The Official Middle East Peace Summit Thread

[billythrilly7th]

http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/11/26/mideast.summit/index.html

President Bush expressed optimism Monday after meetings with Israeli and Palestinian leaders about reviving the stalled Mideast peace process.

Bush. middle, met separately Monday with Israeli leader Olmert, left, and with Palestinian chief Abbas.

Bush's White House talks with Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas came on the eve of a conference in Annapolis, Maryland, among representatives of more than 40 countries, including a wide array of Arab nations such as Syria and Saudi Arabia.

During a photo session for reporters after talks with Abbas, Bush said the United States can't impose Mideast peace "but can help facilitate it."

Abbas said he hoped the conference would trigger expanded negotiations with Israel that would lead to a permanent peace deal, calling the event a "historic initiative."

Good luck, everyone.

May you find the solution to the unsolvable debacle.

[billythrilly7th]

Uh oh. Roadblock.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071126/ap_on_re_mi_ea/israel_palestinians

Leaders of the Islamic militant group Hamas called Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas a traitor Monday and vowed to reject any decisions made at the Mideast peace conference in the United States.

In Jerusalem, meanwhile, more than 20,000 Israelis gathered at the Western Wall, the holiest site where Jews can pray, to protest the conference. Many marched to a square near the residence of Prime Minister Ehud Olmert for a noisy demonstration.

Oh boy.

[Bird of Prey]

Lol!! Well if it's the official Middle East Peace Summit thread, please disclose what the official position is, Bt. I'm at a loss, as it appears - albeit a rare occasion - you seem to be.

[billythrilly7th]

Lol!! Well if it's the official Middle East Peace Summit thread, please disclose what the official position is, Bt.

huh?

Thank you.

[billythrilly7th]

I'm at a loss, as it appears - albeit a rare occasion - you seem to be.

Not really. I'm just trying to pick the right spot for the map.

:)

[Bird of Prey]

huh?

Thank you.


Well? Do you believe it will succeed? Is the official Billythrilly position that of Bush presiding successfully. . .despite international opposition??

[billythrilly7th]

Well? Do you believe it will succeed? Is the official Billythrilly position that of Bush presiding successfully. . .despite international opposition??

It's the official thread.

What are u talking about?

I think my opinion is clear based on posts one and two.

Thank you.

[billythrilly7th]

. . .despite international opposition??

International opposition?

What are you talking about?

You must be on the sauce.

[Bird of Prey]

In Jerusalem, meanwhile, more than 20,000 Israelis gathered at the Western Wall, the holiest site where Jews can pray, to protest the conference. Many marched to a square near the residence of Prime Minister Ehud Olmert for a noisy demonstration.

Oh boy.

Guess you weren't clear enough to yourself. Please review.

[billythrilly7th]

In Jerusalem, meanwhile, more than 20,000 Israelis gathered at the Western Wall, the holiest site where Jews can pray, to protest the conference. Many marched to a square near the residence of Prime Minister Ehud Olmert for a noisy demonstration.

Oh boy.

Guess you weren't clear enough to yourself. Please review.

I'm perfectly clear as to what my opinion is based on the first two posts of this thread. I refer you to my first sig line.

I already know your opinions and desires.

I look forward to hearing other posters's.

Thank you.

[Joe270]

Leaders of the Islamic militant group Hamas called Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas a traitor Monday and vowed to reject any decisions made at the Mideast peace conference in the United States.

Isn't this almost exactly what Hugo said about Venezuelan citizens apposed to his policies? Is this a page out of "The Oppressor's Handbook"?

[William Haskins]

hey, i credit syria for at least attending, unlike hamas who are bullies to their own people and are contributing nothing but threats of deadlier attacks against israel.

[rugcat]

hey, i credit syria for at least attending, unlike hamas who are bullies to their own people and are contributing nothing but threats of deadlier attacks against israel.That may be, but Hamas has a lot of popular support among Palestinians. (Enough to win an election, remember?) Without their participation, these talks are pointless.

[billythrilly7th]

That may be, but Hamas has a lot of popular support among Palestinians. (Enough to win an election, remember?) Without their participation, these talks are pointless.

Why do you say that?

Statements like these?

Palestinians are unlikely to accept any outcome or decisions from this week's Middle East peace conference in the United States, said a spokesman for militant Islamist group Hamas on Monday.

"The Palestinians will never recognise any of the results that emerge from the conference in Annapolis and will act as if it never even happened," said Mushir al-Masri, a spokesman for the Hamas movement which controls Gaza.

As long as their are militants like Hamas in Palestine there will never be peace and a Palestinian state. As long as there isn't peace and a Palestinian state there will always be militants like Hamas.

:Shrug:

I'm just happy that while that game goes round and round Israelis prosper, live free, work, vacation, etc.

Too bad Palestinians continue to choose poorly when it comes to their leaders.

"Arafat to Hamas: Way to Blow Every Chance of Having Your Own Country"

The History of the Palestinian Quest for a Home

2010
Simon Schuster

[William Haskins]

. . .despite international opposition??

In Jerusalem, meanwhile, more than 20,000 Israelis gathered at the Western Wall, the holiest site where Jews can pray, to protest the conference. Many marched to a square near the residence of Prime Minister Ehud Olmert for a noisy demonstration.

i don't see how you can say that 20,000 right wing religious zealots in a country of more than 7 million represents even prevailing opposition in israel itself, much less qualifying as "international opposition"...

[Bird of Prey]

i don't see how you can say that 20,000 right wing religious zealots in a country of more than 7 million represents even prevailing opposition in israel itself, much less qualifying as "international opposition"...


I can't either, other than twenty-thousand are actually standing up there to be counted. I find it I significant, and frankly, astounding. And I think it says something of the agenda of militants - aka warmongers aka aspiring conquerors in a declared democracy - that no nation is immune from, well: militants. And it seems vastly important that they don't seize power as they have, um, elsewhere.

[William Haskins]

this is taking a turn for the silly.

[blacbird]

i don't see how you can say that 20,000 right wing religious zealots in a country of more than 7 million represents even prevailing opposition in israel itself

Problem is, one of those right-wing zealots materially affected the history of this conflict by murdering Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin. Sometimes it doesn't take numbers.

caw

[William Haskins]

now that, sir, i can agree with without reservation.

[Bird of Prey]

Gee.

[billythrilly7th]

I can't either, other than twenty-thousand are actually standing up there to be counted. I find it I significant, and frankly, astounding. And I think it says something of the agenda of militants - aka warmongers aka aspiring conquerors in a declared democracy - that no nation is immune from, well: militants. And it seems vastly important that they don't seize power as they have, um, elsewhere.

:Huh::Wha::Shrug:

[William Haskins]

militants, billy. militants.

exactly the same as the suicide bombers, billy. exactly the same.

[blacbird]

militants, billy. militants.

exactly the same as the suicide bombers, billy. exactly the same.

Don't disrupt Trilzy's blissful confusion, William. It's cruel.

caw

[William Haskins]

i like it when his good eye twitches.

[blacbird]

i like it when his good eye twitches.

Is that the one in the middle?

caw

[dmytryp]

Problem is, one of those right-wing zealots materially affected the history of this conflict by murdering Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin. Sometimes it doesn't take numbers.

caw

bs
I don't condone what Igal Amir did, but all this babble about how he changed the course of history is just that -- babble

Let's recap: israeli's had been talking to palestinians before Rabin (since Madrid's conference and Shamir being the pm). After Rabin's death his even more left-wing companion Peres became a pm for almost two years and continued 'the Rabin Way'. So in what way did Rabin's murder change the course of history?

[dmytryp]

I can't either, other than twenty-thousand are actually standing up there to be counted. I find it I significant, and frankly, astounding. And I think it says something of the agenda of militants - aka warmongers aka aspiring conquerors in a declared democracy - that no nation is immune from, well: militants. And it seems vastly important that they don't seize power as they have, um, elsewhere.

Do you actually know why they are protesting against the conference? Or why are you calling them warmongerers?

[Bravo]

Do you actually know why they are protesting against the conference? Or why are you calling them warmongerers?

what are they protesting against?

[Joe270]

It's the why, not the what that he was getting at, Bravo.

Since he is our 'eyes on the ground' there, it would be nice to hear more.

[dmytryp]

what are they protesting against?

They are protesting against the fact that Israel is going (in their view) make far reaching concessions, which it will eventually have to live up to, while the other side doesn't have any shred of chance of implementing agreements on their side and other factions openly declared they will not honor any agreement reached in Annapolis.
As simple as that. I think the protesters have a solid point, but I still think we should have gone to Annapolis.
Their protests don't have anything to do with warmongering.

[blacbird]

After Rabin's death his even more left-wing companion Peres became a pm for almost two years and continued 'the Rabin Way'. So in what way did Rabin's murder change the course of history?

I'll concede that you have more direct experience with the circumstances in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict than I do. That being said, there is a strong perception abroad that Rabin had far more credibility and clout than did Peres, ever. Personal street-cred is enormously important in the Middle East. Can you possible be suggesting that the situation in Israel/Palestine is better today than it was when Rabin was PM? Peres was a stopgap only, and was succeeded by Sharon, who, frankly, proved as big a disaster as Arafat. The two of them, one now deceased, the other a vegetable, have given to us today the horrible situation that not exists. Olmert is, as the vast majority of Israelis seem to believe, a place-holder. Abbas can't even influence, let alone control, Hamas. Who is available as a credible leader in this conflict? Netanyahu? Puh-lease . . .

caw

[dmytryp]

I'll concede that you have more direct experience with the circumstances in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict than I do. That being said, there is a strong perception abroad that Rabin had far more credibility and clout than did Peres, ever. Personal street-cred is enormously important in the Middle East. Can you possible be suggesting that the situation in Israel/Palestine is better today than it was when Rabin was PM? Peres was a stopgap only, and was succeeded by Sharon, who, frankly, proved as big a disaster as Arafat. The two of them, one now deceased, the other a vegetable, have given to us today the horrible situation that not exists. Olmert is, as the vast majority of Israelis seem to believe, a place-holder. Abbas can't even influence, let alone control, Hamas. Who is available as a credible leader in this conflict? Netanyahu? Puh-lease . . .

caw

Sorry, you have to get your facts straight first.
Yes, Rabin had more credibility (inside Israel too) as he was considered more cautious and more pro-security. It's funny that actually Peres ordered an operation 'Grapes of Wrath' in Lebannon.
Peres continued the Oslo agreements with Arafat, yet the bombings never stopped. Netaniahu succeeded Peres (not Sharon). Despite the fact that people think he stalled the peace process it is hardly so. He turned over Hebron and signed a Why (have no idea how it is spelled) agreement. All that he demanded from the palestinians is that they live up to their side of the agreement before moving forward. This is something reasonable, don't you think?
Ehud Barak succeeded Netaniahu as pm and went to Camp David, where he actually proposed an even farther reaching agreement than Rabin to Arafat. Arafat declined and two month later (I can be wrong about the exact time) the intifadah broke out.
Sharon took over from Barak, as the latter was unable to reign in the bombings and the violence.
First two years of Sharon's pm were actually good for Israel. He finally decided on the operation 'Defensive Shield'. The number of suicide bombings steadily declined. After that Sharon decided on the unilateral withdrawal from Gaza and you know the rest.

A little nit for as to Rabin's credibility: I admire him as a person of honesty in the politics (there is a story from his first time as pm), though I disagree with his political stances. During Oslo agreement he didn't have the Jewish majority in the Knesset and relied on Arab votes (that would vote for any agreement with the palestinians, however bad for Israel). He was largely criticized for this.
What was done to him after his death makes me sick. A similar pesonal cult would be appropriate for the USSR. He was turned into a straw man against opposition and his name is brought up every time anybody from the right wing has the audacity to voice any opposition to agreements with the palestinians. This actually backfired and violates his memory as people more and more sick of this political circus around his name.

[Bravo]

They are protesting against the fact that Israel is going (in their view) make far reaching concessions, which it will eventually have to live up to, while the other side doesn't have any shred of chance of implementing agreements on their side and other factions openly declared they will not honor any agreement reached in Annapolis.
As simple as that. I think the protesters have a solid point, but I still think we should have gone to Annapolis.
Their protests don't have anything to do with warmongering.

do you have any evidence of them protesting for that reason?

considering orthodox jews believe in recreating a greater israel and are opposed to making any peace with palestinians (whom they dont believe ever existed), i find your interpretation of their motives highly suspect.

[dmytryp]

do you have any evidence of them protesting for that reason?

considering orthodox jews believe in recreating a greater israel and are opposed to making any peace with palestinians (whom they dont believe ever existed), i find your interpretation of their motives highly suspect.

Considering that there were representatives of different parties (including the coalition) and not just orthodox jews (by the way, only far right orthodox jews believe what you said). Additionally, I know what is the common rhetoric against the summit at the moment.
By the way, palestinians as a nation historically didn't exist. They do exist now and so we have to deal with them.

[William Haskins]

They do exist now and so we have to deal with them.

indeed. kudos to israel for sitting down with those who not only refuse to acknowledge their right to exist, but even refuse to shake their hands.

[Bravo]

indeed. kudos to israel for sitting down with those who not only refuse to acknowledge their right to exist, but even refuse to shake their hands.

that's not true at all.

every single arab nation agrees that israel has a right to exist if it withdraws from land occupied in 1967.

[jst5150]

There's this little niggling thing that keeps popping up:

The part of the group that's not Israel or the U.S. hates Jews and wants Israel wiped off the map.

That's sort of been the sticking point for the last umpteen conferences.

I'm not sure how the idealogy of "kill all the jews and wipe out the state of Israel" plays into the dialogue. It should. It doesn't. But until that gets discussed and resolved (which is like saying, "When will radical Islam get resolved?"), then, well, they're just waiting to see where they are sitting for the Army/Navy game.

[dmytryp]

that's not true at all.

every single arab nation agrees that israel has a right to exist if it withdraws from land occupied in 1967.

Does that include Hamas-land in Gaza?

[dmytryp]

Well, strangely enough, all those peace supporting palestinians (a 100k of them in Gaza and more in Ramallah and Hebron) protested against Annapolis and shouted they will never acknowledge Israel.
Does your point still stand, Bravo?
Still think this is a fringe group, BoP?

[SC Harrison]

Well, strangely enough, all those peace supporting palestinians (a 100k of them in Gaza and more in Ramallah and Hebron) protested against Annapolis and shouted they will never acknowledge Israel.
Does your point still stand, Bravo?
Still think this is a fringe group, BoP?

The fact that there is a much higher percentage of protestors amongst a population with a crippling level of unemployment doesn't surprise me a bit. And if it takes making and solidifying peace between West Bank Pals and Israel for now while leaving Gaza completely out of the process, then so be it. It's time to start ignoring "roadblocks", because they will always be there.

[dmytryp]

The fact that there is a much higher percentage of protestors amongst a population with a crippling level of unemployment doesn't surprise me a bit. And if it takes making and solidifying peace between West Bank Pals and Israel for now while leaving Gaza completely out of the process, then so be it. It's time to start ignoring "roadblocks", because they will always be there.

There are two problems with what you are suggesting (I don't mean we shouldn't talk, but still...)
1. Palestinians themselves (Abu Mazen) said that there won't be an agreement without solution in Gaza.
2. Hamas said a couple of weeks ago that they will grab the power on the West Bank the moment IDF gets out.

[jst5150]

How the conference is going:

Everyone not Israel and the US: Israel must be wiped off the map!
Rice: [Hands extended to keep them apart] Wait! Wait! What if we start slow and work our way up to 'not wiping Israel off the map'?
Syria: Like what?
Condi Rice: Well, would Palestine ... like a Frosty?
Palestine: What is this 'Frosty'?
Rice: It's like a chocolate milkshake. We get it from Wendy's.
Palestine: That sounds tasty. Yes. Palestine will have a Frosty.
Rice: OK. Will you allow Israel to get in their car, go through the drive-through and pick it up.
[Commotion amongst everyone that is not Israel or the US]
Palestine: [leans in and discusses idea with other Palestine rep]: We will allow the Israeli car to go and pick up the Frosty only ... a Jew may not drive the car or handle the Frosty.
Rice: Well, it is Israel's car. And it's just a Frosty.
Israel: We will agree to this.
Palestine: [After more discussion] The Jew handling the Frosty must use a napkin with the Palestine flag upon it. And Israel may NOT hand the Frosty directly to Palestine. And we do not want the Frosty immediately.
Israel: If not you, then who? If not now, when? [Giggling amongst the Israeli delegation]
Rice: That's enough Israel. OK. Can Israel agree to the napkin issue and delivering the Frosty, say, after nap time?
Israel: We will agree to the Palestine napkin, but we will wrap the Palestine napkin in an Israeli napkin first. But who will take the Frosty to Palestine?
Palestine: You should give the Frosty to Syria, who will then give the Frosty to Palestine.
Syria: We will accept nothing from Jews!
[Commotion fills the room again]
Jordan: [At first quietly] I will take it. [Now louder, to quell the rabble] I WILL TAKE ISRAEL'S FROSTY TO PALESTINE.
[The room quiets]
Jordan: Jordan will deliver Israel's Frosty to Palestine. But Israel must remove the Israeli napkin and leave the Frosty on the negotiation table between Iran and Saudi Arabia.
Saudi Arabia: Why is this Jew Frosty being left near us? We object!
Rice: It will only be near you. Not in your actual "table area" so to speak.
[A long pause]
Saudi Arabia: We will agree to this ... only if a member of the United Arab Emirates agrees to screen our view of the Jew Frosty while Palestine comes and picks it up. Once Palestine acquires the Frosty, Saudi Arabia will acknowledge it.
Rice: Acknowledge what?
Saudi: This ... Frosty.
Rice: But we're asking you not acknowledge the Frosty, just that the Frosty is one step toward everyone acknowledging Israel is a nation of ...
[Suddenly]
Everyone not Israel and the US: Israel must be wiped off the map!

[Magdalen]

Oh, but wait til the choice between a vanilla Frosty and the original chocolate Frosty becomes an issue!! What then??

PS, the "wiped off the map" quote is apparently a poor translation. A more accurate translation is "must vanish from the page of time". (per Discover Vancouver Forum)

[SC Harrison]

(I don't mean we shouldn't talk, but still...)


That's my whole point. You get all these Arab leaders together and talking with Israel and the U.S., talking about specific issues, and see what happens. Some of these secular leaders are at least indirectly supporting Hamas, and they need to understand that they are playing with fire.

A peaceful solution to the struggle between Israelis and Palistinians over the Occupied Territories is in the best interest of all of the secular Arab governments, but I don't think they fully realize that yet.

[William Haskins]

fortunately, these guys will break through with a workable solution:

Iran said on Tuesday that it had invited Palestinian militant factions to a meeting in Tehran aimed at countering a US-hosted Middle East peace conference seeking to kickstart the peace process.

"These groups are planning to come to Tehran within the next week or two and they are all the Palestinian groups that are struggling for the freedom of their land," government spokesman Gholam Hossein Elham told reporters.

Iran is one of the most vocal backers of Palestinian militant groups like Hamas and Islamic Jihad and pledged millions of dollars in 2006 to the then Hamas government crippled by a Western aid cut.

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=071127163735.r6akzqgy&show_article=1

[billythrilly7th]

For his part, Abbas made an impassioned appeal to Israelis to support the peace process, saying that war and terrorism "belong to the past."
"Neither we nor you must beg for peace from the other. It is a joint interest for us and you," he said. "Peace and freedom is a right for us, just as peace and security is a right for you and us."
"It is time for the cycle of blood, violence and occupation to end. It is time for us to look at the future together with confidence and hope. It is time for this tortured land that has been called the land of love and peace to live up to its name," Abbas said.
His speech was immediately rejected by Hamas, which stormed to power in the Gaza Strip in June, a month before Bush announced plans for the peace conference.

:Shrug:

And non-clear minded people wonder why clear minded people don't rally to the defense of the Palestinians.

[Aslera]

I can't say a whole lot, since I'm technically a State Dept contractor and I'm not quite sure what the rules are. (A colleague of mine got on the wrong shuttle the other day and ended up in Annapolis...wasn't allowed off the bus but we've been joking about it ever since).

But I don't see how these peace talks are much different than the OTHER peace talks. Sure, broader framework, greater regional participation, Syria actually decided to play on the same court as the rest of the big boys, etc. But I don't see regional stability without dealing with Iran. I cannot rightly blame the Israelis for insisting they still have a VERY serious security dilemma when Iran is looming over the whole region and funding and arming militant groups such as Hamas and Hezbollah. My personal dilemma is "Do we legitimize Hamas by bringing them to the table? Do we risk embarassment when they refuse or can we spin that fast enough to make sure that they look like the fools? Would anything be accomplished if Hamas came to the table?" Hezbollah is already legit as a political party and a dominating one in Lebanese politics.

This was explained veryclearly to me by a Serbian politican speaking about Kosovo. "How are you supposed to negotiate with them? They have been told that they will be assisted and helped by bigger and better nations if they wait until some false deadline. So they sit on the other side of the table and play the waiting game. How do you negotiate with people who have no incentive to negotiate?"

The July 2006 war took away some of Israel's assumed military clout, and unfortunately that put other players in the region in a better spot to sit there, play the waiting game and wait it out. The Arab NATIONS might have an incentive to participate...but the non state actors? None. None whatsoever. They will lose their funding, their purpose, and their support if they participate successfully. If they don't, Iran and others will continue to fund and support them.

Heck, if I were Hamas, Hezbollah, etc, you'd have to be offering me...oh, you know, Israel, to get me to the table.

</end>

(also, and in all seriousness, I am not speaking on behalf of the US State Dept and my organization here...these are my own personal views)

[SC Harrison]

This was explained veryclearly to me by a Serbian politican speaking about Kosovo. "How are you supposed to negotiate with them? They have been told that they will be assisted and helped by bigger and better nations if they wait until some false deadline. So they sit on the other side of the table and play the waiting game. How do you negotiate with people who have no incentive to negotiate?"



This is a very appropriate analogy, but not for the reasons you think it is.

Serbia and Israel have (at least) one thing in common: thanks to their superiority complex, nationalistic drive and an unwillingness to reign in racist expansionists, they have lost credibility as an honest negotiating entity and can make no progress without third-party assistance.

[Bravo]

Does that include Hamas-land in Gaza?

since israel is not meeting w/ hamas i do not see how this is relevant.


Well, strangely enough, all those peace supporting palestinians (a 100k of them in Gaza and more in Ramallah and Hebron) protested against Annapolis and shouted they will never acknowledge Israel.
Does your point still stand, Bravo?
Still think this is a fringe group, BoP?

when did i make a counterpoint about this?

what are you talking about?

[Bravo]

dm, what concessions did israel make with oslo?

after those accords, israel expanded it's settlement three fold.

after those accords, it detained thousands of palestinians and continues to hold them w/out trial.

after those accords, it has embarked on a systematic campaign of judiaziation of e. jeruselum by demolishing arab homes and denying housing permits to arab nationals.

and there's the water wells and water resovoirs it seized through its wall and it's settlements.

so, what exactly were the concessions the first time around?

[Bravo]

(by the way, only far right orthodox jews believe what you said).

it's in the likud charter as well:

The Government of Israel flatly rejects the establishment of a Palestinian Arab state west of the Jordan river.
The Palestinians can run their lives freely in the framework of self-rule, but not as an independent and sovereign state. Thus, for example, in matters of foreign affairs, security, immigration and ecology, their activity shall be limited in accordance with imperatives of Israel's existence, security and national needs.


Jerusalem is the eternal, united capital of the State of Israel and only of Israel. The government will flatly reject Palestinian proposals to divide Jerusalem, including the plan to divide the city presented to the Knesset by the Arab factions and supported by many members of Labor and Meretz.

The Jordan Valley and the territories that dominate it shall be under Israeli sovereignty.

yea, these guys were never a roadblock to peace.

[Aslera]

This is a very appropriate analogy, but not for the reasons you think it is.

Serbia and Israel have (at least) one thing in common: thanks to their superiority complex, nationalistic drive and an unwillingness to reign in racist expansionists, they have lost credibility as an honest negotiating entity and can make no progress without third-party assistance.

I am well aware of Serbia's issues, and Israel's. Serbia's position, however irrational to us, is not irrational to them. Same with Israel.

Israel is not faultless. Very, very, VERY few countries are. But I think that there are FAR more factors involved in Israel's reputation at the negotiating table than radical nationalism and exceptionalism.

[billythrilly7th]

WASHINGTON (AFP) Nov 11, 2004
Yasser Arafat's biggest mistake may have been to reject a peace deal brokered by the United States in 2000, which would have given him much of what he had demanded for the Palestinians for four decades.

Former president Bill Clinton called the late Palestinian leader's move a "colossal error" that led to the election of the hawkish Ariel Sharon as Israel's prime minister and put the peace process back by years.
In a statement extending his condolences for Arafat's death, Clinton said he regretted that in 2000 Arafat had "missed the opportunity" to create a Palestinian nation, adding that he prayed "for the day when the dreams of the Palestinian people for a state and a better life will be realized in a just and lasting peace."
Clinton made his final move in December 2000 and January 2001 -- in the last weeks of his presidency -- to bring together Arafat and the Israeli prime minister of the time, Ehud Barak.

"Arafat said no again," Clinton wrote, adding how he closed the negotiations with a great sense of frustration and sadness.
But he felt that even then Arafat was ailing.
"At times Arafat seemed confused, not wholly in command of the facts. I had felt for some time that he might not be at the top of his game any longer, after all the years of spending the night in different places to dodge assassins bullets," he wrote.
"Perhaps he could not make the final jump from revolutionary to statesman."
Clinton believed that Arafat would not even agree the broad parameters of the deal because he did not want to be seen conceding anything.
And the president expressed his anger to the Palestinian leader in virtually their last meeting.
Clinton said he warned Arafat that his actions would lead to the Israeli people turning to Sharon as leader. And Sharon was elected a few weeks later.
Nearly a year later Arafat said he was ready to negotiate on the basis of the Clinton deal.
"Apparently Arafat had thought the time to decide, five minutes to midnight, had finally come. His watch
"Right before I left office, Arafat, in one of our last conversations, thanked me for all my efforts and told me what a great man I was. "'Mr Chairman', I replied, 'I am not a great man, I am a failure and you have made me one'." said Clinton who predicted that the final peace deal between Israelis and Palestinians will look a lot like the accord he negotiated at Camp David.






'Nuff said.

[Bravo]

:rolleyes:

[billythrilly7th]

:rolleyes:

And that's why the Palestinians still live in squalor while the Israeli's prosper and flourish.

[Bird of Prey]

'Nuff said.


I'll say. Arafat's dead. He's been dead for years. Since '04. 'Nuff said all right.

[SC Harrison]

I am well aware of Serbia's issues, and Israel's. Serbia's position, however irrational to us, is not irrational to them. Same with Israel.

Israel is not faultless. Very, very, VERY few countries are. But I think that there are FAR more factors involved in Israel's reputation at the negotiating table than radical nationalism and exceptionalism.

I don't disagree with this, I was just trying to put the complaint of "outside interference" in perspective. Neither the Kosovar Albanians nor the Palistinians trust their overlords to treat them fairly, and they have ample reason for this distrust. This distrust may not serve them well in the longrun, but it's definitely understandable.

[billythrilly7th]

I'll say. Arafat's dead. He's been dead for years. Since '04. 'Nuff said all right.

Sorry Bill Clinton's words discredit and destroy all arguments claiming that Israel is responsible for the fact that there is no peace with Palestine.

I know it's a tough debate fact to overcome.

Bill Clinton's very words.

Oh well.

The best bet is to do what Bravo does.

Ignore them or roll eyes.

And then move on with more baseless rhetoric.

Thank you.

[Bravo]

i've already ripped apart the basis for that peace plan many times.

funny how on this issue you decide to trust your hated enemy the clinton himself.

[billythrilly7th]

i've already ripped apart the basis for that peace plan many times.

funny how on this issue you decide to trust your hated enemy the clinton himself.

You've ripped nothing apart.

You presented your biased, ridiculous, "no compromise" opinion that has the Palestinians living in squalor.

Bill Clinton is clearly more of an authority on this issue than you.

And clearly he thinks you are wrong.

Sorry. Take it up with him.
:)

P.S. And I've praised Clinton many times for many reasons.

[Joe270]

Name one concession the Palestinians have ever made, name one step toward peace with Israel (not including attending international meetings in which they make promises they do not keep) made by the Palestinians, name anything they have done to really move the process to a resolution. Just one.

It takes a real stretch to blame all the problems on Israel when they are the only ones making any concessions or honoring any parts of any agreements.

[Bravo]

It takes a real stretch to blame all the problems on Israel when they are the only ones making any concessions or honoring any parts of any agreements.

once again, what concessions did israel make and what have they honored?

[Joe270]

Oh, come on, Bravo. You can't be serious. Alright, just a couple off the top of my head. . .

Removal of hundreds of settlements, return of the Golan Heights, withdrawal from Gaza, release of prisoners (many times), etc. etc. etc.

I could spend a couple hours and make a comprehensive list, but I see no sense in that until you can post one single concession made by the Palestinians.

Hell, they won't even stop launching rockets into Israel.

[blacbird]

return of the Golan Heights

They haven't returned the Golan Heights.

caw

[Bravo]

[QUOTE] Removal of hundreds of settlements,

while tripling the size of the rest.

return of the Golan Heights

huh?


withdrawal from Gaza

that wasnt a concession. that was a unilateral, strategic redeployment (a term used by sharon himself) that allowed israel to better protect its west bank settlements. to this day, it continues its mantain an economic and political stranglehold on gaza.


release of prisoners (many times), etc. etc. etc.

what were these prisoners charged with?

anything?

why were they arrested in the first place?

yeah, releasing people you kidnapped, tortured, and intimidated, is a swell concession.


I could spend a couple hours and make a comprehensive list,

itll take you a lot longer, b/c there isnt much they conceded.

but I see no sense in that until you can post one single concession made by the Palestinians.
Hell, they won't even stop launching rockets into Israel.

BS.

palestinians mantained a cease-fire for about 20 months up until israel broke it by continuing to assassinate hamas members and by firing into a beach full of civilians.

did that cease fire count as a concession?

[billythrilly7th]

Clinton was furious with Arafat and told him, ”If the Israelis can make compromises and you can't I should go home. You have been here fourteen days and said no to everything.“ [5a]

That's all it comes down to.

Bravo can rattle on with his biased mis-information bordering on Crazytown, but anything anyone needs to know about Camp David has been said by William Jefferson Clinton.

Bravo: It was the Israeli's fault.
PResident Clinton: Actually, it was Arafat's. He was unwilling to compromise on anything.
Bravo: No, President Clinton, you are wrong.
Clinton: :Scrunched eyes with a head shake conveying "what is wrong with you?" emoticon:

[Joe270]

They haven't returned the Golan Heights.

Sorry, wrong parcel of land. There was some returned in the 80s to Lebanon, as I recall. My recollection may be flawed.

palestinians mantained a cease-fire for about 9 months up until israel broke it by firing into a beach full of civilians.

Oh, so the intefada counted as a cease-fire, eh? Try again.

[Aslera]

Shebaa Farms are Lebanon, Golan Heights were from Syria.

The Palestinians would have a better chance if they were united. But they are not. Divided, they're easier to ignore.

[dmytryp]

Bravo, let's get something straight.
I was actually here during the jolly days of Oslo (I actually did some molitary service at the time). You weren't. So, please, go try bs somebody else.
During Oslo Israel pulled out of something like 90% of the territories. I served on a checkpoint beside Jenin. We were not allowed to ride our jeep into the city with doors open or any other sign of authority. We allowed pretty much anybody into Israel. The ones that didn't have papers simply went around the checkpoint and we were ordered not to do anything to stop them.
Numerous joint and Israeli ventures were built in areas adjoining to the territories (a year before Jenin I served in Erez industrial park. My position was right across the road from Palestinian police).
Israelis flooded the Jericho casino, and the markets of PA.
Israel supplied palestinian police with weaponry (which was later turned against israeli soldiers).
And yes, prisoners were returned. Many of which were charged with aiding terrorist activities. Granted, none with 'blood on their hands'. By the way, statistics shows that about 85% of the released returned to terrorost activities.
Well, if not for Arafat (and partly Barak), there would be a palestinian state by now.
And is those not concessions (pretty big ones), then define concessions.

P.S. During all that time, by the way, suicide bombings never stopped.

[Joe270]

Shebaa Farms are Lebanon, Golan Heights were from Syria.

Thanks for the correction. Embarassing mix-up on my part, sorry all.

[Bravo]

During Oslo Israel pulled out of something like 90% of the territories.

http://electronicintifada.net/bytopic/uploads/wbnk_6-02.jpg

yeah, sure looks like it.

by all accounts, israel increased its settler population from 220K to 400K in the w. bank (i mispoke when i said it tripled its population), and increased the number of settler only roads which prevented palestinian movement w/in their territory.



P.S. During all that time, by the way, suicide bombings never stopped.

america has tens of thousands of troops in baghdad yet suicide bombings happen all the time there as well.

if israel had withdrawn to it's own territory and used those troops to protect its own borders than perhaps it wouldve been more difficult for suicide bombers to slip into israel.

[Bravo]

Oh, so the intefada counted as a cease-fire, eh? Try again.

um.....are you joking?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/10/16/wmid16.xml

[dmytryp]

http://electronicintifada.net/bytopic/uploads/wbnk_6-02.jpg

yeah, sure looks like it.

by all accounts, israel increased its settler population from 220K to 400K in the w. bank (i mispoke when i said it tripled its population), and increased the number of settler only roads which prevented palestinian movement w/in their territory.




america has tens of thousands of troops in baghdad yet suicide bombings happen all the time there as well.

if israel had withdrawn to it's own territory and used those troops to protect its own borders than perhaps it wouldve been more difficult for suicide bombers to slip into israel.

Are you serious?
You show a map of 2002 in reference to Oslo? Maybe try not to bs people around here.
This is correct after 'Defensive shield' operation. That took place after something like 200 civilians died in bombings in one month (that's something like 8.5k in terms of population percentage translated to US). This also goes directly against your next statement. As soon as IDF reentered the cities of the West Bank the number of cuicide bombings started to decline.

P.S. Settlments increase -- you do know that many of the people in the settlments are religious (not exactly orthodox, but still...) and have many children.

[dmytryp]

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/0/0d/Settlements2006.jpg/285px-Settlements2006.jpg (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/0/0d/Settlements2006.jpg)
This would be the correct map of original Oslo (sorry, I had no time to look for a better one).
Only the rose areas are under IDF full control

[Bravo]

lol, the maps are pretty much identical dm (perhaps the slight discrepancy is due to different dates).

and neither show that israel pulled out of 90% of the w. bank.

and neither of them even show the settler only roads slicing through the land.

nor do they show the way that the settlers have strategically stolen water reserves.

palestinians got nothing out of oslo.

accept for more racist, fundamentalist neighbors.

[dmytryp]

lol, the maps are pretty much identical dm (perhaps the slight discrepancy is due to different dates).

and neither show that israel pulled out of 90% of the w. bank.

and neither of them even show the settler only roads slicing through the land.

nor do they show the way that the settlers have strategically stolen water reserves.

palestinians got nothing out of oslo.

accept for more racist, fundamentalist neighbors.
You've got to be kidding!
All the white space on the map is PA municipally controlled.

As I already mentioned, I actually was there at the time. Military presence kept mainly to the settlements and a few (as in very few) temporary roadblocks. We are talking pre-intifadah time. The restrictions on palestinian movements were minimal to non-existent

Edit: if by nothing you mean change of effective military rule to autonomic government over the vast majority of the territory, than yeah, they got nothing.

[billythrilly7th]

Edit: if by nothing you mean change of effective military rule to autonomic government over the vast majority of the territory, than yeah, they got nothing.

Bravo, Arafat and Hamas don't believe in compromise IMO.

It's EVERYTHING THEY want or nothing at all.

And that is why the Palestinians have and continue to live in the conditions they do.

Their own fault.

And on it goes for them while Israel prospers.

Israel can play this game forever. ANd they will if they have to.

Shame for the Palestinian people that they don't fully support compromise and level headed leaders.

Oh well.

[Bravo]

You've got to be kidding!
All the white space on the map is PA municipally controlled.

you are being absolutely ridiculous.

here's your map blown up:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d8/Westbankjan06.jpg

look again.

here it is again:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/furniture/in_depth/world/2001/israel_and_palestinians/key_maps/israel_claims_300.gif



and again:

http://www.mideastweb.org/fmep_israel_settlements_map1.gif


and again:

http://www.geocities.com/anita_job/WestBankmap.bmp


you really dont see the issue here?

really?

[Bravo]

and yet again dm:

http://hrw.org/reports/2006/opt1106/opt1106_files/image001.jpg

[Bravo]

As I already mentioned, I actually was there at the time.

as an israeli soldier.

you dont think that colors your perspective any?



eta:

were things better during oslo?

yea, no one's denying that.

did israel cede 90% of the w. bank during that time?

no.

that's where you're just flat out wrong.

[Bravo]

here's your 90% reduction:

http://www.poica.org/editor/case_studies/index.3.gif

[dmytryp]

Bravo, I looked it up, youre correct about the territory.
Israel just passed to the PA control over the cities and something like 450 villages (a vast majority), but retained control over uninhabited land, the settlements and the jewish settlment in Hebron.
Though, palestinians were pretty much free to go anywhere (unlike today) and I still would hardly call this 'not getting anything'.

[Bravo]

Israel just passed to the PA control over the cities and something like 450 villages (a vast majority)

what do you mean by "control"?

they did not control their own water resources, their own airspace, their own economy, and their movements were restricted by the whims of the IDF.


but retained control over uninhabited land, the settlements and the jewish settlment in Hebron.

the w. bank and gaza are some of the most densely populated areas in the world, so i think it's safe to say that it wouldnt be "uninhabited" if it werent for israel's occupation.



Though, palestinians were pretty much free to go anywhere (unlike today)

no.

they really really werent.

the settlements are positioned in a way that absolutely limits the range of movement.

and I still would hardly call this 'not getting anything'.

i never said they didnt get anything.

i just see why palestinians consider the oslo accords to be a piece of crap agreement that allowed israel to expand its settlements and tighten their control of the w. bank and e. jeruselum so i fully understand why they would be enormously suspicious of any new agreement.

[Bravo]

and dm, as i keep saying a lot of this is about water too.

from the w. bank, israel takes 74% of the water, the israeli settlers take 10% (despite being a population of 200K ppl), and the local palestinian population (2.5mil ppl) uses only 17%.

is giving all that water to israel considered a concession?

or do you believe this:

“There is no reason for Palestinians to claim that just because they sit on lands, they have the rights to that water.”

– Mr. Katz-Oz, Israel’s negotiator on water issues

and then there's the fact that the israeli wall is annexing w. bank water reservoirs.

[Bravo]

there really is no diplomatic way to say this, dm.

but what your nation is doing is criminal and immoral.

it's a shame that you refuse to condemn the actions of your countrymen and instead, continue to apologize and make excuses for a brutal, dehumanizing, racist occupation of another people.

i've met many israelis who belong to organizations like "not in my name" and "b'tselem", and they really have done a phenemonal job of looking at this objectively and saying:

"you know what? this is wrong. it's rotten to the core. what we are doing cannot, and should not continue. it's destroying not only another people, but it's destroying what israel represents"

i fully understand that israel is worried about security.


but the settlements, the roadblocks, the stealing of water, the control of airspace, the assasinations, the restriction of fuel, the restriction of food, the restriction of funds, the control over palestinian elections, the taking of prisoners without charges, the seizure of land, the destruction of olive trees, the building of a fence on disputed land, the rocket attacks, etc etc etc would make anyone furious.

i know for a fact that i wouldve gone insane if i had lived for an extended period of time in that area.

it's insane to have your life controlled by another people.

and not just another people, but a people who believe that you are less than human, a "cockroach".

insane.

by and large, i think most israelis mean well. they want to protect jews from another massacre.

but that does not give them carte blanche to destroy another people.

its time to step back and admit that your military, political, and economic occupation of another people is wrong.

[robeiae]

There is no such thing as "another people." There are just people. Palestinians--as a group--have no right to any chunk of land, anymore than some other "people." The sooner they come to grips with this, the better. If this entire conflict was taking place in western China--for instance--the world wouldn't know squat about it and no one would be sticking up for the oppressed "people."

But as long as enough people buy into this nonsensical idea, there's hay to be made, in one way or another. When is the leadership of Arab states going to drop the Palestinian issue and deal with some of their own transgressions? Never, it's too good of a tool.

[Bravo]

There is no such thing as "another people."

just b/c you wish it, doesnt make it true.


The sooner they come to grips with this, the better. If this entire conflict was taking place in western China--for instance--the world wouldn't know squat about it and no one would be sticking up for the oppressed "people."


so?

how is that at all relevant?

all i am saying is that there is a racial component to this conflict.

When is the leadership of Arab states going to drop the Palestinian issue and deal with some of their own transgressions? Never, it's too good of a tool.

just because other people might use a cause for their own needs, doesnt mean that cause itself is invalid.

[billythrilly7th]

there really is no diplomatic way to say this, dm.

but what your nation is doing is criminal and immoral.

it's a shame that you refuse to condemn the actions of your countrymen and instead, continue to apologize and make excuses for a brutal, dehumanizing, racist occupation of another people.

i've met many israelis who belong to organizations like "not in my name" and "b'tselem", and they really have done a phenemonal job of looking at this objectively and saying:

"you know what? this is wrong. it's rotten to the core. what we are doing cannot, and should not continue. it's destroying not only another people, but it's destroying what israel represents"

i fully understand that israel is worried about security.


but the settlements, the roadblocks, the stealing of water, the control of airspace, the assasinations, the restriction of fuel, the restriction of food, the restriction of funds, the control over palestinian elections, the taking of prisoners without charges, the seizure of land, the destruction of olive trees, the building of a fence on disputed land, the rocket attacks, etc etc etc would make anyone furious.

i know for a fact that i wouldve gone insane if i had lived for an extended period of time in that area.

it's insane to have your life controlled by another people.

and not just another people, but a people who believe that you are less than human, a "cockroach".

insane.

by and large, i think most israelis mean well. they want to protect jews from another massacre.

but that does not give them carte blanche to destroy another people.

its time to step back and admit that your military, political, and economic occupation of another people is wrong.

Nah.

But best of luck in the future with the "no compromise" policy.

That worked well for Arafat and I'm sure will continue to work well for Hamas and the Palestinian people you so dearly bloviate for every chance you get.

Maybe one day Palestinian people and their supporters will realize that all of the "injustices" and poor living conditions are their own fault.

When your "leader" for decades is an arch terrorist, you kind of set yourself for problems.

But...the good thing is that security is pretty good in Israel these days. So they can wait it out for as long as necessary.

SO.. :Shrug:

[Bravo]

When your "leader" for decades is an arch terrorist, you kind of set yourself for problems.



ben gurion?

begin?

shamir?

sharon?

who are we talking about here?

[billythrilly7th]

That's what your going with?

Alright.

Good luck in your quest for Palestinian independance. Sadly, it's your very attitude that still has Palestine on a quest for independance. And sadly, it's your very attitude that will probably have them on a quest for independance for the next 1000 years.

Hopefully the Palestinian people will reject your attitude that has gotten them nowhere and finally get themselves on a path to having their own country.

I wish them luck.

Sleep well, Bravo.

All you do is hurt their chances.

Thank you.

[Joe270]

but what your nation is doing is criminal and immoral.

it's a shame that you refuse to condemn the actions of your countrymen and instead, continue to apologize and make excuses for a brutal, dehumanizing, racist occupation of another people.

WHAT other people is a key factor here, Bravo. Odd that a population of under 600,000 has ballooned to millions in no time. A population increase of 148% between 1945 and 1948 is really suspicious. Arabs from Jordan, Egypt, and Syria poured into the area.

Living there may suck really bad, but there sure seems to be lots more folks coming in than going out.

Even prior to WW ll, Arabs seemed to enter the area in response to Jews repopulating a nearly vacant Jerusalem, back into the late 1800's. Infusions of Turks are suspected back then, but it doesn't seem like they stayed long. The history isn't really clear, because nobody really cared about the place, and no one seemed to want it until the Jews wanted it.

Bedouins passing through to rape the land don't count as Palestinians, IMHO.

We clearly know who the Jews are, that's not even in dispute.

We also clearly know that historically this is the land of Israel.

So who has the right to it? Those with a clear history, and who settled lands others didn't want after the nomadic goat herders destroyed the land, or those who came in to stake a rather dubious claim from adjoining and, in the case of Turkey, distant lands?

Who has the right to the land, those who destroyed it, denuded it with transient land management methods, or those who rebuilt it, replanted it, and made the land able to sustain life?

Who gets the land, those who fought and won it despite being outgunned and surrounded by a sea of enemies, or those who fled, saying they'd return to push the Israelites into the sea?

Seems pretty clear to me.


As far as criminal and immoral, instead of waging an 'honorable' war in 1948, they elected to fight a dirty guerrilla war targeting civilians. The basis for this dirty war is the Arab's responsibility. They created it, they can grovel in their misery.

[billythrilly7th]

They created it, they can grovel in their misery.

They do.

I feel bad for them because they and people like Bravo truly live up the 'ole "They know not what they do" soundbite.

This is one clear case, unlike mine, where ignorance is not bliss.

It's dirty hell.

Sad.

[billythrilly7th]

My gift to Bravo, Hamas and all of those who impede the peace process on both sides....

"Everybody is going to have to compromise. I said to a group of religious leaders last time I was in Jerusalem, 'All of us have our grievences.' Certainly my ancestors have their grievences and as their descendant, I perhaps could have hung on to those grievences, but ultimately you have to leave those grievences behind you. Ultimately, you have to put unrealistic aspirations behind you THAT YOU WILL GET IT ALL and then you can get an agreement."
Condoleeza Rice
11/28/07

[rugcat]

Bravo, there are many things Israel does that I condemn.

But what you refuse to see is that there is a large segment of the Palestinian population, probably a majority that will never rest until every last Jew is driven out and the state of Israel is destroyed. They do not want "fair treatment." They do not want a two state solution. They want the destruction of Israel, and no lesser goal will satisfy them.

No amount of good will or policy change will have any effect on them. Talk about racist. The entire Arab world is fanatical about the evil of the Jews. Not to mention Iran. They claim it's only Israel, not Jews, but that's hard to swallow.

To get an insight into Arab thinking, read this (http://www.memri.org/bin/articles.cgi?Area=sd&ID=SP35402). (Which I posted elsewhere in another context) Keep in mind that all news content must be approved by the Saudi Government, the same government that pays money to the families of suicide bombers -- the ones who attack not army bases, but cafes full of teenagers.

I think Israel has behaved abominably in many ways. But if you think that the Palestinians will ever give up their dream of Israel's destruction, you're fooling yourself. If you believe Israel has no right to exist, that's another question. But your unilateral condemnation of them is sadly misguided.

[dmytryp]

there really is no diplomatic way to say this, dm.

but what your nation is doing is criminal and immoral.

it's a shame that you refuse to condemn the actions of your countrymen and instead, continue to apologize and make excuses for a brutal, dehumanizing, racist occupation of another people.

i've met many israelis who belong to organizations like "not in my name" and "b'tselem", and they really have done a phenemonal job of looking at this objectively and saying:

"you know what? this is wrong. it's rotten to the core. what we are doing cannot, and should not continue. it's destroying not only another people, but it's destroying what israel represents"

i fully understand that israel is worried about security.


but the settlements, the roadblocks, the stealing of water, the control of airspace, the assasinations, the restriction of fuel, the restriction of food, the restriction of funds, the control over palestinian elections, the taking of prisoners without charges, the seizure of land, the destruction of olive trees, the building of a fence on disputed land, the rocket attacks, etc etc etc would make anyone furious.

i know for a fact that i wouldve gone insane if i had lived for an extended period of time in that area.

it's insane to have your life controlled by another people.

and not just another people, but a people who believe that you are less than human, a "cockroach".

insane.

by and large, i think most israelis mean well. they want to protect jews from another massacre.

but that does not give them carte blanche to destroy another people.

its time to step back and admit that your military, political, and economic occupation of another people is wrong.

You really had me going for a moment.
Right up to the word 'diplomatic'.
There is no siplomatic way to say this, but the paelstinians are reeping what the had sawn. If they didn't start the last intifadah, they would have had a country by now. And please, don't ever talk to me about 'b'tselem' or other human rights groups objectivity. They are hardly that.

The fact remains: Israel faces the reality of the necessity of palestinian state (including Likud despite that charter your brought up). Palestinians (with small exceptions) refuse to see the reality and still hope Israel vanishes and all their refugees are going to come back. Until there is a change of heart on their part, they will continue to suffer. You can blame it on Israel, you can blame it on the God almighty, but the only ones they have to blame are themselves

P.S. During the years me and my family had the luck to avoid any of the bombings, although there were several close calls. And before you dare lecturing me again, call your eighteen year old soldiers to ask if they got home ok because some lunatic blew himself up beside the army base in the middle of Tel-Aviv

[Bravo]

But what you refuse to see is that there is a large segment of the Palestinian population, probably a majority that will never rest until every last Jew is driven out and the state of Israel is destroyed. They do not want "fair treatment." They do not want a two state solution. They want the destruction of Israel, and no lesser goal will satisfy them.

that is not true.


at all.

where did you get that from?

the majority (67%) believe in the peace process, another 57.8% support a 2 state solution.

http://www.angus-reid.com/polls/view/13292

those are numbers that have been very consistent for a long time.

to say that the majority of palestinians want jews exterminated is utter nonsense.

and the vast majority of those people who do not support a 2 state solution want one palestinian state w arabs and jews. they are opposed to the concept of a state for jews only.



No amount of good will or policy change will have any effect on them. Talk about racist. The entire Arab world is fanatical about the evil of the Jews. Not to mention Iran. They claim it's only Israel, not Jews, but that's hard to swallow.

iran has said many times that they support an israel/palestine that is for jews and arabs not just jews.



To get an insight into Arab thinking, read this (http://www.memri.org/bin/articles.cgi?Area=sd&ID=SP35402). (Which I posted elsewhere in another context) Keep in mind that all news content must be approved by the Saudi Government, the same government that pays money to the families of suicide bombers -- the ones who attack not army bases, but cafes full of teenagers.

yes its disgusting, but feel free to get an insight into israeli thinking, read this (http://www.palestineremembered.com/Acre/Famous-Zionist-Quotes/Story696.html).


I think Israel has behaved abominably in many ways. But if you think that the Palestinians will ever give up their dream of Israel's destruction, you're fooling yourself.

why do you believe this?

If you believe Israel has no right to exist, that's another question. But your unilateral condemnation of them is sadly misguided.

i didnt unilaterally condemn anyone.

i'm just sick and tired of the moaning about israel making all these grand concessions and being a perpetual victim.

[Joe270]

but the settlements, the roadblocks, the stealing of water, the control of airspace, the assasinations, the restriction of fuel, the restriction of food, the restriction of funds, the control over palestinian elections, the taking of prisoners without charges, the seizure of land, the destruction of olive trees, the building of a fence on disputed land, the rocket attacks, etc etc etc would make anyone furious.

Why aren't they furious with those who brought this on them, those like Arafat?

Why aren't they furious with those who continue to bring these hardships on them, like Hamas and Hezbollah?

The Israelis are reacting. Stop the act, stop the reaction.

Arafat and his terrorist buddies heralded in this age of Muslim Terrorism, leading to El-Queso. He, and to a large extent the palestinians who supported him, are responsible for the terrorizing of almost the entire globe.

They made the bed of nails, they can lie in it.

[Joe270]

that is not true.


at all.

where did you get that from?

the majority (67%) believe in the peace process, another 57.8% support a 2 state solution.


What makes you think this is true when they vote in Hamas, sworn to destroy Israel?

Actions speak louder than words to western pollsters.

You wouldn't think they might tell a pollster something misleading? Naw. No way.

Homicide bombing innocent children is just fine, but lying to a pollster is way outta line.

[Bravo]

hey joe,

do you believe historical israel must be recreated in order to fulfill a biblical prophecy?

that's a legit question.

[Joe270]

joe, your track record for historical accuracy w/in this thread and in other threads regarding ME affairs has been atrocious.

but this really takes the cake.

do you really not think it's possible that, oh i dunno, maybe palestinians have a higher birth rate than israelis?

I misnamed a geographical location. It was still a land hand-over, like I said. Not an atrocity, as you are so prone to exaggeration. To be expected, judging from the misinfo in your posts. Par for your course, of course, Mr. Ed.

What really takes the cake is your continuous, fly in the face of reality, chortingly funny rebuttals.

Higher birth rate? 148 percent in 3 years? Whoo-wee, I thought rabbits were quick.

Reality check, Bravo.

[Joe270]

hey joe,

do you believe historical israel must be recreated in order to fulfill a biblical prophecy?

that's a legit question.

I don't really see why you would consider that a legitimate question, but I'll answer you all the same.

No. I consider myself a back-slid Christian. The bible might have been written under the direction of God, but it was edited by a bunch of self-seeking humans.

I go with the gospels in the New Testament. Anything after that I pretty much toss out, especially everything written by Saul/Paul.

I'm not a fundamentalist, if that's what you're insinuating. Wrong again.

[rugcat]

that is not true.the majority (67%) believe in the peace process, another 57.8% support a 2 state solution. And yet Hamas, whose avowed platform is violence and elimination of Israel, won the elections.

yes its disgusting, but feel free to get an insight into israeli thinking, read this (http://www.palestineremembered.com/Acre/Famous-Zionist-Quotes/Story696.html).Yes, there are bigots and racists on all sides. But note that these are quotes from almost 60 years ago. You might as well judge current racial attitudes in the US from segregationist quotes from the 1940's. You feel comfortable depicting Israeli policy as brutal and racist, but not a word about the violent brutality and racism they face from the entire Arab world.

Current Arab sentiment is violently anti Semitic.

i didnt unilaterally condemn anyone....but what your nation is doing is criminal and immoral.

it's a shame that you refuse to condemn the actions of your countrymen and instead, continue to apologize and make excuses for a brutal, dehumanizing, racist occupation of another people.[Nowhere in your posts have I seen the slightest indication that the Palestinians bear even the slightest responsibility for this horrible situation.

There are two sides to this problem. You seem to view the conflict as one of valiant Palestinians against the brutal and racist Israelis -- it's this very lack of balance I object to.

[Bravo]

Arafat and his terrorist buddies heralded in this age of Muslim Terrorism, leading to El-Queso. He, and to a large extent the palestinians who supported him, are responsible for the terrorizing of almost the entire globe.

lol.

el-queso.

that's funny joe. clever really.

but you should also credit your beloved zionist founders for the first acts of terrorism in the modern world.

did you know the first state hijacking of an aircraft was committed by israel in 1954?

and did you know the first time "letter bombs" were used when zionists sent 20 bombs to british politicians in 1946?

and then there's that unfortunate king david incident. :(

israel: making the desert go boom since 1946.

[Bravo]

And yet Hamas, whose avowed platform is violence and elimination of Israel, won the elections.

there was no alternative.

fatah was corrupt and tyrannical, while hamas was viewed as corruption free.

even after hamas was elected, palestinians still believed that previous agreements should be fulfilled and the majority still supported 2 states.

You feel comfortable depicting Israeli policy as brutal and racist, but not a word about the violent brutality and racism they face from the entire Arab world.

the difference is that i never sit here and defend the arab states, while countless people at AW defend israel and it's apartheid policies.


.Nowhere in your posts have I seen the slightest indication that the Palestinians bear even the slightest responsibility for this horrible situation.

maybe b/c i havent been responding to that.

if you look back you can see that i was criticizing the belief that israel is a victim that deserves to be continuously cuddled and protected by us.

do i think the palestinians made mistakes?

yes, countless.

do i think the govts of the arab world bear some responsibilty for this?

yes of course.

do i think that this is relevant to whether israel should withdraw from the territories and should quit stealing water from other people's land?

no.

you keep saying hamas wants to push the jews to the sea.

but who is actually pushing who out of the land here?

who's doing it?

i dont see many palestinian bulldozers demolishing jewish homes.

[Bravo]

I don't really see why you would consider that a legitimate question, but I'll answer you all the same.

No. I consider myself a back-slid Christian. The bible might have been written under the direction of God, but it was edited by a bunch of self-seeking humans.

I go with the gospels in the New Testament. Anything after that I pretty much toss out, especially everything written by Saul/Paul.

I'm not a fundamentalist, if that's what you're insinuating. Wrong again.

well i'm relieved to see that youre not.

but i didnt insinuate anything.

its unfortunate that you cant understand why something like that would be relevant here.

[Bravo]

hey rugcat:

More than half the Jewish population of Israel - 53 percent - is opposed to full equal rights for Israeli Arabs, according to a survey conducted last month by the Israel Democracy Institute.

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=293813

[rugcat]

and there's that unfortunate king david incident. :(

israel: making the desert go boom since 1946.The King David hotel attack, (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_David_Hotel_bombing) while reprehensible, was directed at British politicians -- occupying forces. If the Palestinians attacked the Knesset that would be a somewhat fair comparison.

Equating it with terrorist attacks expressly designed to kill as many civilians as possible is a misrepresentation.

There's plenty of blame to go around on both sides, but you only see what you want to. I must say find your bias and intransigence astonishing.

And what's interesting, and I think germane to the slim chance for peace there, is that I am actually quite critical of Israeli policy for the most part. Yet your one-sided attack shows a mindset that pushes me into a defense of Israel, and a belief that coexistance with their enemies may not be an option.

[Joe270]

but i didnt insinuate anything.

its unfortunate that you cant understand why something like that would be relevant here.

The only relevance that I can see is that you tried to impugn my character, dismiss me as a religious fanatic.

I believe the Israelis deserve their homeland. They maintained an tenuous toe-hold there throughout their exile. They always swore they would return, and those who took their land knew that fact. Those who occupied the land did not intend to stay long, as evidenced by their poor treatment of it.

The Jewish people got a little nudge, the Holocaust, to make good on their vow.

The treatment of them in their exile by the entire international community demands they have their own homeland. It should be a homeland where they are safe, and free from racist attacks, but they haven't achieved that yet. It is my hope peace does come to Israel, even if they must give the Palestinians a 'homeland' which I don't think they deserve. If that gives the Israelis the peace they so certainly deserve, then so be it.

I hope the peace initiative works.

[Bravo]

The King David hotel attack, (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_David_Hotel_bombing) while reprehensible, was directed at British politicians -- occupying forces. If the Palestinians attacked the Knesset that would be a somewhat fair comparison. Equating it with terrorist attacks expressly designed to kill as many civilians as possible is a misrepresentation.


you dont feel like an attack on the knesset would be an act of terror??

The attack, initially ordered by Menachem Begin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Menachem_Begin) the head of the Irgun and later Prime Minister of Israel (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prime_Minister_of_Israel), had members of the Irgun, dressed as Arabs (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arabs), set off a bomb in the King David Hotel (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_David_Hotel) in Jerusalem (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerusalem), which had been the base for the British Secretariat, the military (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_army) command and a branch of the Criminal Investigation Division (police). 91 people were killed, most of them staff of the secretariat and the hotel: 28 British (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom), 41 Arab (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab), 17 Jewish (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jew), and 5 other. Around 45 people were injured. The attack was commanded by Yosef Avni (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yosef_Avni) and Yisrael Levi (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Yisrael_Levi&action=edit).

[Bravo]

The only relevance that I can see is that you tried to impugn my character, dismiss me as a religious fanatic.

paranoid much?



I believe the Israelis deserve their homeland. They maintained an tenuous toe-hold there throughout their exile. They always swore they would return, and those who took their land knew that fact.

why not dream of a day the mayans and the incas and assyrians and the zulus recreate their lost empires as well?

[rugcat]

you dont feel like an attack on the knesset would be an act of terror?? The attack on the marine barracks in Lebanon in the eighties was not terror. The attack on the Cole was not terror. The deliberate targeting of innocent civilians to cause maximum pain and anguish is terrorism.

Attacks on a ruling elite are in a grey area. Were the French attempts by partisans to assassinate Nazi officials in occupied France terror? I think not. If they had entered Germany and randomly sprayed a cafe full of mothers and children with gunfire, yes.

[Joe270]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe270
The only relevance that I can see is that you tried to impugn my character, dismiss me as a religious fanatic.

paranoid much?


Quote:

I believe the Israelis deserve their homeland. They maintained an tenuous toe-hold there throughout their exile. They always swore they would return, and those who took their land knew that fact.

why not dream of a day the mayans and the incas and assyrians and the zulus recreate their lost empires as well?

You just lost my respect.

Paranoid much? No, however, when you side-rail a directed question on my possible motives, suggesting a twisted fringe Christian belief that Christ can only return when Solomon's temple is rebuilt makes me support Israelis in their struggle to make their homeland safe is my motive, I'll call you on it.

(Just a quick aside, the temple was never destroyed. The building was reduced to rubble, but the temple never took a scratch.)

That was an inappropriate question. I chose to answer it to clear the waters, but that doesn't make it less despicable. If I was a Druid, would that matter? Nope.

Your attempt to muddy the water failed miserably.

Then I explained my position on the state of Israel, and you mocked it. No argument on why my position was right or wrong, just a simple straw man pile of . . .leave it at that.

Stick to the point next time.

[billythrilly7th]

iran has said many times that they support an israel/palestine that is for jews and arabs not just jews..

And once again I refer you to Condoleeza's latest comment...

Ultimately, you have to put unrealistic aspirations behind you THAT YOU WILL GET IT ALL and then you can get an agreement."

Once Iran and Hamas and Bravo join us in the reality of the situation then maybe there will be an agreement.

Israel will not agree to anything, EVER,.... EVER that will lead to the destruction of Israel being a Jewish state. Like it or not, that's the fact, Jack.

If that is unacceptable to the people in power regarding the formation of a Palestinian then Palestinians will live forever in their current conditions.

:Shrug:

Too bad.

Whatever.

Sad for them.

"Living in a dreamworld oftens leads to nightmares."
Billy Thrilly
11/29/07
Re: Unrealistic aspirations

Nice. That's going in my "Book of Quotes Written By Me."

[Bravo]

You just lost my respect.

Paranoid much? No, however, when you side-rail a directed question on my possible motives, suggesting a twisted fringe Christian belief that Christ can only return when Solomon's temple is rebuilt makes me support Israelis in their struggle to make their homeland safe is my motive, I'll call you on it.

it's not a fringe movement.

in fact, there have been many people here who i have debated w who believe it.

people have openly said that they support israel b/c God promised the jews the land not arabs.

i asked a question that was directly relevant, because if you are someone who believes that God gave israel the land, then you simply are not worth talking to.

i get that this is a heated debate, but quit the victim card joe.

[Bravo]

as billy continues his passive aggressive attacks on me.....

i love how you decided throughout this thread to lump me in w hamas, billy.

real cute.

i especially love how you blatantly misrepresented my quote, where i was explaining the position of iran, to make it seem like i was insisting on this as well.

you wouldnt be billy without doing these things, but i forget every once in a while.

[Bravo]

The attack on the marine barracks in Lebanon in the eighties was not terror. The attack on the Cole was not terror. The deliberate targeting of innocent civilians to cause maximum pain and anguish is terrorism.

Attacks on a ruling elite are in a grey area. Were the French attempts by partisans to assassinate Nazi officials in occupied France terror? I think not. If they had entered Germany and randomly sprayed a cafe full of mothers and children with gunfire, yes.

did you not see the number of civilians killed in the attack?

and i'm pretty sure anyone would agree that striking a building where civilians would be congregating (a friggin hotel) is an act of terror.

go through a list of what zionists did to the british in order to gain independence and tell me what they did was not terror.


There are two sides to this problem. You seem to view the conflict as one of valiant Palestinians against the brutal and racist Israelis -- it's this very lack of balance I object to.

so what's the other side to apartheid?

was the cause illegitimate b/c they used terror tactics (and yes they did directly target civilians)?

did that make the cause itself wrong?

where's the two sides there, rugcat?

[rugcat]

where's the two sides there, rugcat?If you talk to an Israeli and a Palestinian, you will get not only two different takes on the situation, you will see that every supposed "fact" about the history of the conflict dating back to 1947 will be disputed.

I used to have an ongoing dispute with a Palestinian neighbor about the situation. He had friends and family still living in the territories. He was if not a supporter, at least an apologist for Hamas.

However, we actually found some common ground. We agreed that both sides had a certain amount of justification for their views and that compromise was necessary for peace. I felt that on balance, the Palestinians were chiefly responsible for the mess; not surprisingly, he felt the opposite.

But he conceded that Israel had a right to exist, and wanted to find a solution where Palestine would also be a viable and prosperous state.

You, on the other hand, (correct me if I'm wrong) seem to take the position that the State of Israel is illegitimate and should be dissolved. That's not going to happen. And it is precisely that attitude that hardens Israeli attitudes and which will keep the Palestinians in poverty and despair forever.

[billythrilly7th]

i especially love how you blatantly misrepresented my quote, where i was explaining the position of iran, to make it seem like i was insisting on this as well.

I'm sorry, maybe I've misunderstood your position on this issue after reading 100's of your posts.

So, you do believe that Israel should be allowed to remain a Jewish state??

Cool!!

[William Haskins]

that's not true at all.

every single arab nation agrees that israel has a right to exist if it withdraws from land occupied in 1967.


Hamas on Thursday called on the UN to rescind the 1947 decision to partition Palestine into two states, one for Jews and one for Arabs.

The group said in a statement, released on the 60th anniversary of the UN vote, that "Palestine is Arab Islamic land, from the river to the sea, including Jerusalem… there is no room in it for the Jews."

Regarding the partition decision, Hamas said that "correcting mistakes is nothing to be ashamed of, but prolonging it is exploitation."


http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1195546761142&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

[Bravo]

You, on the other hand, (correct me if I'm wrong) seem to take the position that the State of Israel is illegitimate and should be dissolved.

i dont believe any state has a "right" to exist, i think that entire statement is idiotic.

but would i have a problem w an israel that exists within in it's own permanent borders and does not steal water and land from it's neighbors?

no.

i'd care less what they do then.

they just need to quit their expansionist greater Israel mindset, and then they can go ahead and attempt to hold and have their jewish state.

good luck keeping that jewish majority though.

[Bravo]

Hamas on Thursday called on the UN to rescind the 1947 decision to partition Palestine into two states, one for Jews and one for Arabs.

The group said in a statement, released on the 60th anniversary of the UN vote, that "Palestine is Arab Islamic land, from the river to the sea, including Jerusalem… there is no room in it for the Jews."

Regarding the partition decision, Hamas said that "correcting mistakes is nothing to be ashamed of, but prolonging it is exploitation."


http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1195546761142&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

once again, since israel is not shaking the hands of anyone from hamas, this is completely irrelevant to your "kudos to israel".

[Bravo]

Israel will not agree to anything, EVER,.... EVER that will lead to the destruction of Israel being a Jewish state. Like it or not, that's the fact, Jack.



better kick out the israeli arabs soon then:

Professor Sofer has averaged all of the high and low forecasts and adjusted them for the year 2000. A bureau official verified his figures. The Numbers Are Clear: 4 Out of 10 Will Be Arab In the low average forecasts, in 12 years Israeli Jews will number 4.2 million, or 58 percent of the population, and Arabs in Israel, the West Bank and Gaza 3.1 million, or 42 percent.
In the high average forecasts, Israeli Jews will number 4.3 million, or 54 percent, and the Arabs 3.7 million, or 46 percent.
In either forecast, Arabs will soon be almost half the population.


http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9B0DE5DC113CF93AA25753C1A9619482 60&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=print

so go bookmark this site:

israel's growing cancer.

So how does Israel put a stop to the explosive Israeli Arab population growth? The same way one puts a stop to a growing cancer… REMOVE IT.

http://www.masada2000.org/cancerwithin.html

hell yea.

[Bravo]

that site even has videos about the growing israeli arab threat.

[billythrilly7th]

If Israel is no longer a Jewish state through natural causes so be it.

I said "ISRAEL WONT AGREE....etc"

Meaning right of return, etc.

And once again I apologize for lumping you in with hamas and Iran when it comes to the desire of Israel remaining a Jewish state.

After 100's of your posts, I must have misinterpreted your position.

I'm confident that it is your desire to have Israel remain Jewish if not by natural causes, at least with whatever they agreement they were to sign for peace and a Palestinian state.

[Bravo]

you do this every single time.

it gets old.

once again, and again, i already know that isreal wont agree to that.

but that doesnt make it right.

and that doesnt mean that it's logical.

and just because i do not believe that it's logical or right, does not mean you can keep lumping me in w/ hamas and iran.

bloody hell.

every. single. time.

we go through this.

what's weird is that i totally knew that you were going to write what you just wrote right now.

i already knew that was your position. but notice how up until the end i wasnt lumping you in w the nutbags on the israeli or the christian fundamentalist side.

[billythrilly7th]

you do this every single time.

it gets old.

once again, and again, i already know that isreal wont agree to that.



Good. Now we can make progress.

ALthough we already cemented a deal two year ago, in which I agreed to EVERYTHING, inlcluding shared Jeruslalem, 1967,etc you wanted except "right of return."

I'm still willing to accept that offer.

Done.

[billythrilly7th]

but that doesnt make it right.

and that doesnt mean that it's logical.


You want to negotiate from "right" and "logical."

You let your emotions get involved.

I negotiate from the real world and not a dreamland.

I don't let "right" and "logical" get in the way of the reality of the situation.

I can come up with plenty of right and logical that would say Israel should tell Palestine and it's people to sod off.

But I don't.

We need two states. That's reality.

That's why they call me master negotiater down at the club.

Thank you.

[rugcat]

i dont believe any state has a "right" to exist, i think that entire statement is idiotic. Well, that certainly coincides with the historical Palestinian position.

but would i have a problem w an israel that exists within in it's own permanent borders and does not steal water and land from it's neighbors?

no. Great. At last. a place to start negotiations. Oh, wait, see Haskin's post of this quote from Hamas :

"The group said in a statement, released on the 60th anniversary of the UN vote, that "Palestine is Arab Islamic land, from the river to the sea, including Jerusalem… there is no room in it for the Jews."

Never mind.

[Bravo]

Well, that certainly coincides with the historical Palestinian position.

um, it's a historical reality.

no state has a "right" to exist. it exists because other people recognize it's borders.

once those borders are created, and protected, the state automatically "exists".

it doesnt need anyone saying whether it was right for them to exist in the first place.

it's too bad, that as of right now, israel does not have any permanent borders. :(


Great. At last. a place to start negotiations. Oh, wait, see Haskin's post of this quote from Hamas :

"The group said in a statement, released on the 60th anniversary of the UN vote, that "Palestine is Arab Islamic land, from the river to the sea, including Jerusalem… there is no room in it for the Jews."

Never mind.

you asked what i believe in, and i already answered.

hamas is fucking nuts.

they always have been they always will be.

but for whatever reason, you continue to ignore the fanatical statements of likud.

surely their beliefs were stumbling blocks to peace, no?

[rugcat]

hamas is fucking nuts.

they always have been they always will be. Now we're getting somewhere
but for whatever reason, you continue to ignore the fanatical statements of likud.
surely their beliefs were stumbling blocks to peace, no?No I don't. They certainly are. That's an example of what I mean when i say there's enough blame to go around.

Your posts up to now have seemed to put the entire onus on Israel, while painting the Palestinians as blameless. This is where we part company.

[Woof]

I hope this question doesn't sound naive, but why do the Palestinians insist on having East Jerusalem as the capital of a Palestinian state? It seems that the world's three major religions each has the right to claim a city as the seat of its religion. Christianity, represented by both Catholics and Protestants claims Rome and Canterbury, respectively. Judaism claims Jerusalem as the ancestral home and center of its religion. And Islam has Mecca, which no Muslim will argue is at the center of its religion. Since the majority of Palestinians are Muslim, is the "capital" of their faith not already located in Mecca? Why Jerusalem, then? Why not Hebron or Ramallah? Is the Palestinian claim on Jerusalem based purely on Mohammed's ascent to heaven from the 'Al Aqsa mosque, or is the reason purely political?

[Magdalen]

Woof, baby, I've missed ya!! And that is a damn fine question you've asked. So, hoping that cooler heads prevail, I shall watch this thread for the answer to that question, because I've been wondering about the Muslim claim to Jerusalem myself. It definitely makes a touchy situation even more difficult.

Give me peas on earth, and a gouda wheel, two men.

[blacbird]

Christianity, represented by both Catholics and Protestants claims Rome and Canterbury, respectively.

And Salt Lake City.

caw

[blacbird]

Is the Palestinian claim on Jerusalem based purely on Mohammed's ascent to heaven from the 'Al Aqsa mosque,

You just answered your own question.

caw

[billythrilly7th]

And Islam has Mecca, which no Muslim will argue is at the center of its religion. Since the majority of Palestinians are Muslim, is the "capital" of their faith not already located in Mecca? Why Jerusalem, then? Why not Hebron or Ramallah? Is the Palestinian claim on Jerusalem based purely on Mohammed's ascent to heaven from the 'Al Aqsa mosque, or is the reason purely political?

Because most of the people with the guns are uncompromising, my way or the high way type A personalities who don't have any sense of decency or right or wrong IMO.

See that's a compromise based on common sense...

Abbas: You know, we kinda already do have a so called capital. In Mecca.
Ahmed: Yeah...but it is very important.
Abba: Yeah, I hear ya....but it is truly the center of Christianity and Judaism and for us, it's important, but we already have Mecca.
Ahmed: I wrestle with this one myself a bit.
Abbas: I'm gonna make this concession to the Israelis. Give us 1967 borders and we'll drop the entire Jerusalem issue for the most part.
Ahmed: Dangerous, my friend.

Abbas gets blown up by Hamas shortly after announcing this concession.

:Shrug:

But I'm fine with shared control of Jerusalem even though...as Bravo might say...

but that doesnt make it right.

and that doesnt mean that it's logical.

Thank. u.

[billythrilly7th]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerusalem

Jerusalem (Hebrew: ????????????? (help·info), Yerushaláyim; Arabic: ?????? (help·info), al-Quds)[ii] is the capital[iii] and largest city of Israel[2] in both population and area,[3] with 732,100 residents in an area of 126 square kilometers (49 sq mi).[1] Located in the Judean Mountains, between the Mediterranean Sea and the northern tip of the Dead Sea, the city has a history that goes back as far as the 4th millennium BCE, making it one of the oldest cities in the world.[4] Jerusalem has been the holiest city in Judaism and the spiritual center of the Jewish people since the 10th century BCE.[

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mecca

Mecca IPA: /?m?k?/ or Makkah IPA: [?mæk?] (in full: Makkah al-Mukarramah IPA: [(Arabic) mæk?æ(t) ælm?kar?amæ]; Arabic: ??? ???????) is an Islamic holy city in Saudi Arabia's Makkah province, in the historic Hejaz region. It has a population of 1,294,167 (2004 census). The city is located 73 kilometres (45 miles) inland from Jeddah, in a narrow valley , 277 metres (910 ft)above sea level. It is located 80 kilometres (50 miles) from the Red Sea.
The city is revered by Muslims for containing the holiest site of Islam, the Sacred Mosque of Mecca.

Jew: Can we have our holiest city?
Palestinian: Nah, we need a piece of it. A lot of us want all of it, but many of us we'll settle for a piece of it.
Jew: But you already have a place?
Palestinian: But cool Muhammad stuff happened in Jeruslaem.
Jew: You're more than welcome to visit.
Palestinian: Nah.
Jew: :(

[blacbird]

Because most of the people with the guns are uncompromising, my way or the high way type A personalities who don't have any sense of decency or right or wrong IMO.

Most succinct description of George W. Bush I've ever seen.

caw

[billythrilly7th]

Most succinct description of George W. Bush I've ever seen.

caw

Yeah, Bush has no sense of decency or right or wrong.

http://www.peteykins.com/sparklepony/Bolton1.jpg

Got Hyperbole?

[Aslera]

I do not think that Israel harbors nationalistic sentiments that lead to the concept of a "greater Israel" in the way that Bravo is pointing out.

There has ALWAYS been a concept of an Israel that is borderless. In prayers, we say things like "The people Israel" and the "People of Israel" etc etc and we are not referring to the citizens of the state. Between the World Wars, the great powers of the world acknowledged the need for a Jewish state. This was not brought about by hundreds of thousands of European refugees flooding the desert slamming down a flag and saying "Alright! Move out!".

The reason why Israel holds borders that are not internationally recognized is that it claims this is a matter of national security. They pushed the borders, established buffer zones and made red lines and blue lines and all sorts of lines. You can argue the CONCEPT and the NECESSITY of buffer zones and security zones, such as the one in southern Lebanon from 1982-2000, but the fact is that Israeli analysts, military experts, intelligence experts and politicians believed these were vital to Israel's existence. And honestly, for a number of years, they have a very good reason to fear their neighbors ganging up on them and literally running them into the sea. They're still technically at war with Syria and Lebanon if I'm not mistaken. Jordan too might still be at war with Israel.

For example:
The first buffer zone in Lebanon was established to prevent PLO attacks across the border that were hitting Israeli border towns. However, UNIFIL could not prevent attacks from their zone and the size of the zone made PLO attacks still possible. The 1982 invasion of Lebanon was originally to handle this...and then kinda got out of hand and that's another story. The establishment of a red line security zone in southern Lebanon and the propping of the SLA was Israeli's choice. They went to the negotiating table with Syria and their offer of carefully handing power back over gradually was rejected and the negotiations failed. During this time, Hezbollah built up and they became the primary threat (the 1982 invasion expelled the PLO from Lebanon). The 2000 withdrawal was unilateral and created a power vacuum. Etc etc etc.

With the Palestinians, I think that their election of Hamas was proof enough that the Palestinian people see little giving on the Israeli side. I don't think you can look at their election when Hamas gained power and say "Oh see? They want to kill all Israelis". I think you have to look at that and say "Hamas is classified as a terrorist group by us, but: they build schools, they drill wells, they clean up roadblocks, and they are telling us independence will be great and we'll have jobs if we only get our land back". Right or wrong, I think that we have to understand that Hamas is seen as building up civil society there and less as a 'terrorist organization' though I fully believe they are.

Bravo, the State of Israel is not going to disappear. If you wanted to argue the merits upon which it was founded, get yourself a time machine and head back to the early early 1900's. Israel is not faultless, for sure, and her behavior at times has been against international law.

However, Israel gave a great amount of aid to the Palestinians and put a lot on the table. Jerusalem has been the kicker, along with a lack of political will and CAPACITY. There's NO capacity on the side of the Palestinians (btw, I'm talking about political capacity) and that gives them very very little capital with which to fight, argue, bargain, wheel and deal, and offer. This is not an easy problem (I cannot believe they put a time frame on it!) but it's not going away and Israel's not going away.

As for an issue of race and racism, sure. It might be about race. Jews have been the world's scapegoats for centuries, thousands of years really, and yes, you can make an argument that this is about race.

But in reality? I think it is about a resource. It is about arable land and control of water. It's about natural resources, it's about an ill-formatted plan for the formation of the state which unfortunately cannot be redone, it's about political capacity, and economics.

Even if this peace negotiation process works, which I doubt, there are the problems down the road. It's the stuff that doesn't make it on the peace accords that ends up derailing the trail and at high speeds. Case in point: Bosnia and the Dayton Accords. You can only predict so much in a peace accord, and I doubt they'll get to things like power sharing, aid, flow of information, freedom of movement, connecting both pieces of the state, provision of electrical power, who controls water, who has access to ports, etc etc etc.

[blacbird]

Yeah, Bush has no sense of decency or right or wrong.

Are you, like John Ashcroft, volunteering to be waterboarded, Trilz?

caw

[Woof]

Woof, baby, I've missed ya!! And that is a damn fine question you've asked. So, hoping that cooler heads prevail, I shall watch this thread for the answer to that question, because I've been wondering about the Muslim claim to Jerusalem myself. It definitely makes a touchy situation even more difficult.

Give me peas on earth, and a gouda wheel, two men.

Ditto, Magdalen, my pet...good wishes to you too, and don't let that rude-nosed reindeer get too frisky this year...


And Salt Lake City.

caw

Yes blacbird, you're right. I forgot about the Mormons. Again, here is an example of a religion's right to choose its own sacred center. In the case of Christianity, there is more than one branch or sect who have each claimed a different city. Yet, the Jews who have at least three main sects, are devoted to one single city - Jerusalem. And as far as I know, the two main branches of the Muslim faith, Shia and Sunni Islam, who agree on very little these days, do agree on this - that their one and only holy city is Mecca. So again, where is the religious basis for the Palestinian claim on Jerusalem? Indeed, if the Palestinians intend to divide their religious devotion between two cities, is that not a betrayal of their faith and an insult to Islam?

[billythrilly7th]

Are you, like John Ashcroft, volunteering to be waterboarded, Trilz?

caw

I already waterboarded my self. It was okay. Check the archives.

But, I'd be more than happy to test waterboarding with trained professionals.

I look forward to the opportunity. I'm sure it sucks. But so does jumping from the World Trade Center. So....yeah.....waterboard away.

[SC Harrison]

The reason why Israel holds borders that are not internationally recognized is that it claims this is a matter of national security. They pushed the borders, established buffer zones and made red lines and blue lines and all sorts of lines. You can argue the CONCEPT and the NECESSITY of buffer zones and security zones, such as the one in southern Lebanon from 1982-2000, but the fact is that Israeli analysts, military experts, intelligence experts and politicians believed these were vital to Israel's existence.

I'm sorry, I no longer accept the idea of "buffer zones", at least in the context of Israel's current claims.

Had Israel kept the Occupied Territories in some form of "stasis", severely limiting the travel of their own citizens into the supposed buffer zone, that might wash. But they haven't. Both government and private entities have encouraged and subsidized settlements, often arming the settlers in the process.

Instead of a buffer zone, they've created and nurtured a "frontier zone", where people bitterly (and lethally) compete for land and natural resources. Indeed, there are numerous comparisons with the way America settled the West, if you think about it.

I actually do believe in the need for a buffer zone, possibly along the lines of the Korean DMZ, although the necessity for something like that is depressing as hell. But the way the settlements in the West Bank are configured, there are dozens of little buffer zones and walled-in corridors that shouldn't even exist. As such, I believe the complexity of the problem (on the ground) is mostly the fault of Israel for allowing/promoting settlement expansion.

[Bravo]

I do not think that Israel harbors nationalistic sentiments that lead to the concept of a "greater Israel" in the way that Bravo is pointing out.

it doesnt seek a greater israel, and yet the map of israel we see today is almost the exact same map that ben gurion wanted from the very beginning.


There has ALWAYS been a concept of an Israel that is borderless.

yes, israel's neighbors are well aware of this.

In prayers, we say things like "The people Israel" and the "People of Israel" etc etc and we are not referring to the citizens of the state.

that's because all jews are considered citizens of israel.

Between the World Wars, the great powers of the world acknowledged the need for a Jewish state.

which is exactly the problem.

the great powers decided w/out even asking the people who were living there at the time.



This was not brought about by hundreds of thousands of European refugees flooding the desert slamming down a flag and saying "Alright! Move out!".

huh?

The reason why Israel holds borders that are not internationally recognized is that it claims this is a matter of national security. They pushed the borders, established buffer zones and made red lines and blue lines and all sorts of lines. You can argue the CONCEPT and the NECESSITY of buffer zones and security zones, such as the one in southern Lebanon from 1982-2000, but the fact is that Israeli analysts, military experts, intelligence experts and politicians believed these were vital to Israel's existence.

and it's a load of BS.

after all these years of buffers and security zones, ask yourself if israel is really safer.

israel's "buffer zone" into lebanon created hezbollah.


The first buffer zone in Lebanon was established to prevent PLO attacks across the border that were hitting Israeli border towns.

if that were the case, israel wouldnt have picked a side in lebanon's civil war and armed christian militias.



With the Palestinians, I think that their election of Hamas was proof enough that the Palestinian people see little giving on the Israeli side. I don't think you can look at their election when Hamas gained power and say "Oh see? They want to kill all Israelis". I think you have to look at that and say "Hamas is classified as a terrorist group by us, but: they build schools, they drill wells, they clean up roadblocks, and they are telling us independence will be great and we'll have jobs if we only get our land back". Right or wrong, I think that we have to understand that Hamas is seen as building up civil society there and less as a 'terrorist organization' though I fully believe they are.

yes i agree.

Bravo, the State of Israel is not going to disappear. If you wanted to argue the merits upon which it was founded, get yourself a time machine and head back to the early early 1900's.

the foundation of israel as a jewish state in an arab land is the fundamental problem in this issue.

just because you keep saying the state of israel will always remain jewish doesnt make it true.

demographics already show that it wont remain jewish for that much longer.

so what exactly are you fighting for?


But in reality? I think it is about a resource.

i said the same.

i think it's multifactorial really.

anyways i enjoyed your post.

it was a nice reasonable explanation of the situation.

[Aslera]

I went to an open event at SAIS today on Conflict Management and one of the topics was of course the Israel-Palestine issue.

Here are my notes from the speech, including the speakers' names.

William Quandt: SecState Condi says that all previous efforts have failed because they took a similar path and she intends to approach this differently.

3 moments to be remembered where we made significant gains and though they ultimately failed, we can use them for this time around:

1. Kissinger 1974, 1975 agreements, important breakthroughs with the Israeli Egyptian peace agreement and stability of the Israeli Syrian relationship
2. Camp David I with Carter
3. SecState Baker--Madrid Conference. PLO selfrepresented!

In each, strong sustained US involvement at the highest level (POTUS, SecState)
Assurance to involved parties that this was a matter of US national interest, national security and thus the reason why we were involved, this wasn't charity work
Use all the tricks of the trade to drag everyone towards an agreement
The involved parties had strong leaders who were capable of taking risks for peace--weak leaders may sign but can they implement?

Facts on the ground make it difficult to get an agreement. Settlements, roadblocks, and erosion of Palestinian authority. Also Olmert is very very weak. Abbas is moderate but weak. There is a deficit of strong leadership.

Presidential election years get crazy and not a formula for success because America's public political face will be fractured in an effort to politicize every effort made.

Pluses: Framework is pretty much known and areas where convergence is needed are known

Ideological zealots are in retreat. This is a new face of the Likhud party as well

Arab world is ready to accept Israel in an effort for regional stability

Int'l community is strongly supportive of a resolution to this problem and would put a lot of money into it, including possibly high payments in exchange for Palestinians giving up the right to return demand.

Minuses:

Not talking about controversial issues and public in both groups. They're not ready to face that yet.

Hamas issue. They got 40% in election, polls put them at about 22% now, but what do you do about them?

Syrian track behind postponed and Syria doesn't like being told to wait in line.

Missing piece is an American president who will get his hands dirty in the issue. Bush does not have the time or the capital to invest in this properly.

Alvaro de Soto:

This is counterintuitive timing.

Olmert has a motley fracture coalition, two people in his cabinet want his job and if he even says the word Jerusalem, he'll lose his coalition.
The Second Lebanon War investigation is still pending
He was speaking openly of fearing losing American Jews' support and the possibility of a two state solution becoming less feasible and an apartheid state developing.

Abbas's Fatah is fractured and the Palestinian Authority's organizational branching is outdated and the legality of this gov't is questionable. Loss of control of territory. a two state solution is being questioned amongst the Palestinian elite and populace. Need for a commitment.

Not endorsing any one side, these are my notes

[rugcat]

Very informative and interesting -- much light, little heat. Hope you stick around.

[Joe270]

Nice stuff, Aslera.

It does seem like there is hope here.

And don't it just figure that Hamas and GW are the two weakest points. . .

[Aslera]

;) Chester Crocker, a well known conflict analyst who formerly worked at State and was greatly involved in Namibia, called it "driveby diplomacy today".

It seemed to me that both Quandt and de Soto had good points. The election IS interesting...Quandt said something along the lines of "Ask President Clinton how Palestinian Israeli peace talks were in December of 2000! You can promise, but you probably can't carry through. If you threaten, they shrug and wait for your successor. The clock is ticking."

Olmert's poll numbers were 7% and are now at 22% (just about the same as Hamas...) so it's not like the leaders on ANY side have much political clout right now.

Quandt threw out the idea that everyone was invited to help boost up Abbas and Olmert.

[Aslera]

the foundation of israel as a jewish state in an arab land is the fundamental problem in this issue.

just because you keep saying the state of israel will always remain jewish doesnt make it true.

demographics already show that it wont remain jewish for that much longer.

so what exactly are you fighting for?

I do not believe I said anywhere that Israel will always remain Jewish. I believe I said that it would always remain a State. I believe the Arab minority is 19%? Correct me if I'm wrong...

As for the Great Powers, do you really think they gave a rat's ass about what the Arabs in the region though? Come on. Don't fool yourself. They were colonial powers. The formation of the state of Israel was probably the least of their crimes (the Brits did a number on Iraq too). If you want to right one wrong made during the colonial area, go ahead and let's right all the wrongs. Want to open Pandora's box there?

Neither side is guiltless, and very few international players are guiltless here as well. But to say that the Israel shouldn't exist is disregarding the reality of the situation. It does and there really is no use obsessing over the Balfour Declaration. And by the time that the Balfour Declaration was made, I believe, there was already a steady flow of Jewish immigrants.

Most Israelis I speak to are not as hardline or as "zionist" as people seem to think they are...and they're not nearly as hardline as their government is.

[Bravo]

I do not believe I said anywhere that Israel will always remain Jewish. I believe I said that it would always remain a State..

there is a clear miscommunication here.

i never argued against israel as a state, i said that the crux of the problem has been israel's insistence on being a jewish state.


As for the Great Powers, do you really think they gave a rat's ass about what the Arabs in the region though? Come on. Don't fool yourself.

no....which is exactly my point!

why are we arguing right now?

But to say that the Israel shouldn't exist is disregarding the reality of the situation.

who said that?

It does and there really is no use obsessing over the Balfour Declaration.

who's doing that?


Most Israelis I speak to are not as hardline or as "zionist" as people seem to think they are...and they're not nearly as hardline as their government is.

most israelis certainly are zionists, in that they believe that israel must be jewish.

and take a look at this:


More than half the Jewish population of Israel - 53 percent - is opposed to full equal rights for Israeli Arabs, according to a survey conducted last month by the Israel Democracy Institute.

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=293813

[Magdalen]

They only polled 1,208 people. I don't find that number to be representative of an entire nation, but it makes for pretty bar charts.

[billythrilly7th]

i never argued against israel as a state, i said that the crux of the problem has been israel's insistence on being a jewish state.


Yeah, I can see why you and so many others would have a problem with that.

http://www.protestwarrior.com/nimages/store/muslim_land.jpg

After 5000 years or whatever of persecution and death topped off by the Holocaust, god forbid they have that tiny, itsy, bitsy sliver of land to call their own and feel safe in.

[Aslera]

First of all, you should know Haaretz's reputation...I don't know anything about the IDI but I'm definitely poking around a bit there. I've never heard of them before and maybe they have something for my research.

They are a Jewish State, or a State of the Jewish People. However, being a Jewish State/State of the Jewish People does not mean and should not mean that Israeli Arabs should have fewer rights. Israeli Arabs are both Christian and Muslim. As states go, Israel is verrrry young yet. Considering the protection of minority rights in Israel is far better than protection of minority rights in her neighbors, and that Israel has made steps in the last ten years towards establishing clear and wider minority right protection, I do not think it is fair to point this out as a Zionist plot or whatever. The debate over "Jewish vs Democracy" and where theocracy begins and where democracy picks up is a heavy topic amongst Israeli scholars in Israel, in the worldwide Jewish community, and in the US/EU.

Additionally, you get into the area of definitions. Is "Jewish" a religion? A 'nation'? A historical identity? What are the implications of saying "Jewish State" and "State of the Jewish People" etc etc etc. I would argue that it is not a Jewish State. A Jewish State would be a theocracy and while this state is dominated by a single religious group, this is not being run as a theocracy. You have to go a bit east of Israel to find one of those. A State of the Jewish People is more accurate. It was established as that, it remains as that.

Finally before I head off to bed, engaging Israel's Arab minority is not an easy task. If Israel extends the hand, and the Arab community refuses to take it, who is to blame? Did Israel not offer enough or did the Arab minority not take the opportune moment? In reference to this, refer to the recent alternative program for Israeli Arab Muslims to serve in community service instead of the military service and the results of this offered program and this attempt to mainstream Israeli Muslim youth.

(Also: Israel's security borders. Analytically speaking, no, they did not always work the way they were 'intended' to work, but the buffer zones and Israel's wars did act as a minor deterrent. And I think it is difficult for those of us who do not live in a state like Israel which is constantly under threat to understand why the IDF and Israeli public might so eagerly agree to security zones. The FMM however was one of the first movements arguing to pull out of it, that it served no purpose. Israel's occupation of southern Lebanon actually backfired on the IDF and Israel unilaterally withdrew...)

[dmytryp]

Bravo, are you well versed in internal Israeli politics?
Because that poll has a lot to do with it.
Israeli arabs have all the rights (at least on paper) as jews. There is no argument some discrimination exists. Yet, things are done to improve the situation. They are done by Jews. And often hindered by arab representatives' rhetoric and deeds.
For example, as Alsera mentioned, a little while ago a suggestion had been made, that israeli arabs are allowed to volunteer for 'shirut leumi' (I am not sure how to translate it). This service to the public (usually in hospitals and other areas in need) comes as substitution for israeli youth that can't be drafted for medical or other reasons. As arabs are exempt from the draft, it was proposed they can volunteer and this way contribute to the country. Israeli arabs' leaders started a campaign to block this suggestion and some even said they would disown those that volunteer. All of this under the pretence that this will eventually become compulsory and this is a way of the government to try and israelize the arabs.
Another example was a couple of weeks ago -- and israeli arab, a professor in israeli college, refused to admit to his class a soldier in uniform that came from a reservist training (which is cumpolsory for jews under 40-45).
And finally, about a week ago, an israeli arab student, working in a cafeteria, refused to serve Tzipi Livni.
These are just examples. These things usually go with no large hype, because there are a lot of people in Israel that make excuses for israeli arabs, while they condemn jews for similar actions. Why am I saying this? Because such behavior only alienates the jewish public to the arbab population and all it does is hurting the very cause they are trying to achieve.

P.S. I didn't respond to some of the things said in this thread, but saying Israel was founded on arab land is simply not true. There were half a million jews in Israel at the time of the UN declaration and about 850 thousand arabs (that includes the west bank). The moment you acknowledge palestinians had a right for self determination based on those numbers you have to acknowledge the jews did too. The refugee point is in dispute and I adressed it in another thread.
P.P.S. Despite what you say about Likud, everything that Netanyahu said over the years came true. Including Hezbollah's growing power after unilateral retreat. Including Hamas's victory in the elections after withdrawal from Gaza etc.
P.P.P. S. The notion of buffer zones is obsolete and this was the reason for Israel withdrawing from Gaza. However, some of you (mainly Bravo and a little bit SC) forget the size of Israel (or simply don't grasp it). There are less than 20 kilometers (thats something less than 15 miles) from the West Bank to the sea in the narrowest place. Since you all familiar with Qassam technology here, withdrawing from the West Bank without iron-clad agreement that would ensure security would mean israeli population centers like Tel-Aviv, Petah-Tikva etc. will be subject to qassam threat. This is something that any government can't allow.
And lastly -- the reason why Israel doesn't have a permanent border is because there isn't opposite side for the negotiations. There never was a palestinian state. The West Bank was under Jordan's control until '67. Yet, they didn't want the land. Palestinians at the moment are a bunch of divided factions that are ready to jump each others throat. And despite Bravo's sayings about Hamas, they are still a part of the equation that simply cannot be ignored.


Whew.... Long post

[Aslera]

Dmytryp: I think shirut leumi is public service/compulsory public service? That's how I've always understood it but I lost all my Hebrew a looooong time ago. What's the current mood over there responding to the Annapolis conference?

I think you also have to look at the greater middle east security problem. In all honesty, I think you can talk about Israeli-Palestinian peace agreements until you're blue in the face but unless you deal with Iran, Israel is still going to be under a significant military threat. Not only is Iran's nuclear program a threat to Israel, but their financing of Hezbollah and other Shi'a organizations in the area is a serious consideration.

[dmytryp]

I think you also have to look at the greater middle east security problem. In all honesty, I think you can talk about Israeli-Palestinian peace agreements until you're blue in the face but unless you deal with Iran, Israel is still going to be under a significant military threat. Not only is Iran's nuclear program a threat to Israel, but their financing of Hezbollah and other Shi'a organizations in the area is a serious consideration.

I agree. But talking about palestinian problem and disregarding Hammas as 'lunatics that will stay lunatics' and believing them to be a fringe, won't get us anywhere. The analysts say that all that prevents Hammas from grabbing power on the West Bank is IDF's constant actions.

The mood about Annapolis is very much sceptical. People don't believe anything will come out of it. The time frame is unrealistic. Abu Mazen has no power to enforce his side of the deal...
I read an article this weekend. It very much sounds like truth. The writer said Olmert did the whole Annapolis thing as a stunt to stay in office. The Lebannon War commitee's investigation is due very shortly. Barak promised that Laibor will not seat in the government if there are some personal responsibility for the failurs of the war attributed to Olmert. So... By starting negotiations a month before the investigation is supposed to end, Olmert effectively ties Barak to himself, because Barak wouldn't (supposedly) dare to break the coalition during hystoric negotiations.
I don't know. We'll have to see, but I am as sceptical as the next guy.

I believe you're correct on 'shirut leumi'. I am not too familiar with it, so I am not sure, but I think in many cases it is not compulsory. People that can't serve in the army for medical reasons some times volunteer for this service.

[Aslera]

Oh I entirely agree. People argue with me, tell me that Hamas are terrorists and we can't "legitimize them" by inviting them to the table. But it is absolutely ridiculous to consider a successful peace plan without including all significant factions. I would absolutely consider Hamas as important as Fatah.

Israeli politics are mindboggling. Olmert really only controls 19 seats and I think that Barak WOULD break with Olmert in a heartbeat if negotiations took a turn for the worse even if that turn was for 15 minutes or one session or whatever.

[dmytryp]

I am not at all sure that talking to Hammas is the solution. After all, how can you talk to somebody that says at every opportunity you have no right to exist. However, Hammas is a problem that has to be taken into account when any agreement is made.

In the same article the writer said that Olmert's actions can bring disaster. What will happen when the negotiations fail (and in the current political climat on both sides they bound are to fail)? Will this bring Abu Masen down entirely, and throw the palestinians into the arms of Hammas?

Most of the analysts think that this was a rush decision. Without proper foundation. Without sufficient preliminary talks. And now all of a sudden we have a year to end a fifty year dispute? What gives? For God's sake, Livni and Abu Alla couldn't agree on a measly, meaningless joint proclamation untill Bush twisted Abu Mazen's hand. And they expect to find a common ground on all the hard issues within a year?

[Aslera]

I don't think Israel will sit down with Hamas without preconditions...and I think those preconditions are wise and just. But I think the U.S. needs to bring Hamas into the fold (and bullshit on the "we don't negotiate with terrorists"...Israel doesn't negotiate with terrorists but we have, and we will, and we should). The US is not unbiased, but the Palestinians know that the American presence is a check on Israeli demands sometimes and a balancing force in the room. The US needs to show stronger leadership, IMO.

[SC Harrison]

The notion of buffer zones is obsolete and this was the reason for Israel withdrawing from Gaza. However, some of you (mainly Bravo and a little bit SC) forget the size of Israel (or simply don't grasp it). There are less than 20 kilometers (thats something less than 15 miles) from the West Bank to the sea in the narrowest place. Since you all familiar with Qassam technology here, withdrawing from the West Bank without iron-clad agreement that would ensure security would mean israeli population centers like Tel-Aviv, Petah-Tikva etc. will be subject to qassam threat. This is something that any government can't allow.


I agree there are some areas where the Green Line needs to be fiddled with, to protect medium to large population centers. We have to assume the longer range Katyushas (or some new variant) would/could end up in the hands of IJ or some other group, and there's always a few jackasses willing to step up and shoot them off.

But I gotta tell you, aside from the Jerusalem conundrum, a few adjustments to the Green Line here and there (within reason) is a small price (for the Pals) to pay if it coincides with the dismantling and repatriation of the West Bank settlements.

I'm sure there are numerous, unsolvable problems with that idea, but Uncle Steve says, "That's a no-brainer! Just do it!" :)

Don't you just love naive Americans telling you how to fix your problems?

[Aslera]

Ugh, I thought that Jerusalem was the kicker and then I started looking at water, power supply, roads, transportation between West Bank and Gaza. And then I quickly reminded myself that my area of focus is central and eastern europe and that I could sleep easy at nights.

;) SC Harrison, though your comment may have been made in jest (or perhaps not), the middle east security is a matter of US national security. We might often poke our nose where it doesn't belong, but we have occasionally facilitated this problem, and the stability of Gaza, West Bank, Golan Heights and Shebaa Farms have a direct relationship with our national security.

Great light, I'm starting to sound like a hawk!

[Joe270]

I think you also have to look at the greater middle east security problem. In all honesty, I think you can talk about Israeli-Palestinian peace agreements until you're blue in the face but unless you deal with Iran, Israel is still going to be under a significant military threat. Not only is Iran's nuclear program a threat to Israel, but their financing of Hezbollah and other Shi'a organizations in the area is a serious consideration.


I am probably very wrong in my views here, but I got a thick skin, so don't hesitate to hit back with the hard truths.

I see Hezbollah and Hamas as a much worse threat to Israel than Iran's (or any other country's) nukes. So suppose some Arab nation nukes Israel, well they nuke the Israeli Arabs and the Palestinians, too. Nukes are pretty much a circular blast, with a nasty fall out pattern which follows prevailing winds. Across Israel flows prevailing westerlies, which will drop the fallout right back on Iran. They could wind up killing more Iranians, Palestinians, and Arabs than Israelis.

Case in point:

However, some of you (mainly Bravo and a little bit SC) forget the size of Israel (or simply don't grasp it). There are less than 20 kilometers (thats something less than 15 miles) from the West Bank to the sea in the narrowest place.

A nuke's effects will go a whole heck of a lot farther than 20 klicks.

I consider the Iran nuke capabilities more a threat to the US and England than Israel.

Comments, please.

[dmytryp]

I agree there are some areas where the Green Line needs to be fiddled with, to protect medium to large population centers. We have to assume the longer range Katyushas (or some new variant) would/could end up in the hands of IJ or some other group, and there's always a few jackasses willing to step up and shoot them off.

But I gotta tell you, aside from the Jerusalem conundrum, a few adjustments to the Green Line here and there (within reason) is a small price (for the Pals) to pay if it coincides with the dismantling and repatriation of the West Bank settlements.

I'm sure there are numerous, unsolvable problems with that idea, but Uncle Steve says, "That's a no-brainer! Just do it!" :)

Don't you just love naive Americans telling you how to fix your problems?

In some ways this is exactly the jist of the problem. Many westerners (some on this forum too) think that it is so easy. All Israel has to do is withdraw to the '67 line (I have no idea why this line is chosen, by the way, but this is a matter for another post) and there will be peace and quiete. They simply fail to grasp the severity of the situation and why the constant insistnace by Israel on security measures. So I will demonstrate by a couple of examples:

1. You talked about katiushas. Well, surprise -- you don't have to have even those. Do you know that Ben Gurion airport is close enough to the green line for a qassam to reach it. I may be mistaken, but I think a hand held missile launcher can do that too. Now, why would israelis think that constitutes a security problem? Beats me.
2. My friend at work used to live in Bat Hefer (it is a small moshav inside Israel's territory). As soon as the last intifadah started, the palestinians started shooting (as in Kalachnikov) into the houses of the moshav from adjoining villages on the other side of the green line. They didn't even need rockets.

No, fiddling with the green line is not enough. Untill there are sufficient security measures implemented there won't be an agreement or Palestinian state. Simple as that.

[dmytryp]

I see Hezbollah and Hamas as a much worse threat to Israel than Iran's (or any other country's) nukes. So suppose some Arab nation nukes Israel, well they nuke the Israeli Arabs and the Palestinians, too. Nukes are pretty much a circular blast, with a nasty fall out pattern which follows prevailing winds. Across Israel flows prevailing westerlies, which will drop the fallout right back on Iran. They could wind up killing more Iranians, Palestinians, and Arabs than Israelis.



You have two incorrect assumtions:

1. A person that would nuke Israel would be sane and not a religious fanatic.
2. Such a person would care for the lives of the palestinians (or his countrymen for that matter) more than destruction of the devil state.

[dmytryp]

Quote:
Though, palestinians were pretty much free to go anywhere (unlike today)
no.

they really really werent.

the settlements are positioned in a way that absolutely limits the range of movement.


Well, Bravo, here is the part from the Oslo accords:

The Oslo Accords provided that the movement of people and vehicles in the West Bank "will be free and normal, and shall not need to be effected through checkpoints or roadblocks."

the site (http://domino.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/db942872b9eae454852560f6005a76fb/3de751bf0a424afc852572d60043df42!OpenDocument) talks about the current situation, but nevertheless.

Here is a quote (http://www.pchrgaza.org/Interventions/chr2002_item5.pdf) from palestinian appeal to human rights groups (also about the current situation, but see the bolded part):


Restrictions on movement
Israel has dramatically tightened its closure of the borders of the OPT during the al-
Aqsa Intifada, making travel to Israel, neighbouring countries, or between the West
Bank and Gaza strip almost impossible. It has also imposed a severe siege around
Palestinian villages, towns, and refugee camps, drastically limiting movement within
the OPT.

Which would imply that before the al-Aqsa intifadah the movement was mostly free.


Edit: the only place they were really not free to go were the settlements themselves

[dmytryp]

As states go, Israel is verrrry young yet. Considering the protection of minority rights in Israel is far better than protection of minority rights in her neighbors,

Just a little correction here, lol
Concerning Israeli arabs they have far better protection of their right then in the countries where they are the majority

[Bravo]

Just a little correction here, lol
Concerning Israeli arabs they have far better protection of their right then in the countries where they are the majority

israel considers itself a western style democracy, not a corrupt dictatorship as the arab states have.

do israeli arabs share some of the blame for the perception? yes.

does that justify the reason for a system of discrimination against israeli arabs?


Until 1966, Israeli Arabs were subjected to curfews, administrative detentions, land confiscations and employment restrictions under a military regime. Israel even required its Arabs to carry "movement licenses" whenever they left their villages. Recently, however, the idea that Arabs should be treated as equal citizens has begun to take root in Israeli society.

http://archive.salon.com/news/feature/2000/11/03/israeli_arabs/index.html

The 2004 U.S. State Department Country Reports on Human Rights Practices[163] notes that:

* "According to a 2003 Haifa University study, a tendency existed to impose heavier prison terms to Arab citizens than to Jewish citizens. Human rights advocates claimed that Arab citizens were more likely to be convicted of murder and to have been denied bail."

* "The Orr Commission of Inquiry's report ... stated that the 'Government handling of the Arab sector has been primarily neglectful and discriminatory,' that the Government 'did not show sufficient sensitivity to the needs of the Arab population, and did not take enough action to allocate state resources in an equal manner.' As a result, 'serious distress prevailed in the Arab sector in various areas. Evidence of distress included poverty, unemployment, a shortage of land, serious problems in the education system, and substantially defective infrastructure.'"

* "According to a report by Mossawa, racist violence against Arab citizens has increased, and the Government has not done enough to prevent this problem. The annual report cited 17 acts of violence by Jewish citizens against Arab citizens. ... A Haifa University poll released in June revealed that over 63 percent of Jews believed that the Government should encourage Israeli Arabs to emigrate."

* "Approximately 93 percent of land in the country was public domain, including that owned by the state and some 12.5 percent owned by the Jewish National Fund (JNF). All public land by law may only be leased, not sold. The JNF's statutes prohibit the sale or lease of land to non-Jews. In October, civil rights groups petitioned the High Court of Justice claiming that a bid announcement by the Israel Land Administration (ILA) involving JNF land was discriminatory in that it banned Arabs from bidding."

* "Israeli-Arab advocacy organizations have challenged the Government's policy of demolishing illegal buildings in the Arab sector, and claimed that the Government was more restrictive in issuing building permits in Arab communities than in Jewish communities, thereby not accommodating natural growth. In February, security forces demolished several homes allegedly built without authorization in the Arab village of Bi'ina."

* "In June, the Supreme Court ruled that omitting Arab towns from specific government social and economic plans is discriminatory. This judgment builds on previous assessments of disadvantages suffered by Arab Israelis."

* "Israeli-Arab organizations have challenged as discriminatory the 1996 "Master Plan for the Northern Areas of Israel," which listed as priority goals increasing the Galilee's Jewish population and blocking the territorial contiguity of Arab towns."

http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/hrrpt/2004/41723.htm



In 2001, Human Rights Watch issued a report that stated: "Government-run Arab schools are a world apart from government-run Jewish schools. In virtually every respect, Palestinian Arab children get an education inferior to that of Jewish children, and their relatively poor performance in school reflects this.


The Follow-Up Committee for Arab Education notes that the Israeli government spends an average of $192 per year on each Arab student compared to $1,100 per Jewish student. The drop-out rate for Arab citizens of Israel is twice as high as that of their Jewish counterparts (12 percent versus 6 percent). The same group also notes that there is a 5,000-classroom shortage in the Arab sector.

[dmytryp]

You just proved in your post that jews try to improve their handling of the arab minority. On the other hand, do the arabs try to integrate better in the society? No, they make everything possible not to participate in the life of the country. There are obligations that come along with the rights, yet many arabs (especially their official representatives) conveniently forget that. This is a complex issue and enough blame is thrown around. If you'd like I can show you the other side's reasoning and the events that support it.
Do I think israeli arabs should be mistreated or discriminated against. No. But I also think that this is a two way street, and so far, jews are the only ones that are trying.

[Bravo]

.

[SC Harrison]

;) SC Harrison, though your comment may have been made in jest (or perhaps not), the middle east security is a matter of US national security. We might often poke our nose where it doesn't belong, but we have occasionally facilitated this problem, and the stability of Gaza, West Bank, Golan Heights and Shebaa Farms have a direct relationship with our national security.



There are valid arguments that can be made that our involvement (to date) in this specific conflict area has had an extremely negative effect on our national security. Our unflinching and openly declared (by numerous Presidents) support of Israel has made us the "enemy" in the eyes of hundreds of millions of Muslims across the globe, and our current aggressive stance in relation to the invasion and occupation of Iraq and saber-rattling towards Iran and (to a lesser degree) Syria have proven (to them) that we accept the role of enemy and are prepared (and maybe even eager) to take the conflict to the next stages.

National security is an incredibly complex and infinitely debatable topic. Every foreign policy decision we make has consequences—some we're well aware of and accept and some we haven't contemplated or don't consider relevant. And some steps are taken merely to facilitate corporate profits, with only a pro-forma nod as to the national security aspects, which are often fictional constructs anyway.

Back to the IP question, and the importance of resolving the issue of settlements in the West Bank:

http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/dpb/2007/nov/95899.htm

QUESTION: Back to Israel for a second. Olmert said that he's not going to be freezing settlement construction in the main settlements, the so-called consensus blocks. And I'm wondering if that's acceptable to the United States.

MR. MCCORMACK: You know, he's made certain promises. He's made them -- made public commitments. He's made private commitments to us. Those are consonant. There are obligations under the Roadmap and Prime Minister Olmert has made implementation, full implementation, of the Roadmap one of his goals. He's committed to that. And there are certain steps along the way; this is an iterative process. So I'm not going to comment on the state of the process at this time point. They've made certain commitments. The Israeli side has certain commitments. I expect that they will follow through on those, as will the Palestinians.

QUESTION: So maybe you can clarify --

QUESTION: (Inaudible.)

QUESTION: I'm sorry, I just wanted to follow up on that for a second.

MR. MCCORMACK: Yeah.

QUESTION: So maybe you can just clarify what the standard is in general that you're expecting Israel to meet. Because it sounded like and it's been interpreted by some people that Bush is actually saying something different; he's talking about not expanding settlements, as opposed to the Roadmap which talks about no settlement growth and natural growth included in the freeze. So you do you see a difference there?

MR. MCCORMACK: Again, I'm not going to get into interpretations at this point. This is going to be an iterative process that plays out over time. And the end result, we hope, is going to be a final agreement between the Israelis and the Palestinians. They will define what the contents of that agreement are.

And the other outcome of the process is that the Roadmap will be fully implemented. And along the way there are going to be a number of different steps. I'm not going to try to analyze where we are any further beyond what the President has said, the Secretary has said in public, along with President Abbas and Prime Minister Olmert.

QUESTION: Sean, if the standard is indeed the language that is in the Roadmap, which the former questioner alluded to, which is a freeze on all settlement activity, including so-called natural growth.

MR. MCCORMACK: And Prime Minister Olmert said that Israel intends to fully implement the roadmap.

So...construction will continue, even though the freezing of such is a cornerstone of the Roadmap. Which will be fully implemented, just as soon as someone can define "intends".

Here we go:

intend
c.1300, "direct one's attention to," from O.Fr. intendre "to direct one's attention," from L. intendere "turn one's attention, strain," lit. "stretch out, extend," from in- "toward" + tendere "to stretch" (see tenet). Sense of "have as a plan" (1390) was present in Latin. A Gmc. word for this was ettle, from O.N. ætla "to think, conjecture, propose," from P.Gmc. *ahta "consideration, attention" (cf. O.E. eaht, Ger. acht). Intended (n.) "one's intended husband or wife" is from 1767.

[robeiae]

the issue is that it is difficult to integrate in a nation that is designed to keep you both as a minority and as a second class citizen.
Not to sidetrack too much, but that is/was a reality for Jews throughout most parts of the world for the past 2000 years--even in those Arab nations where they supposedly "flourished."

Now, that doesn't make it right. Turnabout is not fair play, imo. However, this is also the reality Jews face currently in the ME and would continue to face in a Palestinian nation, no matter how large or how small it was.

I note this because it's difficult for me to understand how those who are pro-Palestinian are able to disregard this reality in their quest for "justice."

[Aslera]

I don't think that Hamas and Hezbollah are less of a threat than Iran, but I think that Iran's rhetoric and Israel's past reactions to a nuclear-armed nation in the region (*cough*otherthanthem*cough*) makes it impossible to consider Middle east security without taking into consideration Israel being the wildcard in the Iranian Question. But that's a different thread...

[Bravo]

Not to sidetrack too much, but that is/was a reality for Jews throughout most parts of the world for the past 2000 years--even in those Arab nations where they supposedly "flourished."

Now, that doesn't make it right. Turnabout is not fair play, imo. However, this is also the reality Jews face currently in the ME and would continue to face in a Palestinian nation, no matter how large or how small it was.

once again, we're not basing this on standards of the past 2000 years or of other arab nations, we're basing this on standards of other secular, western democracies.



I note this because it's difficult for me to understand how those who are pro-Palestinian are able to disregard this reality in their quest for "justice."

what reality is this?

you do not think it is possible to have a nation that is secular, democratic and for both jews & non-jews?

is america a failed state or something?

[Bravo]

Which would imply that before the al-Aqsa intifadah the movement was mostly free.
[/size][/font]

concluding that it was "mostly free" is a really huge logical leap from that palestinian statement.

[QUOTE]
Edit: the only place they were really not free to go were the settlements themselves

and that's a pretty huge area, as the maps have consistently shown.

[dmytryp]

what???

* "The Orr Commission of Inquiry's report ... stated that the 'Government handling of the Arab sector has been primarily neglectful and discriminatory,' that the Government 'did not show sufficient sensitivity to the needs of the Arab population, and did not take enough action to allocate state resources in an equal manner.' As a result, 'serious distress prevailed in the Arab sector in various areas. Evidence of distress included poverty, unemployment, a shortage of land, serious problems in the education system, and substantially defective infrastructure.'"

* "In June, the Supreme Court ruled that omitting Arab towns from specific government social and economic plans is discriminatory. This judgment builds on previous assessments of disadvantages suffered by Arab Israelis."

As both things are either government commision or israeli court, I'd say this constitutes as trying to improve arabs' stance



the issue is that it is difficult to integrate in a nation that is designed to keep you both as a minority and as a second class citizen.


Maybe so, but they blatantly refuse to do any attempt.

yes please do so.


I can make a really long list, but I'll settle for a concise one:
There were four examples in this thread already. Most notably the civil service issue and the professor issue (if the situation was reverse -- there would be sunch an uproar of indignation by the Knesset members, human rights groups etc.)
The most notable examples would be behaviour of arab leaders in Israel. The Knesset members had repeatedly made statements encouraging use of force by the palestinians against Israel; went to enemy countries during war and one of them even (if I recall correctly) said Syria should attack Israel during the war with Hezbollah last year. The leader of northern muslim movement had made repated statements that in other places would be considered treason. He also proclaimed jews had no historical claim in Jerusalem, that they tell lies about the temple in order to steal arab sacred land.
Another example would be a number of israeli arabs accused and convicted of aiding terrorists. The most notable case (at least for me) was when a young arab woman rode a bus with her friend. A suicide bomber mounted the bus and told her what he was about to do. She warned only her friend, they dismounted and the bus was blown up.
Some time ago, a crazy jew shot several arabs in a bus in Um-El-Fahem. Now, this was abominable act, but you know what was abominable too? After they disarmed the guy, they lynched him and what's more -- nobody was accused of anything because there were no vitnesses.
Now, to a more mild stuff -- funny you should mention building permits. Arabs build without them. With no planning or approvement by the proper channels. Their villages sprout like mushrooms. And I'll tell you what -- the poor opressed arabs have houses I should be so lucky to have after fifty years of work.
Taxes -- arab cities and villages have the highest rate by far of evading any building or living taxes. All the citizens are supposed to pay their municipalities according to the area where they live and a living area they occupy. Well, in arab municipalities the collection of this tax is practically non-existent, which means the municipaly is poor. Yet they becry the government for not giving them enough funds.
Among the arab population the rate of 'under-the-table' work is by far the highest in the population. Something that doesn't prevent them from collecting their social security checks.

And the list goes on. This is only the tip of the iceberg. Now, all these are no reason for discriminating against arabs, but they do explain a lot of resentment from the jewish population.

As an aside: I am not familiar with the education funding, so I won't comment.

that's ridiculous.

This is not ridiculous at all. There is affirmative action in the Universities. Much similar to the one for the African-Americans in the US.
There are numerous ventures (including one funded by my boss) to help arabs improve their education and status. Yet, I am still to hear about a meaningful venture by israeli arabs, trying to close that rift between them and the jewish populus. On the contrary, they use every chance they get to tell everyone how jews mistreat them etc.

[dmytryp]

[quote=dmytryp;1854761]

Which would imply that before the al-Aqsa intifadah the movement was mostly free.
[/size][/font]

concluding that it was "mostly free" is a really huge logical leap from that palestinian statement.



and that's a pretty huge area, as the maps have consistently shown.

No, it's not. The settlemts themselves are a relatively small area. The big area is the security zones created around them as a result of the intifadah.

If this is such a big leap, please find any evidence to support the fact that before intifadah there was a meaningful restriction of movement on palestinians. Because I browsed several pro-palestinian sites and non of them mentions it as Israel's violation of Oslo accords before the intifadah.

[SC Harrison]

I note this because it's difficult for me to understand how those who are pro-Palestinian are able to disregard this reality in their quest for "justice."

Well, I don't disregard that reality myself, but I try very hard to keep an open mind and remain as "neutral" as I can on the subject. In fact, not only are Jews subjected to discriminatory practices in (many) Arab nations, so were (are) Palistinians. In their own mini-Diaspora after the 1948 war, Palistinians were treated as second-class citizens nearly everywhere they went, unable to compete with others for anything other than the most menial jobs. Doctors, lawyers, businessmen, etc., found themselves shunned nearly everywhere they went.

Okay, so...accepting the fact that most Arab nations exceed Israel when it comes to racism, religious persectution, and other civil rights issues, let me explain why I think it's important to make a distinction about Israel's behavior in this area:

There is a general consensus amongst Westerners that, over and above other considerations, Israel has a certain amount of "value" because it is a bastion of Democracy in an otherwise undemocratic region. Steps they take to defend their borders are somewhat rationalized because it is more than just the protection of Israel at stake, it's "Democracy" itself that is being protected.

But that's not really the case, is it? Oh, I understand there are myriad versions of Democracy in theory and in practice, and the system of governing in Israel would "qualify" in 9 out of 10 debates between scholars. That's not what I'm talking about. I'm referring to what the average citizen in Western countries perceives to be a Democracy, and that is usually something similar to what they live under. In my opinion, there's a huge disconnect between the West's perception of Israel and the actual nation itself.

For instance, religion plays a major role in the level of civil rights Israeli citizens can count on. Not only in property aquisition (as Bravo mentioned above), but also in the makeup of the armed forces. When an actual citizen is not allowed to take up arms to defend his country (or pursue a military career) because he's not a Jew, but an American 18 year old can because he is a Jew, it makes me wonder where you draw the line between Democracy and Theocracy, you know?

Hmmm, let's see...where else have "foreign fighters" traveled great distances to take up arms and defend their religion?

[Bravo]

[quote=Bravo;1855147]


If this is such a big leap, please find any evidence to support the fact that before intifadah there was a meaningful restriction of movement on palestinians. Because I browsed several pro-palestinian sites and non of them mentions it as Israel's violation of Oslo accords before the intifadah.

from a '96 article:

According to Palestinian sources, Israel has confiscated almost one-quarter million dunams* throughout the West Bank since the Oslo accords were signed in September 1993. Most of these actions have proceeded on the basis of confiscation orders issued before 1992. Construction of numerous bypass roads throughout the West Bank has entailed the confiscation of an additional 16,000 to 20,000 duna ms. The latter confiscations proceeded according to an agreement reached with the Palestinian Authority. Settlers have unilaterally taken an additional 23,000 dunams, according to the Land and Water Establishment for Studies and Legal Services in Jerusalem.


What we have now is land seizure on the pretext of building bypass roads, and expansio n of the settlements, despite former Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin's promise that no settlement's boundaries will extend further than 50 meters beyond the last house in it. Worse still is the fact t hat Israeli Housing Minister Ben-Eliezer is now an expert at announcing new confiscation and new projects for building Israeli homes on Palestinian land. With regard to Jerusalem, there is an attem pt to stifle it and isolate it from the other Palestinian areas by setting up road blocks and attempting to limit Palestinian activity there.

http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/51a/011.html


and your statement on the intifada is ridiculous as well.

what right does israel have to limit the movements of any palestinians w/in the w. bank and gaza?

it has none.

[dmytryp]

Not only in property aquisition (as Bravo mentioned above), but also in the makeup of the armed forces. When an actual citizen is not allowed to take up arms to defend his country (or pursue a military career) because he's not a Jew, but an American 18 year old can because he is a Jew, it makes me wonder where you draw the line between Democracy and Theocracy, you know?

Hmmm, let's see...where else have "foreign fighters" traveled great distances to take up arms and defend their religion?

First, lets clear the acqusition issue -- arabs can and do buy land. The only parts they acn't buy are those owned buy KAKAL (keren kaiemet le-israel -- israeli existence fund).
Second -- israeli arabs, though exempt from the draft (not on religious, but security reasons) can volunteer. They will probaly not get a very bright military career due to security problems, but so do many other people, like fresh newcomers from the Russia (it is a bit different now, but it was so ten-fifteen years ago). This has nothing to do with religion, as Druz's and Beduwins go to make a great military careers sometimes. It has everything to do with security clearence.

Israel is much more a theocracy, not because of its treatment of arabs, but because of some laws (including non-existence of civil marriage) that take root from Judaism.

[dmytryp]

[quote=dmytryp;1855207]

and your statement on the intifada is ridiculous as well.

what right does israel have to limit the movements of any palestinians w/in the w. bank and gaza?

it has none.

First, notice the part of the statement that said the building of roads was in accordance to agreement with the PA.

Second -- Palestinians also include Building in Jerusalem as confiscation (and as settlment growth). Israel doesn't recognise this.

Third -- why is my statement about the intifadah ridiculous?
Israel reentered the cioties and imposed movement restriction inthe West Bank as securtiy measures due to a wave of suicide bombings and terrorist attacks. This worked pretty well, too, as the number of successful bombings steadily declined and is almost non-existent (not for the lack of trying though), I might add.

Edit: The West Bank is roughly 6 million dunams, so the quarter million the article mentioned is less than five percent. By far and large most of the area is still free for palestinian movement. And before you start talking about roads, go to the West Bank wiki page and read about how the roads became inaccessable to palestinians only after numerous shootings against israelis. Which means, palestinians were free to go anywhere they wanted accept roughly five percent of the West Bank

[robeiae]

what reality is this?The one I just explained.

you do not think it is possible to have a nation that is secular, democratic and for both jews & non-jews?Sure, it's possible. It's even a reality. But I have my doubts that one will spring up under the banner of Hamas or the like and at the behest of the anti-semitic leadership of neighboring nations. And that's my problem, here: how can anyone realistically expect this to happen? That's what you are arguing for, after all.

[robeiae]

Well, I don't disregard that reality myself, but I try very hard to keep an open mind and remain as "neutral" as I can on the subject. In fact, not only are Jews subjected to discriminatory practices in (many) Arab nations, so were (are) Palestinians. In their own mini-Diaspora after the 1948 war, Palestinians were treated as second-class citizens nearly everywhere they went, unable to compete with others for anything other than the most menial jobs. Doctors, lawyers, businessmen, etc., found themselves shunned nearly everywhere they went.

Okay, so...accepting the fact that most Arab nations exceed Israel when it comes to racism, religious persectution, and other civil rights issues, let me explain why I think it's important to make a distinction about Israel's behavior in this area:

There is a general consensus amongst Westerners that, over and above other considerations, Israel has a certain amount of "value" because it is a bastion of Democracy in an otherwise undemocratic region. Steps they take to defend their borders are somewhat rationalized because it is more than just the protection of Israel at stake, it's "Democracy" itself that is being protected.

But that's not really the case, is it? Oh, I understand there are myriad versions of Democracy in theory and in practice, and the system of governing in Israel would "qualify" in 9 out of 10 debates between scholars. That's not what I'm talking about. I'm referring to what the average citizen in Western countries perceives to be a Democracy, and that is usually something similar to what they live under. In my opinion, there's a huge disconnect between the West's perception of Israel and the actual nation itself.

For instance, religion plays a major role in the level of civil rights Israeli citizens can count on. Not only in property aquisition (as Bravo mentioned above), but also in the makeup of the armed forces. When an actual citizen is not allowed to take up arms to defend his country (or pursue a military career) because he's not a Jew, but an American 18 year old can because he is a Jew, it makes me wonder where you draw the line between Democracy and Theocracy, you know?

Hmmm, let's see...where else have "foreign fighters" traveled great distances to take up arms and defend their religion?
For myself, I don't consider Israel to be a "bastion of democracy" at all. However, I do consider Israel to be a stronger ally for the U.S. than any of its neighbors. And I think it clear that Israel has a functioning government whose actions are largely predictable, that is unlikely to become a dictatorship, and that can enforce laws within a consistent legal system--whatever its particular lackings are with regard to non-Jews. That's enough for me to recognize Israel as a legitimate nation and to allow that it can handle its own affairs within the specific geographic borders it can enforce.

Again, why should Israel cede any territory? Why should Palestinians have a nation bestowed upon them? Just because?

[SC Harrison]

Again, why should Israel cede any territory?

I'm not sure what this question means.

If you're asking why they should want to cede the territory (how would it benefit them?), I would say because a large chunk of their population wants to. Maybe not a majority (yet), but many Israelis are tired of providing massive amounts of security for expansionist settlers.

If you're asking why they should be required to cede the territory, I would reference the numerous violations of Geneva IV that have occurred under their jurisdiction, combined with the fact that it is the will of, you know, the entire rest of the world, including the U.S. that they do this.

Why should Palestinians have a nation bestowed upon them?

Because they are not being represented by Israel, plain and simple. Had Israel properly "annexed" the captured territories, providing Israeli citizenship to the conquered peoples, they would have that representation or "voice" at the national and international tables. But, of course, giving them a vote in Israeli elections (like their settler neighbors have) would imperil the "Jewish" nature of Israel, so they remain voiceless second-class non-citizens of an American-backed "Democracy".

[robeiae]

I'm not sure what this question means.

If you're asking why they should want to cede the territory (how would it benefit them?), I would say because a large chunk of their population wants to. Maybe not a majority (yet), but many Israelis are tired of providing massive amounts of security for expansionist settlers.

If you're asking why they should be required to cede the territory, I would reference the numerous violations of Geneva IV that have occurred under their jurisdiction, combined with the fact that it is the will of, you know, the entire rest of the world, including the U.S. that they do this.I don't know that it's the will of anyone, other than people in postions of power.
Because they are not being represented by Israel, plain and simple. Had Israel properly "annexed" the captured territories, providing Israeli citizenship to the conquered peoples, they would have that representation or "voice" at the national and international tables. But, of course, giving them a vote in Israeli elections (like their settler neighbors have) would imperil the "Jewish" nature of Israel, so they remain voiceless second-class non-citizens of an American-backed "Democracy".
I don't find that reasoning to be sound and/or sufficient. If that's the standard, we need to start drawing lines all over the world. Again. Why start in Israel for the benefit of the Palestinians? If anything, Palestinian terrorist activity has put them at the end of the line, not the front--imo, of course.

[dmytryp]

Well, Bravo, this is for you:
I just read an article that quoted a demographic research team (http://yoramettinger.newsnet.co.il/Front/NewsNet/reports.asp?reportId=185834). He found that all the demographic predictions for the last five years about jewish and arab population in Israel turned out to be wrong. Right now the difference in childbirths between jews and arabs inside the green line stands on 0.8 children and decreasing with years. This fact would mean that unless some of the politicians will go crazy and allow return of refugees into Israel, the state will remain jewish (jewish majority) for many many years (and if the difference decreases further even forever). He also mentioned some interesting demographic findings about the territories as well, but they are less interesting.

According to ICBS data, the annual number of Arab births within the “Green Line” has stagnated during 1995-2006 around 38,000, while the annual number of Jewish births rose by 35% from 80,400 in 1995 to around 109,000 in 2006. The proportion of Jewish births has increased from 69% (of total birth within the “Green Line”) in 1995 to 75% in 2006. For the first time, total fertility rate of Jewish and Arab women, in Jerusalem, have converged at 3.9 children per woman, with the Arab fertility trending downward and Jewish rate creeping upward. The Arab-Jewish fertility gap shrunk from 6 children during the 1960s to 1 child in 2006! In fact, Jewish fertility rate in Israel is the highest in the industrialized world, while the decline in Arab fertility rate has been 20 year faster than projected by the ICBS.

[SC Harrison]

Again. Why start in Israel for the benefit of the Palestinians?

But it's not "in" Israel that we're talking about, is it?

And you know why this one is more important than others, because it is a hot-spot that has (for decades) set nation against nation and is the low-level hum behind many foreign policy decisions. Its world impact is far greater than it should be, and not working toward a solution would be foolish.