Is Israel Its Own Worst Enemy?

[Gerald]

For decades, Palestinian leaders sometimes seemed to be their own people’s worst enemies. Palestinian radicals antagonized the West, and, when militant leaders turned to hijackings and rockets, they undermined the Palestinian cause around the world. They empowered Israeli settlers and hard-liners, while eviscerating Israeli doves. These days, the world has been turned upside down. Now it is Israel that is endangered most by its leaders and maximalist stance. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is isolating his country, and, to be blunt, his hard line on settlements seems like a national suicide policy. Nothing is more corrosive than Israel’s growth of settlements because they erode hope of a peace agreement in the future. Mr. Netanyahu’s latest misstep came after the Obama administration humiliated itself by making a full-court diplomatic press to block Palestinian statehood at the United Nations. At a time when President Obama had a few other things on his plate — averting a global economic meltdown, for example — the United States frittered good will by threatening to veto the Palestinian statehood that everybody claims to favor. With that diplomatic fight at the United Nations under way, Israel last week announced plans for 1,100 new housing units in a part of Jerusalem outside its pre-1967 borders. Instead of showing appreciation to President Obama, Mr. Netanyahu thumbed him in the eye.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/06/opinion/kristof-is-israel-its-own-worst-enemy.html?src=me&ref=general


Note: October 5, 2011

[MH]

If you call building in Gilo(Jerusalem) being hard-line then let it be.
Nothing has changed much at that stance and i don't think its debatable for most Israelis.
The issue is that building in Gilo(for example) had become an issue when it wasn't a few years ago.
Everyone tries to pressure Israel to make peace by unacceptable concession in terms of politics and security not caring that that Israeli have to take the risks and live with the consequences.
As some foreign politician said-Israel is strong enough militarily to take the risks.LOL

So...yeah just do something and get this monkey of our back because people don't love you anymore.

[TLAM Strike]

Quite sure that Israel's Worst Enemy is the Arabs who want to drive them in to the sea and the American/European Leftists & the members of the NYC Dictator's Social Club who want to let them. :03:

[Oberon]

It's a Catch-22 though TLAM, you know what it's like these days, public relations are everything. It's a rod that the west has made for its own back with the whole human rights laws and that, so the laws have to be applied equally and thus there's conflict with Israel.

To be honest though, Israel is big enough and tough enough to let things like this not bother it, so long as the US keeps paying the bills then Israel will be able to hunker down and take whatever PR stunts are thrown at it by its neighbours.

Although I'd be looking with great interest at the Egyptian border now... :hmmm:

[MH]

It's a Catch-22 though TLAM, you know what it's like these days, public relations are everything. It's a rod that the west has made for its own back with the whole human rights laws and that, so the laws have to be applied equally and thus there's conflict with Israel.

To be honest though, Israel is big enough and tough enough to let things like this not bother it, so long as the US keeps paying the bills then Israel will be able to hunker down and take whatever PR stunts are thrown at it by its neighbours.

Although I'd be looking with great interest at the Egyptian border now... :hmmm:

That's the problem to begin with....for you its stunts strategy and exiting news.
For Israelis its life.
Why should we risk all those exiting stunts?
Just for a hope that next time **** happens average world citizen will love Israel a bit more-till a mistaken shell/bomb hits the wrong house(its a established pattern).

Solve Palestinian conflict and it all will go away....right....happy ever after.

[Tribesman]

The issue is that building in Gilo(for example) had become an issue when it wasn't a few years ago.

Gilo was always an issue, it has become more of an issue as Israel keeps saying FU to its allies while holding out the begging bowl and then kicking them in the balls every time they back them.
So Gilo was less of an issue than other illegal settlements, but since they keep playing silly buggers over carrying on expanding illegal settlements it brings all expansions of illegal settlements up as more of an issue.

[MH]

Gilo was always an issue, it has become more of an issue as Israel keeps saying FU to its allies while holding out the begging bowl and then kicking them in the balls every time they back them.
So Gilo was less of an issue than other illegal settlements, but since they keep playing silly buggers over carrying on expanding illegal settlements it brings all expansions of illegal settlements up as more of an issue.

As if you knew what you talk about...:haha:
Yeah yeah illegal...thanks for your opinion...and Zionism is racism right?
Isn't death penalty legal?


Jerusalem mayor slams Gilo construction critics



Nir Barkat defends plan to build 1,100 housing units in Gilo, claims government motivated by international pressure Tani Goldstein Published: 10.04.11, 17:28

Jerusalem Mayor Nir Barkat on Tuesday stressed the importance of ongoing construction in the city "as the only solution to the housing crisis."


Last week the Jerusalem Planning and Construction Committee approved the construction of 1,100 in the neighborhood of Gilo (http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4128629,00.html). The committee dubbed the decision "a nice gift for Rosh Hashana" as it provides affordable housing. However, the move drew widespread criticism mainly from abroad.

At an Interior Ministry conference, Barkat said: "The Gilo construction critics expect that we discriminate Jews and only allow Arabs to build. We receive complaints on construction in existing neighborhoods like the plan for Gilo. But when I talk to US government officials it appears they are not aware that we approve construction both for Arabs and Jews."


http://www.ynetnews.com/PicServer2/13062011/3479524/3_wa.jpg
Gilo neighborhood. 'Only Arabs allowed to build?' (Photo: Courtesy of Lowshot)

The mayor added: "We build for Arabs in east Jerusalem, including legalization of unregulated housing. In the neighborhood of Arnona, we recently authorized 1,000 apartments for Jews and 1,500 for Arabs. So what do they want? That we freeze construction for everyone? For Arabs too? And leave the natural growth issue unanswered? Or only ban Jewish construction, in violation of Israeli and international law?"




"If we don't authorize construction, Jews won't build and Arabs won't build without permission. We must keep building because that is the only answer to Jerusalem's housing crisis. The solution is developing existing neighborhoods."

Barkat also criticized the government which he claimed was not approving as much Jerusalem construction as it should. "It's a shame the government does not authorize important projects that should have already been launched. It must be motivated by international pressure, but the victims are the Jerusalem residents."

[Krauter]

As if you knew what you talk about...:haha:
Yeah yeah illegal...thanks for your opinion...and Zionism is racism right?
Isn't death penalty legal?

I think this is the reason that Israel continuously does this. I know this will sound bad, but sometimes it seems as if they use the Holocaust as an excuse to get away with things they otherwise wouldn't. Similarly, they use the excuse, "everyone hates us, we're just fighting for survival, you don't know what it's like".

To be honest I won't be surprised, much less have a shred of empathy if any of Israel's Arab neighbours declares war again..

[MH]

To be honest I won't be surprised, much less have a shred of empathy if any of Israel's Arab neighbours declares war again..

Every one to his own but it would be interesting to know why?
After all Israel went through at least 3 major wars just for being on the map.

As for the Holocaust.
I really don't know what your issue with it.
One thing is sure Jews have every reason to remember it.

[Krauter]

And in those wars it was just trying to survive, to the best of my knowledge please correct me if I'm wrong. But it seems to me now that Israel is just trying to push more and more and see how far it can go before it utilizes excuses to get what it wants.

Aye and I believe they have every right to remember the Holocaust, nor do I have any "issue with it. It was a terrible moment in human kinds history as well as that of the Germans and Jews. I sincerely hope that no event like that ever occurs again.

But it seems to me that the Israeli's use the Holocaust as a means to justify all of the goals and tactics. "Israel, why do you do this?

- Because we are protecting ourselves, what if they perpetrate another Holocaust on our nation and on our people?

Yes, but they've exhibited no signs of wanting to do this...

- We have reason to believe that they are."

[MH]

And in those wars it was just trying to survive, to the best of my knowledge please correct me if I'm wrong. But it seems to me now that Israel is just trying to push more and more and see how far it can go before it utilizes excuses to get what it wants.

By using holocaust as excuse?
I don't know what you hear from Jewish communities in Canada or USA but i'm against using holocaust in politics or as excuses.
Israel is not pushing-as i see it the country is still fighting for survival.
Besides that... most what you hear about Israeli apartheid or oppression of Palestinians is plain bull.

Remember that about 80% of West Bank Palestinian live under Palestinian Autonomous Authority right now.
Most of Israeli Palestinians don't want to be part of PA because they enjoy freedom and life quality that is not possible in Arab countries.

But again...you can attend Israeli Apartheid meeting and hear otherwise.

[Skybird]

If you can, focus on the content and argument of the following, not on the source. The message is more important than the name of the messenger.

http://frontpagemag.com/2011/10/03/why-the-palestinians-must-pay-a-price/print/


Why the Palestinians Must Pay a Price
Posted By Alan M. Dershowitz On October 3, 2011 @ 12:04 am In Daily Mailer,FrontPage | 19 Comments (http://frontpagemag.com/2011/10/03/why-the-palestinians-must-pay-a-price/print/#comments_controls)

The Palestinians are in the process of seeking sovereignty from the United Nations, but in doing so, they are asking for more than what was offered them in any prior negotiation with Israel***8212;including during the talks involving President Clinton and Ehud Barak in 2000 and 2001. Rather than more, it is imperative that the Palestinians get less.
It is imperative to world peace that the Palestinians pay a price***8212;even if it***8217;s only a symbolic price***8212;for rejecting the generous Clinton/Barak offer and responding to it with a second intifada in which 4,000 people were killed. It is also important that Israel not return to the precise armistice lines that existed prior to the 1967 war. If the Palestinians were to achieve a return to the status quo prior to Jordan***8217;s attack on Israel in June of 1967, then military aggression will not have been punished, it will have been rewarded. That***8217;s why Security Council Resolution 242***8212;which was essentially the peace treaty that resulted from the end of the Six Day War***8212;intended for Israel to retain territory necessary to give it secure boundaries (Indeed, in the formal application submitted by Abbas, he sought membership based on UN General Assembly Resolution 1810-11 of November 29, 1947, which would put the borders where they were before the Arab armies invaded the new Jewish state in 1948. This would reward multiple aggressions.)
Yet, however important it is that aggressive and unjustified violence not be rewarded, the international community seems bent on doing just that. If the end result of Jordan***8217;s 1967 attack on Israel***8212;an attack supported by the Palestinian leadership and participated in by Palestinian soldiers***8212;is that the Palestinians get back everything Jordan lost, there will be no disincentive to comparable military attacks around the world. If the Palestinians get more than, or even as much as, they rejected in 2000 and 2001 (and did not accept in 2007), then further intifadas with mass casualties will be encouraged. A price must be paid for violence. That***8217;s how the laws of war are supposed to work and there is no reason to make an exception in the case of the Palestinians.
I support a two-state solution based on negotiation and mutual compromise. But the negotiations must not begin where previous offers, which were not accepted, left off. They must take into account how we got to the present situation: The Arab rejection of the UN partition plan and the attack on the new Jewish state that resulted in the death of one percent of Israel***8217;s population; the attack by Jordan and its Palestinian soldiers against Israel in 1967, which resulted in Israel***8217;s capture of the West Bank; Israel***8217;s offer to trade captured land for peace that was rejected at Khartoum with the three infamous ***8220;no***8217;s***8221;***8212;no peace, no recognition, no negotiation; Israel***8217;s generous offer of statehood in 2000-2001 that was answered by violence; and Olmert***8217;s subsequent, even more generous, offer that was not accepted by President Abbas.

Efforts to achieve peace must look forward but they must not forget the past. A balance must be struck between not rewarding past violence and not creating unreasonable barriers to a future peace. But the Palestinians made it clear last week that they reject such balance.I was at the United Nations on Friday when President Abbas made his speech demanding full recognition of Palestine as a state with the borders as they existed just before the Jordanians and Palestinians attacked Israel. In other words he wants a ***8220;do over.***8221; He wants the nations that attacked Israel to suffer no consequences for their attempt to destroy the Jewish State. He wants to get back The Western Wall, The Jewish Quarter, and the access road to Hebrew University. Only then will he begin negotiations from this position of strength. But why then negotiate if the UN gives him more than he can possibly get through negotiation? Will he be in a position to seek less from Israel than what the UN gave him? Will he survive if he is seen as less Palestinian than the UN? Abbas blamed Israel for the self-inflicted wound the Palestinians cynically call the Nakba (the catastrophe). He denied the Jewish history of the land of Israel and he quoted with approval his terrorist predecessor Arafat. He refused to acknowledge Israel***8217;s legitimate security needs. Abbas***8217;s message, in sum, left little or no room for further compromise.





I also sat in the General Assembly as Israel***8217;s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu offered to begin negotiations with Abbas, with absolutely no preconditions, in New York, at the United Nations, that very day. He said he would come to Ramallah to negotiate with him or keep the door of his Jerusalem office open. He did not even require as a precondition to negotiations that the Palestinians acknowledge what the UN recognized in 1947***8212;namely, that Israel is the nation-state of the Jewish people.
Although many in the international communities and on the editorial pages of newspapers claim that Abbas wants to negotiate a two-state solution, while Netanyahu has refused to do so, the truth was on full and open display at the General Assembly on Friday: Netanyahu wants to negotiate a peace now, whereas Abbas wants to win recognition from the United Nations before any negotiations begin. As Netanyahu put it: ***8220;Let***8217;s stop negotiating about negotiating and let***8217;s just start negotiating right now.***8221;
If the Palestinians accept Netanyahu***8217;s offer to negotiate a peaceful two-state solution, it will get a real state on the ground***8212;a state that Israel, the United States, and the rest of the international community will recognize. It will not be on the pre-1967 borders because the Palestinians are not entitled to such borders and because such borders are not conducive to peace, but it will be close. The Palestinians will get a viable state and Israel will get a secure state.
If, on the other hand, the UN were to reward nearly a century of Palestinian rejectionism and violence by simply turning the clock back to 1967 (or 1947), it will be encouraging more cost-free rejectionism and violence. The Palestinians must pay a price for the thousands of lives their rejectionism and violence have caused. The price must not be so heavy as to preclude peace, but it must be heavy enough to deter war.

Always demanding Israel to go back to the borders of pre-1967 would mean to reward military aggression by allowing the aggressor to just go back to start after his aggression failed. But aggression shoudl come at a price.

Or would anyone argue that Germany has any claim to make that Poland has to giove back the "occupied territories" it kept from former pre-WWII Germany...?

And the following is in German, about the dubious origin of this oh so precious thing called "Palestinian identity". But this identity is a very queer and anything but obvious thing in fact. The ironic thing here is that this article was published in an extremely left-leaning, anti-national weekly magazine. A very short summary of it would be: the palestinian identiy, the Palestinian people - it is just an invention, a piece of fiction, that in the ends demands all territory between the Mediterranean Sea and Jordan to be cleaned of any Jewish presence. And this in a leftist paper. But still - there is no such thing as a Palestinian identity in the meaning of an ethnic, racial, tribal nature of a people.

http://jungle-world.com/artikel/2011/39/44061.html

[Jimbuna]

Israel may well be feeling increasingly isolated and if it loses the support of the US (which I seriously doubt will ever happen) anything can happen in the region...most likely a war.

[MH]

If you can, focus on the content and argument of the following, not on the source. The message is more important than the name of the messenger.

http://frontpagemag.com/2011/10/03/why-the-palestinians-must-pay-a-price/print/

Always demanding Israel to go back to the borders of pre-1967 would mean to reward military aggression by allowing the aggressor to just go back to start after his aggression failed. But aggression shoudl come at a price.

Or would anyone argue that Germany has any claim to make that Poland has to giove back the "occupied territories" it kept from former pre-WWII Germany...?

And the following is in German, about the dubious origin of this oh so precious thing called "Palestinian identity". But this identity is a very queer and anything but obvious thing in fact. The ironic thing here is that this article was published in an extremely left-leaning, anti-national weekly magazine. A very short summary of it would be: the palestinian identiy, the Palestinian people - it is just an invention, a piece of fiction, that in the ends demands all territory between the Mediterranean Sea and Jordan to be cleaned of any Jewish presence. And this in a leftist paper. But still - there is no such thing as a Palestinian identity in the meaning of an ethnic, racial, tribal nature of a people.

http://jungle-world.com/artikel/2011/39/44061.html

Great article thats exactly my point.

Here something about the Apartheid...from very leftist paper.
Take into consideration that there are relatively few Palestinian academics vs population-never mind the reason for PC.


Interview / 'It's trivial to hire Arab academics'

In absolute numbers, out of state employees, there are only 4,200 Arabs and very few make it high in the ranks of government service.

By Meirav Arlosoroff (http://www.haaretz.com/misc/writers/meirav-arlosoroff-1.465)






We asked Ayman Seif, general director of the Authority for the Economic Development of Minorities at the Prime Minister's Office, if it's true that there aren't many Arabs in Israeli government service. Apparently it is.
http://english.themarker.com/polopoly_fs/1.336734.1294873288!/image/3226223086.jpg_gen/derivatives/landscape_295/3226223086.jpgAimen Seif.
Photo by: David Bachar "We are 20% of the population, but only 7% of the employees of the state are Arabs," Seif says. In absolute numbers, out of state employees, there are only 4,200 Arabs, he says. Moreover, very few make it high in the ranks of government service.
Why is this so?
"In my opinion the situation is completely twisted. It was only in 1994 that the first positions in government were earmarked for Arab citizens. The situation has improved since then. There is a trend of hiring Arabs by government. The figures speak for themselves and Israeli governments have admitted that there has been discrimination against Arabs .... The pace is slow but we're on the right track."
What can be done to change things?
"Government offices need to realize that it's trivial to absorb Arab academics, to encourage the Arab population to apply for government tenders. We're trying to work in both these directions.
"There is a lack of awareness, perhaps ignorance, fear of the different. That isn't just in the government sector, it's in the private sector as well. I say, let's talk about ignorance - that they don't realize there are excellent Arab academics who can provide good, efficient help in the private sphere, and the public one as well."

[Tribesman]

As if you knew what you talk about...
Clearly, how many times do you manage to trip yourself up with that line of nonsense?:yeah:

Yeah yeah illegal...thanks for your opinion...and Zionism is racism right?

Illegal is illegal, there is no way round that.
Nice to see you trot out the usual bollox, whatever next, calling people anti semites because your country has been a balls up from start to finish?

Great article thats exactly my point
Dershowitz writing in the Horowitz rag, you really show up your point for what it is.
Well done:har::har::har::har::har::har:

[MH]

Clearly, how many times do you manage to trip yourself up with that line of nonsense?:yeah:


Illegal is illegal, there is no way round that.
Nice to see you trot out the usual bollox, whatever next, calling people anti semites because your country has been a balls up from start to finish?


Dershowitz writing in the Horowitz rag, you really show up your point for what it is.
Well done:har::har::har::har::har::har:

I don't care who he writes for....he may even have sex relation with aliens for what i care or Monica Levinsky
I agree with the article...:up:

Bring on some virgin intellectual of your liking.....unbiased and competent.

What is Horowitz rag anyway lol

[Tribesman]

I don't care who he writes for....he may even have sex relation with aliens for what i care or Monica Levinsky
I agree with the article...
The huge glaring factual errors and extremely narrow and twisted views don't make you question the validity of the article and the arguements it presents?
Of course not, it fits the mental view from the bunker:rotfl2:

[MH]

The huge glaring factual errors and extremely narrow and twisted views don't make you question the validity of the article and the arguements it presents?
Of course not, it fits the mental view from the bunker:rotfl2:

Talking about narrow views... lol
I don't know the guy and the site but he is quite correct...
Now what...is he preparing for second coming or has sex with Glen Beck?

[kraznyi_oktjabr]

The huge glaring factual errors and extremely narrow and twisted views don't make you question the validity of the article and the arguements it presents?When you have time could you dissect article and provide your counterarguments, please? Thanks in advance. :up:

[Krauter]

By using holocaust as excuse?
I don't know what you hear from Jewish communities in Canada or USA but i'm against using holocaust in politics or as excuses.


It may just be me, but almost all of the people who I've met that immigrated from Israel seem to think the world owes them for the holocaust and seem to think Israel is the next big player in world politics.

[Kazuaki Shimazaki II]

Always demanding Israel to go back to the borders of pre-1967 would mean to reward military aggression by allowing the aggressor to just go back to start after his aggression failed. But aggression shoudl come at a price.

2 points:
1) No matter what excuse you make, it is hard to deny that Israel attacked in 1967, so this whole "military aggression" thing applies to Israel, actually.
2) The real fault of the whole Israel situation is that perhaps the world should not have been so eager back in 1948 to let Israel built a state on then still predominantly Palestinian land. Any accounting of the intervening wars, and any compromise, should rightfully use THAT, as a starting point.

[Tribesman]

Where would you like to start?
"asking for more...." That is asking for something different and indeed for something less. The mere fact that it is non violent and only symboloic has the Israeli govt. and its mouthpieces in a frenzy over how to make it look bad, much like they did when the PA used americas own statements as the precise wording for a previous motion.

"It is imperative to world peace...." That is just bollox.

"It is also important that...." Once again pure bollox, the proposals, even including from the US statement on the subject don't say that.
Classic donkey oaty from Dershowitz.

"aggression .....aggression..... unjustified" aggression under any definition applies to all sides in the conflicts and all sides have both justified and unjustified elements.

"which was essentially the peace treaty ...." errrr...no, simple as that.

"That's how the laws of war are supposed to work...." are they? He hasn't done very well on the laws of war throughout his piece has he .

"But the negotiations must not begin where previous offers...."not only does that not make sensebut it also appears to be in direct contradiction of his usual "no pre-conditions" line.

"The Arab rejection of the UN partition plan"...it being clearly understood:yeah: they like that document as long as they leave the words it contains out of it don't they:yep:

"A balance must be struck ....." indeed, but he doesn't seem to favour balance at all and supports more barriers to peace not less.

"I was at the United Nations ....." I could swear that he contradicts himself earlier in the piece

"Abbas message, in sum, left little or no room for further compromise...." It left plenty of room, poor Alan has the problem of believing what he writes as true and not seeing that all sides have to compromise.

"Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu offered ..." he insisted on a precondition as he made the statement plus was totally undermined by his own deputy.

Would you like to go through in more detail?

As an extra bit of fun can you see the glaring error in Skybirds little piece after the article?

[Sammi79]

If you can, focus on the content and argument of the following, not on the source. The message is more important than the name of the messenger.

http://frontpagemag.com/2011/10/03/why-the-palestinians-must-pay-a-price/print/

Always demanding Israel to go back to the borders of pre-1967 would mean to reward military aggression by allowing the aggressor to just go back to start after his aggression failed. But aggression shoudl come at a price.

Or would anyone argue that Germany has any claim to make that Poland has to giove back the "occupied territories" it kept from former pre-WWII Germany...?

And the following is in German, about the dubious origin of this oh so precious thing called "Palestinian identity". But this identity is a very queer and anything but obvious thing in fact. The ironic thing here is that this article was published in an extremely left-leaning, anti-national weekly magazine. A very short summary of it would be: the palestinian identiy, the Palestinian people - it is just an invention, a piece of fiction, that in the ends demands all territory between the Mediterranean Sea and Jordan to be cleaned of any Jewish presence. And this in a leftist paper. But still - there is no such thing as a Palestinian identity in the meaning of an ethnic, racial, tribal nature of a people.

http://jungle-world.com/artikel/2011/39/44061.html

:nope: the first article is ridiculous IMHO talking about not rewarding past aggression - I.E. punishing past aggression - some of the most fundamental reasons that created the conditions in Germany that led directly to Hitler and WWII. By acting like this, Israel are encouraging anti-semitic feeling the world over and if it keeps going one day they will reap their reward. As other people have pointed out, Israel commenced the attack in '67 so the 'they started it' argument falls flat I'm afraid. I have heard many times Israelis say 'The Jews are the best [people on earth]' well why don't you bloody act like it then and lead by example? Holding pregnant women at checkpoints for hours, stray bullets killing primary school children while they take lessons in their classrooms, bulldozing family homes. Makes me sick. Only thing worse is the consistent US veto preventing any resolution that would put real pressure on Israel to clean up its act. The IDF are worse than the nazis particularly as they seem to believe in some some of god given right to act like them. I have spoken with liberal Israelis (they do exist just are not so vocal) who have confirmed my views on this, I have read history and watched the IDF bulldoze, bomb and gas Palestinians mostly children for my entire life. Yes the Israelis have experienced terrorism and all its brutality, but the violence they perpetrate themselves far outweighs it. Remember what happened after Munich? f'ing Israeli hit squads terrorising and murdering any opposition WORLDWIDE.

@skybird - Poland to give back territory granted them after WWII which was stolen by Germany long before WWI? please. The Palestinian identity a fiction? no more so than the Israeli one. In fact Palestine existed as a country before Israel did. You can bash on about biblical times if you like, the fact is, modern Israel and Palestine were both created in the same moment after WWII from the pre-existing land of Palestine.

[MH]

2 points:
1) No matter what excuse you make, it is hard to deny that Israel attacked in 1967, so this whole "military aggression" thing applies to Israel, actually.
2) The real fault of the whole Israel situation is that perhaps the world should not have been so eager back in 1948 to let Israel built a state on then still predominantly Palestinian land. Any accounting of the intervening wars, and any compromise, should rightfully use THAT, as a starting point.

The IDF are worse than the nazis particularly as they seem to believe in some some of god given right to act like them. I have spoken with liberal Israelis (they do exist just are not so vocal) who have confirmed my views on this, I have read history and watched the IDF bulldoze, bomb and gas Palestinians mostly children for my entire life. Yes the Israelis have experienced terrorism and all its brutality, but the violence they perpetrate themselves far outweighs it. Remember what happened after Munich? f'ing Israeli hit squads terrorising and murdering any opposition WORLDWIDE.



WOW...where have you all grown up people?
In Syria?

@Tribesman-Bullox

I find it interesting that people who live in free nations and have access to all the information cone up with this.....

[Sammi79]

I grew up in Wales, MH. Clue in sig. I apologize for not adding 'IMHO' to my statement that you quoted - this is simply how it appears to me. Can you show me different? Kazuaki made a good point about our nations being at least partially responsible in some way for the current situation, regarding their post WWII actions relocating displaced Jews to land that already had an indigenous population including Islamic and Jewish peoples alike, who at that time existed in reasonable harmony with each other. Can you argue against this?

Can you address any of the other points in my post? or are you going to resort to simple insults like 'where did you grow up, Syria?' I bet you grew up in Israel, am I right? Should I assume that because of that your opinions are invalid? (or at the very least, pro-Israeli biased) If I had grown up in Syria, why would my opinions or feelings be any less valid? Yes I live a world away and maybe I don't understand the convoluted intricacies of the situation as well as I might, but I can remain objective. It makes no difference to me if Israel decides to openly declare war and take all the land of Palestine for its own, or if the Arab nations gang up again and destroy the state of Israel. The fact remains, that Israel is breaking laws of the Geneva convention almost daily, and is subjecting the Palestinians in the contested areas to what amounts to slow genocide, economic and physical, and is very comparable to the nazis treatment of the Jews in Germany. The objective is IMHO to make life so unbearable for the Palestinian Arabs that they will leave voluntarily, thus ending the contention by default, at which point Israel can simply claim the land as they have already settled upon it, while avoiding the obvious backlash that would occur if war were declared openly. It is because I have access to all the information as you put it that has led me to this conclusion. I invite you again to show me different.

[Tribesman]

@Tribesman-Bullox
Awwww wassamatter MH is the truth too much for you to handle, are simple little details too complicated:har::har::har::har:

I find it interesting that people who live in free nations and have access to all the information cone up with this.....

I find it interesting that you are unable to counter perfectly valid points.
I agree Sammi has gone well over the top on an extremely simplistic approach....but then again you wrote that you like the views of a rabid loony zionist who thinks Israel as an approach to peace should be doing exactly what the Nazis did in the Balkans:yeah:
Oh I forgot you don't know the writer or his views ...or the people he writes for or their views...then again you were also unfamiliar with even the existance of a whole pile of Israeli media outlets, clueless about the different political parties in government, seemed oblivious to the fact the Knesset runs a comprehensive online archive and that the IDF has its own news service where you can read its own inquiries and its own version of events.
Why are you starved of information?:hmmm:
Do you live in syria or something ?
Why is your vaunted local "expertise" so lacking?
Is your bunker in Bosra:rotfl2:

[Penguin]

So what is the obsession with Israel?
Where were the protests against the occupation of the Baltic states when the USSR existed? Who cries about Manchuria anymore? What about Greenland?
Where are the demonstrations in Europe against the Syrian slaughter of the opposition? How many people boycott China for its oppression in Tibet? Are there people not buying products from Alaska, because the Russians sold their land too cheap in a legal contract?

Swedish "lefties" who prevent a tennis match where Israeli players participate: what the **** does a tennis player has to do with his government? How many people storm sports events where people from authoritarian countries participate?

Any foundation of a state in the history of the world had injustices, so revert it all back?

I see this fixation on Israel and it pees me off - it's hard to see only a genuine interest in the rights of the Palestinians rather than prejudices and old stereotypes.

@Sammi: I'd like to address your points, because they remind me of how I argued 20 years ago, so I can understand them to an extend. As I am on the run, and don't want to rush it, I'll write an answer down tomorrow.

[August]

2 points:
1) No matter what excuse you make, it is hard to deny that Israel attacked in 1967, so this whole "military aggression" thing applies to Israel, actually

It's just as hard to deny that if the IDF hadn't attacked the Arabs would definitely have invaded and probably have overrun them. It was suicide to wait and any objective person knows it. Like forcing a cop to wait until a perp opens fire before taking him out.

[Sammi79]

OK I guess I went a little too far with my simplistic tit for tat approach and I apologize for that. Just reading some propaganda can evoke an angry response in me, not that that excuses it.

@August, fair point. There is evidence to support both views on that argument, but I personally would lean towards yours.
@Penguin, I look forward to your analysis of my ranting kind sir. I'm sure you or MH or Tribesman could tear it to shreds. :oops: In fact I am a little surprised that they haven't done so already.
Regarding the topic, I would humbly suggest in my limited view that if peace is truly the goal, at least 3 things need to be done by each 'side' and these will take time, I will put them next to each other and in order Israel first then Palestinians as they are not allowed to be considered a nation yet if ever :-

---

1) Israel must stop immediately building in the contested areas, as these need to be open for negotiation, and continued building directly implies that Israel is unwilling to negotiate these areas.

1) Palestinians must stop immediately all violence towards Israel, and hand over or make known to Israeli authorities, any criminals that refuse to do so for fair trial in Israeli courts. This should also apply to retaliatory strikes by the IDF, as both of these actions are particularly harmful to the peace process.

---

2) Israel must start making provisions to relocate settlers in the contested areas into uncontested land, for the same reason as 1) of course, this will take time, possibly decades. It will also cost a lot of money. Setting up charities globally could help with this, and I think the majority of thinking people around today would be glad to help this situation resolve peacefully, particularly nations like the UK who should accept the larger share of the responsibility due to their role in the befuddled slicing up of their mandated territory post WWI but also the USA who should accept their responsibility for the massive immigration of Americans into the newly formed state of Israel post WWII

2) Palestinians must suppress the infighting and contradictory stances of the hard line Hamas and Fatah groups, though if 1) is achieved I would assume (perhaps wrongly) that this will no longer be a problem, and elect a unified political leading group that represents ALL Palestinians in view of negotiations and the possibility of becoming a real nation at some point in the future.

---

3) While Israel is still the governing body in the contested areas, all peoples currently residing within them of legal age should be given the vote on Israeli politics, until such a time as Israel renounces its governing authority completely in said zones, in view of completing point 2).

3) Palestinians should continue to protest any unfair treatment by Israeli authorities (in their view) en-masse in a peaceful way, avoiding antagonistic behavior such as rock throwing etc. use modern technology to record these events, for future analysis and global education. When the world is watching the hard liners on both sides will find their spheres of influence shrinking fast.

---

That would be a beginning. I tried very hard to be fair with this, here in the UK we see a lot of media simply covering the violence, also a lot of documentaries sympathetic to the Palestinian viewpoint. There really are not very many from the Israeli side and this tends to make people think that the Israelis are lording it over the Palestinians in every which way, coupled with the violence, and the British tendency to support the underdog, and you see where a lot of us outsiders get our prejudices. Again not excusing it, simply stating how I experience it. If more people were recording the actual events particularly from the Israeli side, it would be easier to make sure for instance that Palestinians in Israeli courts get fair trials, and violent criminals could be easier identified, abuse of human rights could be prevented etc... I really don't want to get into a debate about it, but to finish I must add, religious extremists on both sides do nothing to help and should be silenced, as a priority. On this point I provide a link to one of few documentaries from the Israeli side, and I must also warn that the Israelis in it are the true believers as it were, and should definitely not be taken as representative of Israelis as a whole. I would appreciate if someone could point me to a source of information not solely based on examining the viewpoint of the hard liners as I said, I have spoken with Israelis who agree that their government and the IDFs policies and actions regarding the situation are wrong, but thus far this is one of the better docs I have found.

http://documentaryheaven.com/louis-theroux-the-ultra-zionists/
(http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/louis-theroux-ultra-zionists/)

[Skybird]

^
Nice ideas. Now let's see the realities. Iran is heavily interfering in Lebanon and the Palstinians. Jerusalem is non-negotiable for the Israelis. The Palestinians never were unified, and probbaly never will be. Maybe that is because there is no such thing like a homogenous Palestinian ethnicity. Allowing Arabs full access to internal Israeli legislation, would mean that sooner or later there would be more Arabs than Jews living in Israel, putting its existence even more into question. The "Arab Spring" - what an euphemism, the revolutions all seem to have led to fundamentaliusts becoming string and going for power - showed how a state can be ripped apart from within. The destruction of Israel remains to be a deep-rooting desire not onyl amongst Palestinians, but Arabs in othger states as well - see the events in Egypt - Mubarak may have controlled the border and may have honoured diplomatic relations, but he was unable to chnage the street'S sentiments against Israel.

You may mean it well, and just. But you simply ignore the simple bitter facts of realities on the ground. People are not like you assume they are.

Also, you ignore that the cionflict in the region is not so much basing on the Palestinian-Israeli confrontation, but the Sunni-Shia confrontation, and the Saudi and Iranian interests for dominance. If you think you create peace by solving Palestine peacefully, than you are wrong. The latter of tha two conflicts mntioned is what drives the show. Beside that fact remains that Islam by ideology is deeply antisemitic since all bgeinning on. Muhammad suffered a great narcissistic offen ce from the Jews, and he took revenge by waging war and committing genocide. Since then, Jews are simply dirt, in Islam's eyes.

Also, racist education is booming amongst Palestinians since very long, check their TV programs. Evcen the kids already get fed racist sh!t that in Western countries would bring makers of such programs into prison immediately. An attitude already founded since the age of let'S say 3 or 4, a social tradition of celebrating the lament over the losses of the far far away past - yopu think you can chnage that by a piece of paper with some signatures? I am not young and naive enough anymore to believe such things. Judaism is very much fixiated on the far away past and past losses, too -since millenias. This should serve you as an example - why do you assume that Palestinians tick differently, although Islam is very fixiated on the past, too?

These euzrpean forethinkers, they are too disconnected from reality, and mistake man and world how they think it should be with how they really are. And thre truth is, man is a domested animal, his instincts and lower sentiments are easier to appeal to than his potential skill for reason, and hate that has been there since generations and centuries and millenias cannot be neutrlasied just by poltiical decisions. It did not work anywhere in the conflicts thre West eyed or participated in in the past 20 years, not in Kosovo and the Balkan war, not in the Georgia conflict, not in Iraq, not in Afghanistan.

And the "militants" you want to keep in check, they are part of the Lebanese government and have made a very very big footprint in that country now, a heavily armed Iranian outpost just waiting for going wild again. Political-relgious fundamentalists - you cannot argue wioth them, you cannot appeal tpo their reason, you cannot negotiate and trust in diplomatic treaties with them - proven by history over and opver and over again.

And finally, you are aware that Turkey also has no interest in having the issue settled, are you? And Turkey is playing the big man down there very much since some years. Turkey NEEDS the conflict kept alive for its very own powergame.

In the light of all this, you list of musts and shoulds is just this - well-meant, but ignorring of realities. All EU's ideas about this socalled "peace process" in the past 15 years have been that: well-meant, but ignorring realities. If Israel unilaterally would do like you and the other clever minds demand it to do, it would be a program of self-destruction. I personally don't think that in the very long perpsective Isarael can hold out, for demographic, military, economic, geographic and ideologic reasons, but this does not lead me to saying that they should stop trying to resist.

[Tribesman]

Jerusalem is non-negotiable for the Israelis
Hey thats a pre-condition isn't it.:yeah:
Why are you attacking Bibi like that?

The Palestinians never were unified
just like any other nation that came into being then

Maybe that is because there is no such thing like a homogenous Palestinian ethnicity.
So just the same as the British Germans French Irish Indians Americans Pakistanis Brazilians Chinese and errrrr....Israelis.:yep:

Also, you ignore that the cionflict in the region is not so much basing on the Palestinian-Israeli confrontation, but the Sunni-Shia confrontation, and the Saudi and Iranian interests for dominance.
The Iranian element is a later development added into an existing conflict so it is not what he conflict is basing on.

Muhammad suffered a great narcissistic offen ce from the Jews, and he took revenge by waging war and committing genocide. Since then, Jews are simply dirt, in Islam's eyes.

The self avowed "expert" is at it again:doh: must be that german translation he glances at once in a while when he wants to count the pages and look at the empty bits:har::har::har::har:.
So which places throughout history took in these "people of the book" when the civilised west went on its frequent rampages against the Jews? Funny thing to do for people who are simply dirt.

And the "militants" you want to keep in check, they are part of the Lebanese government and have made a very very big footprint in that country now
Good point, an organisation that didn't exist until quite a while after the Israelis invaded in support of their rather "militant" Lebanese allies.
Damn, does that mean all sides are at fault and all sides are at it:yep:

@Penguin if someone was to write in favour of the chinese or soviets perhaps you would get a measure of the arguements against it

[soopaman2]

Easy solution, you all will be so proud. Maybe Obama will give me his Nobel peace prize he didn't earn.

Give the Palastinians stinger missles, and explain to them that they work better than rocks against tanks. Since Allah or Allen or whatever his name is tells them to still fight with rocks and swords. Even up the score.


Make them play king of the hill. Whoever holds Jerusalem until the other side stops coming wins...

Then we nuke the victory party and the city. No more old rocks to fight over! Now they are all gods chosen people and can be with him.

:rock:

Gimme my nobel peace prize now.

[Gerald]

Palastinians has more than stinger missiles, if they now want to put it into a full-scale war, but there is no scenario,yet.

[MH]

UNRWA is an impediment to peaceBy DAVID BEDEIN
10/02/2011 22:55


UNRWA instills millions of Arab refugee descendants with false hope they'll be repatriated to 1948 villages.

Talkbacks ()
A Middle East peace process ensued 34 years ago, when Egyptian president Anwar Sadat made an unprecedented peace effort, when he proclaimed a new policy of peace and reconciliation with Israel. Sadat headed the largest nation of the League of Arab Nations, the very entity which declared a war of extermination against the nascent state of Israel in 1948. The very same League of Arab Nations spawned the PLO in 1964 for the very same purpose: to liquidate the Jewish state.

The 1979 Israel-Egypt peace treaty, and the subsequent 1994 Israel-Jordan peace treaty which emanated from the seminal Sadat initiative, ignited hopes that the Israeli-Arab war would finally come to an end, while outstanding issues of the 1948 war would finally be resolved.

Festering issues from 1948 still include the vast property claims of nearly one million Jews from Arab countries who left almost all possessions behind, along with the claims of the descendants of half a million Arab refugees from 1948 war who left behind hundreds of Arab villages.

While Jewish refugees from Arab countries were absorbed into Israel, nearly five million descendants of Arab refugees from the 1948 war continue to languish in 59 United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA) “temporary” refugee camps in Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, Judea, Samaria, Jerusalem and Gaza, now funded to the tune of 1.2 billion dollars per annum by 38 western democracies, with the US government donating 25 percent of the annual UNRWA budget.

An official UNRWA report, published in June 2011, describes the destitute situation in the UNRWA facilities,which UNRWA officials contrasted with the tremendous economic growth of neighboring Arab cities of Ramallah, Jenin, Bethlehem, Hebron and more.

YET DESPITE its plague of poverty, UNRWA makes no effort to seek any long term solutions for descendants of Arab refugees who have wallowed in the indignity of refugee life for more than 60 years. UNRWA could adapt the principles of UNHCR, the United Nations High Commission For Refugees, to rehabilitate thousands of its clients. After all, UNHCR has recently gained experience in its efforts to relocate thousands of Arab refugees whom it had rescued in Iraq, placing them in eleven nations around the world beginning with Chile.

In contrast, UNRWA instills millions of Arab refugee descendants with the false hope that they will be repatriated to their 1948 villages, even though these villages no longer exist. Meanwhile, UNRWA makes no effort to even encourage Arab refugee descendants to plan for a future Palestinian Arab entity that may soon be established in Judea, Samaria and Gaza.

Instead, UNRWA embraces the “right of return” curricula of the Palestinian Authority, Syria, Lebanon and Jordan, and UNRWA facilities boast maps of Palestine which replace Israel, where all Israeli cities are described as Arab cities. This past summer, our agency filmed UNRWA sports camps for children where the dominant theme was the “right of return” to the villages of their greatgrandparents.

The UNRWA school system’s call to join the armed struggle to realize the “right of return” has transformed UNRWA camps into a breeding ground for terrorists.

It was therefore no coincidence that, in March 2009, Hamas terror groups won their fourth consecutive election to take charge of the UNRWA trade union and the UNRWA teachers’ union in Gaza.

Appearing before the National Press Club in Washington on September 19, 2011, Dr. Mordechai Kedar, senior research associate at the Begin Sadat Center (BESA) for Strategic Studies at Bar Ilan University, described UNRWA as “an anachronistic institution born 60 years [ago] and [which] should have died a natural death many decades ago, like in all parts of the world after the tumult of the Second World War.” Moreover, said Kedar, “what UNRWA does is to perpetuate the wars of the 1940s as it resuscitates refugee problems that died in all other parts of the world, more than fifty years ago.”



In conclusion, Kedar addressed the contrast between UNRWA’s motto, which is “peace begins here” and UNRWA’s policies, which he said work against the cause of peace between Israel and its neighbors.

In short, noted Kedar, “UNRWA raises Arab expectations to radically change Israeli demography – expectations that will never be fulfilled. UNRWA wastes funds that could be used much [more] productively, funds which the world – especially the American taxpayer – could have used in a more productive way.”

The writer is the author of Where Has All the Flour Gone: Whims and Waste of UN Palestinian Arab Refugee Policy and the director of The Center for Near East Policy Research

.............

[TLAM Strike]

Palastinians has more than stinger missiles...

That's for sure:
http://img841.imageshack.us/img841/5384/c801001.jpg
Thanks Iran!
http://img401.imageshack.us/img401/6403/maz543blacksmokecarryin.jpg
Thanks Syria!
http://img135.imageshack.us/img135/8071/iranajr5a.jpg
Thanks Libya!

:ping:

[Sammi79]

@Sky.

The Israelis have no homogenous Israeli ethnicity either, most are or are descendents of American immigrants, with a small portion being displaced Jews from Europe, and an even smaller portion of Jewish formerly Palestinians who are the only ones who could possibly have any connection to the ancient Hebrews and over that length of time this is questionable at best. Oh and of course the Arab Israelis at about 1/5 of the total - ethnically speaking the Palestinians have as much right to be a 'Nation' as the Israelis. Which you argue reasonably is miniscule, but the Israelis got theirs didn't they?

I would like to refrain from arguing about religion, unfortunately as this seems to be the worst case of religious hi-jacking from all sides it is still a fundamental part of the problem. Did you watch that doc I linked? The young fellow Louis talks to living in a tent on the hills, I liked him for his youth and vigor, but it was very sad to note the extreme belief drilled in to such an extent. The lad only had posters of Rabbis poor chap. He openly admitted to feeling that Palestinans are beneath Jewish Israelis, not only that, but that the Jews are above all peoples as they were chosen by god. Exactly the same subhumanising drivel the nazis inflicted upon their own. You are right obviously, to say that the Islamic nutjobs are behaving in a similar (perhaps even worse) way but like I said, These people should not be taken as representative of the larger population. They are the worst examples. Am I be wrong in thinking that the majority of folks on all sides truly wish for a peaceful life, in fact, want the same things as every other thinking ape on the planet? Of course there will always be some apes who can't/won't think. Religion absolutely guarantees it, but it would still happen. All I can add to that is it makes me just as sad to see a bunch of Jews bobbing their heads in prayer and stuffing paper into some antiquated wall as it does to see the Muslims wrapping up their women and prostrating themselves 5 times a day. It is all brainwashing. There has never been clearer examples of the damage that religion can do to an individual. That being said, Religion itself is not the cause, rather it is a tool used by the leaders of all sides for their own ends, to great effect. It is the ape behind the wheel steering the ship we ought to beware of. Like i said, as a priority, extreme or politically active religious groups should be silenced.

You are right in saying that Iranian/Saudi interests are heavily at stake here, and I wholeheartedly support humanitarian efforts in these places, where there are undoubtedly very many human rights abuses. Unfortunately our western governments are all doing their utmost to ignore this, as I assume simplistically, they own a lot of oil which we all desperately need and/or may have nuclear weapons both of which really escalate the risks involved with interference. It may not be right or just, but it is a great deterrent. When I talked about suppressing militants, I apply that equally, to Hamas, Fatah and the IDF which wouldn't need looking at if it just lived down to its title. They certainly do a good job of defending Israel, no question, only they go a bit above and beyond that, don't they? I cannot agree with your argument about hatred through the centuries, that is simply an excuse. Hatred is taught, by violence and oppression, for every generation. Every violent act increments hatred for the attacker in the victim. Acts of courtesy, respect and kindness similarly work in the other direction. Oppression through military occupation and subhuman treatment are essentially violence in slightly different forms. I don't hate the Germans, or the French, or the Romans or Scandinavians for that matter Sky. Where did my hereditary hatred go? As you correctly point out, the hi-jacked religions teach hatred in an academic form, to those too young to have built any intellectual defense against it. I guess it could be considered mental violence, inflicted upon children, with the added benefit being the attacker choosing the object of the victims hatred. But all religions end up this way don't they, and there is certainly religion on both sides of this problem.

You can call me naive, and you may well be right. At least I made some suggestions that might help the plight of the ordinary well meaning people on the ground. What do you propose should be done, in your wisdom?

You also assume that my suggestions are well meant. I guess so up to a point. But then, I refrained from adding to my last post, with some difficulty, that if peace isn't the real goal, why not go at it? Blow the crap out of each other til the river Jordan runs with Palestinian blood. Israel can have all of the land of Palestine for its own, and spend eternity defending it from all the Arabic nations. With US support in the form of weapons and manpower, that could go on for decades. I won't lose any sleep mind. Oh but don't bother filming it this time I think I've seen enough.

Easy solution, you all will be so proud. Maybe Obama will give me his Nobel peace prize he didn't earn.

Give the Palastinians stinger missles, and explain to them that they work better than rocks against tanks. Since Allah or Allen or whatever his name is tells them to still fight with rocks and swords. Even up the score.


Make them play king of the hill. Whoever holds Jerusalem until the other side stops coming wins...

Then we nuke the victory party and the city. No more old rocks to fight over! Now they are all gods chosen people and can be with him.

:rock:

Gimme my nobel peace prize now.

Exactly. I got to hand it to you, the end part is the cream on that cake. :D

[MH]

You also assume that my suggestions are well meant. I guess so up to a point. But then, I refrained from adding to my last post, with some difficulty, that if peace isn't the real goal, why not go at it? Blow the crap out of each other til the river Jordan runs with Palestinian blood. Israel can have all of the land of Palestine for its own, and spend eternity defending it from all the Arabic nations. With US support in the form of weapons and manpower, that could go on for decades. I won't lose any sleep mind. Oh but don't bother filming it this time I think I've seen enough.
.

Sure... the issue is all about stealing land fro Palestinians and Arabs trying to prevent that..hence the three major wars.
Because Arab nations and Turkey or Iran care so much lol.
Its certainly gives them good political weapon though-just look at your own post you write like a victim of Al-Jazeera.
Never mind that Palestinians here including those in Gaza enjoy better economical and humanitarian situation that most Arabs in ME.

You are misled so much i don't even know when to start to correct you.
I think that if Palestinian red your post he would laugh his head off.

[Sammi79]

Sure... the issue is all about stealing land fro Palestinians and Arabs trying to prevent that..hence the three major wars.
Because Arab nations and Turkey or Iran care so much lol.
Its certainly gives them good political weapon though-just look at your own post you write like a victim of Al-Jazeera.
Never mind that Palestinians here including those in Gaza enjoy better economical and humanitarian situation that most Arabs in ME.

You are misled so much i don't even know when to start to correct you.
I think that if Palestinian red your post he would laugh his head off.

In the case of Israel yes it is certainly about stolen land. I should really edit my posts to change 'contested areas' to 'illegally occupied areas' in the interest of being sensitive to an Israeli viewpoint I didn't. That was obviously a mistake, I fell into the trap of conceding that the areas be contested. By rights, Israel should immediately and completely withdraw from these places, and submit its criminal leaders to fair trial at the UN. The IDF should not be occupying land that does not belong to them. How hard is that to understand? Every other nation on the planet is in agreement on this, and we are all wrong? why are we wrong? because god says so? Just because Palestinians have no nation does not mean that stealing their land is justifiable! One reason the US keeps hamstringing the UN is that they are (quite rightly) scared of what you and your own particular brand of fruitloops might decide to do with their nukes. Most Arabs in the ME are not subject to an illegal occupation. I might be misled, certainly. I can only comment on what i see, and I think that you are equally misled by your own government. It was Sky who brought up Turkey etc... you can argue with him about that if it pleases you.

I welcome the debate but your refusal to 'correct me' as you put it leads me to believe that perhaps you have nothing to say, not that holds any water anyway. Are you a believer yourself?

Look, discussion is good and healthy, and I want to assure you I have nothing personal against you. Lets talk. Show me my delusions for what they are in your eyes, help me to understand. I am open minded sir, and my mind is able to change. What have I got so hideously wrong?

[Tribesman]

You are misled so much i don't even know when to start to correct you.

That appears true, yet since you are so far in denial perhaps you shouldn't start.

In the case of Israel..... own government
Wow, thats a no , no, no, definately no, no not quite , yes but it doesn't mean that, wow thats just crazy, no but contentious, no, irrelevant, true , easily fixed, yes and no.
See its easy:yeah:

[Jimbuna]

A lively debate ensued :o

[MH]

Arabs rewriting history



Op-ed: Arab reaction from 1949 shows Israel isn’t exclusively responsible for refugee problem Alexander Joffe, Asaf Romirowsky

The late Palestinian intellectual Edward Said called Palestinians “the victims of the victims.” As the September deadline for the Palestinian “Unilateral Declaration of Independence” approaches, and the certain endorsement by the United Nations General Assembly, it is worth asking again who originally victimized the Palestinians. Today, of course, the unanimous consensus among Palestinians, and the Arab and Muslim worlds, is that it was Israel that, in 1948, attacked and expelled Palestinians. But who did Palestinians blame for their fate in 1949?

The two largest Palestinian communities in the US are located in Dearborn Michigan and Jacksonville Florida. On December 15th, 1949 the Michigan Arab newspaper As Sabah (literally the Morning Tribune) published an editorial on the question of the Palestine Arab refugees:

“What is the crime of the refugees in the eyes of the lords of Arabia who stand by and watch the misery of the refugees, and who suck the blood of the poor and needy-without shame before God and the world? Yes the poor refugees committed the crime of listening to those deceivers, they believed the liars, and went to the extreme foolishness of leaving their homes, counting on their deceitful leaders to bring them back! And because of what is happening to the Palestine refugees, Arab public opinion is changing little by little to support the Jews in Israel where not a single Arab dies from starvation and cold! And if there should be another war, it should be against the Arab leaders, the princes and kings who brought this catastrophe upon the poor people of Palestine.”

The editorial’s analysis regarding Arab public opinion favoring Israel was incorrect, to say the least. But the claim that Palestinians fled their homes in response to Arab leaders has been controversial since the events occurred. The Palestinians of Michigan in 1949 thought this was the case.

In October 1949, Palestinian intellectual Musa Alami wrote: “What concerned (the Arab states) most and guided their policy was not to win the war and save Palestine from the enemy, but what would happen after the struggle, who would be predominant in Palestine, or annex it themselves.”

British testimonials

But in addition to the usurpation of the Palestinian cause, which upset As Sabah’s editorialists, there was another dimension. British officials on the scene at the time, hardly pro-Zionist, were convinced that Palestinian leaders were steadily abandoning their people. In December 1947 the High Commissioner, General Sir Alan Cunningham reported that “panic of (the) middle class persists and there is a steady exodus of those who can afford to leave the country." He added later in April 1948, “In all parts of the country the effendi class has been evacuating in large numbers over a considerable period and the tempo is increasing.”


In June 1949 Sir John Troutbeck, head of the British Middle East office in Cairo reported that the refugees “express no bitterness against the Jews (or for that matter against the Americans or ourselves) they speak with the utmost bitterness of the Egyptians and other Arab states. “We know who our enemies are,” they will say, and they are referring to their Arab brothers who, they declare, persuaded them unnecessarily to leave their homes…I even heard it said that many of the refugees would give a welcome to the Israelis if they were to come in and take the district over.”


Israeli officials maintained from the beginning that a majority of the Palestinians were encouraged to flee by their own leaders and those of Arab states, who then abandoned them before or in the midst of battle. This has long been dismissed by Palestinians and their supporters as Zionist propaganda. But British officials on the scene and opposed to Israel, and Palestinians in America, would not have simply parroted their enemy’s assessment.


The implications of this long-forgotten editorial, and all the other statements, are in the first instance that Israel does not bear full and exclusive responsibility for the Palestinian refugee situation – the Arab states and the Palestinians themselves do too. This also puts their upcoming “Unilateral Declaration of Independence” into a wholly different light.


In effect, Palestinian leaders have asked the United Nations for yet another opportunity to turn the clock back to give them another chance at achieving statehood that could have been theirs in 1948 or even in 1938. Meanwhile, some Palestinian officials have begun floating the idea of returning to the 1947 partition plan, the same plan that their predecessors rejected summarily in 1947. When do these chances run out? In the process, as their predecessors did in 1949, they blame everyone but themselves for not having achieved their goals to date.

A culture without a sense of responsibility for its own decisions, that blames others for its own decisions and at the same time perpetually demands that its maintenance is someone else’s responsibility, is not likely to create a stable, functioning nation-state. Any new Palestinian state would be an instant pauper, utterly dependent on aid, primarily from the American taxpayer.

Little wonder then that at least some Palestinian leaders are trying to back off from the Unilateral Declaration of Independence. The “deceivers” that Palestinian Americans of 1949 railed against are ultimately their own leaders and other Arab states. Until new leaders can be found for both, and a new culture of responsibility and self-reliance installed, little progress will be made.


Alexander H. Joffe and Asaf Romirowsky are the authors of "A Tale of Two Galloways: Notes on the Early History of UNRWA and Zionist Historiography,” published in the journal Middle Eastern Studies




*****

[JU_88]

I was right :)
Ahh smug mode. :|\\

[Gerald]

Is not it true that you always have the right, :DL

[MH]

The Palestinian wonderland



Op-ed: Palestinian statehood bid based on irrational worldview, flawed interpretation of history Asaf Romirowsky

Lewis Carroll***8217;s Through the Looking-Glass and What Alice Found are a great way to understand the Palestinian narrative. Specifically, Carroll uses time and space as the plot device while drawing on chess imagery, mirror themes, opposites and time running backwards. As such, it provides the perfect ***8220;logic***8221; to the irrational Palestinian worldview and interpretation of history as they attempt to achieve statehood through unilateral declaration of independence at the United Nations this month.

This is the same historical read that has convinced Palestinians that it is Israel and the West that created the Arab-Palestinian refugees, rather their own Arab leaders who did indeed put them in this state intentionally. Today, the perfidy of Palestinian society lies in its division, dysfunctionality, and complete denial of the reality it lives in.

The historical truth is that the notion of an independent, sovereign Palestinian state existing alongside Israel has never been part of the Palestinian worldview. The Palestinians have also always rejected the notion of a single bi-national state.

Palestinian society has never seen Jewish sovereignty or Israel's existence as a ***8220;right.***8221; The only right in the Palestinians***8217; narrative of the conflict is their own connection to the land. They do, however, see Israel as a temporary military fact. But believe there will come a day, the narrative goes, when they will be able to defeat the Israelis. Their recent appeal to the UN is a new and cynical turn that should not mask the history of rejectionism.

In November 1947, United Nations General Assembly Resolution 181 recommended the creation of separate Jewish and Arab states. Palestinian representatives and Arab states rejected this recommendation and consequently launched a war against the Jewish community. A close look at the General Assembly***8217;s final tally in 1947 highlights this rejectionism when 33 countries voted for partition, 13 against and 10 abstained. The countries that rejected co-existence with the Jews and blocked Arab-Palestinian statehood overwhelmingly came from the Arab/Muslim world: Afghanistan, Egypt, Iran, Iraq, Lebanon, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Turkey and Yemen.

Talk is cheap
The reality is that a unilateral statehood bid is yet another Palestinian halo of ***8220;normalcy***8221; that undermines every accepted model for peace even according to UN standards. Unilateralism was never accepted as the modus operandi, but rather, mutually agreed upon concessions by the parties as illustrated by UN Security Council resolutions 242, 338, the Oslo Accords and the Roadmap for Peace.
Talk is cheap. Land and lives are precious. If the Palestinians genuinely want to talk about statehood they need to come to terms with accepting and recognizing Israel and first get their own territories under control, stop firing rockets at Israeli towns, and start creating a decent civil society.

Pragmatically, the larger issue of Palestinian statehood raises a basic question - do Palestinians really want a state and are they prepared to take responsibility for their own people under such a rubric? In accordance with reality of Through the Looking-Glass, where time and space can be turned around, the answer would be yes, but at the expense of Israel***8217;s creation to begin with


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

@Sammi
as a matter of fact most of Israeli are NOT against Palestinian state in principle.
The issue is more of security and land surrounding Jerusalem and not the west bank in itself.

[Gerald]

And the text has come from? :hmmm:

[MH]

And the text has come from? :hmmm:

Its from YNET
http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=1763603

The site has gossip section so it may make all the text invalid:haha:

[MH]

Prospects for Peace with the Palestinians
Max Singer
BESA Center Perspectives Papers No. 105, April 12, 2010
http://www.biu.ac.il/SOC/besa/perspectives105.html
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: It is useful to think of the Palestinians as engaged
in an internal debate between those who favor keeping the goal of eliminating
Israel and those who favor giving up that goal to gain peace and prosperity.
Peace can be achieved only when the second group is dominant. The debate
depends on two issues. Is there any realistic hope that Israel can really be
defeated? Would it be honorable to make peace with Israel? The international
movement to delegitimize Israel provides Palestinians the hope of eventually
destroying Israel, and Palestinian leadership denial of the existence of a
Jewish People with an ancient connection to the Land of Israel contradicts the
basis of an honorable peace with Israel. If peace is to have a chance, Western
leaders need to disabuse the Palestinians of both fallacies.
A useful way to think about the possibility for peace between Israel and the
Palestinians is to consider the Palestinians as being in a long-term internal
debate. This complicated debate can be conceptualized as being between those
who think they should continue the effort to eliminate the state of Israel, and
those who think that the fight to destroy Israel has gone on long enough and that
it is time for the Palestinians to pursue their own interests in peace and
prosperity by making peace with Israel.
These two groups have constantly shifting memberships, all of whom have
particular organizational and political interests which complicate their choice.
To some extent many individuals are divided in their own minds, so that the
general debate is replicated within individuals.
It is important to note that the debate usually takes place in an environment
where public, and even private, discussion is far from free. Providing certain
information or expressing some views can be a risk for Palestinians.
Peace depends on the Palestinians who are ready for peace winning their internal
debate. When the Palestinians who prefer to keep fighting are on top there is no
chance for a negotiated settlement. Serious negotiations can only begin when the
predominant view is that it is necessary to give up the effort to destroy Israel.
There are two dominant issues in the internal Palestinian debate. One is whether
they have a serious chance of winning if they keep fighting. The other is whether
making peace with Israel is honorable or shameful for them.
Palestinians who prefer peace have no chance of winning the internal argument
if they have to admit that continued effort to destroy Israel might succeed. They
can only be effective if they believe and can convincingly say, “We have no
chance of defeating Israel,” “We have tried everything and they are stronger than
when we started,” or “You have no plausible theory of victory; it is time to get
practical.” Therefore, a main goal of anyone who wants to promote peace is to
understand and counter the theory of victory that sustains those who want to
keep fighting.
Currently the Palestinians do not believe that they can militarily defeat Israel, or
that the Arab and Muslim countries will send armies to force Israel’s surrender.
Their willingness to keep fighting is now sustained by two hopes. The lesser
hope is that Israel is becoming soft and divided and that if the pressure of hatred
and terrorism is maintained, Israel will lose its will to defend itself, or enough
Israelis will leave to fatally weaken the country. The greater hope is that their
international campaign to delegitimize Israel will lead to international pressure
that forces Israel into a series of retreats that ultimately makes it unable to defend
itself.
There is a third hope, that an Iranian nuclear attack will lead to so many deaths
and desertions that Israel cannot sustain its prosperity and strength. But this
hope is not near the top of Palestinian thinking and may be too external to be a
critical influence on Palestinian thinking.
Objectively speaking, the “keep fighting” group has a good case now. Given the
progress made over the last few years in building anti-Israel sentiment in
Europe, the Palestinian “peace camp” certainly cannot confidently argue that
there is very little chance that the UN will take decisive measures against Israel.
Not only are there very few – if any – voices from Europe or the US telling
Palestinians that they are wrong and that they must accept Israel as a permanent
Jewish state, but the Europeans are also handsomely paying to support
Palestinian “resistance” and show every sign of unwillingness to challenge the
Muslim world.
It is true that the US especially continues to insist that it is committed to Israel’s
security, and no European government has yet called for Israel to retreat beyond
the 1967 borders – although that itself is a retreat that would force 10 percent of
Israel’s population to move from where they have lived for a generation. But
Palestinians have plenty of basis for thinking that if they do more of what they
have been doing, in a few years international opinion will move enough further
to act in ways that become fatal for Israel.
In the last year this theory of victory has been bolstered by President Obama’s
movement of American policy away from its traditional closeness to Israel and
his apparent intention to force Israel to make important concessions without
return from the Palestinians.
The second crucial issue is whether the Palestinians believe that it would be
honorable to make peace with Israel. This depends upon whether the Jews are
colonial thieves stealing Palestinian land solely on the basis of force, or whether
the Jews are a people that also historically lived in the land and are attached to it.
If the Palestinians understood that there are two peoples with long historical and
moral claims to the same land, then it would be honorable for them some day to
recognize that fighting is useless and that compromise is an appropriate way to
settle the dispute.
Currently, the Palestinian leadership and elite are adamant in insisting that there
is no Jewish people, and that there was no Jewish presence in the land before
Islam. They officially and energetically deny that there was ever a Jewish Temple
on the Temple Mount despite the many Muslim sources from previous
generations that recognized the Temple's location in pre-Muslim times. The
Palestinian leadership is deliberately making an honorable peace impossible by
falsely denying that Jews have any legitimate claim to any of the land.
When free discussion is possible among the Palestinians, it will be impossible to
conceal the fact of historical Jewish connection to the land. Those who want
peace will be able to argue that peace could be an honorable compromise
between two peoples with just claims to the land, and not just a cowardly
yielding to force.
This issue, too, is in the hands of Europeans and Americans. If they regularly
reminded Palestinian leadership and public of the Jewish moral and historical
claims to the land, recognized by the League of Nations in the Palestine Mandate,
the Palestinian leadership could not keep the truth from their people. But so
long as the Palestinians perpetuate the colonial lie, the rest of the world has an
infallible sign that they have not yet become ready for peace. Peace will not
become possible until Palestinians say to each other that the Jews also have an
historical attachment to the land; they are not just thieves taking by force
something to which they have no honorable claim.
The path to peace is clear. Peace will become possible when Palestinians see that
there is no chance that Europeans or Iranians will prevent Israel from defending
itself, and when they recognize that they are not the only people with a moral
and legal claim to the land. In the meantime, negotiations are a charade and
Israeli concessions can do nothing to “improve the chances of success.”
Dr. Max Singer is a senior research associate at the Begin-Sadat (BESA) Center for
Strategic Studies and a founder and senior fellow of the Hudson Institute.
BESA Perspectives is published through the generosity of the Greg Rosshandler Family


..............

[Skybird]

Singer ^ said that it were true that so far neither the US nor any European country has demanded Israel to witrhdraw to the borders of 1967.

This is wrong.

It is since years part of the chorus that European leaders demand Israel to negotiate a treaty based on the borders of 1967, and that a second state for teh Palesatinians must base on the borders of 1967.

Witrh friends like Europe, Israel does not need enemies. And what the US wants to do and claims to do, and what it really CAN do, are two very different things.

Israel should look for new allies. India comes to my mind, with which it has a growing trade and intensifying military cooperation. Relations with Europe are treacherous, America is ill, Turkey has fallen out of the equation since quite some time now, Lebanon is the practicing gropund of Iran, Syria is hostile and in case of Assad going out will become even more hostile (democracy means fundamentalists coming to power), and ties with Egypt are dying. It remains to be seen what will happen with Jordanian contacts.

It'S becoming a lonely place all around Israel.

[MH]

Singer ^ said that it were true that so far neither the US nor any European country has demanded Israel to witrhdraw to the borders of 1967.
.

It was always clear that Israel would withdraw to rough 1967 borders for peace.
I wasn't a starting precondition for peace talks though.
That's one of the reason why Obama messed up everything in his speech calling for 1967 borders.
Then few days later moaned that he did not mean that and it was all about territory exchange based on 1967 borders.

On another hand UN don't understand that its paving a way to hell with its good intentions and unconditional pressure on Israel .... whatever the intentions are.

With the Arab spring and all that's going on in ME and UN this article is more valid than ever.

Its really hard to understand for me that international community can be THAT naive.
I think its less about making lasting peace here and more about good relations with Muslim world at expense of Israel.
Its only logical explanation.

[Tribesman]

This is wrong.

It is accurate.
"based on" and "based on" are not the same as "to"

That's one of the reason why Obama messed up everything in his speech calling for 1967 borders.
Then few days later moaned that he did not mean that and it was all about territory exchange based on 1967 borders.


Ah of course, the much anticipated speech on middle eastern policy....

"The borders of Israel and Palestine should be based on the 1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps, so that secure and recognized borders are established for both states"
.....thats the bit of the speech just before he started on about Syria.

You can see why he got in trouble there, some people couldn't read and really went off on one.
The poor bugger even had to clarify later that he said what he said and moaned that some people were making silly claims about what had been said.
To be perfectly frank though the reason people probably went off on one over that speech was because he blamed both Israel and the Palestinians, to some it is just unnacceptable that both sides are at fault.
Nice to see you swallowed it too though MH, perhaps you should look at the sites you link to as you will find a big speech on middle eastern policy tends to get coverage when it happens.

[Skybird]

On another hand UN don't understand that its paving a way to hell with its good intentions and unconditional pressure on Israel .... whatever the intentions are.
Oh, big part of the UN - which also has hiacked several sub-offices of the UN - does understand that very well. It is the explicit intention. Arab nations. Islamic nations. Islamophile sympathiszing nations in the West (the majority of Wetsern nations that is). More or less anti-Israeli nations in the West like France, Sweden. And then there are the really very naive people as well, like German foreign clown Westerwelle. People who think that deep rooting things can be sorted out from a desk in an far away office by signing a leaf of paper and calling it a "peace process" even if that term lacks any basis since almost two decades. The clever ones, I mean. The egg-heads. The know it alls and the always know it betters. The better human beings. The meaning it wells. The kind of experts that have ruined the EU, that have brought peace and stability to Kosovo by very reasonable, logical, sensible decisions. That have rebuilt Afghanistan. The good fellas, I mean. The disconnected intellectual onanists.

I love this breed.


Its really hard to understand for me that international community can be THAT naive.
It is not one community, but a very diverse club, although islamophilia
(motvated by many different factors which would be a thread for itself) and antisemitism currently is a feature shared by many.

I think its less about making lasting peace here and more about good relations with Muslim world at expense of Israel.
Its only logical explanation.
Exactly. We call it appeasement in case of some, self-deception in order to prove ones own precious ideologically motvated world-view in case of others. Reality must be proven to be like this ideology dictates it to be - no matter what. It's a combination of loosing a sense for reality principles, and megalomania.

[Tribesman]

self-deception in order to prove ones own precious ideologically motvated world-view
I do love the ignorance feature:har::har::har::har::har:
Skybird can very publicly keep decieving himself for his ideology.

[Gerald]

Its from YNET
http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=1763603

The site has gossip section so it may make all the text invalid:haha: OK! :yep:

[MH]

It is accurate.
"based on" and "based on" are not the same as "to"



Ah of course, the much anticipated speech on middle eastern policy....

"The borders of Israel and Palestine should be based on the 1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps, so that secure and recognized borders are established for both states"
.....thats the bit of the speech just before he started on about Syria.

You can see why he got in trouble there, some people couldn't read and really went off on one.
The poor bugger even had to clarify later that he said what he said and moaned that some people were making silly claims about what had been said.
To be perfectly frank though the reason people probably went off on one over that speech was because he blamed both Israel and the Palestinians, to some it is just unnacceptable that both sides are at fault.
Nice to see you swallowed it too though MH, perhaps you should look at the sites you link to as you will find a big speech on middle eastern policy tends to get coverage when it happens.


It made 1967 borders a precondition to peace talks.
He was an Idiot...
At least he tried to fix some of his bull.

[Tribesman]

It made 1967 borders a precondition to peace talks.

No it doesn't. It says exactly what it says.

He was an Idiot...

He is a politician and a human, that makes him a double idiot.

At least he tried to fix some of his bull.
The bull was yours, he said exactly what he said.
That some people made a silly claim that he had really said something else shows them as fools.
Its very illustrative that you think his later statement to the pillocks who misrepresnted his words changed his original statement or its meaning in any way.
Face it MH you and Skybitrd both made incorrect statements about something that is a matter of public record.
The fact that you still try to argue that it says something other than what it says when the quote is there in plain sight and the whole speech can be retrieved from many thousands of locations just illustrates your bunker mentality problem.

[MH]

Face it MH you and Skybitrd both made incorrect statements about something that is a matter of public record.
The fact that you still try to argue that it says something other than what it says when the quote is there in plain sight and the whole speech can be retrieved from many thousands of locations just illustrates your bunker mentality problem.

My....

Obama set a precedent about withdrawal to 1967 borders as a part of interim agreement.
Which includes withdrawal of military forces from west bank.
For Israelis its the last step to be taken in the process when all goes smoothly and peacefully and swaps are agreed upon.

See...

Israelis don't trust Palestinians-go figure why.

[Tribesman]

My....

Read the bloody speech, you only have to read the last bits as they are the ones dealing with Israel. is it really that hard for you to face the truth
Read the speech by both Obama and Bibi the next day.
Read the speech to AIPAC two days later.
Then lets see if you are still willing to repeat your bull, as lets face it your attempt is simply that.

[MH]

Read the bloody speech, you only have to read the last bits as they are the ones dealing with Israel. is it really that hard for you to face the truth
Read the speech by both Obama and Bibi the next day.
Read the speech to AIPAC two days later.
Then lets see if you are still willing to repeat your bull, as lets face it your attempt is simply that.


Nevermind...keep reading.:damn:

:salute:

[Tribesman]

Nevermind...keep reading.
Awww whassamatter did getting called on your bull upset you.:rotfl2:
Would you like some help as its too complicated to read the words?
I do know the whitehouse website is very hard to find on the internet and the Presidents public statements are kept encrypted and under lock and key there so your confusion is understandable, it is just sooooo hard to get the information.

[MH]

Awww whassamatter did getting called on your bull upset you.:rotfl2:
Would you like some help as its too complicated to read the words?
I do know the whitehouse website is very hard to find on the internet and the Presidents public statements are kept encrypted and under lock and key there so your confusion is understandable, it is just sooooo hard to get the information.

Man you are dambo...


What Netanyahu emphasized was that the 1967 borders, defined in a stand-alone way, are indefensible. He asserted instead Israel's right to defensible borders, specifically the long-term, interim presence of the IDF along the Jordan River. This would prevent both the smuggling of heavy weapons and missiles into the West Bank and the possibility of amassing the Arab states' armies there, which could, in a worst-case scenario, threaten Israel's existence.
This position is based on the conception that the West Bank's geo-strategic significance to Israel relates not only to Palestinian intensions and capabilities, but also to the wider regional situation. This strategic outlook is not Netanyahu's alone, rather it aligns with the historic position associated with Yitzhak Rabin and endorsed by Ehud Barak, who agreed to the most generous formal offer made to the Palestinians by the US – the Clinton Parameters of December 2000.

[Tribesman]

Man you are dambo...

:har::har::har::har::har:
What Netanyahu emphasized
Source please:rotfl2:
But hey all that is covered in Obamas speech

Obama set a precedent
In Obamas speech then:yep:
It made 1967 borders a precondition to peace talks
Obamas speech then:yep:
That's one of the reason why Obama messed up everything in his speech calling for 1967 borders.

Obamas speech:yep:
Then few days later moaned that he did not mean that and it was all about territory exchange based on 1967 borders.

Obamas speech, obviously the one on the 22nd as it cannot be the one on the 20th which followed the one on the 19th:yep:

Face it MH there are only two options.
That you were spouting bull is undeniable.
So the options are either you havn't the faintest idea what was actually said in the statements you are objecting to, or are just making up crap about those statements even though you do know what was said.
So which is it today from you MH, accidental lies or flat out deliberate ones?

[_dgn_]

Smashing!

Vendor initiated another of his great "hot" threads, with a nice subject.

Badly years ago, I saw a scene filmed by an American journalists team (CNN ?) and screened on the French TV : 2 paratroopers were crashing to pieces the elbows of a young boy with pieces of rock.

A barbarous act !

Was it an old document presented during the Nuremberg trial ? No. It was screened "live" during the First Intifada (1987).

The 2 swoldiers were Israelian and the boy Palestinian.

This scene was shown (naturally) once and disappeared quickly : it's more interesting to point out the crimes of the past and to hide those of the present ... Some lobbies are very powerful in France (and elsewhere).

For this time, Israel has continued to gain always more sympathy in the world (with bombings of civilians, murders of children, arbitrary expropriations, maritime piracy ...).

Now, I understand why Israel Is Its Own Worst Enemy, and why, as for Carthago, "Israel delenda est !".

[MH]

As for security, every state has the right to self-defense, and Israel must be able to defend itself -- by itself -- against any threat. Provisions must also be robust enough to prevent a resurgence of terrorism; to stop the infiltration of weapons; and to provide effective border security. The full and phased withdrawal of Israeli military forces should be coordinated with the assumption of Palestinian security responsibility in a sovereign, non-militarized state. The duration of this transition period must be agreed, and the effectiveness of security arrangements must be demonstrated.
These principles provide a foundation for negotiations. Palestinians should know the territorial outlines of their state; Israelis should know that their basic security concerns will be met.



I know that these steps alone will not resolve this conflict. Two wrenching and emotional issues remain: the future of Jerusalem, and the fate of Palestinian refugees. But moving forward now on the basis of territory and security provides a foundation to resolve those two issues in a way that is just and fair, and that respects the rights and aspirations of Israelis and Palestinians.

The issue after the RED must be resolved first before the yellow takes place including prolonged israeli military presence in Jordan valley.
It can not work otherwise.

AIPAC

As for security, every state has the right to self-defense, and Israel must be able to defend itself – by itself – against any threat. Provisions must also be robust enough to prevent a resurgence of terrorism; to stop the infiltration of weapons; and to provide effective border security. The full and phased withdrawal of Israeli military forces should be coordinated with the assumption of Palestinian security responsibility in a sovereign, non-militarized state. The duration of this transition period must be agreed, and the effectiveness of security arrangements must be demonstrated.


................

[MH]

Smashing!

Vendor initiated another of his great "hot" threads, with a nice subject.

Badly years ago, I saw a scene filmed by an American journalists team (CNN ?) and screened on the French TV : 2 paratroopers were crashing to pieces the elbows of a young boy with pieces of rock.

A barbarous act !

Was it an old document presented during the Nuremberg trial ? No. It was screened "live" during the First Intifada (1987).

The 2 swoldiers were Israelian and the boy Palestinian.

This scene was shown (naturally) once and disappeared quickly : it's more interesting to point out the crimes of the past and to hide those of the present ... Some lobbies are very powerful in France (and elsewhere).

For this time, Israel has continued to gain always more sympathy in the world (with bombings of civilians, murders of children, arbitrary expropriations, maritime piracy ...).

Now, I understand why Israel Is Its Own Worst Enemy, and why, as for Carthago, "Israel delenda est !".

I have seen the videos like this too so be cool.
Since Israelis are not into this crap like some other ME nation Yitzhak Rabin signed Oslo agreements and so on...
Ahh the Jewish lobbyist.....will take over France soon.

[Skybird]

The demand for full and unlimited return of Palestinian "refugees" (look at the age structure of the Palestinians - the very overwhelming majority of them do not have a living memory of any places they want to "return" to) is nothing else but an expression of the desire that Israel must be brought to the status of not existing as a sovereign state anymore. It would result in a condition where the understanding of Israel as a sovereign, "Israeli", non-Arab/non-Palestinian nation is not only negated, but rendered competely meaningless.

But that is exactly the reason why it is being demanded. It is meant as bringing Israel to refusing its own existence.

[MH]

The demand for full and unlimited return of Palestinian "refugees" (look at the age structure of the Palestinians - the very overwhelming majority of them do not have a living memory of any places they want to "return" to) is nothing else but an expression of the desire that Israel must be brought to the status of not existing as a sovereign state anymore. It would result in a condition where the understanding of Israel as a sovereign, "Israeli", non-Arab/non-Palestinian nation is not only negated, but rendered competely meaningless.

But that is exactly the reason why it is being demanded. It is meant as bringing Israel to refusing its own existence.

Its unacceptable demand that PA do not want to drop in part due to leadership ideology and general populism.
For many(the peaceful ones)two state solution is a temporary compromise.

[Tribesman]

The issue after the RED must be resolved first before the yellow takes place including prolonged israeli military presence in Jordan valley.
It can not work otherwise.

And how does any of that statement relate to what you had claimed it said
Come along darling I want these preconditions you said it contained and these borders you said it insisted on:rotfl2:

Just out of interest, these 1967 lines the "evil" Americans now "insist" on as a rough guide, can you explain the difference between them as a rough framework and the armistice lines from the 1940s the last US president used and the President before him and the President before him and the President......?
Amazing isn't it, lines which somehow are "indefensible" certainly got defended for a bloody long time and the same rough basis the current President outrageously suggests now are the same as have been suggested by the Presidents for decades.

[Sailor Steve]

darling
Still incapable of arguing without pissing on people?

[MH]

And how does any of that statement relate to what you had claimed it said
Come along darling I want these preconditions you said it contained and these borders you said it insisted on:rotfl2:

Just out of interest, these 1967 lines the "evil" Americans now "insist" on as a rough guide, can you explain the difference between them as a rough framework and the armistice lines from the 1940s the last US president used and the President before him and the President before him and the President......?
Amazing isn't it, lines which somehow are "indefensible" certainly got defended for a bloody long time and the same rough basis the current President outrageously suggests now are the same as have been suggested by the Presidents for decades.

Since i went to so much trouble for you its your turn now.:salute:

BW

Did i say evil Americans?- stop playing dambo again.

[Skybird]

Its unacceptable demand that PA do not want to drop in part due to leadership ideology and general populism.
For many(the peaceful ones)two state solution is a temporary compromise.If it is a temporary compromise only, can those suppoorting it be called "peaceful"? I mean what do they think is coming when the temporariness comes to an end? Voluntary self-dissolving of Israel?

I think if a two-state solution only is seen as temporarily, then what is coming after it necessarily must be violent a solution attempt again, which would be according to Islamic ideology as well (which prohibits lasting peace settlements, but allows only temporary seize-fires of limited, preferred: short lasting - to buy time to again top regain the needed strength to overcome opponents of Islam by force).

I know this is a fundamental aspect of Islamic ideology in general and not explicitly tailored to the Palestinian issue alone, but nevertheless - it is part of the Islamic ideologic self-understanding on which also thew Palestinians - as the Muslims that they are - are basing. So it has to be taken into account. Islam accepts "peace treaties" only in the meaning of temporary seize-fires when it is meeting a force stronger then it'S own. The time of letting rest the fight serves the purpose to gain the power to contunue the fight once chances are more promising.

[Tribesman]

Still incapable of arguing without pissing on people?
Not in the slightest, but when they spread the bull that thickly then it invites a watering down.

Since i went to so much trouble for you its your turn know.
:haha::haha::haha::haha::haha::haha:
Its already done, it was done in that first quote several pages ago.:know:
However you kindly supplied the avenue for the answers to those last questions, the same author you had used earlier did a nice piece two years ago on Netanyahu trying to keep the Americans happy without destroying his government, he did it by speaking lots but saying very little, However he keeps on getting screwed over by his Israeli partners though who seem unable to speak at all without saying lots of things they shouldn't be saying:03:

[MH]

Not in the slightest, but when they spread the bull that thickly then it invites a watering down.


:haha::haha::haha::haha::haha::haha:
Its already done, it was done in that first quote several pages ago.:know:
However you kindly supplied the avenue for the answers to those last questions, the same author you had used earlier did a nice piece two years ago on Netanyahu trying to keep the Americans happy without destroying his government, he did it by speaking lots but saying very little, However he keeps on getting screwed over by his Israeli partners though who seem unable to speak at all without saying lots of things they shouldn't be saying:03:

There are loads of articles about Netanyahu and his government but this has nothing to do with Netanyahu.
Jerusalem issue refugee and Israel as Jewish state have to resolved first.
All this crap about stopping construction in Gilo as precondition and then fight about it later is bull.

[Jimbuna]

Come on now....let us keep a level of acceptable behaviour.

http://imgcash3.imageshack.us/img233/1673/adminwatch2af0.gif

[MH]

Come on now....let us keep a level of acceptable behaviour.

http://imgcash3.imageshack.us/img233/1673/adminwatch2af0.gif

LOL
Let him have his sexy time.

[Jimbuna]

LOL
Let him have his sexy time.

Not into taking sides but getting a bit tired of the endless 'tennis games' and I can assure you I am not alone in making that statement.

The exchange of posts between the pair of you is quite predictable.

My advice whether you both agree to take it or not would be to agree to disagree and move on.

[Torplexed]

Not into taking sides but getting a bit tired of the endless 'tennis games' and I can assure you I am not alone in making that statement.

The exchange of posts between the pair of you is quite predictable.

I agree. After a while it all just looks like this....

http://pyxis.homestead.com/itchanim.gif

[MH]

Not into taking sides but getting a bit tired of the endless 'tennis games' and I can assure you I am not alone in making that statement.

The exchange of posts between the pair of you is quite predictable.

My advice whether you both agree to take it or not would be to agree to disagree and move on.

Sorry
Had waaay too much time to waste on tennis today i guess.

[CaptainHaplo]

The reality of this question is hard to miss, and its amazing that people want to take small snippets as if they were the problem.

Israel is not its own worst enemy. It is a regional target - and has been since its re-creation in 1948. From that time forward, there has been a widespread element in the Arab world that has used Israel as a focal point for hatred and destruction. This comes from many sources, including religious, social strains, economic hardships, etc.

This element, with its pervasive presence in most Arab governments, is the largest and most dangerous enemy Israel faces.

All the "issues' surrounding "peace" are created problems - and if one was solved, another would appear.

[Tribesman]

There are loads of articles about Netanyahu and his government but this has nothing to do with Netanyahu.

Correct, this has to do with some non existant demands you said existed.
Which is kind of funny in that you attempted to prove some non existant words were said by posting an excerpt from an article about what someone else had said.....which you now say has nothing to do with it.

Jerusalem issue refugee and Israel as Jewish state have to resolved first.

Are those preconditions or the basis of fundamental elements in any talks?

All this crap about stopping construction in Gilo as precondition and then fight about it later is bull.
There you go again, illegal is illegal and inventing more "facts on the ground" is counter productive to any advance, Gilo is no different from any other illegal settlement
You probably didn't notice as it was in a real speech and it contained actual words but Bibi had made a deliberate effort to not even talk of "natural growth" let alone new construction or expansion so as to not screw over his allies......just before he decided to very publicly screw them over.