James Baker gets it right in his opinion piece in today’s Washington Post:
Stability in Iraq and peace between Palestinians and Israelis can be pursued at the same time. In fact, working toward the latter improves the chances of attaining the former. The road to peace does not run through just Jerusalem or just Baghdad. That is a false choice. Today it runs through both.
Peace between Israel and the Palestinians won’t solve everything, of course. But it will begin to dry up the money for Muslim extremists and start to stabalize the region. Stability, in turn, brings growth. Which increases wages. Which will, ultimately, move the mountain.
Admittedly, Baker’s essay includes the standard series of impossibly vague proposals that all long-time punditry watchers know and love. The U.S. should do "everything else that it can to encourage both sides to resume meaningful talks," et al. (Boy Howdy it should!) Still, Baker does offer a couple of particulars — and gets them right as well:
The United States should further prevail upon Israel to cease settlement activity in the occupied territories pending Palestinian elections and during the resumption of peace negotiations. … And [the U.S.] should serve, where necessary, as a direct participant in the talks, offering suggestions, brokering compromises and extending assurances.
Finally, the administration must make it unambiguously clear to Israel that while Prime Minister Sharon’s planned withdrawal from Gaza is a positive initiative, it cannot be simply the first step in a unilateral process leading to the creation of Palestinian "Bantustans" in the West Bank.
The time for stopgaps and half-measures is passed; with Arafat’s death, the moment is ripe for more. President Bush has the political capital (both at home and in Israel) to act, and a well-earned reputation for decisiveness and stubbornness. Seize the moment.
UPDATE: In comments, John Kelsey asks "The question is, how do we incentivize the hardline Palestinians to stop attacks on Israel? Without that, I can’t see how peace can happen between them; what’s the point of a peace treaty if you keep getting attacked even after you sign it?"
That’s a good question, but it assumes that Israel has to open itself to attack as part of any peace negotiation or agreement. It needn’t. Indeed, based on the Gaza experience, we know that a wall is pretty damn effective at stopping attacks — so I endorse one for the West Bank even while negotiations are opened (although I have some concerns regarding how the current project is being implemented). Should "peace break out all over," the wall can be removed. In that latter regard, don’t discount the empowerment that comes from "bringin’ home the state" — or the exhaustion felt by ordinary Palestinians as a result of the last fifty years of de facto war.
The question is, how do we incentivize the hardline Palestinians to stop attacks on Israel? Without that, I can’t see how peace can happen between them; what’s the point of a peace treaty if you keep getting attacked even after you sign it? I keep having the impression that there’s no one person or small group of people on the Palestinian side who even *can* stop the attacks, though maybe I’m wrong.
I’ll admit that I’m deeply skeptical that we even *can* fix this. These are two groups of people who, for very good historical reasons, just don’t like or trust one another much. It’s not clear how they’re going to make peace, but it’s even less clear how that’s going to be accomplished by George Bush telling them all how it’s going to be done.
–John
how do we incentivize the hardline Palestinians to stop attacks on Israel?
Why “incentivize?” We don’t incentivize murderers to stop murdering. We put them in jail, or worse.
Bernard: Why “incentivize?” We don’t incentivize murderers to stop murdering. We put them in jail, or worse.
Because the Israelis have been trying that for thirty-odd years, and have succeeded only in proving, over and over again, that it doesn’t work. Send a helicopter with rockets to assassinate someone you believe to be a hardline terrorist: whether or not you kill the alleged terrorist, you certainly create more terrorists by this method. Someday I hope the Israelis will elect a goverment that’s brave enough to acknowledge this simple fact, and quit doing it. It’s been tried; it doesn’t work.
A country founded by terrorists, all of whom lived long and well-respected lives within their own country, has no particular moral right to claim that all terrorists should be prosecuted for their crimes: and when it comes to making peace, negotiation is far more important than revenge.
A country founded by terrorists, all of whom lived long and well-respected lives within their own country, has no particular moral right to claim that all terrorists should be prosecuted for their crimes: and when it comes to making peace, negotiation is far more important than revenge.
This, I think, touches on the crux of the matter neither side really wishes to acknowledge: the myth of legitimacy.
Ultimately, the legitimacy of a nation-state is based on power and thus its ability to hold onto the piece of territory its people perceive to be or mythologize as their “homeland”. All the bloviating about the Old Testament and Moses and divine mandates is just nonsense. So, as long as Israel can hold onto what it wants to hold onto, the moralistic gyrations of Baker and the US are basically irrelevant. Of course, the catch is, Israel won’t get any peace without relinquishing territory.
As Jes correctly notes, Israel was formed in large part because of terrorism. Terrorism was the tactic used by Stern, Begin, and most of the leadership of Israel to create Israel.
Similarly, there wasn’t really a Palestine; there was an inhabited area that was taken by force. And now those on the short end of the stick are using the same tactics to achieve their self-interests.
Both sides are claiming a legitimacy neither has ever had. This is why we’re not likely going to see a resolution to the I-P problem in our lifetimes.
A country founded by terrorists, all of whom lived long and well-respected lives within their own country, has no particular moral right to claim that all terrorists should be prosecuted for their crimes:
Sorry, jes,
When you write this sort of thing it makes it impossible for me to have any sort of dialogue with you on the subject of Israel.
Israel was formed in large part because of terrorism.
You too, jadegold.
Jadegold: Both sides are claiming a legitimacy neither has ever had. This is why we’re not likely going to see a resolution to the I-P problem in our lifetimes.
I hope you’re wrong.
I think both sides need to move away from the past. Jewish Palestinians did Arab Palestinians an incredible wrong when they founded Israel and made so that a large proportion of the Arab Palestinian population could not, and never would be, citizens of the country where they and their ancestors had lived for generations beyond generations – and which had been taken away from them by the Jewish Palestinians. And since then both sides have done each other incredible wrongs, for which there is no possible excuse or defense.
All you can do, under those circumstances, is say “Okay: this is what we did in the past, but this is what we will do today.”
Northern Ireland and the new South Africa prove that it is possible. It’s up to the Israeli government to decide if they want to make it possible to happen: they have more power than the Palestinians, and always have had, and therefore have more responsibility, both in their continuation of the conflict, and for ending it.
Bernard: murderers are put “in jail, or worse” only if they’re freelancers. Almost always and almost everywhere, if they organize and acquire political power on any significant scale, they become subject to incentivization instead. Not a good thing from a cosmic-justice point of view, maybe, but a fact of the world.
And even if you want to put arguments over the circumstances of Israel’s founding aside, the incentivization– or lack thereof– that Begin and Sharon faced over the murders they masterminded in the Lebanon war demonstrates quite well enough that Israel is not an exception to the rule.
I, for my part, find it difficult to have dialogue on the subject of the I/P conflict with people who insist, in the teeth of history, that any side has any sort of moral high ground.
I, for my part, find it difficult to have dialogue on the subject of the I/P conflict with people who insist, in the teeth of history, that any side has any sort of moral high ground.
I’ve always regarded I/P as something like the moral equivalent of the “race to the bottom”…
I’ve always regarded I/P as something like the moral equivalent of the “race to the bottom”…
Yup. And we seemed to be chained to the contestants.
Bernard: murderers are put “in jail, or worse” only if they’re freelancers. Almost always and almost everywhere, if they organize and acquire political power on any significant scale, they become subject to incentivization instead.
So you’re suggesting we should incentivize Bin Laden?
You find it difficult to have dialogue on the subject of the I/P conflict with people who insist, in the teeth of history, that any side has any sort of moral high ground.
Well, that pretty well shuts you out of any dialogues, then. The unceasing demonization of Israel that spews from some commenters here certainly suggests that they regard the Palestinians as holding the moral high ground.
So you’re suggesting we should incentivize Bin Laden?
Wasn’t that the point of invading Iraq?
No, seriously:
The unceasing demonization of Israel that spews from some commenters here certainly suggests that they regard the Palestinians as holding the moral high ground.
The idea that by criticizing the Israelis justly for what they have done to the Palestinians you “demonize” them is part of what goes wrong with most I/P discussions; the other part is generally that by criticizing the Palestinians justly for what they have done to the Israelis you “demonize” them.
If Nicholas Weininger is shut out of dialogue with people who want one or the other side to have the moral high ground, he can join in a dialogue with me: I don’t think either side does. One side has more power than the other, and therefore more responsibility, but I don’t see how naming that obvious fact either demonizes the side with power, or grants the other side any moral high ground.
The idea that by criticizing the Israelis justly for what they have done to the Palestinians you “demonize” them is part of what goes wrong with most I/P discussions;
This begs the question, jes. Of course “just” criticism is not demonization. The issue is whether the criticism is in fact just.
I don’t think either side [has the moral high ground]
I will take you at your word on this, but I encourage you to reread your comments on this subject on various recent threads. I think you might then understand how one could reach the opposite conclusion.
I will take you at your word on this, but I encourage you to reread your comments on this subject on various recent threads. I think you might then understand how one could reach the opposite conclusion.
The crux of the matter to me is whether the side with more power (physical, military, legal) and, for the lack of a better phrase, a more benign governmental system* should bear a correspondingly greater share of the blame for thus sewer of a vendetta. I go back and forth on this until I remember that I’m trying to hash out who’s the least morally culpable (for large negative values of culpable), and then give up.
* i.e. more-or-less representative government versus anarchic factionalism.
Well, that pretty well shuts you out of any dialogues, then. The unceasing demonization of Israel that spews from some commenters here certainly suggests that they regard the Palestinians as holding the moral high ground.
No, Bernard, you completely miss the entire point. And I know you’re smart enough not to have done this by accident.
There is no ‘unceasing demonization of Israel.’
Both sides’ hands are bloody. And that was the message in my earlier comment: I don’t think the situation can be resolved so long as one side believes it holds the moral high ground of legitimacy.
I’m also troubled by your apparent unwillingness to acknowledge Israel has a terrorist past. The Stern Gang? Irgun? Stern even approached the Nazis offering a pact. Folke Bernadotte?
“I’m also troubled by your apparent unwillingness to acknowledge Israel has a terrorist past. The Stern Gang? Irgun? Stern even approached the Nazis offering a pact. Folke Bernadotte?”
No, Jadegold, you completely miss Bernard‘s entire point. And I know you’re smart enough not to have done this by accident.
Bernard: This begs the question, jes. Of course “just” criticism is not demonization. The issue is whether the criticism is in fact just.
To the best of my knowledge and belief, I have never accused the Israeli government of anything untrue. The crimes I refer to – the illegal settlements on the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, the rocket attacks on civilian areas to assassinate alleged terrorists, which cause civilian deaths – none of these are undocumented. They happen. They’re horrific. It is not unjust, therefore, to mention them as a fair criticism of Israel, and Israel’s policies towards the Palestinians.
If you think I’ve mentioned anything that was factually untrue, then do point it out: I’m ready to be corrected, if I’m wrong. (I am also prepared to provide the citation for the crimes I refer to – though I think, honestly, that the illegal settlements in the Occupied Territories, and the “extrajudicial assassinations” that involve inevitable civilian deaths to get one alleged terrorist, are basic common knowledge.)
“the illegal settlements in the Occupied Territories”
Matter of dispute – can you just write “the settlements”?
“the rocket attacks on civilian areas to assassinate alleged terrorists, which cause civilian deaths”
Is it your contention that any civilian death is unacceptable in killing a known terrorist? Are any civilian deaths acceptable in war? Is any sanctions regime that leads to civilian deaths moral? Is our farm policy a crime?
Rilkefan: Matter of dispute – can you just write “the settlements”?
I could, but they are illegal. It may be contentious to say so, but it’s a matter of fact. If Israel ever decides to make the Occupied Territories part of Israel, the settlements will cease to be illegal: other political problems will ensue.
Is it your contention that any civilian death is unacceptable in killing a known terrorist?
Yes. Because, if you think about it, if you kill even one innocent civilian in your effort to get one terrorist, you have not diminished the number of terrorists: you have increased them. Is your contention that it’s acceptable for the police to kill innocent people in the pursuit of suspected criminals?
Further, if (as Ariel Sharon has routinely done during his tenure as PM) you break a ceasefire by carrying out an attack on civilians in Palestinian territory, claiming that the attack was necessary to kill a “known terrorist”, you make it more likely, rather than less, to increase terrorist attacks on the people whom you claim you want to protect.
My use of quotation marks around “known terrorist” and the phrase “alleged terrorist” is deliberately intended to make the point that Israel is not attempting to bring these people to justice, to have them tried in a court of law. Assassination is a dubious policy at best: assassination carried against suspects on the grounds that the assassinating government is certain of their guilt, in such a way that innocent bystanders are put at certain risk, is just bloody stupid.
“I could, but they are illegal.”
Wanting it to be so doesn’t make it so.
“Because, if you think about it, if you kill even one innocent civilian in your effort to get one terrorist, you have not diminished the number of terrorists: you have increased them.”
So if I were to show that the policy is in fact effective at reducing terrorism, you’d say that it was ok?
Re police killing bystanders – if local terrorists were murdering thousands of random people with the avowed goal of destroying our society and hiding in urban neighborhoods sympathetic to them, I’d have to consider condoning it. As things stand I condone a justice system that condemns many innocent people from weak segments of society to long prison terms in barbaric circumstances, simply because it also gets a lot of bad guys off the streets.
Matter of dispute – can you just write “the settlements”?
The illegality of Israeli settlements in the West Bank and Gaza is “in dispute” in precisely the same way that the shape of the Earth (round or flat) is “in dispute”. (Or for that matter, in precisely the same way that the question of whether Jews used terror attacks during the founding of the modern state of Israel is “in dispute”).
These are not open questions. The settlements are illegal. The Earth is not flat. The Stern Gang were terrorists.
Arguments to the contrary will need to be backed up with a severe preponderance of near-indisputable evidence. Otherwise, we are – all of us – wasting our time.
“wasting our time” – I hear this being whispered in Ricardo Montalban’s voice – “wasting our time, wasting our time…”. What a good movie. Here’s Jes on Moe (since Gary‘s not around to rib); this is for Katherine and Moe. Maybe Slart would like this.
Beautiful, rilkefan. Simply beautiful. 🙂
Thanks for confirming my point.
“Thanks for confirming my point.”
I live to serve.
“The illegality of Israeli settlements in the West Bank and Gaza is “in dispute” in precisely the same way that the shape of the Earth (round or flat) is “in dispute”. (Or for that matter, in precisely the same way that the question of whether Jews used terror attacks during the founding of the modern state of Israel is “in dispute”).”
Really? My understanding is that the disputed territory has been abandoned by its former state–Jordan. My understanding is that it is in a non-state territory, and from an international law perspective anyone of any nationality could live there. My understanding is that only UN General Assembly resolutions address the situation in the way you interpret and that they are not legally binding in the ‘international law’ context.
“My understanding is that it is in a non-state territory”.
That’s funny. You’re funny. I stand by my previous statement.
SH, FYI. (yeah, yeah, it’s getting old fast)
yeah, yeah, it’s getting old fast
Agreed.
Rilkefan: Wanting it to be so doesn’t make it so.
Agreed. The settlements are illegal. Wanting them to be legal doesn’t make them so.
So if I were to show that the policy is in fact effective at reducing terrorism, you’d say that it was ok?
No. Because setting out to kill innocent civilians is not okay. That’s your contention – “I’d have to consider condoning it”. I don’t condone it, whether it’s done by the Israeli armed forces or by Palestinian terrorists.
Sebastian: My understanding is that it is in a non-state territory, and from an international law perspective anyone of any nationality could live there.
Your understanding omits the point that the West Bank and the Gaza Strip have been under Israeli military occupation since 1967. The Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949, and the Hague Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict (1954) thus apply: they would cease to apply if Israel declared that the West Bank and the Gaza Strip were now part of Israel. (At this point, as you’re doubtless well aware, a new set of political problems would arise: for thirty-seven years, Israel has prefered to be in violation of international law rather than deal with the problem of either becoming an apartheid state, ceasing to be a Jewish-majority state, or other even less appealing options.)
Article 49, para. 6 of the Fourth Geneva Convention stipulates that “the occupying power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies”. All of the settlements are illegal under this Article.
Under the Hague Convention:
Article 46 prohibits the confiscation of private property in occupied territory: the Israeli government’s confiscation of land to build settlements is illegal under this Article.
Article 55 makes clear: “the occupying state shall be regarded only as administrator and usufructuary of public buildings, real estate, forests, and agricultural estates belonging to the hostile State, and situated in the occupied country. It must safeguard the capital of these properties, and administer them in accordance with the rules of usufruct.” That is, the Israeli occupiers should lawfully regard themselves as safeguarding the West Bank and the Gaza Strip for the benefit of the Palestinians who live there under military occupation.
So, your understanding was incomplete, Sebastian. Now you know better.
Jes, were the West Bank and Gaza “the territory of a High Contracting Party”?
Would it be acceptable under these terms for Israelis voluntarily, without the govt deporting or transferring them, to settle there, say claiming a right under the old Mandate? For Madagascarians to do so? What about land owned by Jews prior to 67 or purchased after?
Is it not the case that Israel is not legally in violation of the 4th G.C. in the absence of a binding UN S.C. resolution to that effect? As far as I know it’s the position of the US govt that the (bulk of the) settlements are legal (v. M. Albright) but an impediment to peace.
Rilkefan: Jes, were the West Bank and Gaza “the territory of a High Contracting Party”?
Good question. The answer is that both Egypt and Jordan had ratified the Hague and the Geneva Conventions by 1967 (though I’ve had an unexpectedly hard time finding a list of the ratifying nations with dates to link to) For an analysis of why Israel is legally obliged to abide by the conventions, click here. The issue is not whose territory the Gaza Strip and the West Bank were or are: the issue is that the Palestinian civilians living under military occupation in the Gaza Strip/the West Bank are doing so as a direct result of an armed conflict entered into between “High Contracting Parties” – and thus Israel’s legal obligation to abide by the conventions it had ratified is clear.
Would it be acceptable under these terms for Israelis voluntarily, without the govt deporting or transferring them, to settle there, say claiming a right under the old Mandate?
Possibly. But since that’s never been the situation – the settlements in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip have been sponsored and protected by the Israeli government from the very beginning – I don’t see that it’s relevant. The settlements were never a matter of Israelis voluntarily agreeing to leave Israel and go live in another country nearby, using their own funds to buy/build homes, not expecting any support from the Israeli government nor any protection from the Israeli army: the settlements were state-funded, state-protected, built on land confiscated by the state – and thus illegal.
Is it not the case that Israel is not legally in violation of the 4th G.C. in the absence of a binding UN S.C. resolution to that effect?
No. The law is the law. The Security Council can’t act to force Israel to obey the law without a binding resolution – but the fact that the US has always vetoed any attempt by the Security Council to get Israel to obey the law does not mean the law was not broken.
As far as I know it’s the position of the US govt that the (bulk of the) settlements are legal
Yes, as far as I know, that’s the case. So? The law clearly says otherwise, and in principle at least, the US is supposed to be governed by law.
Still not clear to me that the territories legally belonged to Jordan/Egypt – anyway this isn’t the crux of the argument, namely:
“No. The law is the law.[…]”
I think I’ll stick with innocent until.
“Yes, as far as I know, that’s the case. So? […]”
So as far as I’m concerned the US and UN/etc have similar moral authority in the world (yes, the US does crazy things like supporting Allende and invading Iraq, but the UN/etc is led in part by horrible regimes and deeply hypocritical about its concerns and enforcement of laws) so I’m going to stick with “matter of dispute”. I think you have a strong enough case though that I won’t twit you about your chosen terminology.
p.s. hope you found my December 5, 2004 01:45 AM amusing.
To the best of my knowledge and belief, I have never accused the Israeli government of anything untrue.
Maybe not. I don’t know. rilkefan and Sebastian have certainly provided reasons to doubt your assertions about the illegality of the settlements. But that’s not my main point. In a previous thread you said you don’t keep a careful tally of your posts. I don’t keep a careful tally of your posts either. But for criticism to be just requires more than truth. It requires context and background.
I could write that on June 6, 1944 American forces and their allies invaded Europe, resulting in the deaths of many Europeans. A true statement? Yes. A just criticism? No. An absurd accusation? Yes. Similarly, I find your comments on the Palestinian issue lacking in context, and hence unjust.
As for terrorism’s role in the establishment of Israel, I have not denied the existence of groups like the Irgun or the Stern Gang. Israel was not born as the result of an Immaculate Conception. There were some terrible things done. But it is easy to overstate how important the activities of these groups were to the actual establishment of the state, and to overlook the fact that mainstream Zionists in general opposed their actions. Ben-Gurion was not Arafat.
In fact, Begin was not Arafat either. The Irgun had at least some scruples about indiscriminate killing.
Let me be clear. I am no fan of Sharon – elected PM courtesy of the second Intifada – and am even less a fan of the settler movement. I think the Palestinians deserve a state. But I think their lack of one is at least as much their fault as it is Israel’s. In Abba Eban’s famous phrase, they “never missed an opportunity to miss an opportunity.”
This includes not merely their inability to take yes for an answer, which dates to 1948, it also includes the inability, or unwillingness, of their leaders to try to build a civil society. If the money provided over the last ten years or so had gone to schools, housing, industry, instead of being stolen, or spent on terrorism, there would be a state of Palestine today.
Israel as it exists was brought into being by the hard work and courage of its citizens. Rant about the Stern Gang all you want – they are a footnote. Israel is certainly very far from perfect. But I believe that given the stresses and threats it has existed under for 56 years, it is vastly better than your opinion of it.
Rilkefan: I think I’ll stick with innocent until.
Will you? If murder is committed, do you wait to have the murderer proven guilty before you acknowledge that murder is a crime?
p.s. hope you found my December 5, 2004 01:45 AM amusing.
I’m sure I would have done, but I haven’t yet been able to play that .wav file – my computer crashed when I tried.
If murder is committed, do you wait to have the murderer proven guilty before you acknowledge that murder is a crime?
I’m not going to touch the larger debate here, only to note that you’re begging the question: the antecedent of the conditional should read “If someone is killed…” (and the descriptor should shift from “murderer” to “killer”) for the statement be relevant to rilkefan‘s point.
only to note that you’re begging the question
Am I? Haven’t we gone through this?
for the statement be relevant to rilkefan’s point.
Nope. Rilkefan’s suggesting that we don’t know if a crime has been committed until someone has been found guilty of it. But this is not the case. If a murder has been committed, we can agree that murder is a crime, even if we refrain from naming any culprit as guilty until they have been proven guilty in court. For example: We can agree that outing a covert CIA agent is a crime, while refraining from pointing fingers at any specific “senior member of the administration” who may have committed that crime. We can agree that torture is a crime, even if the torturer has not been found guilty: the US DoJ has declined to prosecute the civilian contractors responsible for torture in Abu Ghraib, but that does not mean we have to say that their actions were not criminal, even though we refrain from naming any specific civilian contractor until proven guilty. We can agree that for the occupying power to build permanent settlements for its own citizens in occupied territory is a crime, because the law says it is – therefore, we don’t need to wait for the US govt to acknowledge a crime has been
committed to know that it has.
Am I? Haven’t we gone through this?
Yep 🙂
If a murder has been committed, we can agree that murder is a crime, even if we refrain from naming any culprit as guilty until they have been proven guilty in court.
That’s tautologically true but not relevant. The crux here is that murder is a dispositional crime, it is not really a matter of fact.* That is, while we can agree that someone has been killed prior to any determination of culprit, guilt or culpability, we cannot know that murder has been committed until we’ve examined the state of mind of the killer: the killer might have killed in self-defense, it might have been an accident, it might have been murder, who knows?
Now if we happen to have, via extra-legal means, ascertained what was going through the person’s mind at the time of the killing — a confession, perhaps, or a previously-stated declaration of intent — then yes, we can say that the killer was in fact a murderer prior to the conviction. [Which means, incidentally, that you cannot properly declare someone to have been “murdered” until you know who did the killing, because you need to know why they killed.] Absent that, though, we cannot be in a position to assert the antecedent of the conditional, that a “murder” was committed, before some kind of investigation (culminating in a trial) because that requires knowledge that we don’t possess. The standard approximation is thus to say “innocent until proven guilty” yadda yadda yadda, you know the rest.
In short: you’re begging the question by implicitly presuming you know the intent of the killer without that intent having been properly established.
I happen to think your flawed analogy doesn’t undermine the force of your original argument because, as I read them, the Geneva Conventions et al. do not require a dispositional argument, only a finding of fact; it is sufficient that the settlements exist without knowing anything about the intent of those who built them. And I have to admit that I generally don’t bother being this hypertechnical in my distinctions, that I’ll call killings “murders” without a proper forensic analysis of the minds of those who killed, and so forth. Thing is, I’ve had too much experience with this kind of “proof by hypothetical” (or, to steal from Belle Waring, the “power of stipulation”), especially when dealing with a situation as fraught as I/P, to let it pass without comment.
And now, having commented, I’m done. Carry on!
* I’m not sure if there’s a legal term of art for this so I’m making up my own terminology as I go along.
Thanks, rilkefan. Actually, my tastes run more to this or this, or this or even this. But never, ever this.
Ok, Slart – I like John Cusack – guess I’ll have to rent _Better Off Dead_ one of these days.
Jes – what Anarch said.
Anarch: Okay: I do see what you mean, but I don’t agree with you. I shall continue to say that the prisoners in Abu Ghraib were tortured, that Nicole Brown and Ron Goldman were murdered, and that the Israeli settlements in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip are illegal.
Interesting column by (of all people) Safire.