SUBSIM Radio Room Forums - Is Israel Its Own Worst Enemy?

SUBSIM Radio Room Forums (https://www.subsim.com/radioroom/index.php)

- General Topics (https://www.subsim.com/radioroom/forumdisplay.php?f=175)

- - Is Israel Its Own Worst Enemy? (https://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=188496)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vendor (Post 1763603)

And the text has come from? :hmmm:

Its from YNET
http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/newr...eply&p=1763603

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

Quote:

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

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

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skybird (Post 1763618)

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.

Quote:

This is wrong.

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

Quote:

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MH (Post 1763635)

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.

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MH (Post 1763607)

Its from YNET
http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/newr...eply&p=1763603

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

OK! :yep:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tribesman (Post 1763680)

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.

Quote:

It made 1967 borders a precondition to peace talks.

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

Quote:

He was an Idiot...

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

Quote:

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tribesman (Post 1763936)

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.

Quote:

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tribesman (Post 1763970)

Nevermind...keep reading.:damn:

:salute:

Quote:

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tribesman (Post 1764016)

Man you are dambo...

Quote:

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.