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.

[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

[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

[MH]

Originally Posted by Tribesman

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


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

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...

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

What is Horowitz rag anyway lol

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

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 they like that document as long as they leave the words it contains out of it don't they

"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?

[Kazuaki Shimazaki II]

Originally Posted by Skybird

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.

[MH]

Originally Posted by Kazuaki Shimazaki II

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.