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/op...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.

[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...

[MH]

Originally Posted by 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...

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.

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]

Originally Posted by Tribesman

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...
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. 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."

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]

Originally Posted by MH

As if you knew what you talk about...
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]

Originally Posted by Krauter

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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/w...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

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]

Originally Posted by 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/w...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






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.
Aimen 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."

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 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