Former Amb. Martin Indyk vs. Author Norman Finkelstein: A Debate on Israel’s Assault on Gaza and the

[Lithos]

Former Amb. Martin Indyk vs. Author Norman Finkelstein: A Debate on Israel’s Assault on Gaza and the US Role in the Conflict

The Israeli assault on Gaza is entering its thirteenth day. Some 700 Palestinians have been killed, with many thousands more wounded, and a humanitarian crisis is mounting. Ten Israelis have died, four by “friendly fire.” A ceasefire has not been reached, and the offensive continues. We host a debate between Martin Indyk, the former US ambassador to Israel and Assistant Secretary of State for Near East Affairs during the Clinton administration, director of the Saban Center for Middle East Policy at the Brookings Institution and author of, Innocent Abroad: An Intimate Account of American Peace Diplomacy in the Middle East, and Norman Finkelstein, author of several books, including The Holocaust Industry, Image and Reality of the Israel-Palestine Conflict and Beyond Chutzpah.

http://i4.democracynow.org/2009/1/8/former_amb_martin_indyk_vs_author

*************

Again posting a shell to follow rules.

[StudsT]

1. Democracy Now: Discussion on Gaza - Norman Finkelstein and Martin Indyk

interesting discussion here...

(4 parts)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PH_bcbJ2K_M
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VFD5e5ZLSqg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qLGlEOuhQ5A
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xDS7Oc4LZSA

StudsT

[StudsT]

2. what rules?

you can't link to a video on youtube?

StudsT

[Lithos]

5. I/P guidelines

New Threads

* New threads must be based on a recently-published news item or op-ed piece. They may not be based on editorial cartoons or photographs. Citations and references should include a link to the original source. Exceptions will be allowed if, based on prior approval, the moderators feel a thread is appropriate.
* The subject heading for threads must contain the title of the source article. The only exception is when you must shorten long titles or to make the subject of the article more clear.

******************

We treat YouTube and other multimedia equivalently to photographs. Youtube is not considered the original site which is preferred for source contextual reasons (understanding where it comes from). Posting a link of a photograph or a Youtube video is not considered acceptable for the basis of a new thread for these reasons. What I did was post the transcript which serves as the basis and the link to the website.

[Lithos]

3. This is a non-debate

And a repeating of many talking points. Quite a few soft facts and omissions on both sides.

L-

[StudsT]

4. huh? facts are now talking points?

I think Mr. Finkelstein raises many important points that are NOT widely known in the U.S. since discussion is locked down on this.

StudsT

[Lithos]

6. What facts?

I saw a lot of talking points, but little in a fact based discussion.

Finkelstein is wrong about the order of events and dishonest in portraying the rise in escalation relating to the events of Nov. 4th (it was discovery of the tunnel, then the attempt to demolish it (no violence), then Hamas attacking (violence), then the retaliation by the IAF (deaths)), as well as the type of settlement Hamas was talking about concerning the movement back to the 1967 borders. He also omits quite extensively Hamas' own contributions to the escalation.

Indyk is wrong in that he also omits quite extensively Israel's own contributions to the escalation.

There are more points. Both sides are quite cavalierly pushing an agenda. I can see that Dershowitz has taught Finkelstein well to push the agenda first and try and make the facts fit.

On Edit: This was more or less a forensic ambush as Indyk was Finkelstein obviously changed the subject away from what was agreed upon.

L-

[StudsT]

7. 1. Israel broke the cease fire 2. Israel has a long history of opposing Peace

3. Israel has a long history of non compromise
4. Israel has been found guilty of crimes against the Palestinian people with many resolutions against it which it fails to comply with to this day.

Those are facts which add balance to the one sided story portrayed in America that Israel is THE victim and the Palestinians are to blame.

Just because the other side of the story has a chance to be articulated (rarely) doesn't make it not true.

StudsT

[Lithos]

10. The cease fire

The cease fire was a convenient fiction by both sides during which they jockeyed for position. It was broken within a week of it being started and was continually broken throughout its period by intermittent rocket and mortar fire. Israel's reactions to these violations was often overdone and high handed in terms of clamping down on the border.

Specific to Nov. 4th, Hamas was building a tunnel towards the Israeli border in a repeat of a tactic to kidnap another Israeli soldier. The Israeli soldiers entered the border area to destroy it. Hamas fired upon the Israelis who called in the IAF which killed the Hamas soldiers in an air strike. Now who violated what?

Even so, the actual fiction of the truce was not ended until almost 6 weeks later. Prior to that time there was an increasing period of attacks and retributions on BOTH sides. Had either side been actually interested in peace or the maintenance of the cease fire, then it would have been rather easy to have stopped. Just as prior to Nov. 4th, the events of Nov 4th and afterwards, both sides did little to actually promote peace and actually engaged in increasing provocation which all but guaranteed the outbreak of hostilities.

The tactics engaged in by both sides are illegal in that both Israel and Hamas have made it a practice to enacting collective punishment against civilians. Hamas is guilty of using civilians as shields, militarizing what are normally off-limit targets (hospitals/mosque) and in using children (less than 17) in a military capacity. Israel is also guilty of not providing adequate care for the civilians which are under their effective control.

The facts do not support a good guy/bad guy demarcation of parties. Doing so only extends the problem and does nothing to solve it.

[StudsT]

12. you miss my point - there is ANOTHER side to the story that doesn't get out in America

pointing out the other side of the story (weather you agree with it or not) is what DEBATE is all about... you claimed this wasn't a debate, sorry but I disagree.

But i am certainly glad you posted it :toast:

StudsT

[LeftishBrit]

18. No. 4 at least is very misleading

Israel has not been 'found guilty' of anything. They have never been put on trial. They have frequently been condemned by mostly nonbinding resolutions at the UN - which is a political organization, not a court of law, and not God. Israel gets criticized by the UN more often than many other countries, not because it's objectively worse, but because there are a large number of UN member states that oppose it for political reasons.

I do not consider that 'Israel is THE victim and the Palestinians are to blame'; but one cannot treat UN resolutions in the category of court convictions.

[azurnoir]

8. The law of averaging seems to apply here

when you have two such diametrically opposed sides find the mid way point between and generally you will have as close to the truth as one can get

[StudsT]

9. thats exactly what many perps bank on - the BIG lie... the ignorant will never know the truth

The Outline for Peace - Bernard Weiner

It's been clear for decades what the outlines of a just peace might look like and what each side would have to do to get there:

1. Both sides would have to abandon the "I'm the true victim" and "you started it" loops. Each side has some history on its side, each side has behaved abominably, each side has some justice in its arguments. Both sides would have to stipulate, so to speak, to these recognitions and vow not to get bogged down in whose claim is the more righteous but stick to how to make living together in the same region workable and mutually beneficial.
   
   
2. Israel would have to return to its pre-1967 borders, fully end its occupation and control of the West Bank and Gaza, abandon its settlements on Palestinian land and make sure no new ones are allowed to intrude into the new viable Palestine state, which Israel would officially recognize. (In terms of Gaza and the West Bank, Israel would cease its ruthless policy of "a hundred eyes for an eye" overkill, and constant humiliation of the Palestinians by engaging in way-over-the-top violence that constantly reminds them of their utter powerlessness.
   
   
3. The Palestinians (both Hamas and the Palestinian Authority or, better yet, Hamas inside the Palestinian Authority) would have to officially recognize the de facto State of Israel and its right to exist within secure borders. No more rockets, no more suicide bombers inside Israel, no more calling for Israel's destruction, etc.
   
   
4. Realizing that there are crazy fanatics on each side, acting out of religious zealotry or ultranationalist urgings, both sides would have to agree to crack down on those extremists and not let occasional militant violence interfere with the peace process as it unfolds and in living together after the peace treaty has been signed.
   
   
5. Jerusalem, prized for historical and religious reasons by both sides (and by Christians as well), would become an international city, administered by the U.N. and/or a tri-religious civic council agreed to by all.
   
   
6. If Israel will not permit the "right of return" of Palestinians forced off their lands by the original establishment of the Jewish state or by the Separation Wall, they will pay fair compensation for the land. Perhaps Arab nations separately and the Arab League collectively can aid in this regard as well.
   
   
7. Treaties would be worked out regarding the travel rights of Palestinian workers inside Israel, the fair allocation of precious water resources, sharing technological developments, etc.
   

much more...
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=103x414139

pretty good idea for progress there, imho.

:hi:

StudsT

[Shaktimaan]

16. This is the basic formula, though an inaccurate version, of the peace deal that everyone agrees on.

As they say, the devil is in the details. Some of these ideas reflect the compromises that have already been negotiated. Some are pie in the sky fantasies. Something that's important to understand is that the Israelis and Palestinians have already engaged in substantial debate on this matter and many of the larger issues have already been essentially agreed upon.

There's no need to remake the wheel here. There is even less need to use the I/P situation as an opportunity to "experiment" with never-tried and severely dubious concepts, such as the establishment of Jerusalem as an international city under UN auspices. Points like that being floated at this stage of the game make me question the level of understanding that the author here possesses.

The reality of the negotiations are FAR more complex than any basic outline like this could hope to address. Trying to enact many of these measures would be essentially taking a step backwards in terms of peace negotiations. More importantly, none of it addresses the root of the conflict that is now occurring between Hamas and Israel. Hamas is not looking for a settlement or a permanent peace treaty with Israel. They did whatever they could to derail the last round of serious negotiations between the Palestinians and Israel, a permanent peace is not consistent with their ultimate philosophy which holds that Israel is occupying Palestinian lands in entirety. In other words, the issue remains that Hamas rejects Israel's existence on any of the Mandate Palestinian land.

A certain set of compromises may seem reasonable to you, but that isn't worth much unless all of the Israeli and Palestinian factions also agree with them. The two sides came very close to hammering out an agreement during Camp David and especially at Taba. To disregard those significant gains would be foolish. There are many reasonable suggestions for resolving this conflict. However only ONE path has thus far been developed. Blazing your own trail at this stage is a recipe for chaos.

But speaking more to the current issue, neither the real peace negotiations nor this half-assed plan you posted make any allowances for how to deal with the Hamas problem. And that is the main obstacle blocking the road to any permanent peace right now. As long as a large, powerful, politically relevant faction of the Palestinian's remains opposed to any permanent peace settlement with Israel, any proposed plan, no matter how awesome, is doomed to failure.

[StudsT]

20. "half-assed plan"- i am sure that will be the reaction of many extremist

though I am sure many reasonable would agree it is much better than continuing the oppression.

the key now is to have real leadership from the U.S. and Obama is probably the man to take on that challenge.

I wish him and his staff all the best.

StudsT

[Lithos]

11. In terms of facts

No, it actually doesn't. If you want to say it averages such that both are wrong, then yes, I would agree.

[StudsT]

13. what are your credentials?

before I can apply any 'gravitas' to your opinion I would like to hear what makes you in sole possession of the truth to judge both of them wrong.

StudsT

[The Magistrate]

14. Mr. Lithos, Sir, Is Alarmingly Well Informed....

And possesses an extremely judicious attitude.

[StudsT]

15. Alarmingly

interesting choice of words, though not very impressive... anyways, I am turning in.

goodnight, sirs.

StudsT

[azurnoir]

19. Both are wrong and both are right

at least partially in each case which was my point.

[Shaktimaan]

17. what?

can you provide an real-life example of how that works?

assuming it does actually work.