM GAZA TO LEBANON to Iraq, the Middle East is aflame, and the vaunted free elections that have been held in each country have hardly produced peace, stability or good governance. Some Arabs are now claiming that democracy itself is discredited. That's neither fair nor true.
Democracy is the only path to a government for and by the people. And without the competition of free elections, politicians have no real incentive to enact reform, and citizens have no meaningful way to hold them accountable. But it is simplistic to equate elections with democracy. Nor should Americans expect elections to produce outcomes we approve.
Early this decade, Washington was fiercely opposed to Palestinian elections that would surely have legitimized the late PLO Chairman Yasser Arafat's leadership against his weak rival, Hamas. After Arafat's death, Hamas won elections that were unquestionably free and fair, and this week, Gaza has descended into a fierce civil war. The U.S. applauded the Iraqi and Lebanese elections. Yet sectarian strife, malevolent neighbors and crippling historical legacies have conspired to nullify the resulting democratic gains.
It is often said that were free elections to be held tomorrow, Islamists would sweep into power across the Middle East. That's because Islamists are seen as an antidote to corruption and despotism, and they are organized. So governments such as Egypt's have virtually crushed secular democratic opposition, while the Islamists continue to spread their messages in mosques and underground. Cairo banned Muslim Brotherhood candidates from parliamentary elections last week, beating up poll watchers and turning away voters in heavily Islamist neighborhoods. Such repression is intolerable, of course. Still, the central challenge to the Bush administration's democracy promotion strategy is the inconvenient but pressing question: What does the U.S. do when elections produce leaders who despise the United States, or whom the United States despises?
First, we must practice patience, which has not been a traditional American virtue. It is worth remembering that in U.S. foreign policy, as in medicine, bad outcomes are sometimes inevitable. Elections should not have been expected to cure the poisoning of the Palestinian body politic after 40 years of war, occupation and strife. Elections could not prevent Syria from assassinating Lebanese politicians. And medievalist Al Qaeda has no respect for the ballot. That does not mean balloting should not take place.
Second, the U.S. should reiterate that merely getting elected does not make a government legitimate. Civilized nations also judge each other on the basis of their adherence to the rule of law, political pluralism, minority rights, an independent judiciary, freedom of speech and press and respect for international borders. U.S. support for democratic ideals does not obligate it to recognize a freely elected government of Nazis, genocidal thugs or terrorists.
The Bush administration would be wise to recalibrate its rhetoric and promote more realistic expectations. But it should not retreat from our democratic principles.
source
This reminds me of a joke.
A scientist was studying flies. One part of his experiments is trying to teach a fly to obey his orders. So he uses some lab flies and he noticed that every time he put one of them on a table and said “fly”, it flied :))). Then to make his point, he took one and cut its wings, put it on the table and said “fly”. Obviously it did not, so he went and wrote his conclusion “When you cut the wing of a fly, it becomes deaf” :)))
FROM GAZA TO LEBANON to Iraq, the Middle East is aflame, and the vaunted free elections that have been held in each country have hardly produced peace, stability or good governance. Some Arabs are now claiming that democracy itself is discredited. That's neither fair nor true.
Democracy is the only path to a government for and by the people. And without the competition of free elections, politicians have no real incentive to enact reform, and citizens have no meaningful way to hold them accountable. But it is simplistic to equate elections with democracy. Nor should Americans expect elections to produce outcomes we approve.
Early this decade, Washington was fiercely opposed to Palestinian elections that would surely have legitimized the late PLO Chairman Yasser Arafat's leadership against his weak rival, Hamas. After Arafat's death, Hamas won elections that were unquestionably free and fair, and this week, Gaza has descended into a fierce civil war. The U.S. applauded the Iraqi and Lebanese elections. Yet sectarian strife, malevolent neighbors and crippling historical legacies have conspired to nullify the resulting democratic gains.
It is often said that were free elections to be held tomorrow, Islamists would sweep into power across the Middle East. That's because Islamists are seen as an antidote to corruption and despotism, and they are organized. So governments such as Egypt's have virtually crushed secular democratic opposition, while the Islamists continue to spread their messages in mosques and underground. Cairo banned Muslim Brotherhood candidates from parliamentary elections last week, beating up poll watchers and turning away voters in heavily Islamist neighborhoods. Such repression is intolerable, of course. Still, the central challenge to the Bush administration's democracy promotion strategy is the inconvenient but pressing question: What does the U.S. do when elections produce leaders who despise the United States, or whom the United States despises?
First, we must practice patience, which has not been a traditional American virtue. It is worth remembering that in U.S. foreign policy, as in medicine, bad outcomes are sometimes inevitable. Elections should not have been expected to cure the poisoning of the Palestinian body politic after 40 years of war, occupation and strife. Elections could not prevent Syria from assassinating Lebanese politicians. And medievalist Al Qaeda has no respect for the ballot. That does not mean balloting should not take place.
Second, the U.S. should reiterate that merely getting elected does not make a government legitimate. Civilized nations also judge each other on the basis of their adherence to the rule of law, political pluralism, minority rights, an independent judiciary, freedom of speech and press and respect for international borders. U.S. support for democratic ideals does not obligate it to recognize a freely elected government of Nazis, genocidal thugs or terrorists.
The Bush administration would be wise to recalibrate its rhetoric and promote more realistic expectations. But it should not retreat from our democratic principles.
source
This reminds me of a joke.
A scientist was studying flies. One part of his experiments is trying to teach a fly to obey his orders. So he uses some lab flies and he noticed that every time he put one of them on a table and said “fly”, it flied :))). Then to make his point, he took one and cut its wings, put it on the table and said “fly”. Obviously it did not, so he went and wrote his conclusion “When you cut the wing of a fly, it becomes deaf” :)))
Wednesday, May 16, 2007
Palestine: Hidden agenda!!
What is going on in Palestine is another proof of the complex situation in the region and another eye opener that no peaceful solution can take place to relieve the 50 years of suffering of the people living there.
It is a real drama. People being manipulated like puppets by the existing political forces in the region. The Hamas government, elected by the people is not accepted by Israel or Fatah. The latter found itself in a weak position and is trying to get back to power, by force and is risking to be perceived as getting help from Israel.
Israel plays a dangerous game by helping or makes believe it is helping Fatah. Which will put both Palestinian factions in a hot spot in front of the world and who’s paying the price? As usual, the poor Palestinians are. It is a hopeless case, isn’t it?
GAZA (Reuters) - At least 25 Palestinians were killed on Wednesday as President Mahmoud Abbas's secular
Fatah faction and Hamas battled for control of Gaza and
Israel launched a deadly round of air strikes against the Islamists.
Palestinian officials said the widening hostilities could bring down a two-month-old unity government formed between Hamas and Fatah. Some Palestinians see this leading to all-out civil war and the end of the Palestinian Authority.
Terrified Gaza residents hid indoors as masked gunmen fought running battles street-to-street, killing 20 people -- five of them even after the two sides declared a ceasefire at dusk. In one panicked call to a radio station, a woman urged Palestinian leaders to act, pleading: "Do not leave us to die here."[...]
Israel faces a delicate balancing act. It is under domestic pressure to stop the rockets and also wants Fatah to deal a blow to Hamas, the party of Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh; it agreed to let 450 Fatah troops into Gaza from Egypt on Tuesday.
But overt Israeli assistance for Fatah could backfire if Hamas is able to paint Abbas as an ally of the Jewish state, which many Palestinians see as their real enemy. Pro-Hamas media have already begun accusing Abbas of lining up with Israel.
"We will not intervene in the war itself but if Mr. Abbas will request specific help, we will supply (it)," Israeli Vice Premier Shimon Peres told reporters during a visit to Estonia
source
It is a real drama. People being manipulated like puppets by the existing political forces in the region. The Hamas government, elected by the people is not accepted by Israel or Fatah. The latter found itself in a weak position and is trying to get back to power, by force and is risking to be perceived as getting help from Israel.
Israel plays a dangerous game by helping or makes believe it is helping Fatah. Which will put both Palestinian factions in a hot spot in front of the world and who’s paying the price? As usual, the poor Palestinians are. It is a hopeless case, isn’t it?
GAZA (Reuters) - At least 25 Palestinians were killed on Wednesday as President Mahmoud Abbas's secular
Fatah faction and Hamas battled for control of Gaza and
Israel launched a deadly round of air strikes against the Islamists.
Palestinian officials said the widening hostilities could bring down a two-month-old unity government formed between Hamas and Fatah. Some Palestinians see this leading to all-out civil war and the end of the Palestinian Authority.
Terrified Gaza residents hid indoors as masked gunmen fought running battles street-to-street, killing 20 people -- five of them even after the two sides declared a ceasefire at dusk. In one panicked call to a radio station, a woman urged Palestinian leaders to act, pleading: "Do not leave us to die here."[...]
Israel faces a delicate balancing act. It is under domestic pressure to stop the rockets and also wants Fatah to deal a blow to Hamas, the party of Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh; it agreed to let 450 Fatah troops into Gaza from Egypt on Tuesday.
But overt Israeli assistance for Fatah could backfire if Hamas is able to paint Abbas as an ally of the Jewish state, which many Palestinians see as their real enemy. Pro-Hamas media have already begun accusing Abbas of lining up with Israel.
"We will not intervene in the war itself but if Mr. Abbas will request specific help, we will supply (it)," Israeli Vice Premier Shimon Peres told reporters during a visit to Estonia
source
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
