News What do you do with a problem like Ahmadinejad?

[Bystander]

Got any numbers for total area purchased prior to 1948? Compared to area of Israel today?

Edit: Read first, then ask the questions. The article discusses the Ottoman registry post WW I; were the British maintaining the old Ottoman records and recording transactions? It ain't clear who owned what to sell to whom under which legal code --- can't be Ottoman post WW I, got to be LoN Mandate assuming the legal obligations of the Ottoman Empire, and administering registry, titles, and transactions under that, or a modification.

 

[kyleb]

TRANSFERRED? Do you know what that means?! Are you accusing the Zionist movement of planning a crime against humanity in 1920? Get your facts straight.

I've got nothing wrong with my facts here, 'expropriate gently' was means by which Theodor Herzl orignaly picture the transfer, and that evolved over time.

Avnery's a good man and I completely agree with what you quoted. Unfortunately this is not never-never-land and such a final solution can only be implemented when both sides trust each other. It is up to the negotiators to start contructing a progressive solution, and that requires that both sides actually meet to discuss it.

As Avery said, Israel in is the position of power here hence has the responsibility for leadership. Misleading the world int by trying to pass http://gush-shalom.org/media/barak_eng.swf a 'generous offer' or a 'progressive solution' is downright Fantasy Land, and that isn't any way to establish trust.

 

[Yonoz]

Read first, then ask the questions. The article discusses the Ottoman registry post WW I; were the British maintaining the old Ottoman records and recording transactions? It ain't clear who owned what to sell to whom under which legal code --- can't be Ottoman post WW I, got to be LoN Mandate assuming the legal obligations of the Ottoman Empire, and administering registry, titles, and transactions under that, or a modification.

I'm not so sure but I believe under the law the British imposed Ottoman documents were legal tenders, as would be expected. In fact, in its last days the Ottoman Empire was apparently plagued by bad bookkeeping.

 

[kyleb]

kyleb, thanks for that link. Interesting interview!

Yeah, Uri Avnery has a wealth of experience in this conflict and isn't afraid to speak his mind about his opinions on it, http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?ItemID=8712" as well.

Certainly, the militant rhetoric from Ahmadinejad does not ease the concerns of Israel or the US.

Could you please cite a specific example of what you are referring to here? When such comments raise concern I think it is best we understand their context and insure the accuracy of the translations.

 

[Yonoz]

I've got nothing wrong with my facts here, 'expropriate gently' was means by which Theodor Herzl orignaly picture the transfer, and that evolved over time.

Herzl also wanted Israel to be founded in Uganda. I have read Altneuland - it is a fictional story of a Jewish utopia. Herzl was a pioneer, and as he was dealing with uncharted waters he sometimes thought up some really weird stuff. There has never been an official Arab transfer. Only a Jewish one.

As Avery said, Israel in is the position of power here hence has the responsibility for leadership. Misleading the world int by trying to pass http://gush-shalom.org/media/barak_eng.swf a 'generous offer' or a 'progressive solution' is downright Fantasy Land, and that isn't any way to establish trust.

How can a negotiation proposal be a disregard for Palestinian sovereignty?

 

[Bystander]

I'm not so sure but I believe under the law the British imposed Ottoman documents were legal tenders, as would be expected. In fact, in its last days the Ottoman Empire was apparently plagued by bad bookkeeping.

"Dunam, 0.1 hectare, 1000 m², used as a measurement since British mandate." So, 2 million dunams, 2000 km² purchased outright from 19th century, up to partition, some fraction of remaining area (probably large) held outright by Ottoman Empire (then unknown ownership under LoN Mandate to British --- reparations?), and what was the status and disposition of that --- under Ottomans, LoN, and post-partition (had it worked)?

 

[Yonoz]

"Dunam, 0.1 hectare, 1000 m², used as a measurement since British mandate." So, 2 million dunams, 2000 km² purchased outright from 19th century, up to partition, some fraction of remaining area (probably large) held outright by Ottoman Empire (then unknown ownership under LoN Mandate to British --- reparations?), and what was the status and disposition of that --- under Ottomans, LoN, and post-partition (had it worked)?

There was a census in the 50's in which government survey takers passed across Israel, mapping abandoned property, as part of a legislative effort to consolidate unclaimed land under the national territorial administration. Such lands remain state property today, however they are leased to various bodies or serve as nature reserves. There is a process by which these lands are sold to communities who have lived and cultivated the land for exceptional periods of time, and, pending regulation, they may be sold or developed by the state for specific purposes, eg given to universities, national infrastructure facilities, powerlines, roads etc.

 

[Bystander]

Okay, that's post-partition --- I was more curious whether the Ottoman records were in decent enough shape to establish what fraction of the current area, 20,000 km², was Ottoman, rather than private, property.

 

[Astronuc]

Could you please cite a specific example of what you are referring to here? When such comments raise concern I think it is best we understand their context and insure the accuracy of the translations.

Perhaps I should have indicated "comments attributed to Ahmadinejad." For example -

"Israel must be wiped off the map ... The Islamic world will not let its historic enemy live in its heartland."

Ahmadinejad - Addressing a conference on The World without Zionism, in Tehran on 26 October.

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/39AF3EA0-C8E9-456A-99D3-438045D4431F.htm

Tehran, Iran, Apr. 14 – Radical Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad described on Friday Israel as a “rotten tree” that would be “annihilated with one storm”.

“The Zionist regime is a dried up and rotten tree which will be annihilated with one storm”, Ahmadinejad said at a conference in Tehran dubbed “International Conference of Holy Qods and Support for the Rights of the Palestinian Nation”.

http://www.iranfocus.com/modules/news/article.php?storyid=6774

"Anybody who recognizes Israel will burn in the fire of the Islamic nation's fury,”

http://en.thinkexist.com/quotes/mahmoud_ahmadinejad/

These quote seem pretty militant to me.

Now it could be that Ahmadinejad is just misunderstood, or is there a deliberate attempt by the media distort or misrepresent him?

 

[Yonoz]

Okay, that's post-partition --- I was more curious whether the Ottoman records were in decent enough shape to establish what fraction of the current area, 20,000 km², was Ottoman, rather than private, property.

That's the main problem. It was a desolate land the was divided between several families. The Ottomans, constructing and operating their famous railroads, cut down much of Israel's and Lebanon's native forests. This is one of the reasons for the abundance of swampland in Palestine. Entire regions were unpopulated, some only seasonaly. But even those were not the property of the many Falaheen inhabitants. Falaheen were Arab peasants that owned no land, but cultivated or simply lived off it.

 

[kyleb]

Herzl also wanted Israel to be founded in Uganda. I have read Altneuland - it is a fictional story of a Jewish utopia. Herzl was a pioneer, and as he was dealing with uncharted waters he sometimes thought up some really weird stuff. There has never been an official Arab transfer. Only a Jewish one.

I recommend taking good look though Rabbi Dr. Chaim Simons's 'A Historical Survey of Proposals to Transfer Arabs from Palestine'.

How can a negotiation proposal be a disregard for Palestinian sovereignty?

Because sovereignty requires more than a collection of alcoves connected by checkpoints and crisscrossed with bypass roads under foreign control.

Okay, that's post-partition --- I was more curious whether the Ottoman records were in decent enough shape to establish what fraction of the current area, 20,000 km², was Ottoman, rather than private, property.

I don't know where to find the number you are asking for, but precentage of public land for each sub-district as of 1945 can be seen on http://domino.un.org/maps/m0094.jpg" .

 

[Bystander]

(snip)I don't know where to find the number you are asking for, but precentage of public land for each sub-district as of 1945 can be seen on http://domino.un.org/maps/m0094.jpg" .

What just happened to the screen?

Excluding the Negev, public land is around 10-15%, smaller fraction than I woulda thought, 1000 to 1500 km². Then 10,000 in the Negev (10-15 depending on dictionary or atlas).

 

[Yonoz]

I recommend taking good look though Rabbi Dr. Chaim Simons's 'A Historical Survey of Proposals to Transfer Arabs from Palestine'.

That's what they are. Proposals. There were also proposals to establish a Jewish home in Uganda or South America. They all remained just that - proposals.

Because sovereignty requires more than a collection of alcoves connected by checkpoints and crisscrossed with bypass roads under foreign control.

Maybe, but it is an offer, the value of which is subject to several views which we will not uncover here - not a "flagrant disregard for Palestinian sovereignty" as you labelled it.

 

[kyleb]

Perhaps I should have indicated "comments attributed to Ahmadinejad." For example -
http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/39AF3EA0-C8E9-456A-99D3-438045D4431F.htm

http://www.iranfocus.com/modules/news/article.php?storyid=6774

http://en.thinkexist.com/quotes/mahmoud_ahmadinejad/

These quote seem pretty militant to me.

Now it could be that Ahmadinejad is just misunderstood, or is there a deliberate attempt by the media distort or misrepresent him?

You can find a full translation of the speech to which your first and third example came from http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/30/w...ml?ex=1157083200&en=241f323284dee73c&ei=5070" which I linked earlier. I don't speak Farsi so of course I have to go off such translations as well; but conidering the context and variations in translation it looks like mostly misunderstanding to me in the media included, with a little misrepresentation going long in perpetuating that misunderstanding. Do you see anything more than that?

 

[Yonoz]

Even if the man is misunderstood, why does he keep making threat-noises? I mean seriously, if you wanted to pursue a peaceful nuclear program, would you be making comments anything like the least grim translations?

 

[Bystander]

Virginia Tiley, " The preceding sentence had made clear that the "stain of disgrace" was the Muslim world's failure to eliminate the "occupying regime".

"Eliminate?"

 

[kyleb]

That's what they are. Proposals. There were also proposals to establish a Jewish home in Uganda or South America. They all remained just that - proposals.

Yes, those are the proposals I was talking about when I mentioned that the Palestinian people chose not to agree to be transferred out of what was to become Israel and he strong Jewish majority in Israel is the majority of those Palestinians having been driven out.

Maybe, but it is an offer, the value of which is subject to several views which we will not uncover here - not a "flagrant disregard for Palestinian sovereignty" as you labelled it.

Are you not acutally http://gush-shalom.org/media/barak_eng.swf when you say that?

 

[Yonoz]

Yes, those are the proposals I was talking about when I mentioned that the Palestinian people chose not to agree to be transferred out of what was to become Israel and he strong Jewish majority in Israel is the majority of those Palestinians having been driven out.

No they were never proposed to the Palestinians. These are just Zionists conducting an internal discussion. There was overwhelming objection and it was never a matter of policy.

Are you not acutally http://gush-shalom.org/media/barak_eng.swf when you say that?

I have looked at the presentation, it's one analysis of the plan, there are many others like it. It doesn't matter since they'll get much of that free-of-charge when the West Bank unilateral pullout will be implemented.

 

[kyleb]

Virginia Tiley, " The preceding sentence had made clear that the "stain of disgrace" was the Muslim world's failure to eliminate the "occupying regime".

"Eliminate?"

Yep, kinda like the Soviet regime has been eliminated.

 

[Bystander]

Yep, kinda like the Soviet regime has been eliminated.

By the people it governed, not by an outside agency.

 

[Astronuc]

You can find a full translation of the speech to which your first and third example came from [NYTimes] and the context of that speech is relevant to the context of your second example too, and so [counterpunch link] which I linked earlier. I don't speak Farsi so of course I have to go off such translations as well; but conidering the context and variations in translation it looks like mostly misunderstanding to me in the media included, with a little misrepresentation going long in perpetuating that misunderstanding. Do you see anything more than that?

Well, the NYTimes text did not help a case for Ahmadinejad. The speech seems to be a rant against the US and Israel. Certainly the US and others supported the Shah's regime, and that is unfortunate. But then the current regime of the clerics has simply replaced the Shah's regime. The clerics and supporters of Ahmadinejad attacked opposition politicians and supporters.

Israel withdraw from Gaza as planned, not because the Palestinians forced them to. The internal conflict in Palestine, among Fatah, Hamas and other factions is purely internal and has nothing to do with 'tricks' on the part of Israel.

I still have to work through Tilley's article, but I will exercise caution with respect to Tilley's claims regarding the interpretation of what Ahmadinejad actually said. Tilley does seem to have a 'left-wing' perspective.

I would prefer a neutral and impartial source.

 

[BobG]

Ahmadinejad is a moot point. He'll be out of office before Bush leaves office.

John Bolton is already hyping evidence that Iran is engaged in developing nuclear weapons instead of nuclear power to the UN. He's also hoping Russia and China will abstain instead of veto UN sanctions.

This time around, the US won't botch things up in the UN. If the US doesn't get assurances ahead of time that Russia and China will abstain, then the US won't even take their case to the UN. We'll bypass the UN and impose sanctions on our own, along with whatever countries agree to join in. The justification will be the authorization Congress gave to take whatever actions are necessary to combat anyone who has anything to do sponsoring terrorism or protecting terrorists.

Iran won't back down in any event. They probably think US military action will confined to a few bombing strikes. That won't be good, but not backing down will make them seem even more influential in the Middle East.

Bush will keep repeating that Iran has to be held accountable for it's actions. Sometime after the fall elections, we'll start the ball rolling towards regime change. Some Democrats are already worried about Bush using the post 9/11 authorization as justification for military action against Iran without going through Congress first (notably, DeFazio who attempted to add an amendment to the Defense Authorization Bill specifically requiring Bush to get Congressional approval before acting against Iran). If the elections go badly, their fears will be realized. Bush can't risk going to Congress and having them say no. I don't see the elections going well enough to ensure a Republican Congress will endorse an invasion, but Bush would go through Congress if he were guaranteed success.

Regime change might go better in Iran than it did in Iraq. The population is 89% Shi'a Muslim and 51% of the population is Persian. The 49% non-Persians are split among a lot of different ethnic groups with the largest being the Azeri at 24%. The Kurds in Northern Iran will be a problem since they would probably prefer to join with the Iraqi Kurds, but I don't think there will be the same violence between major Iranian groups that you have in Iraq.

Iran would be a chance to show the overall Bush policy's right, even if Iraq didn't go as planned. More importantly, the war doesn't have to be won by time Bush leaves office. Getting it started is more important from his group's point of view than being there when its finished. If Bush doesn't get rid of the current Iranian regime before he leaves office, it will be at least a decade or two before any subsequent Presidents get up the nerve for anything like Bush's aggressive policies. If Bush gets the war against Islamic facism started, Bush has to be thinking the US will be left with almost no choice but to hang in there until it wins.

I don't think the military can bear the extra load for any length of time, so I wouldn't be shocked to see an active duty general resign or retire from the Joint Chiefs prematurely. The message sent by the retired generals' club on Iraq is a little too close to be ignored next go around. From the military's point of view, anything we did in Iran really would have to be win fast or lose fast, just do it fast - something that directly contradicts the idea that we'd have to hang in there no matter what once the war begins.

http://www.boston.com/news/world/middleeast/articles/2006/05/22/bolton_iran_regime_can_stay_if_ends_arms_pursuit/?rss_id=Boston.com+%2F+News
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060826/ts_nm/nuclear_iran_usa_dc
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060901/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iran_nuclear_57

I think it was only a few months ago that I wouldn't have thought even Bush could consider taking on Iran before we're done in Afghanistan and Iraq, but now I think I might have 'misunderestimated' him, or under underestimated him, or something like that.

 

[edward]

We will have to invade Iran with the army we have, not the army we wish we had.

 

[Yonoz]

We will have to invade Iran with the army we have, not the army we wish we had.

Why do you have to invade Iran?

 

[kyleb]

No they were never proposed to the Palestinians. These are just Zionists conducting an internal discussion. There was overwhelming objection and it was never a matter of policy.

not just Zionists and not just internal discussion, for examples see all of "SECTION 2. PROPOSALS BY INDIVIDUAL NON-JEWS" and "Zangwill's Article of May 1917" in Rabbi Dr. Chaim Simons's 'A Historical Survey of Proposals to Transfer Arabs from Palestine'.

I have looked at the presentation, it's one analysis of the plan, there are many others like it. It doesn't matter since they'll get much of that free-of-charge when the West Bank unilateral pullout will be implemented.

They'll get much of the collection of alcoves connected by checkpoints and crisscrossed with bypass roads under foreign control Barak offered, and you speak of it as some sort of gift? Is there even a detailed 'unilateral pullout plan' in the public record, or are you simply open to whatever your government chooses to draw for boarders?

Well, the NYTimes text did not help a case for Ahmadinejad. The speech seems to be a rant against the US and Israel. Certainly the US and others supported the Shah's regime, and that is unfortunate. But then the current regime of the clerics has simply replaced the Shah's regime. The clerics and supporters of Ahmadinejad attacked opposition politicians and supporters.

Surely you aren't suggesting his case was better off when you were quoting the blatantly contrived "Anybody who recognizes Israel will burn in the fire of the Islamic nation's fury” that was supposedly in the speech the NYT translated? And accepting that a translator who puts his name on his work does not claim Ahmadinejad said anything of the sort, who are the ones actually spreading that militant rhetoric here?

Israel withdraw from Gaza as planned, not because the Palestinians forced them to. The internal conflict in Palestine, among Fatah, Hamas and other factions is purely internal and has nothing to do with 'tricks' on the part of Israel.

While Israel withdrew from Gaza and Palestinian factions are left to fill that void, land in what little is left of the rest of Palestine continues to be expropriated for Israeli settlements; and public attention is focused on the former while the latter goes largely overlooked. That is a trick, classic slight of hand in modren dress.

I still have to work through Tilley's article, but I will exercise caution with respect to Tilley's claims regarding the interpretation of what Ahmadinejad actually said. Tilley does seem to have a 'left-wing' perspective.
I would prefer a neutral and impartial source.

Understood, I did quite a bit of digging to find other comments and further context on the quotes she mentions and I highly recommend that anyone concerned about Iran do the same. Such important issues shouldn't be left to 30 second soundbites and un-investigative journalists which are open to manipulation by those who stand much to gain from a war with Iran.

 

[Yonoz]

They'll get much of the collection of alcoves connected by checkpoints and crisscrossed with bypass roads under foreign control Barak offered, and you speak of it as some sort of gift? Is there even a detailed 'unilateral pullout plan' in the public record, or are you simply open to whatever your government chooses to draw for boarders?

Since it's unilateral, it's actually worse for Israel - when the Palestinians choose to return to the negotiations table, Israel will have one less card to draw. They're not expected to give anything in return. Are you simply open for whatever criticism is made against the Israeli government?

While Israel withdrew from Gaza and Palestinian factions are left to fill that void, land in what little is left of the rest of Palestine continues to be expropriated for Israeli settlements; and public attention is focused on the former while the latter goes largely overlooked. That is a trick, classic slight of hand in modren dress.

"Palestinian factions are left to fill that void"? What do you expect when you allow political movements to have their own private armies? Does the land relinquished by Israel in Gaza not count? BTW on that land, instead of the planned greenhouses and schools there are now training camps for the aforementioned factions, and nothing more.

 

[Astronuc]

BTW on that land, instead of the planned greenhouses and schools there are now training camps for the aforementioned factions, and nothing more.

When the Israelis pulled out of Gaza, they apparently left intact some agricultural infrastructure. The Palestinians then apparently trashed it.

Even with the occupation, the Palestinians have had ample opportunity to show that they could be good neighbors. The Palestinians have had ample opportunity to establish a functional government and economy. But what happened?

 

[Yonoz]

Even with the occupation, the Palestinians have had ample opportunity to show that they could be good neighbors. The Palestinians have had ample opportunity to establish a functional government and economy. But what happened?

Here's an interesting article by the Hamas government spokesman: http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1154525954624&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull"

Dismissing Israel's responsibility for the growing state of anarchy and lawlessness in the Gaza Strip, Hamad said it was time for the Palestinians to embark on a soul-searching process to see where they erred.

"We're always afraid to talk about our mistakes," he added. "We're used to blaming our mistakes on others. What is the relationship between the chaos, anarchy, lawlessness, indiscriminate murders, theft of land, family rivalries, transgression on public lands and unorganized traffic and the occupation? We are still trapped by the mentality of conspiracy theories - one that has limited our capability to think."

 

[kyleb]

When the Israelis pulled out of Gaza, they apparently left intact some agricultural infrastructure. The Palestinians then apparently trashed it.

Even with the occupation, the Palestinians have had ample opportunity to show that they could be good neighbors. The Palestinians have had ample opportunity to establish a functional government and economy. But what happened?

In Gaza, how do you expect those greenhouses could have been protected from the few who looted them as the IDF pulled out from the areas unannounced? Also, could you please clarify when last and what exactly where these 'ample opportunities' you speak of? I'm at a loss to understand your position here so I think it would be enlightening for me to hear exactly what you think happened.

 

[Anttech]

Even with the occupation, the Palestinians have had ample opportunity to show that they could be good neighbors. The Palestinians have had ample opportunity to establish a functional government and economy. But what happened?

How exactly do you quantify "ample" opportunity?
Also are you saying the palestinians are not capable of governing themselfs?