He's a nice guy, honest!
Champagne anyone...?
Live, from London, it's..................
Ladies and Gentlemen, good morning and welcome to the 437th bi-weekly Jacko/Civvy/Orac Middle East Politics fest.
Bought to you once again from the sumptuous and charmingly inappropriate surroundings of the Pprune Military Aircrew Forum courtesy of those nice people at Pprune Ltd.
For those of you that have only just joined us you be delighted to hear that things are going as expected and developing well into thread truly worth locking. As is traditional now, an idle innocent foolishly posted something with the word “Iraq” in it. True to form, it was Jacko (lead writer for “The People’s Friend”) that first swept in and started the action. A swift rebuttal by the ever-hovering ORAC (known locally as “Mr Search Engine”) saw things get under way properly.
As is often the case, a few, unsuspecting types tried to air their views but these were swiftly lost under the blunted crayon of our old friend, A Civilian (known variously as “Mr Spelling”, “Mr Grammar” and, strangely, “Mr GoAway”).
Surprisingly, it was also A Civilian that managed to get the subject of Israel into the thread, and in his first post too. Fans of Jacko were disappointed by this action as this is usually his piece de resistance when he goes for his classic, pincer strategy, known as “Getting the thread locked”.
The same old arguments were trotted out for the rest of page one until A Civilian countered again, breaking the mould and going for the previously unseen, “We’re still at war with Germany” strategy. This initially threw all the other competitors off balance, leading to a response by Orac and withering counter by A Civilian. Fans of the show were now treated to one of the greatest deviations ever witnessed – from an innocent opening post about an Iraqi Mig jet, Orac managed to get the 1885 Reform Act and Berwick-upon-Tweed into his reply – an absolute master stroke!
And that’s where we stand at the moment. Orac is reclining, confident that his, what has now become known as “The Berwick Attack”, has A Civilian reeling. A Civilian is selecting his thickest and bluntest crayon and we can shortly expect yet another swathing assault from him. Fans of Jacko, possibly somewhat concerned by his recent silence, are no doubt hoping that he can play his master stroke and bring up Israel again leading to an early thread closure.
A special mention must go to newswatcher (“Mr Impartiality”) for his valiant attempts at steering the thread back to the original topic. Sadly he is the company of hardened “thread-deviators” and “same-old-argumenters” and as such stands little or no hope of getting anywhere.
So as the tension mounts you could cut the atmosphere here with a spoon.
We now return you to your usual programming. For subjects of a Military and Aircrew nature please try another channel.
Goodbye!
Bought to you once again from the sumptuous and charmingly inappropriate surroundings of the Pprune Military Aircrew Forum courtesy of those nice people at Pprune Ltd.
For those of you that have only just joined us you be delighted to hear that things are going as expected and developing well into thread truly worth locking. As is traditional now, an idle innocent foolishly posted something with the word “Iraq” in it. True to form, it was Jacko (lead writer for “The People’s Friend”) that first swept in and started the action. A swift rebuttal by the ever-hovering ORAC (known locally as “Mr Search Engine”) saw things get under way properly.
As is often the case, a few, unsuspecting types tried to air their views but these were swiftly lost under the blunted crayon of our old friend, A Civilian (known variously as “Mr Spelling”, “Mr Grammar” and, strangely, “Mr GoAway”).
Surprisingly, it was also A Civilian that managed to get the subject of Israel into the thread, and in his first post too. Fans of Jacko were disappointed by this action as this is usually his piece de resistance when he goes for his classic, pincer strategy, known as “Getting the thread locked”.
The same old arguments were trotted out for the rest of page one until A Civilian countered again, breaking the mould and going for the previously unseen, “We’re still at war with Germany” strategy. This initially threw all the other competitors off balance, leading to a response by Orac and withering counter by A Civilian. Fans of the show were now treated to one of the greatest deviations ever witnessed – from an innocent opening post about an Iraqi Mig jet, Orac managed to get the 1885 Reform Act and Berwick-upon-Tweed into his reply – an absolute master stroke!
And that’s where we stand at the moment. Orac is reclining, confident that his, what has now become known as “The Berwick Attack”, has A Civilian reeling. A Civilian is selecting his thickest and bluntest crayon and we can shortly expect yet another swathing assault from him. Fans of Jacko, possibly somewhat concerned by his recent silence, are no doubt hoping that he can play his master stroke and bring up Israel again leading to an early thread closure.
A special mention must go to newswatcher (“Mr Impartiality”) for his valiant attempts at steering the thread back to the original topic. Sadly he is the company of hardened “thread-deviators” and “same-old-argumenters” and as such stands little or no hope of getting anywhere.
So as the tension mounts you could cut the atmosphere here with a spoon.
We now return you to your usual programming. For subjects of a Military and Aircrew nature please try another channel.
Goodbye!
Last edited by StopStart; 14th Feb 2003 at 10:24.
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: the Big Smoke
Posts: 46
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A wee bit hesitant here (I wouldn't want to be accused of trying to get this thread back on topic!) - I would have thought that the Mig pilot would have had a fair idea of what awaited him after banging out - and it wouldn't be hugs and cuddles from Uncle Saddam. I think that I may have been tempted to ride it all the way in and save myself a chat with the moustachioed one, and an invitation to my own personal BBQ!
P.S. StopStart - fabulous that really cheered me up!
P.S. StopStart - fabulous that really cheered me up!
Concerning Germany, the first war ended with an armistice followed by a peace treaty in 1919. The Berwick upon Tweed bit is rubbish. BTW, the final peace treaty with respect to Germany from the second war was not signed until 1991 - the "2+4 Accord" (West and East Germans+UK-US-France-USSR)which ended Allied rights to intervene in "Germany as a whole" and four-power control of Berlin, the so-called external aspects of reunification.
Sorry Stoppers,
Top Banter, as usual, but.......
It's a very serious subject, and one which arouses manic and insane levels of energy in normally sensible folk (I am normally sensible, honest).
In the context of this thread (or at least in the context of where it went) pointing out the legality or otherwise of military action under 1441 is surely relevant. The thread began with a criticism of anyone opposed to the war, after all. ("foolish enough to believe that after Tony Benn's incredibly tough televised grilling, Saddam Hussein was actually a genuine nice guy, loved by his people and with nothing to hide whilst the big bad Americans are having a go at him for no reason.") The thread, therefore, was never simply about this brave but foolhardy MiG jock.
Banging on about Israel (my usual hobby horse) didn't seem to be relevant. But if discussing the war more widely, or if discussing what measures are appropriate against a nation which ignores UN resolutions, or if discussing the nature of the threat against the West, or the reasons for Arab/Islamic hostility towards us, it can't be ignored, however ostrich like one wants to get. Many would agree that the Israel Palestine problem is perhaps the most dangerous and destabilising long-term issue facing us, regardless of which side of the argument they may be on. Oh *****itt! I mentioned it, but without really 'taking sides' so perhaps I'll get away with it.
Getting back on thread....
Is anyone else slightly surprised that this chap had escaped the succession of purges which have swept through the Iraqi air force? Another report suggested that this practise bombing mission involved only this one jet. If so is anyone else surprised that any of them are able to go off and fly solo missions (a wingman will always encourage 'reliability')?
How many fast jets do they still have, after all the HAS-plinking in Desert Storm and in the light of the massive losses in the air and fleeing to Iran?
Wonder what happened to his mates, and his family?
Top Banter, as usual, but.......
It's a very serious subject, and one which arouses manic and insane levels of energy in normally sensible folk (I am normally sensible, honest).
In the context of this thread (or at least in the context of where it went) pointing out the legality or otherwise of military action under 1441 is surely relevant. The thread began with a criticism of anyone opposed to the war, after all. ("foolish enough to believe that after Tony Benn's incredibly tough televised grilling, Saddam Hussein was actually a genuine nice guy, loved by his people and with nothing to hide whilst the big bad Americans are having a go at him for no reason.") The thread, therefore, was never simply about this brave but foolhardy MiG jock.
Banging on about Israel (my usual hobby horse) didn't seem to be relevant. But if discussing the war more widely, or if discussing what measures are appropriate against a nation which ignores UN resolutions, or if discussing the nature of the threat against the West, or the reasons for Arab/Islamic hostility towards us, it can't be ignored, however ostrich like one wants to get. Many would agree that the Israel Palestine problem is perhaps the most dangerous and destabilising long-term issue facing us, regardless of which side of the argument they may be on. Oh *****itt! I mentioned it, but without really 'taking sides' so perhaps I'll get away with it.
Getting back on thread....
Is anyone else slightly surprised that this chap had escaped the succession of purges which have swept through the Iraqi air force? Another report suggested that this practise bombing mission involved only this one jet. If so is anyone else surprised that any of them are able to go off and fly solo missions (a wingman will always encourage 'reliability')?
How many fast jets do they still have, after all the HAS-plinking in Desert Storm and in the light of the massive losses in the air and fleeing to Iran?
Wonder what happened to his mates, and his family?
Champagne anyone...?
Welcome back!
The action continues but with one of the contestants trying to draw yours truly, the commentator into the action! Well, as we all know this is a big no-no in the rules of this game so it looks like an adjudication will be required here.
Over to the referee in the arena……
************************************************************ *
Yes, thank you. An interesting point of order bought up by our chum from the People’s Friend. Apparently the thread was never about some dude in a Mig. Well, we on the panel have reviewed the initial post and can confirm that yes it was, in fact, just a post about some dude in a Mig. We would agree however that Saddam is indeed a nice guy, is loved by all his people and that Tony Benn gave him blimmin good thrashing in his interview. Now back to the studio
************************************************************ **
Well there you have it – and the referee’s decision is final. So let’s get back to the action!
Jacko’s late return to the fray sees him playing an old favourite angle, that of trying to win back popular support by trying to steer the thread back to the original topic. Keen-eyed observers will have spotted his basic error – surely leaving a soft spot for his competitors to scythe in on?! Having claimed that the thread was never about some Mig pilot he then tries to “get back to the original thread” by talking about….the Mig pilot! This is pressure internet chat board action at it’s best, and there can be no doubt about that!
But wait! What’s this? Ladies and Gentlemen! A moderator, yes a moderator, has stepped in, key in hand, and at the same moment stepped back from the brink!!! This is absolutely unprecedented in the history of Military Forum Middle East Bitch Fest Threads!! It appears that the mod has fallen for Jacko’s double double counter bluff of “getting back on thread”. Surely this can’t be the case? Veterans of this series will have seen this manoeuvre many times before – keeping the thread alive whilst secretly preparing a killer blow that will be dealt in the quiet hours when the mods aren’t looking. Moderators have lost their jobs for less!! I for one can’t wait……..
I’m sure you’ll all agree this nail biting stuff! The pressure’s on and some of the players are starting to make mistakes – who’ll be the next to crack? I know you’re all on the edge of your seats, so lets get back to the mass debating………………..!
Contenders…………….ready?!
The action continues but with one of the contestants trying to draw yours truly, the commentator into the action! Well, as we all know this is a big no-no in the rules of this game so it looks like an adjudication will be required here.
Over to the referee in the arena……
************************************************************ *
Yes, thank you. An interesting point of order bought up by our chum from the People’s Friend. Apparently the thread was never about some dude in a Mig. Well, we on the panel have reviewed the initial post and can confirm that yes it was, in fact, just a post about some dude in a Mig. We would agree however that Saddam is indeed a nice guy, is loved by all his people and that Tony Benn gave him blimmin good thrashing in his interview. Now back to the studio
************************************************************ **
Well there you have it – and the referee’s decision is final. So let’s get back to the action!
Jacko’s late return to the fray sees him playing an old favourite angle, that of trying to win back popular support by trying to steer the thread back to the original topic. Keen-eyed observers will have spotted his basic error – surely leaving a soft spot for his competitors to scythe in on?! Having claimed that the thread was never about some Mig pilot he then tries to “get back to the original thread” by talking about….the Mig pilot! This is pressure internet chat board action at it’s best, and there can be no doubt about that!
But wait! What’s this? Ladies and Gentlemen! A moderator, yes a moderator, has stepped in, key in hand, and at the same moment stepped back from the brink!!! This is absolutely unprecedented in the history of Military Forum Middle East Bitch Fest Threads!! It appears that the mod has fallen for Jacko’s double double counter bluff of “getting back on thread”. Surely this can’t be the case? Veterans of this series will have seen this manoeuvre many times before – keeping the thread alive whilst secretly preparing a killer blow that will be dealt in the quiet hours when the mods aren’t looking. Moderators have lost their jobs for less!! I for one can’t wait……..
I’m sure you’ll all agree this nail biting stuff! The pressure’s on and some of the players are starting to make mistakes – who’ll be the next to crack? I know you’re all on the edge of your seats, so lets get back to the mass debating………………..!
Contenders…………….ready?!
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Good orning StopStart,
So, the thread was started to talk about a Mig pilot and not whether there should be a war against Iraq was it?
Strange, therefore, that the reason given by the person who opened it said:
"It's not often that I have seen this sort of report in open sources and so posted it here in case anyone was foolish enough to believe that after Tony Benn's incredibly tough televised grilling, Saddam Hussein was actually a genuine nice guy, loved by his people and with nothing to hide whilst the big bad Americans are having a go at him for no reason.
So, I'm afraid I'll have to beg to differ. Amusing though - even if a total deviation from the stated purpose of the thread.
So, the thread was started to talk about a Mig pilot and not whether there should be a war against Iraq was it?
Strange, therefore, that the reason given by the person who opened it said:
"It's not often that I have seen this sort of report in open sources and so posted it here in case anyone was foolish enough to believe that after Tony Benn's incredibly tough televised grilling, Saddam Hussein was actually a genuine nice guy, loved by his people and with nothing to hide whilst the big bad Americans are having a go at him for no reason.
So, I'm afraid I'll have to beg to differ. Amusing though - even if a total deviation from the stated purpose of the thread.
Last edited by ORAC; 14th Feb 2003 at 14:46.
Champagne anyone...?
Sorry, Orac, you know the rules - the commentator cannot be drawn into the game! I am merely here to help guide our viewers through what is fast becoming the most popular game show online -
MmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmiddleEastBitchFest !!!
So, Ladies and Gentlemen for the latest update.....
We're now seeing yet more of the arsenal dirty tricks and tough surprises being pulled out of the bag.... Jacko tried the "back-on-Topic" manoeuvre and now we see the sagely Mr Orac trying the "turn-it-all-back-on-the-commentator" strategy. Both of these, as we all know, are desperate plays and rarely work!
We can fully expect to see the "This-is-serious-stuff" gambit (already had whispers of this one), the "it's-all-about-oil" ploy, "Mornington Crescent" or perhaps the show-stopping "Zionist conspiracy" sledgehammer! We've seen these before but we're on the on tenterhooks to see how the game will play out.
Here's looking forward to another action packed evening's fun! Hope you can tune in!
MmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmiddleEastBitchFest !!!
So, Ladies and Gentlemen for the latest update.....
We're now seeing yet more of the arsenal dirty tricks and tough surprises being pulled out of the bag.... Jacko tried the "back-on-Topic" manoeuvre and now we see the sagely Mr Orac trying the "turn-it-all-back-on-the-commentator" strategy. Both of these, as we all know, are desperate plays and rarely work!
We can fully expect to see the "This-is-serious-stuff" gambit (already had whispers of this one), the "it's-all-about-oil" ploy, "Mornington Crescent" or perhaps the show-stopping "Zionist conspiracy" sledgehammer! We've seen these before but we're on the on tenterhooks to see how the game will play out.
Here's looking forward to another action packed evening's fun! Hope you can tune in!
Wonder if trouble in Berwick-on-Tweed will adjust Bliar's craving for all things 'Euro'?
Germany and France can decide upon some blunty-empowering regulation to free the stoats of Wexford but they can't decide upon what action to take against one of the 'greatest' killers of our time.............doesn't look good for a cosy European Union.
S
Good to see that you're not too busy
Germany and France can decide upon some blunty-empowering regulation to free the stoats of Wexford but they can't decide upon what action to take against one of the 'greatest' killers of our time.............doesn't look good for a cosy European Union.
S
Good to see that you're not too busy
Champagne anyone...?
Ah EESDL - we all thought you were dead! Never mind......
Not too busy today - victim of "thought-we'd-told-you-it-was-cancelled......" just as I was about to leave this a.m.
Nothing ever changes.....
Not too busy today - victim of "thought-we'd-told-you-it-was-cancelled......" just as I was about to leave this a.m.
Nothing ever changes.....
Lupus Domesticus
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: NZ
Posts: 520
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Brilliant SS! Glad I didn't put my two cents worth in when I first thought of it..
I salute our unfortunate recently deceased fellow aviator, and for many of you, fellow military officer.
I don't think anyone anywhere joins an Air Force (presuming that joining was optional) with the intention of becoming a Bad Guy. The poor sod must have been driven to absolute distraction to take such desperate suicidal action. Maybe he was Col. Klaus von Staufenberg (sp?) reincarnated?
I am given to idly ponder whether tis more humane to be immediately burnt to death, than to spend fifteen years on death row before being lethally injected, which would probably be the case had someone tried an equivalent stunt elsewhere....
I'm sitting back down in the cheap seats now...
I salute our unfortunate recently deceased fellow aviator, and for many of you, fellow military officer.
I don't think anyone anywhere joins an Air Force (presuming that joining was optional) with the intention of becoming a Bad Guy. The poor sod must have been driven to absolute distraction to take such desperate suicidal action. Maybe he was Col. Klaus von Staufenberg (sp?) reincarnated?
I am given to idly ponder whether tis more humane to be immediately burnt to death, than to spend fifteen years on death row before being lethally injected, which would probably be the case had someone tried an equivalent stunt elsewhere....
I'm sitting back down in the cheap seats now...
Champagne anyone...?
It would appear that my work here is done.
I can now leave you and return to my own people.
See you again next week for the next edition of......MmmmmmmmmiddleEastBitchFest!!!!!! (who knows where it will start?!?)
I can now leave you and return to my own people.
See you again next week for the next edition of......MmmmmmmmmiddleEastBitchFest!!!!!! (who knows where it will start?!?)
Yes, Journonicko and Oral - all very well this political stuff, but what we really want to know is, after all your in depth military research...............can you clarify whether Susannah York was wearing 1. French knickers or 2. full webbing in the BoB hotel scene???
Well - it's more interesting than Berwick on b£oody Tweed!
Well - it's more interesting than Berwick on b£oody Tweed!
aka Capt PPRuNe
Join Date: May 1995
Location: UK
Posts: 4,541
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just thought I'd put my twopenneth worth in here. Just imagine me as the goofy one jumping up and down behind the commentator (StopStart) trying to get on TV.
As usual we have the subtle but inescapable attempts by that Jackonicko to introduce a link to Israel in the problems we are facing with Sadaam Hussein as opposed to the crude and obviously ignorant spasms by A Civilian in that old chestnut, UN resolutions must all be the same.
So... my coup d'etat which I hope will get me a mention in one of StopStarts wonderful commentaries (ie. the goofy one behind the commentator is finally noticed and acknowledged
) is to re-print that concise Economist explanation on the differences to the UN resolutions which so many 'bleeding hearts' fail to grasp. In the hope that I can then go and retire to the sidelines and phone all my mates up and ask them if they saw me on the (telly) MmmmmmiddleEastBitchFest! I post the article which explains the differences in some UN resolutions.
http://economist.com/world/na/Printe...ory_ID=1378577
As usual we have the subtle but inescapable attempts by that Jackonicko to introduce a link to Israel in the problems we are facing with Sadaam Hussein as opposed to the crude and obviously ignorant spasms by A Civilian in that old chestnut, UN resolutions must all be the same.
So... my coup d'etat which I hope will get me a mention in one of StopStarts wonderful commentaries (ie. the goofy one behind the commentator is finally noticed and acknowledged
) is to re-print that concise Economist explanation on the differences to the UN resolutions which so many 'bleeding hearts' fail to grasp. In the hope that I can then go and retire to the sidelines and phone all my mates up and ask them if they saw me on the (telly) MmmmmmiddleEastBitchFest! I post the article which explains the differences in some UN resolutions.
Iraq, Israel and the United Nations
Double standards
Oct 10th 2002
From The Economist print edition
Reuters
Israel ignores the United Nations and has weapons of mass destruction. So why all the fuss about Iraq?
Get article background
SOON after invading Kuwait in 1990, Saddam Hussein realised that he had made a mistake. Contrary to his expectations, the world would not after all allow his land-grab to stand. The United States was girding for war. He therefore began to cast around for a face-saving exit. One of the first ideas he came up with was “linkage”. Why not trade a withdrawal from Kuwait for Israel's withdrawal from the territories it had occupied in 1967?
Linkage got nowhere. But as the world debates the merits of another American-led war against Mr Hussein, the idea has returned in a new form. Israel has violated countless UN resolutions and amassed weapons of mass destruction, say those who oppose this war. Why then is Iraq singled out for yet more punishment while the Israelis get off scot-free?
This question is no longer being asked by Arabs alone. “No war against Iraq, Free Palestine” has become the slogan of anti-war demonstrators in Europe and America. The two conflicts have become entwined in the public mind in a way that the West's politicians cannot ignore. When he sought last week to talk his sceptical Labour Party into supporting action against Iraq, Tony Blair, Britain's prime minister, got his biggest cheer for the bit of his speech that said UN resolutions should apply in Palestine as much as Iraq.
To many of those disturbed by the contrast between the world's treatment of Israel and its treatment of Iraq, it is rights and wrongs, not details of law, that matter here. Israel's occupation of the West Bank and Gaza has endured for 35 years, against the will of the Palestinian inhabitants, who dearly want, and in the eyes of the world have long deserved, a state of their own. But whereas Israel is supported economically and diplomatically by America, America is the prime mover against Iraq. Simple justice, or so the argument goes, requires even-handed behaviour by the superpower in the two conflicts.
That may be so. But a quite distinct sort of claim is also made in the “double standards” debate. This holds that Israel stands in breach of Security Council resolutions in just the way Iraq does, and therefore deserves to be treated by the UN with equal severity. Not so.
What the law says
The UN distinguishes between two sorts of Security Council resolution. Those passed under Chapter Six deal with the peaceful resolution of disputes and entitle the council to make non-binding recommendations. Those under Chapter Seven give the council broad powers to take action, including warlike action, to deal with “threats to the peace, breaches of the peace, or acts of aggression”. Such resolutions, binding on all UN members, were rare during the cold war. But they were used against Iraq after its invasion of Kuwait. None of the resolutions relating to the Israeli-Arab conflict comes under Chapter Seven. By imposing sanctions—including military ones—against Iraq but not against Israel, the UN is merely acting in accordance with its own rules.
The distinctiveness of Chapter Seven resolutions, and the fact that none has been passed in relation to Israel, is acknowledged by Palestinian diplomats. It is, indeed, one of their main complaints. A Palestine Liberation Organisation report, entitled “Double Standards” and published at the end of September, pointed out that, over the years, the UN has upheld the Palestinians' right to statehood, condemned Israel's settlements and called for Israel to withdraw. But “no enforcement action or any other action to implement UN resolutions and international law has been ordered by the Security Council.”
But what if, for the sake of argument, the main Security Council resolutions on the Arab-Israeli conflict had been Chapter Seven resolutions? The problem would then arise that Resolution 242 of 1967, passed after the six-day war and frequently cited in the double-standards argument, does not say what a lot of the people who quote it think it says (see article). It does not instruct Israel to withdraw unilaterally from the territories occupied in 1967. It does not condemn Israel's conquest, for the good reason that most western powers at that time thought it the result of a justifiable pre-emptive war. It calls for a negotiated settlement, based on the principle of exchanging land for peace. This is a very different matter.
In the case of Iraq, the Security Council has instructed Mr Hussein to take various unilateral actions that he is perfectly capable of taking. Resolution 242 cannot be implemented unilaterally, even if Israel wanted to do so.
Why? First is the question of borders. Some of the diplomats who drafted Resolution 242 said afterwards that they intended to allow for some changes in the armistice lines that separated Israel and its Arab neighbours before the war of 1967. There has been a dreary argument for three decades over the meaning of the absence of a definite article (in the English text) before the phrase “territories occupied in the recent conflict”. The Arabs maintain that the resolution requires a complete withdrawal from every inch. But even if this were so, the resolution cannot be implemented without arriving at a negotiated agreement.
For example, the resolution calls for a “just” settlement of the Palestinian refugee issue. Meaning what? The Palestinians say that a UN General Assembly resolution, 194 of 1948, gives all the Palestinian refugees of 1948 the right to return, or to get compensation. Israel, denying responsibility for their flight, says that the same resolution stipulates that these refugees had to be willing to “live at peace with their neighbours” and that the Palestinians, having rejected the UN-sanctioned partition of Palestine, were not prepared to live in peace with the new Jewish state. More than half a century later, the refugee population has grown from about 700,000 to at least 3.8m, making the return of all of them an impossibility, says Israel. It may be possible to negotiate a compromise on this issue, as Yasser Arafat and Ehud Barak attempted without success at Camp David in 2000. But there exists no Security Council blueprint to solve it.
Israel says that it has already implemented much of 242, and that it stands ready to implement the rest of it. It returned land to Egypt and Jordan in return for peace. Two years ago, when he was prime minister, Mr Barak offered the bulk of the Golan Heights in return for peace with Syria. All the agreements made between Israel and the Palestinians under the Oslo peace process were predicated on Resolution 242. Israel subsequently withdrew from the main Palestinian population centres (although it has returned to them since the intifada) pending negotiation of a final settlement. And though there are strong grounds to question his sincerity, Israel's new prime minister, Ariel Sharon, claims to accept George Bush's peace “vision”, set out in June, of an Israeli withdrawal and a free Palestine based on the borders of 1967.
It is commonly asserted that Israel's occupation is “illegal”. This is questionable. In March, for the first time ever, Kofi Annan, the UN's secretary-general, called Israel's occupation illegal, but it is no accident that he has not repeated this claim. In the view of Sir Adam Roberts, professor of international relations at the University of Oxford, it was a “serious mistake” to describe the occupation itself, as opposed to some of Israel's actions as an occupier, in this way. In a subsequent letter to the New York Times, Mr Annan's spokesman admitted as much. The secretary-general, he said, had not intended to refer to the legality of Israel's occupation of the territories during the war of 1967, only to breaches of its obligations as an occupying power.
This is where Israel has put itself squarely on the wrong side of the Security Council. Since 1967, the UN has rejected all Israel's attempts to change the legal and demographic status of the captured territories, by annexing Jerusalem, applying Israeli law to the Golan Heights and planting Jewish settlements in the West Bank and Gaza (see article). How can vigorous attempts to colonise the occupied territories be reconciled with Israel's claim to accept 242 and the principle of land for peace that underlies it?
They can't. The plain fact is that Israel, citing history ancient and modern (Jerusalem has had a Jewish majority since the 19th century), decided after conquering its Jordanian half in 1967 to make the city its eternal “unified” capital. The Labour governments of that period also began to dot the Jordan valley and Golan Heights with Jewish settlements, ostensibly in order to guard the new borders against a still hostile Arab world. After 1977, the Likud governments of Menahem Begin and Yitzhak Shamir set out frankly, for religious-ideological reasons, to make the occupied territories part of a Greater Israel, in defiance of the UN and of the logic of 242. Here Israel cannot plead innocence. All it can enter is a plea of mitigation.
Legal or not, the occupation has lasted a terribly long time. But this is not solely Israel's fault. In 1967, it was the Arabs who rejected Resolution 242. They certainly did not accept Israel's new post-war borders, but nor did they recognise its pre-war borders. They did not, in fact, acknowledge Israel's right to exist at all. This posture persisted for a dozen years after 1967, until Egypt alone made peace. The Palestinians, pledging still to “liberate” all Palestine and dissolve the Jewish state, waited longer. Not until the late 1980s, some 40 years after Israel's birth and 20 years after the 1967 war, did Mr Arafat's PLO indicate an interest in a two-state solution. Under the rules of “belligerent occupation”, Israel should not have mucked about during those 20 years with the status of the captured lands. But it is not wholly surprising, given the continuing rejection and siege, that it did.
When the Palestinians decided that they were no longer bent on its extirpation, Israel responded. In 1993 it signed an agreement with the PLO under which the two sides undertook to implement Resolution 242 by negotiation, thus putting all the contentious issues—Jerusalem, the settlements and the refugees—on the bargaining table. Two years ago the talks failed, to be followed by a new Palestinian intifada and the election of the unyielding Mr Sharon. The Israelis claim that their agreement to negotiate the thorny issues with the Palestinians supersedes the relevant UN resolutions on settlements and the rest, a view which the Security Council might accept if the negotiations got back on track. In the meantime, the council's rulings on Jerusalem and the settlements stand.
The nuclear shadow
Over the past two years, the intifada has given rise to a new batch of resolutions. Some rebuke the Israelis for using “excessive” force, others make specific demands. Resolution 1435, for example, calls on Israel to pull out of the Palestinian cities it has recently reoccupied and back to the positions it held before the violence started in September 2000. It has been ignored. But like most recent resolutions, this one cuts both ways. It makes demands of the Palestinians, too, which have also been ignored. In this case, the Palestinian Authority is instructed to cease all violence and incitement, and to bring “those responsible for terrorist acts” to justice.
In the long and intractable conflict over Palestine, both sides consider themselves victims. The Palestinians say that their national rights were usurped by an intruder; the Israelis that the Palestinians never accepted the Jewish right to self-determination. The UN's approach has been to recognise the complexity of these respective claims, lay down broad principles, and urge a negotiated peace. The case of Iraq could hardly be more different. That country is in conflict with the UN itself, having refused to comply with the clear instructions, under Chapter Seven, to give up its weapons of mass destruction.
What, though, about Israel's nukes? Does its status as an undeclared nuclear power put it on a par with Iraq, which has tried to become one? No. In 1981, Resolution 487 scolded Israel for sending its aircraft to destroy Iraq's Osiraq reactor, which Israel said was being used to manufacture a nuclear weapon, despite having been given a clean bill of health by inspectors from the International Atomic Energy Agency. Noting that Israel had not signed the nuclear non-proliferation treaty (NPT), as Iraq had, the UN called on Israel to put its own nuclear facilities under the IAEA safeguards, as the NPT requires.
Two decades on, Israel has still not signed the NPT. This infuriates the treaty's supporters, who have been striving to make it “universal”. But, as with any other treaty, governments are free not to sign. What they are not free to do is sign, receive the foreign (civilian) nuclear help to which signing entitles them, and then try to build a bomb secretly. This, it is now ruefully accepted, is what Iraq tried to do, and may still be trying to do. Israel is thought to possess a large nuclear arsenal, about which it is not being open and honest, and this is provoking to its neighbours. But it is not evidence of “double standards”. Being a nuclear-armed power is not, by itself, a breach of international law.
Copyright © 2003 The Economist Newspaper and The Economist Group. All rights reserved.
Double standards
Oct 10th 2002
From The Economist print edition
Reuters
Israel ignores the United Nations and has weapons of mass destruction. So why all the fuss about Iraq?
Get article background
SOON after invading Kuwait in 1990, Saddam Hussein realised that he had made a mistake. Contrary to his expectations, the world would not after all allow his land-grab to stand. The United States was girding for war. He therefore began to cast around for a face-saving exit. One of the first ideas he came up with was “linkage”. Why not trade a withdrawal from Kuwait for Israel's withdrawal from the territories it had occupied in 1967?
Linkage got nowhere. But as the world debates the merits of another American-led war against Mr Hussein, the idea has returned in a new form. Israel has violated countless UN resolutions and amassed weapons of mass destruction, say those who oppose this war. Why then is Iraq singled out for yet more punishment while the Israelis get off scot-free?
This question is no longer being asked by Arabs alone. “No war against Iraq, Free Palestine” has become the slogan of anti-war demonstrators in Europe and America. The two conflicts have become entwined in the public mind in a way that the West's politicians cannot ignore. When he sought last week to talk his sceptical Labour Party into supporting action against Iraq, Tony Blair, Britain's prime minister, got his biggest cheer for the bit of his speech that said UN resolutions should apply in Palestine as much as Iraq.
To many of those disturbed by the contrast between the world's treatment of Israel and its treatment of Iraq, it is rights and wrongs, not details of law, that matter here. Israel's occupation of the West Bank and Gaza has endured for 35 years, against the will of the Palestinian inhabitants, who dearly want, and in the eyes of the world have long deserved, a state of their own. But whereas Israel is supported economically and diplomatically by America, America is the prime mover against Iraq. Simple justice, or so the argument goes, requires even-handed behaviour by the superpower in the two conflicts.
That may be so. But a quite distinct sort of claim is also made in the “double standards” debate. This holds that Israel stands in breach of Security Council resolutions in just the way Iraq does, and therefore deserves to be treated by the UN with equal severity. Not so.
What the law says
The UN distinguishes between two sorts of Security Council resolution. Those passed under Chapter Six deal with the peaceful resolution of disputes and entitle the council to make non-binding recommendations. Those under Chapter Seven give the council broad powers to take action, including warlike action, to deal with “threats to the peace, breaches of the peace, or acts of aggression”. Such resolutions, binding on all UN members, were rare during the cold war. But they were used against Iraq after its invasion of Kuwait. None of the resolutions relating to the Israeli-Arab conflict comes under Chapter Seven. By imposing sanctions—including military ones—against Iraq but not against Israel, the UN is merely acting in accordance with its own rules.
The distinctiveness of Chapter Seven resolutions, and the fact that none has been passed in relation to Israel, is acknowledged by Palestinian diplomats. It is, indeed, one of their main complaints. A Palestine Liberation Organisation report, entitled “Double Standards” and published at the end of September, pointed out that, over the years, the UN has upheld the Palestinians' right to statehood, condemned Israel's settlements and called for Israel to withdraw. But “no enforcement action or any other action to implement UN resolutions and international law has been ordered by the Security Council.”
But what if, for the sake of argument, the main Security Council resolutions on the Arab-Israeli conflict had been Chapter Seven resolutions? The problem would then arise that Resolution 242 of 1967, passed after the six-day war and frequently cited in the double-standards argument, does not say what a lot of the people who quote it think it says (see article). It does not instruct Israel to withdraw unilaterally from the territories occupied in 1967. It does not condemn Israel's conquest, for the good reason that most western powers at that time thought it the result of a justifiable pre-emptive war. It calls for a negotiated settlement, based on the principle of exchanging land for peace. This is a very different matter.
In the case of Iraq, the Security Council has instructed Mr Hussein to take various unilateral actions that he is perfectly capable of taking. Resolution 242 cannot be implemented unilaterally, even if Israel wanted to do so.
Why? First is the question of borders. Some of the diplomats who drafted Resolution 242 said afterwards that they intended to allow for some changes in the armistice lines that separated Israel and its Arab neighbours before the war of 1967. There has been a dreary argument for three decades over the meaning of the absence of a definite article (in the English text) before the phrase “territories occupied in the recent conflict”. The Arabs maintain that the resolution requires a complete withdrawal from every inch. But even if this were so, the resolution cannot be implemented without arriving at a negotiated agreement.
For example, the resolution calls for a “just” settlement of the Palestinian refugee issue. Meaning what? The Palestinians say that a UN General Assembly resolution, 194 of 1948, gives all the Palestinian refugees of 1948 the right to return, or to get compensation. Israel, denying responsibility for their flight, says that the same resolution stipulates that these refugees had to be willing to “live at peace with their neighbours” and that the Palestinians, having rejected the UN-sanctioned partition of Palestine, were not prepared to live in peace with the new Jewish state. More than half a century later, the refugee population has grown from about 700,000 to at least 3.8m, making the return of all of them an impossibility, says Israel. It may be possible to negotiate a compromise on this issue, as Yasser Arafat and Ehud Barak attempted without success at Camp David in 2000. But there exists no Security Council blueprint to solve it.
Israel says that it has already implemented much of 242, and that it stands ready to implement the rest of it. It returned land to Egypt and Jordan in return for peace. Two years ago, when he was prime minister, Mr Barak offered the bulk of the Golan Heights in return for peace with Syria. All the agreements made between Israel and the Palestinians under the Oslo peace process were predicated on Resolution 242. Israel subsequently withdrew from the main Palestinian population centres (although it has returned to them since the intifada) pending negotiation of a final settlement. And though there are strong grounds to question his sincerity, Israel's new prime minister, Ariel Sharon, claims to accept George Bush's peace “vision”, set out in June, of an Israeli withdrawal and a free Palestine based on the borders of 1967.
It is commonly asserted that Israel's occupation is “illegal”. This is questionable. In March, for the first time ever, Kofi Annan, the UN's secretary-general, called Israel's occupation illegal, but it is no accident that he has not repeated this claim. In the view of Sir Adam Roberts, professor of international relations at the University of Oxford, it was a “serious mistake” to describe the occupation itself, as opposed to some of Israel's actions as an occupier, in this way. In a subsequent letter to the New York Times, Mr Annan's spokesman admitted as much. The secretary-general, he said, had not intended to refer to the legality of Israel's occupation of the territories during the war of 1967, only to breaches of its obligations as an occupying power.
This is where Israel has put itself squarely on the wrong side of the Security Council. Since 1967, the UN has rejected all Israel's attempts to change the legal and demographic status of the captured territories, by annexing Jerusalem, applying Israeli law to the Golan Heights and planting Jewish settlements in the West Bank and Gaza (see article). How can vigorous attempts to colonise the occupied territories be reconciled with Israel's claim to accept 242 and the principle of land for peace that underlies it?
They can't. The plain fact is that Israel, citing history ancient and modern (Jerusalem has had a Jewish majority since the 19th century), decided after conquering its Jordanian half in 1967 to make the city its eternal “unified” capital. The Labour governments of that period also began to dot the Jordan valley and Golan Heights with Jewish settlements, ostensibly in order to guard the new borders against a still hostile Arab world. After 1977, the Likud governments of Menahem Begin and Yitzhak Shamir set out frankly, for religious-ideological reasons, to make the occupied territories part of a Greater Israel, in defiance of the UN and of the logic of 242. Here Israel cannot plead innocence. All it can enter is a plea of mitigation.
Legal or not, the occupation has lasted a terribly long time. But this is not solely Israel's fault. In 1967, it was the Arabs who rejected Resolution 242. They certainly did not accept Israel's new post-war borders, but nor did they recognise its pre-war borders. They did not, in fact, acknowledge Israel's right to exist at all. This posture persisted for a dozen years after 1967, until Egypt alone made peace. The Palestinians, pledging still to “liberate” all Palestine and dissolve the Jewish state, waited longer. Not until the late 1980s, some 40 years after Israel's birth and 20 years after the 1967 war, did Mr Arafat's PLO indicate an interest in a two-state solution. Under the rules of “belligerent occupation”, Israel should not have mucked about during those 20 years with the status of the captured lands. But it is not wholly surprising, given the continuing rejection and siege, that it did.
When the Palestinians decided that they were no longer bent on its extirpation, Israel responded. In 1993 it signed an agreement with the PLO under which the two sides undertook to implement Resolution 242 by negotiation, thus putting all the contentious issues—Jerusalem, the settlements and the refugees—on the bargaining table. Two years ago the talks failed, to be followed by a new Palestinian intifada and the election of the unyielding Mr Sharon. The Israelis claim that their agreement to negotiate the thorny issues with the Palestinians supersedes the relevant UN resolutions on settlements and the rest, a view which the Security Council might accept if the negotiations got back on track. In the meantime, the council's rulings on Jerusalem and the settlements stand.
The nuclear shadow
Over the past two years, the intifada has given rise to a new batch of resolutions. Some rebuke the Israelis for using “excessive” force, others make specific demands. Resolution 1435, for example, calls on Israel to pull out of the Palestinian cities it has recently reoccupied and back to the positions it held before the violence started in September 2000. It has been ignored. But like most recent resolutions, this one cuts both ways. It makes demands of the Palestinians, too, which have also been ignored. In this case, the Palestinian Authority is instructed to cease all violence and incitement, and to bring “those responsible for terrorist acts” to justice.
In the long and intractable conflict over Palestine, both sides consider themselves victims. The Palestinians say that their national rights were usurped by an intruder; the Israelis that the Palestinians never accepted the Jewish right to self-determination. The UN's approach has been to recognise the complexity of these respective claims, lay down broad principles, and urge a negotiated peace. The case of Iraq could hardly be more different. That country is in conflict with the UN itself, having refused to comply with the clear instructions, under Chapter Seven, to give up its weapons of mass destruction.
What, though, about Israel's nukes? Does its status as an undeclared nuclear power put it on a par with Iraq, which has tried to become one? No. In 1981, Resolution 487 scolded Israel for sending its aircraft to destroy Iraq's Osiraq reactor, which Israel said was being used to manufacture a nuclear weapon, despite having been given a clean bill of health by inspectors from the International Atomic Energy Agency. Noting that Israel had not signed the nuclear non-proliferation treaty (NPT), as Iraq had, the UN called on Israel to put its own nuclear facilities under the IAEA safeguards, as the NPT requires.
Two decades on, Israel has still not signed the NPT. This infuriates the treaty's supporters, who have been striving to make it “universal”. But, as with any other treaty, governments are free not to sign. What they are not free to do is sign, receive the foreign (civilian) nuclear help to which signing entitles them, and then try to build a bomb secretly. This, it is now ruefully accepted, is what Iraq tried to do, and may still be trying to do. Israel is thought to possess a large nuclear arsenal, about which it is not being open and honest, and this is provoking to its neighbours. But it is not evidence of “double standards”. Being a nuclear-armed power is not, by itself, a breach of international law.
Copyright © 2003 The Economist Newspaper and The Economist Group. All rights reserved.
Last edited by Danny; 15th Feb 2003 at 15:23.
Danny,
At least you've managed to avoid labelling me as a racist this time, so I should be grateful. You accuse me of making "subtle but inescapable attempts .... to introduce a link to Israel". I'd tried to leave the nuts and bolts of the Israel argument alone on this thread, and don't think that your accusation is fair, this time.
Rather than going over your post and refuting various points within it (it's well argued and very balanced, but there are some contentious claims in there), I'll confine myself to one thought.
There is a link between the proposed action against Iraq and the Arab-Israeli problem, whether or not you like it. The USA is widely seen throughout the Arab world (and increasingly in Europe too) as being anti-Arab and Anti-Islam. One of the main reasons for this antipathy is the perception that America sides with Israel no matter what, and regardless of the rights and wrongs of the situation at any given time. We disagree on the rights and wrongs of Israel's treatment of the Palestinians, and on the justice or otherwise of the Palestinians' claims, but in this context, that's irrelevant.
The link is that Arab and European perceptions of the USA and Israel are directly informing and shaping attitudes to action against Iraq, and that holds true whether or not you believe that such perceptions are right or wrong, and whether you believe that they are justified or unjustified. You can say that there shouldn't be a link, or that any such link is unfair and/or unjust, but denying the existence of a link is futile.
I note with interest that one of the many groups participating in today's March and demonstration in Hyde Park marched under the banner of 'Jews against the War', and that they proudly carried the Star of David on their banners, and placards which featured the Israeli flag with the Star replaced by a stylised tank and the slogan: 'End the Occupation'. I assume that they can see some kind of link..... I cannot help but think that it is these brave and principalled Jews (and those who speak up for moderation and conciliation, and who refuse the draft) who will eventually bring Israel the just and lasting peace it deserves.
At least you've managed to avoid labelling me as a racist this time, so I should be grateful. You accuse me of making "subtle but inescapable attempts .... to introduce a link to Israel". I'd tried to leave the nuts and bolts of the Israel argument alone on this thread, and don't think that your accusation is fair, this time.
Rather than going over your post and refuting various points within it (it's well argued and very balanced, but there are some contentious claims in there), I'll confine myself to one thought.
There is a link between the proposed action against Iraq and the Arab-Israeli problem, whether or not you like it. The USA is widely seen throughout the Arab world (and increasingly in Europe too) as being anti-Arab and Anti-Islam. One of the main reasons for this antipathy is the perception that America sides with Israel no matter what, and regardless of the rights and wrongs of the situation at any given time. We disagree on the rights and wrongs of Israel's treatment of the Palestinians, and on the justice or otherwise of the Palestinians' claims, but in this context, that's irrelevant.
The link is that Arab and European perceptions of the USA and Israel are directly informing and shaping attitudes to action against Iraq, and that holds true whether or not you believe that such perceptions are right or wrong, and whether you believe that they are justified or unjustified. You can say that there shouldn't be a link, or that any such link is unfair and/or unjust, but denying the existence of a link is futile.
I note with interest that one of the many groups participating in today's March and demonstration in Hyde Park marched under the banner of 'Jews against the War', and that they proudly carried the Star of David on their banners, and placards which featured the Israeli flag with the Star replaced by a stylised tank and the slogan: 'End the Occupation'. I assume that they can see some kind of link..... I cannot help but think that it is these brave and principalled Jews (and those who speak up for moderation and conciliation, and who refuse the draft) who will eventually bring Israel the just and lasting peace it deserves.