The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Fresh debate in Israel > Comments

Fresh debate in Israel : Comments

By Graham Cooke, published 7/3/2007

The Mecca Agreement comes at a momentous time for both sides in the Middle East conflict.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 10
  7. 11
  8. 12
  9. All
Why do we presume that there is a solution to the Palistine /Israel question? Is it not also possible that there is no solution and one side will die from what is done to it and the otherside we die by doing it. One solution could be to remove every body from that land and use nuclear weapons to leave it covered with an inch of radioactive glass. This would make it unlivable, undesirable and hardly worth fighting over.
Posted by Whispering Ted, Wednesday, 7 March 2007 9:53:44 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Superb observations Mr Cooke.

The fact remains that the west want to remain blind folded and don't even bother to wake up. Peace, real peace is what everyone yearns for but however the players may be willing to start the game, one wants to keep keep the ball in their own hands and never let the other join the race!

The simplicity of the matter is, why should palestinians recognise Israel when Israel does'nt recognise the very existence or say even the mere existence of a palestinian state?. Why should the existence of Israel be the first and foremost loyalty pledge when the palestinians are never recognised or given a right to return to the homeland? simple hypocrisy, simple idiosy and simple utter rubbish!
Even to a man who may be day dreaming will not have that in their guts. The actual reason is, the Israelis don't want to see any other player in reasoning, that is the true nature of its creation and terrorism they have kept on the poor palestinians. We know clearly that they don't want to see a viable palestinian state living side by side with them for the actual reason of their (Israeli) terrorism and injustice they have caused on the palestinians.

Untill such a time that a truely palestine born jew comes to the throne or becomes a player in the whitehouse visinity, which I doubt exists in israel or america today, there will be no true and sincere negotiating Israeli or american government representatives. And untill their hot temper attitudes cools for the sake of their own existence.
Posted by galty, Wednesday, 7 March 2007 9:58:05 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"The message out of Washington and Jerusalem-nothing has changed"

"But has the Bush and Olmert Administration missed the significance of the deal thrashed out in Islam’s holiest city?"

COMMENT: In short.. NO ! They have seen through the deception of Hamas and its claim that Palestine is an "Islamic Waqf till the resurrection".

Hamas is slightly off the hook because it can avoid in its own Hamas right recognizing Israel. They can participate in the 'Government' which may indeed offer concessions, but Hamas itself is more characterized by its leaders comments:

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1173173943943&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

At a press conference, Mashaal was asked if Hamas had now recognized Israel?

The Hamas leader did not answer directly, but said: "The Palestinian government insists on June 4, 1967 borders (for Israel), full Palestinian sovereignty with Jerusalem as its capital."

NOTE_THOSE_WORDS.. "did not answer directly"=TAQIYA.

They are as reliable as the Dey of Tunis signing treaties with the US, and then breaking them the moment the US is distracted by more pressing issues.

One could look at the conflict in Israel in secular and political terms and totally MISS the central issues at play.

Just one could look at the Barbary wars as simple international territorial and booty squabbles and again miss the most fundamental point driving the Arabs taking American, English Dutch and other seamen as SLAVES.

The driving force in the Barbary wars and the Israel Palestine conflict amount to the same thing.
ISLAMIC LANDS (in Hamas view)
The Algerian/Tunisan/Morrocan view was that they could do what they did, plundering, slaving based on....

[They asked him (the ambassador) by what right he extorted money and took slaves. Jefferson reported to Secretary of State John Jay, and to the Congress:

"The ambassador answered us that [the right] was founded on the Laws of the Prophet (Mohammed), that it was written in their Koran, that all nations who should not have answered their authority were sinners, that it was their right and duty to make war upon them wherever they could be found, and to make slaves of all they could take as prisoners"

13(Melbourne)....11(Sydney) 'click'
Posted by BOAZ_David, Wednesday, 7 March 2007 10:20:03 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Interesting article. I think that a large part of the studied indifference by the Bush and Olmert regimes is that the prospect of any rapprochement between the two major Palestinian factions is regarded as being contrary to American and Israeli regional dominance. Divide and rule is, after all, the oldest trick in the imperialist book.

Very amusing to read Boazy's pontifications about 'taqiya'. Is this the same Boaz who has been repeatedly exposed in this very forum for posting distorted truths and outright porkies in the prosecution of his bizarre ideas? Does he write such utter twaddle as he has above with a straight face?
Posted by CJ Morgan, Wednesday, 7 March 2007 10:55:26 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
How can the population including politicians who use issues deceitfully for their own return to power, be educated on the reality, the historical truth of what has happened.
Would it make any difference to our fears and prejudices if we were?
I do not know but believe it might.
So Ilan Pappe in The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine 2006 has given from released Government records and elsewhere the history of this era 1870’s to now. Cleansing or genocide has been the habit of the Zionists whose aim has always been not only Israel of its present borders but wider are claiming, dishonestly prior possession and religious right. Pappe is not the first nor will he be the last to record the happenings.
The Jews mistreated for a long period, more so than other groups unsuited to polite company and using this as a plea, has not been examined but common acceptance is that it is so, more than the Gypsies, Armenians---homosexuals, women and more.
Colonial times in the arrogant wisdom made space of other people’s land and with hopeful expectations this would solve the problem washed their hands.
Countries used the areas for their own ends, a bulwark against Russia (communism we were told) whilst Russia also sought territory and power. They too had their large Jewish population used periodically as in the West as site for diverting anger and accepted lobbies as road to power. People knowing no better also used prejudice convincing themselves their indulgence was warranted.
Sanctimonious righteousness is claimed. Saddam a tyrant is hanged, Zionists who cultivate the barbarity of Palestine agree as excuse to their purpose. Palestinians arguing they are at war retaliate, and it is labelled terrorism. Studies, Philo and Berry Bad News from Israel tell of the bias in reporting as do many others, the telling of ‘fact’ which will promote policy. Like Islam phobia a tool of uniformed unprincipled politicians. These people who have again mislead lied to us about Iraq and found new excuses justifying the activity.
continued
Posted by untutored mind, Wednesday, 7 March 2007 11:43:38 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Sure Jews are human and the same mixture of niceness and nastiness as Australians but having sufficient number prepared to follow the Zionist line. Palestinians by all accounts are the same mixture showing equal brutality goaded by fear and frustration, poverty and dislike.
Does this make any difference. No. Because issues can be used particularly when uninformed prejudiced people are the mechanism. Just as Iraq misinformation lies are the currency of tribal mind sets.
Posted by untutored mind, Wednesday, 7 March 2007 11:50:54 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
It is a defining characteristic of an intractable problem of this nature that the protagonists insist on looking backwards rather than forwards.

Every time these people get together they can only see the future in terms of the past - hence the interminable references to "1967 boundaries" and "when the Israeli state was set up in 1948".

This, and every other dispute like it, follows the Northern Ireland model. It often seems that the world for them has not changed since the Battle of the Boyne 316 years ago, or the Potato Famine 160 years ago, both of which feature strongly in any discussion on "the Troubles".

There is a well-known and understood convention in business called "sunk costs", in which the value of any prior investment in a project should be set to zero, whenever there is discussion about the future. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunk_cost

If we can train people to understand the concept - that the borders of 1967 or the potato famine of 1847 are utterly irrelevant to a decision on the future, and that the only consideration should be "how do we get there from here" - progress in negotiations over how folks can accommodate each other's different aspirations will improve dramatically.

Every time one party or the other refers to an unavenged grievance, such as the indiscriminate massacre of the inhabitants of Jerusalem in 1099, all possibility of sensible compromise disappears.

What we are inevitably left with is a win-or-lose attitude, which will, just as inevitably, sow the seeds of the next round of violence, sometime next week, next year or next century.
Posted by Pericles, Wednesday, 7 March 2007 1:10:21 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
CJ.. I have not the slightest worry about my post mate.

UNTUTORED.. I'm not sure where your post was seeking to head, but it sounded quite philosophical.. did I read it right in that you are basially saying "All have sinned" ? (and will continue to do so ?)

I didn't exactly see a 'Good Guy' in your post, but thats ok, I don't think we can really find one. The most we can find is a 'side' to take for reasons best known to ourselves. I presume it will be a mixture of national interest, theological reflection and so forth.

POSITION 1. Hamas (Islamist)

Part III - Strategies and Methods

Article Eleven: The Strategy of Hamas: Palestine is an Islamic Waqf
The Islamic Resistance Movement believes that the land of Palestine has been an Islamic Waqf throughout the generations and until the Day of Resurrection, no one can renounce it or part of it, or abandon it or part of it.

POSITION 2 Israel (Orthodox Judaism)

Genesis 13:15 "all the land you see, I will give it to you and your descendants forever I will give it to you" God speaking to Abraham.

Genesis 17:8 "I will give to you ad your descendants after you all the land of Caanan as an everlasting possession"

Genesis 35:12 "the land which I gave to Abraham and Isaac, I will give it to Jacob, and I will give the land to your descendants after you"
Exodus 23:31 "And I will fix your boundary from the Red Sea to the sea of the Philistines, and from the wilderness to the River Euphrates"

COMMENT:
Failure to understand the above is failure to understand the Middle East. Dance, swirl, walk, run, stomp, protest .... do all you like, but if it does not consider the above, its a waste of time.
Posted by BOAZ_David, Wednesday, 7 March 2007 1:14:35 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Pericles - well said, the only relevant thing, surely, is the way forward - those who drive with their eyes on the rear-view mirror can do little other than repeat the mistakes of the past.

untutored mind - an apt description if ever I have seen one - I have to agree with Boaz_David with regard to your post, it was absolutely impenetrable twaddle. you might want to read what you have written before posting it occasionally, we might get some sense out of it that way

galty - you are boring and repetitive. you clearly have an axe to grind and totally missed the point of the article in order to vent your hatred of all things Israeli. you and your views are as much part of the problem as those that the author mentions. you talk about "hot tempers" in your last paragraph? something about pots and kettles springs to mind.
Posted by stickman, Wednesday, 7 March 2007 2:38:10 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hear hear Graham.

For those of you who say reject the'67 borders ...please give us your reference point for the formation of a Palestinian state. I'd be of the opinion any solution that does not accept the principle of '67 borders simply rewards Israeli aggression and is a refusal to accede to the terms of the Geneva convention. Or is any reference to UN Resolutions and the Convention looking too far backwards?

David I'd like to see only constructive remarks please.
Posted by keith, Wednesday, 7 March 2007 8:39:58 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The problem with this article and some of the comments here, is stereotyping "the Israelis" as if, unlike the Palestinians, they are a solid monolitic and faceless block of a single will.

Nothing can be further than the truth. Israel is a very mixed pluralistic society with huge internal conflicts. There is not even an agreement within Israel on the very nature of the state, and while most people here cry "Zionists", there is not even an agreement within Israel on what that word means (many Israelis simply call "zionist" to a good person who saves water or helps an old lady cross the street - what's the outrage about that?). While the Palestinians were recently engaged in a civil war, Israel is not far from that either.

The question is not whether Israel wants or not to deliver the "goods" (Palestinian state within the 1967 borders, etc.), but whether it CAN - and currently, it regrettably cannot (even though a majority of Israelis would like to see that happen, with certain reservations).

Just like the Palestinians are held hostage by their extremists (both internal and external), so is Israel held hostage by its own extermists: the settlers from within and the USA from outside. Any attempt to push and threaten Israel, any expressions of hatred towards Israel as a whole, only gives more power to those extremists.

It is time to realize that the middle-east conflict is not between Jews and Arabs, but between moderates and extremists. Now pick your sides again and support the side you believe in.
Posted by Yuyutsu, Thursday, 8 March 2007 4:27:08 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Some issues about Israel are regularly ignored (deliberately?) or forgotten.

1) Arab countries waged several bloody wars under the slogan push the Jews into the sea.

2) The occupied territories (Gaza, West Bank) were used as springboards to wage wars of intended annihilation of Israel. After there defeat they were, (not surprisingly) occupied, as were Germany and Japan after the war, and forbidden their own defence forces in view of a justified fear of further attacks.

3) The occupied territories still carry out attacks and, unlike Germany and Japan still preach war and in the case of Gaza fire rockets regularly at Israel.

4) These territories do have as much independence as is reasonable considering that they still preach (and where possible practice) a state of war against their neighbor who defeated them. Unusual for a defeated attacker.

5) Israel has absorbed as well as it can the Christian, Druze and Muslim minorities within its own borders and given them equal rights both politically and legally. For the Muslims this is greater freedom than they would ever have in the neighbouring countries. Christians and Druze have actually migrated from the West Bank to Israel to escape persecution.

6) Israel has applied modern farming techniques so that their area can support a size of population unimaginable under Islamic rule.

7) A section of Israel's Jewish population has lived their for very long periods, some from before the Arabs arrived there.

8) As well as providing a place of resettlement for European Jews it also provided a refuge for Jews persecuted in Arab countries. The numbers roughly equal the numbers of displaced Muslim Palestinians.

9) The Christian and Druze Arab populations of course remained in Israel they were glad to escape the previous rulers.

8) and 9) of course are regularly ignored by the anti Israel brigade, it damages their argument considerably.

If these points are not recognised, so how can peace be created?
Posted by logic, Thursday, 8 March 2007 9:17:22 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Logic

Peace would be created if you and those like you dropped your generalised racist remarks and your 'blame the Palestinians for everything' attitudes.

That's what is stopping peace in the mid east. Nothing else. You and those like you repeat these unthinking baseless ideas endlessly.

The rest of us are considering other attitudes as reasonable.

Yuyutsu

'The question is not whether Israel wants or not to deliver the "goods" (Palestinian state within the 1967 borders, etc.), but whether it CAN - and currently, it regrettably cannot (even though a majority of Israelis would like to see that happen, with certain reservations).'

It is more a question of whether you occupationists can stop thinking and planning for the 'certain reservations'.
Posted by keith, Thursday, 8 March 2007 9:35:48 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Keith,

I have no idea why you number me among those "occupationists":
I do not like them more than you do.

Like there are no two identical snowflakes, so there are no two identical Israelis, but the main and uniting reservation that most Israelis have is: "PROVIDED WE STAY ALIVE".

Perhaps for you it is too much, too outrageous to ask - so tough luck, because I don't know of many Australians either who were willing to die in order to avoid occupation. Perhaps we should jump into the sea so that aborinigals can have their land back? do you volunteer?

Now, there is a legitimate discussion within Israel about what is required to maintain life in the Jewish state - to what extent can Arabs be believed and how much risk is reasonable to take. Even you would admit (I guess) that Israel is not surrounded by angels, so one main issue is TRUST. Another big issues is GUARANTEES: if the Arabs cannot be trusted (based on both their history and their holy-book which calls for signing treaties when they are weak, then betraying those treaties once they become the stronger side), then perhaps the rest of the world can help with guarantees that Israel will be preserved: but alas, if you also have no consideration for the life of Jews, then your guarantees are not worth the paper they are written on.

The more Israel is criticized by the rest of the world and identified en-block with those bloody occupationsits, the more you show that you care nothing about its survival, the more it must conclude that it has no other support except its own strength and the USA. It is a self-fulfilling curse! This is not helping the moderates of the Middle-East, it just hurts ordinary and reasonable Israelis and Palestinians, it only helps the Moslem extermists - "wonderful people" you must say...
Posted by Yuyutsu, Thursday, 8 March 2007 11:18:41 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Keith,

Any border between Israel and Palestine will be close to the old Green Line. This is not a matter of principle, but practicality. That line has the major advantage of already existing (thus its determination does not require endless negotiations); it is roughly (but only roughly) demographically sensible; all but the most extreme Right and Left continue to ascribe to it at least symbolic significance; and despite criticism of alleged “creeping Israeli annexation”, outside of Jerusalem the Green Line continues to have practical legal consequence.

Nevertheless, there are major reasons why a peace deal will not exactly recreate the Green Line. That armistice line reflected the 1949 reality based on where forces on both sides had succeeded in occupying territory, and in the case of Arab forces, expelling the entire Jewish population. It does not reflect reality on the ground in 2007.

Remember when I wrote that “all serious peace plans in recent years... look very similar”? (Add the Nusseibeh-Ayalon Initiative to the list.) One way is that they call for corrections to the Green Line. The Palestinians involved in formulating those plans recognize the necessity and benefits of border corrections.

Keith: “...any solution that does not accept the principle of '67 borders simply rewards Israeli aggression”

In 1967, Israel only captured the West Bank after Jordan attacked it from that territory. Thus, one could argue that return to the 1967 borders rewards Arab aggression.

Note also that before the 1967 war, Syria was in occupation of Israeli territory and no-man’s land near the Sea of Galilee. Again the so-called “principle of ’67 borders” would reward Arab aggression.

Finally, note that many peace plans call for territorial exchanges, which would not only annex some West Bank land to Israel, but also some Israeli land to Palestine. This would not reward one side only, but would benefit both sides.

Keith: “...refusal to accede to the terms of the Geneva convention.”

The Geneva Conventions do not demand a one-sided settlement of conflicts over disputed territory, and do not forbid mutually agreed determinations of, and changes to, common borders.
Posted by sganot, Friday, 9 March 2007 3:09:54 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Re. logic

1) Arab countries waged several bloody wars under the slogan push the Jews into the sea.

2) The occupied territories (Gaza, West Bank) were used as springboards to wage wars of intended annihilation of Israel. After there defeat they were, (not surprisingly) occupied, as were Germany and Japan after the war, and forbidden their own defence forces in view of a justified fear of further attacks.

lol funny stuff mate, and how are they gonna do that against the worlds 3rd most powerful and sophisticated army in the world?.. the use of your selective language appalls me, your blurred rationale, and shoddy attempt to analyse the facts means that peace is never bound to occur.. be constructive and offer some real solutions rather than providing inertia for the pendulum to swing harder in the opposite direction. you could write a novel on the FACTS on Israel and Palestine but a solution needs deeper analysis.
use some logic
Posted by peachy, Friday, 9 March 2007 10:28:31 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yuyutsu, your absolutely right..
just as there is fundamentalists within Palestine, with increasing prominence of radicalised groups whom believe that Israel should literally be 'pushed into the sea', Israel has dissenting elements pushing for a theocratic state as well, with the orthodox jewish movement wielding considerable power within the political system. Groups such as Gush Emunim, whom literally interpreted what it means to be Gods Chosen People believe that there should be pressing of a thorough colonisation of Palestine to align the frontiers of biblical Israel, where non Jews have no right to the land.
With every martyr created on either side of the conflict, these groups increase in popularity... which is why we need discussion and increased dialog with groups on both sides of the divide to steer away from the disillusionment of fundamentalism, to actually seek peace
Posted by peachy, Friday, 9 March 2007 11:37:39 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Peachy, your analysis about the influence and goals of Orthodox Judaism is overly simplistic, but never mind. That is partly the inevitable consequence of the limits to dialogue imposed by this site.

But tell me, by what measure is Israel "the worlds 3rd most powerful and sophisticated army in the world"?
Posted by sganot, Friday, 9 March 2007 7:07:37 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Mind you don't click on Boaz_david's falacy URL he keeps puting up because he has something! Be careful guys.

Second we have been to school before him, why that? because look at his comments quite deeply, he looses his head!
Posted by galty, Saturday, 10 March 2007 12:43:15 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
If the International community stopped the aid going to Palestinians, the surrounding Islamic states would stop their support and encouragement of the violence. Once the violence is stopped. The world community could then negotiate with Israel to redress the Palestinians concerns.
I put the emphasis on the Palestinians to cease once and for all, all violence because Israel will not negotiate while the violence exist. I put the emphasis on Israel to negotiate with Palestine because only Israel has anything to negotiate with.
Israel has a thriving society and has much to loose in world commerce. The world could apply pressure that Israel would respond to.
Palestine has nothing and has developed nothing in 60 years to negotiate with.
These are the hard facts with out getting into a he said, she said, but, but, yesterday you did this so I did that routine. Starting from scratch the only way to deal with Palestine is to threaten to take their aid away. And then do it. The only way to deal with Israel is to threaten to restrict their trade. And then do it. Not stop Palestinian aid and or restrict Israeli trade. But a concerted united International decision towards both countries at the same time. And no emotional whinging allowed until the situation is turned around. This is the only way I see anything happening.
The trouble is I can count with both hands (actually more than 10) every country that has their thumb on the scale in regards to the Israeli/Palestinian conflict. And every one of them in denial or with ready justification regardless of side. Everybody would have to come to the table for a just end. Is that possible? It hasn't been to date.
Posted by aqvarivs, Saturday, 10 March 2007 6:04:37 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
aqvarius,

The Palestinians have suffered an illegal occupation for over 40 years of the 60 years since the UN established the states of Israel and Palestine.

That occupation has repressed the Palestinians and prevented their economic development.

That occupying force also collects Palestinian taxes and currently is retaining them as punishment for daring to elect a government of Palestinian people who represent their views.

Restricting Palestinian aid has been done before with no result.

How about restricting the US military aid to Israel as well as all the other US economic aid to Israel. You'd soon see the Israeli's jump to a peace deal then. It'd become a matter of urgency. The Israeli economy would soon become bankrupt if it wasn't for the US aid. Did you know Israel is the beneficary of 66% of the total annual US overseas aid budget and that doesn't include military aid.

Why then hasn't the conflict been resolved? Simple economics really, if peace was achieved Israel's dependence on US aid would have to end. It would then have to face the same pressures as every other third world country and make no mistake that's what it's economy would become without the massive annual US aid.

There would then be a level playing field and the Israelis would be on a par with the nations on it's borders as well as the repressed Palestinians.

Your assessment has just so much bias and Israeli slant it borders on propaganda.


Since the announcements in Mecca the Palestinian Government has stated clearly it will recognise the Israeli state and ensure it's security. So what is the Israeli/US response to such undertakings? Nil. Zilch. Zero...well sort of as I still see informal declarations by Israeli's and their apologists that the Palestinians doen't mean what they say!

So who really wants peace in the mid East? Nobody seems to ask Condi Rice...she would recognise the truth by now.
Posted by keith, Saturday, 10 March 2007 1:32:22 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Thank you keith. I think you've highlighted my point nicely.
Posted by aqvarivs, Saturday, 10 March 2007 6:25:52 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Aqvarius

Your point was to restrict Israeli trade and Palestinian aid in search of forcing peace.
Somewhat different than my point which was an acceptance that denying Palestinian aid is not a workable solution or that Israel doesn't rely on trade but relies on aid just as much as the Palestinians.

Your point stresses quite the opposite and leaves an impression you judge Palestinians to be of lessor worth than Israelis because one survives only because of its reliance on aid and the other survives only because of its trade. That proposition is of course biased and rubbish. Both survive on (unequal) ammounts of aid. Now if you were to say let's force them both to peace by threatening their aid well...that would be unbiased and reasonable. Then your point might have some credence. And I'd have highlighted your point... but as it stands there is a gulf between our thinking and my post does not in any way highlight your point. It contradicts it.
Posted by keith, Saturday, 10 March 2007 11:31:00 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
First, a factual point:

Israel does not rely on American aid.
American aid is just a small fraction of Israel's GDP.
Yes, this aid grants luxuries to some Israelis, and those richer individuals will kick and scream if that aid was taken away, but the strength of the state of Israel does not depend at all on this aid.
Similarly, the American military aid is not aid at all - Israel is not free to use it, but can only buy with it American weapons. it is simply a bribe forcing Israel to buy poor-quality weapons from American companies instead of buying better ones elsewhere or producing its own. In other words, it is a hidden subsidy of the USA government to USA private companies.

Withdrawing American aid will only prove a boon to Israel!
(and I wish we in Australia were also wise and reject American "favours")

Now Keith, you commented:

"The Palestinians have suffered an illegal occupation for over 40 years of the 60 years since the UN established the states of Israel and Palestine."

Not true - although illegal and shameful actions were made within Israel's occupation, and those must certainly be condemned, the occupation itself was never illegal, but an act of self-defence.

"That occupation has repressed the Palestinians and prevented their economic development."

Not true - from 1967 until about 1976, the Palestinians enjoyed their best economic boom ever. They were much better off than when under Egypt and Jordan. Later came the settlers, their provocations, the resistance against their actions, Israel's response to this resistance, stronger resistance and terrorism, Israel's defending itself against terrorism, including limiting Palestinian movements and the resulting economic downturn. The cause of this downturn was therefore the settlers and not the occupation itself.

"That occupying force also collects Palestinian taxes and currently is retaining them as punishment for daring to elect a government of Palestinian people who represent their views."

Israel simply does what is necessary to prevent that money to be used for terrorism against it. Too sad that the Palestinians chose terrorists as their government.
Posted by Yuyutsu, Sunday, 11 March 2007 12:19:15 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Keith, I often wonder if your opinions about Israel are so misguided because you have so many basic facts wrong, or if it’s the opposite.

In any case, Yuyutsu did a good job dispelling some of your misinformation (for example that occupation is illegal). Here are more facts to consider:

Although Israel is very grateful for US aid, it does not rely on it, and would not be bankrupt without it. Israel is not “the beneficary of 66% of the total annual US overseas aid budget and that doesn't include military aid.” (Where do you get this stuff?) In 2006, economic aid to Israel amounted to about 1% of total US foreign aid. Economic and military aid to Israel together was less than 10% of total US foreign aid. (See http://www.vaughns-1-pagers.com/politics/us-foreign-aid.htm ) And note this: “In 2006, direct economic aid from the US amounted to $240 million, or about 0.15% of Israel's GDP.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Israel

Keith: “Since the announcements in Mecca the Palestinian Government has stated clearly it will recognise the Israeli state and ensure it's security.”

Sure.

http://today.reuters.com/news/articlenews.aspx?type=topNews&storyID=2007-02-10T120923Z_01_L10757415_RTRUKOC_0_US-PALESTINIANS-HAMAS.xml&WTmodLoc=NewsHome-C1-topNews-10
Posted by sganot, Sunday, 11 March 2007 4:58:10 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Keith, that you have specifically chosen one side over the other, and that you have chosen to emotionally represent that side highlights my point that the many thumbs on the mid-east scale want attention or influence and are unlikely to be the “first” to retreat. If as you say, both are equally dependant on aid then one must look to see what each have manage with that aid. Israel has development, it's visual, it's tangable and it can be used to barter with. Palestine has no visable or tangable assets for which to barter with. One can not barter emotional intangables nor are they of equal commercial value. Countries do business with Israel. As an example aprox. 900 Israeli companies do business with in Russia and export roughly 450 million dollars of product from Israel and import about 262 million dollars worth of product into Israel for sale. The total trade on the other hand between the E.U. and the Palestinian Authority is 42 million eros. 36 million of which is E.U export and just 6 million it imports from Palestian Territories. In that same year 2006, the E.U in a one off package handed over 64 million eros in direct aid to Palestine. Not including more than a billion eros in loans and grants. E.U.aid reached 330 million to Palestine in 2006 in total. As for trade between the E.U. and Israel. In 2004 the total volume of bilateral trade (excluding diamonds) came to over €15 billion.
In fact both are not equally dependent on aid and Israel hopes to be free of all aid by 2008.
Palestinians are the only ones to have their own relief agency with in the U.N. (UNRWA) And are totally and completely dependant on foreign aid for their very existence. What started out as temporary relief agency (UNRWA) has now bloosemed into an industry with a 27,000 man support staff. Guess who pays their wages.
Posted by aqvarivs, Sunday, 11 March 2007 7:59:41 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yuyutsu, Sganot

I erred it's only 33%.

http://www.adc.org/IB85066.pdf Read the whole report.

But haven’t you read the article about which you are posting?

I'm tiring of your personal attacks…how well do you know Young Kevvy Rudd?

The more than $3 Billion the US gave to Israel in 2005 doesn't include traditionally forgiven loans, nor loan guarantees, nor the interest gained on unspent aid, nor interest payments on loans to finance aid, nor an estimate of the tax deductions on donations by private citizens to Israel, nor amounts for joint development projects (All developments rejected and not used by the US).

But significantly you conceal a piece of vital information. Israel is the only US beneficiary to receive it’s aid in cash and early.

You didn’t include military aid. Why not? The US has been decreasing it’s foreign aid but increasing it’s military aid. The US no longer requires all the military aid be spent in the US, only that applied to anti-terrorism projects. That military aid also does not include money spent on joint projects, it is spent in Israel on Israeli military equipment failures. You know them, one was a white elephant tank and it failed spectacularly in Lebanon and the US refuses to touch any of them with a barge pole.

But regardless Egypt and Jordan receive aid in total less than half the amount Israel receives. Peace reigns between Israel and those two countries. The US aid to the Palestinians is not recorded, it is negilible.

I reckon that is an indicator the US has got it seriously wrong.

The slant you blokes put on is a more and more unconvincing attempt to keep your myths alive…and that hinders the work for peace. Yet still there is an increasingly acceptance of the need for a more balanced approach to the conflict. I don’t understand why you are so against peace in the region. You always argue against peace by promoting the things that continue the conflict and criticise me for promoting the things that will result in peace. Why do you do that?
Posted by keith, Sunday, 11 March 2007 2:30:57 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Keith, the instructions while shooting is to shut one eye - not both.

It is the second time on this thread that you attribute to me things that I have not said: first you called me "occupationist" (and you have not bothered to apologise), now you claim that I also, like Sganot, have mentioned any percentage of the aid to Israel as a portion of the total American aid. Also, if you ever asked me, I know almost nothing about Kevvy Rudd - have I said anything about him? if so, where? if not, why was this comment addressed to me?

One sign of intelligence is the ability to distinguish between two individuals. If you are unable to distinguish for example between me and Sganot, it casts a doubt whether you can actually distinguish between any two Arabs or any two Jews, and therefore whether you can have any clear understanding of the situation in the middle-east.

To the subject-matter:

I wrote: "American aid is just a small fraction of Israel's GDP.", nothing about what percentage it could be out of the total American aid budget. In fact, I keep saying that no matter how much it was, even if was 100%, any country in this world (including us), despite the temptation, is better off staying away from any American aid whatsoever. It is best for everyone to have nothing, good or bad, to do with them.

As for the occupation, I pray every day that it is gone - but only as soon as it is safe enough for Israel to finally be out of those cursed territories.

You wrote: "You always argue against peace by promoting the things that continue the conflict "

1. Another false accusation - have I argued against peace? "always"? you are gaining a reputation of someone who does not bother to read what others write before answering them.

2. If by "the things that continue the conflict" you mean the existence of the Jewish state, why don't you say so clearly?
Posted by Yuyutsu, Sunday, 11 March 2007 3:54:17 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
keith, You have also forgotten to calculate the monies Palestinians from around the world send home to support their state, while holding American Jews accountable for their largess to their home State. You lump it all as American aid. You also seem to be saying that a friendly State should be no better treated than a hostile State. America has been a friend to Israel since 1948. That friendship would exist even if Israel and Palestine had developed equally and Israel would still receive preferential treatment.
For 60 years the Palestinians have chosen to be the tool that the surrounding Islamic States have used to batter away at a Jewish State. For sixty years the world has paid for that in hard currency. If they really want the situation to turn all they would have to do is stop the money that supports Palestinian aggression. They obviously have more money than they need or they wouldn't be pissing it away on a war that can never be won.
Posted by aqvarivs, Sunday, 11 March 2007 7:39:50 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Keith, you start by admitting a 100% exaggeration. Actually you exaggerated by much more. Aid to Israel isn’t close to 33% of the US aid budget.

Keith: “...Kevvy Rudd?”

Some public figure in Australia?

Keith: “...more than $3 Billion the US gave to Israel in 2005 doesn't include...”

Using your source (Clyde Mark, "Israel: U.S. Foreign Assistance," CRS – see http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/US-Israel/U.S._Assistance_to_Israel1.html), the 2005 number without the loan guarantees, refugee resettlement grant, etc., is $2.56 billion. With the added goodies, ~$2.6 billion. The 2006 numbers are about the same, at most ~11% of US foreign aid. 33% remains an astronomical exaggeration!

(Note also: You’re comparing apples to oranges. US foreign aid stats generally only include direct military and economic aid, not the other goodies you added when considering aid to Israel.)

Tax deductions on private donations? Ridiculous. Donations to foreign governments are not tax deductible. US tax-deductible donations go to private charitable organizations, and are never considered part of the foreign aid budget, regardless of where the funds are spent. How many private donations end up in Australia or the PA or anywhere else? We don’t know, because these also are not counted as US foreign aid.

Keith: “You didn’t include military aid....?”

YOU didn’t include military aid. (Go back to your “66%” blunder.) I discussed both military and economic aid.

Keith: “The US has been... increasing it’s military aid.”

Wrong. See http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/US-Israel/U.S._Assistance_to_Israel1.html

Keith: “That military aid also does not include money spent on joint projects..”

Aid statistics don’t include joint projects for any country. Likewise, US foreign aid doesn’t include the trillions spent liberating Iraq and Afghanistan and assisting the militaries of their new regimes, and poured into NATO, SEATO, ANZUS, etc.

Keith: “Egypt and Jordan receive aid in total less than half the amount Israel receives...”

Actually about 90%.

Keith: “US aid to the Palestinians is not recorded, it is negilible”

In 2006, US economic aid to the PA was $150 million -- 63% of what Israel received.

Keith: “I don’t understand why you are so against peace in the region...”

Not worthy of a response.
Posted by sganot, Sunday, 11 March 2007 8:00:22 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
KEITH

You asked for ‘positive_contributions only’ well the major drawback is that even if the borders were settled as you say, there remains the problem of HAMAS and its theological basis and the only connection that has to ‘land’ is that it regards ALL as an “Islamic Waqf”, inalienable till the day of resurrection. Do you not see problems here ?

Steve clearly showed this by his link which leads to this report.

[GAZA (Reuters) - The Palestinian unity government which will be formed under an agreement reached in Saudi Arabia will not recognize Israel, a political adviser to Hamas Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh said on Saturday.

"The issue of recognition was not addressed at all (in Mecca)," Ahmed Youssef said. "In the platform of the new government there will be no sign of recognition (of Israel), regardless of the pressures the United States and the Quartet would exert," he said.]

So, before you woffle on about finding solutions and positive contributions, please read that report CAREfully... its exactly as I also posted from the Jerusalem Post link some days earlier and is entirely in harmony with that Hamas Charter which is again WHY I continually harp on that very issue.

You cannot build a skyscraper on a flawed foundation. No matter what kind of peace you seek which involved ‘acceptable borders’ you would still be missing that important link with the fundamental theological idea of ‘Muslim Lands’ Dar Ul Islam, -that is where Hamas is coming from and this idea goes from now, right back to Mohammed, the 4 rightly (ha!) guided Caliphs and the Quran and Hadith.

As far as Hamas is concerned, it also goes FORWARD to “The day of resurrection”

Ok..Positive contributions. (hyperthetical only)

Step 1 “Remove“ (permanently) every man/boy of fighting age connected to Hamas, Islamic Jihad and every other similar Palestinian group) -exile their women and children

Step 2 Take up your plan.

I promise you, as God lives, without that first step........ there will never ever be the 2nd.

But because no one will ever do “1” then 2 will forever elude us.
Posted by BOAZ_David, Monday, 12 March 2007 9:54:56 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yuyutsu

I responded to both you and sganot. The jibe about Young Kevvy was in response to sganot’s personal attacks. I was lazy by not distinguishing clearly between you and sganot. I have wrongly attributed to you ‘labels’. I apologise for any unintentional slight.

Let me remind you of your words.
‘Israel does not rely on American aid.’
The opening words of the 2002 briefing to the US Congress. (The report was referenced in my last post). Did you read it?
‘Israel is not economically self-sufficient and relies on foreign assistance and borrowing to maintain it’s economy.’

The briefing concludes Israel receives approximately $US5,000 million annually in various types of US aid. According to your figures Israel’s GDP in 2006 was $US160,000 million. It’s ratio of public debt to GDP is 90%. Its current Account is approximately $US140,000 million. Now if you take out over 3.0% of Israel’s GDP the country would collapse…quickly.

‘American military aid is not aid at all …’

Israel is not bound to spend all its aid in the US. Similarly the more than $US 1,600 million in military aid is not required to be spent entirely in the US. The aid given for joint projects, the Arrow anti missile defence, that woeful Merkava tank and the, aptly named, Lavi attack fighter (now abandoned) was a gift and was spent entirely in Israel. The sophistication of the US designed and Israeli owned weaponry is somewhat superior to the weaponry of the Palestinians. Judging by the use of the respective side’s weaponry failure is indicated by the Israeli war machine misuse. Why do you bother perpetrating the myths?

I regard anyone who defends the current practises of supporting one side or the other as supporting the status quo…that has only led to endless violence. Your statements reinforce such perceptions. I am anti-violence and peace-seeking. I prefer to question current practises and show a desire to see changing attitudes by all parties. An example was the slight Hamas position change in the Mecca Agreement and as stated in the current article.
Posted by keith, Monday, 12 March 2007 4:10:30 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I have endorsed the unconditional existence of Israel…at ’67 borders.

Do you support the formation of a Palestinian state?

Sganot

I exaggerated. But only by six times!

You claimed US aid was only $US240 million. Now you cite evidence it is $US2,560 million.
Your original understatement was a massive 11 times less! I’ve already noted your new figure still doesn’t include so many other sources of US aid.
What was the US military aid to the Palestinians? Did they receive loan guarantees, forgiven loans, interest on early payment, tax deductibility of donations to the Palestinians, and so many other hidden legislative benefits exclusively given to the Israelis by the US? In terms of those 000’s of millions 150 million is negligible.

The US has only one other joint weapons development program. The money is spent exclusively in the US. Treaties and military actions are not regarded as aid... by anyone

One thousand million is donated to Israel in the US annually by US citizens. That’s regarded as aid and hence donations are tax deductible. Guess the amount of the tax deductions? Those would otherwise be added to the US tax grab.

The US is decreasing its economic aid to Israel but increasing its openly declared military aid.
You chose can interesting website to support your claim, why don’t you at least read the independent Congressional briefing I referenced?

Egypt and Jordan receive approximately $US1,700 million annually. That’s not 90% of $2,566 million. It’s % is still overstated because of the other hidden benefits Israel receives.
.

Aqvarius

The only war recently launched in the area was by Israelis … into Lebanon.
'… Nothing is more essential than that permanent, inveterate antipathies against particular nations and passionate attachments for others should be excluded, and that in place of them just and amicable feelings toward all should be cultivated. The nation which indulges toward another an habitual hatred or an habitual fondness is in some degree a slave …'
George Washington in his farewell address. (Famous US President.)

I agree with George. Anything other than George’s attitude promotes hatred and conflict.
Posted by keith, Monday, 12 March 2007 4:10:43 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
keith

I have just returned from a well deserved weekend bushwalking and have not looked at this site for three days.

You have tried to dismiss by points by accusing my of racism (which I am not) and blaming me for the lack if peace. How about addressing my points? If any are wrong then show me why if not then address them. Your response is that of one who knows I am generally right and wishes I had not made them.

I have not blamed the Palestinians for everything but shown areas where Israel is reacting in a reasonable way.

Perhaps you could start by considering the displaced Jews from Egypt, Iraq etc and the better treatment of Arabs in Israel. You might even consider the matter of Dhimitude and the treatment of non Muslims in other middle eastern countries. This includes Christians and Druze and is no minor matter.

It is at the centre of the matter.
Posted by logic, Monday, 12 March 2007 6:51:11 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Keith,

Israel current account balance=$+2.3 billion; Australia CAB=$-42.09 billion; USA CAB=$-829.1 billion. Israel ratio of public debt to GDP =99.7%; Japan=158%! Why aren’t the American, Australian, or Japanese economies collapsing?

The Merkava is “woeful”? The Lavi is “aptly named”? Whatever.

Keith: “You claimed US aid was...$US240 million.”

I said “ECONOMIC aid”.

Keith: “...other sources of US aid.”

“Other sources” increase US aid to ~$2.6 billion.

Keith: “US military aid to the Palestinians? ... loan guarantees...?”

News flash: The USA doesn’t treat every state and people equally. It rewards allies, and punishes (or rewards less) enemies. The Palestinians don’t act much like an ally to the US, either.

Keith: “Treaties and military actions are not regarded as aid”

But while the US-Israel relationship works much like the US alliances with Europe, Australia, Japan, South Korea, etc., much of its funding of the former appears as “aid”; equivalent military spending on the latter doesn’t.

Keith: “...donated to Israel...by US citizens. ...regarded as aid ...donations are tax deductible...would otherwise be added to the US tax grab.”

If donations to Israeli charitable institutions were regarded as aid to a foreign government, they would not be tax deductible. And they would not “otherwise be added” to US taxes. Most of this money is donated through American communal organizations, churches, etc. If it weren’t spent in Israel, the tax deductions would be the same.

Keith: “The US is ...increasing its... military aid... interesting website to support your claim... read the independent Congressional briefing...?”

My “interesting website” uses the same source, but its figures are more up-to-date. Military aid has not increased.

Keith: “Egypt and Jordan... $US1,700 million... not 90% of $2,566 million.”

2006 aid to Egypt+Jordan=1,795+461=$2.256 billion; aid to Israel=$2,520 billion. Any other comparison is apples to oranges, and the “hidden benefits” only raise the Israeli amount to ~$2.6 billion.

Keith, have it your way. Let’s say that by removing all foreign aid to all sides (including Iranian, Saudi, European, UN, World Bank, and other aid to the Palestinians, Lebanon, Egypt, Syria, Hizbullah, etc.), we level the playing field. Go ahead. Make my day.
Posted by sganot, Monday, 12 March 2007 7:40:53 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
keith,
Yes, that's why ol' George was material in the American Revolution. Not much sense quoting from a man who didn't live up to his own philosophy, eh! George Washington famous British subject who took advantage of time and circumstance to not pay his taxes but, rather create a situation where by he can become the chief American tax collector. Hahahaha!
I shouldn't wonder why you can't bring a straight forward position on the discussion.
Aid nor material wealth is driving the Intifada. The first Intifada beginning in 1967 nor the second Intifada or al-Aqsa Intifada, that began in 2000. Not forgetting that the first Intifada which began in 1967 never ended.
It's about Jerusalem. The Israeli's are not going to give it to the PA and the PA have made it a blood debt to obtain Jerusalem for all of Islam.
Peace can only be achieved by removing all aid packages from direct control of the PA and institute on the ground International oversight.
Both the PA and Israel should be asked to appoint a friendly country to police the borders as they stand now, while negotiations are in effect. Thus removing the belligerent's and opportunities for "misunderstandings" or any excuse that furthers violence. This is not to facilitate a peace process alone but, a comprehensive redress of all issues to bring an end once and for all.
Posted by aqvarivs, Monday, 12 March 2007 9:39:04 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Keith, I accept your apology.

I fail to understand why is it so important to determine the exact percentage of American aid to Israel: so you say it is 3% of GDP - fine with me, why should going without it be a problem? just tighten one's belt, give up some luxuries and life goes on. American aid is bad - for Israel, for Australia, for Jordan, for Egypt, for the Palestinians - for everyone. It is best to have nothing to do with the yanks. Of course it is probably hard to get rid of such addictions after so many years - but it is possible.

I do not automatically support each and every action that the government of Israel and/or individual Israelis do: I support such actions that are needed to protect the lives of Israeli citizens; I do not support such actions whose purpose is to enhance the Jewish Ego by occupying territories beyond the 1967 borders.

Sometimes the intention is blurred. Sometimes Israel has to act against its peaceful interests due to internal (settlers) and external (American) pressures: the situation is very complicated and sad. On the one hand, being peaceful could save Israeli lives, but on the other hand, a civil war and/or American sanctions can cost more lives, especially when Israel almost does not have other friends.

Take for example the separating wall: it is absolutely necessary and very effective in preventing suicide bombers from reaching Israel. The trouble is that instead of placing it on the 1967 border, the settlers demand to be included and therefore aggravate the situation. Do I support the wall? yes. Am I happy about its current route? not at all, but what else can Israel do?

The moderates of Israel need your support, not condemnation. They stand alone against several fronts. They need friends around the globe, they cannot do it alone. Why would you like to push them in despair into the callous arms of Jewish and American extremists? can't you see that the more this happens, the more the Palestinians suffer as well?
Posted by Yuyutsu, Monday, 12 March 2007 11:20:09 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
David

Where do you intend for the rounded up young Palestinian men, their womenfolk and children be exiled?

To concentration camps and gas chambers?

You racist fool.

Yutusu

You didn't give me a straightforward answer to my question. I'll repeat it.
Do you support an unconditional Palestinian state?

A simple yes or no will suffice.

Logic

Your comments incite hatred against and show you support discrimination against Arab, Muslim and Palestinian people. That's racism.
Posted by keith, Tuesday, 13 March 2007 4:37:41 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Well, well, what are you poor tragics who have over the last few months by your arguing in support of Israel and the status quo, with regard to the occupation and so called defence, going to do now?

Yesterday Olmert made a public declaration indicating the Arab League proposal of 2002 could be used as way forward

“We sincerely hope that at the summit of the Arab leaders in Riyadh, the positive element in the Saudi initiative will be emphasized, and would maybe allow an opportunity to strengthen the chances for negotiations with the Palestinians on its basis.”

Isn’t that a courageous step? The small change by Hamas has been recognised in Israel and they've responded in a very encouraging manner.

Where to now for you chappies? Do I hear you cheering? The attitudes you’ve displayed fly in the face of what now seems to be a complete Israeli about face. Let’s see you have the same courage as Olmert and accept the basis of any peace in the region is an end to the occupation, a defined set of borders as at ‘67, guarantees of security and a negotiated settlement to the refugee problem and the Palestinian claims of Jerusalem as it’s capital.

I see the arm twisting of the US in both small steps along with the Saudi’s diplomacy. Olmert had few options since world opinion and the propaganda war has swing so dramatically away from Israel since the carnage in Lebanon.

I love saying it: I’ve been advocating this solution for quite some time now, in the face of insults and personal attacks from almost all of you.

I have no problem with the US continuing or increasing it’s massive aid to poor little Israel as long as settlement on the above basis is agreed.

Such a settlement severely limits the influence of a nuclear armed Iran. As North Korea showed the US and the world are impotent when it comes to stopping nations becoming nuclear powers.
Posted by keith, Tuesday, 13 March 2007 4:39:09 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
keith

My comments do not support discrimination against Arab, Muslim and Palestinian people. How do you manage such a bizarre line of reasoning?

In fact I objected to the discrimination by the Palestinian and Muslim governments. According to your unreason to criticize the Palestinians in any way is racism while savage criticism of Israel is OK.

You won't address my comments because they do not support your case and try to attack me for presenting them. Your accusations of inciting hatred show how far you are from logical thought.

I make one more plea for reason. Stop hating Israel. I do not hate Palestinians or Muslims in fact I like them but am not blind to the shortcomings in their society and the actions of their murderous leaders. The Palestinians do have their own state but it cannot be a satisfactory place for people to live until they accept their neighbour and put their efforts into making their state productive.
Posted by logic, Tuesday, 13 March 2007 5:23:40 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Keith,

I do not recall being asked this question before: "Do you support an unconditional Palestinian state?" - I'm afraid that I do not understand the question and will need a clarification first: what is an "unconditional state"?

I am in favour of having a Palestinian state, but certainly Olmert is not the person who can deliver anything: he is politically dead no less than his ambassador to El Salvador. He was never known to be a person that keeps his word. He promised for example that if, after a year in office, there is no progress negotiating with the Palestinians, he will withdraw unilaterally from the larger part of the West Bank. Did he? He is also now under investigation for a series of corruption charges, which is probably why he wriggles like that. The former ambassador, at least, will not go to jail.

Keith, stating for example "since world opinion and the propaganda war has swing so dramatically away from Israel since the carnage in Lebanon" shows that you are badly repeating your previous mistake of viewing Israel as a uniform entity of a single view and interest, just like watching from afar a small light in the sky that could in fact be million times bigger than our sun. You are still thinking in gross terms of a supposed conflict between Israel and the Palestinians, when the real conflict is between moderates and extremists on either side. Israel and Palestine are NOT enemies and their good interests are not in conflict: you will not be able to be constructive until you realize this reality.
Posted by Yuyutsu, Tuesday, 13 March 2007 5:56:35 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Keith,

1) No one’s arguing for the status quo.

2) Olmert has made a luke-warm, non-committal comment on the Saudi plan, and you’re as giddy as a school girl (no offense to school girls). There is nothing new in Olmert’s position. When the proposal was first made at a summit in Beirut, Sharon declared his willingness to go to Beirut, or to host Saudi leaders in Jerusalem, to discuss the plan. The Arab League declined. Did they expect peace to spontaneously break out fully formed, like Athena from the head of Zeus, with no need for discussions? This was the first of many indications that the plan was Arab window-dressing and not serious.

Now Olmert says he hopes “the positive element in the Saudi initiative will be emphasized [who can argue with that?], and would maybe allow an opportunity to strengthen the chances for negotiations with the Palestinians on its basis.”

Excuse me for being unimpressed. This, Keith, is “a courageous step”? You call this responding “in a very encouraging manner” and “a complete Israeli about face”? What can I say? Olmert is playing you; you’re easy.

And btw, you’ve forgotten a minor detail: The Palestinians haven’t said they accept the Saudi plan! The Arab League cannot deliver if the Palestinians won't cooperate.

Keith: “Let’s see you have the same courage as Olmert...”

It is obvious that peace means (among other things) an end to occupation, defined borders, and guarantees of security – pretty much by definition. This is all part of 242, which Israel accepted ages ago. Recognition of the need for a settlement dealing with all of this, plus the refugees and Jerusalem, was part of the Oslo Accords. And all of these elements, with a Palestinian capital in Jerusalem and the border determined approximately along 1967 lines with minor territorial exchanges, were in the plans already proposed by Israel and the US and rejected by the Palestinians.

Keith: “I love saying it: I’ve been advocating this solution for quite some time now, in the face of insults and personal attacks from almost all of you.”

continued...
Posted by sganot, Tuesday, 13 March 2007 7:29:15 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
...continued

How do you endure such hardships, O suffering servant?

If you stopped your torrent of misstatements and propaganda for a minute and listened to what I and other pro-Israel people here have been saying, you’d know that many of us support similar solutions. Israel has supported a similar solution at least since 1993. But the devil is in the details. Some parts of the Saudi proposal, e.g., settling millions of Palestinians in Israel, remain completely unacceptable. Other parts, e.g., the border issue, are promising but require negotiation.

Keith: “I have no problem with the US continuing or increasing it’s massive aid to poor little Israel as long as settlement on the above basis is agreed.”

So your previous discussion about foreign aid was entirely insincere (which I already knew). What happened to Washington’s grand moral stand against foreign entanglements? By your logic, you are now willing to promote “hatred and conflict”.

Implementation of a peace agreement would cost tens or even hundreds of billions of dollars for refugee resettlement, claims for compensation going back to 1948, economic and infrastructure development, security arrangements, etc. Some funds will need to come from Europe, Arab states, the UN, the World Bank, etc., but the largest bill will be paid by the US. (Clinton’s Camp David proposal included a $35 billion aid package, including $10 billion for compensating Palestinian refugees.)

Keith: “Such a settlement severely limits the influence of a nuclear armed Iran.”

Maybe. Any peace agreement will leave Israel intact and seemingly strengthened. Iran’s hostility is not primarily about the Palestinian issue; it opposes the very existence of Israel. It has made barely veiled threats to use nukes to “wipe Israel off the map”, which of course would also kill millions of Palestinians and destroy the Muslim holy places in Jerusalem. Iran must understand that this would also destroy Iran and kill millions of Iranians. If Iran is willing to turn its entire nation, and perhaps the region, into one big “suicide bomb”, why would an Arab-Israeli peace agreement deter it?

...

Yuyutsu, Olmert hasn’t completed his first year in office.
Posted by sganot, Tuesday, 13 March 2007 7:51:59 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Keith... you can call me a racist and a fool, but I’ll respond with “clearly you have great concerns about the Palestinians, and this is admirable” albeit somewhat misguided. I won’t call you names, after all this forum is about ‘ISSUES’ :)

Now.. re the problem which you seem to think is on the verge of being solved by a mellowed Olmert.

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?apage=2&cid=1173700695225&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

[In an attempt to calm the fears of the Hamas rebels, some of the movement's top officials have issued a number of statements clarifying their strategy in the aftermath of the Mecca agreement.
"The agreement does not mean that Hamas will recognize the Israeli entity," said Hamas spokesman Ismail Radwan.]

The rebels in Hamas have been rebelling against any down turn in violence and struggle not that Israel might be recognized, as that would simply not happen in Hamas, as demonstrated by the above story.

So, my point about the extremes.... and them representing a barrier to your rather optimistic vision, remains entirely valid.

You asked ‘Where do we ship the Arabs” .. I’m sure that Saudi Arabia or some similar Arab/Muslim country with their uncountable wealth can carve out a slice of territory for them. But the actual location is not the important thing at this point.. the principle is. Personally, I’m attracted to the idea of dispersing them all around the world in small numbers so they cannot continue to pursue their violent agenda.

You also mentioned the establishment of Jerusalem as the Palestinian capital. Mate.. hell will freeze over before the Jews allow that. You better get back to your old testament and read from Genesis to the end of Kings at least.... Jeremiah, Nehemiah, Ezra, Isaiah, Ezekiel would also be beneficial in appreciating this.
Giving up Jerusalem would be like you ripping out your still beating heart and offering it to your enemy.
-think mate...cooeee.. oi..down here.. on the ground.. in the real world.
Posted by BOAZ_David, Wednesday, 14 March 2007 1:02:50 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
David

‘…The rebels in Hamas have been rebelling against any down turn in violence and struggle not that Israel might be recognized, as that would simply not happen in Hamas, as demonstrated by the above story.’

That David is an outright lie.

Page 2 of the story from the Jerusalem Post which you referenced concentrated only on the positions of the (few) Hamas ‘rejectionists’ of the Mecca Sgreement.

Page 1 of the full report was much more revealing of the positions adopted by the majority of the Hamas leadership and that part of the story shows the complete opposite of what you claim.

Couldn’t you face the real situation on the ground with Hamas?

Yutusu

I’ll make the question really simple.

Do you accept a sovereign Palestinian state at ’67 borders? By sovereign I mean it can make its own laws, have its own defence forces, you know all the things a sovereign state takes for granted.

Do you understand the basic concepts of Liberal Democracy? I don’t think you do or if you do you don’t think they apply to Israel. Simply put the majority elects the government. The government then represents all the people, those who voted for them as well as those who voted against them. This is a basic tenet of Western Liberal Democracies. The policy of the government determines the actions of the government internally and its actions towards other states. The Government of the day has very little to do with struggles between moderates and extremists in its day to day actions. The influence of those groups occurs at election times, in normal democracies…

And since Olmert takes a step towards peace you ‘dump’ on him with a vitriolic personal attack. What isn’t he representative of your views any longer?

Israel doesn’t view Palestine as its enemy…really? Then why is the Israeli Government controlled military occupying and suppressing all of Palestine?
.
So I need to overlook the Israeli government sanctioning of the oppression of the Palestinians before I can be constructive… Eh?

Sheeesh you say some pretty dumb things at times.
Posted by keith, Thursday, 15 March 2007 9:53:02 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Steve

Can you show me precisely (References please) where Israel has ever shown they would accept any of the conditions that were enuciated that Arab League Peace proposal. I haven’t ever seen any endorsement in any manner by any of the Israeli leader of absolute acceptance of the pre’67 borders nor of acceptance of Palestinian sovereignty over Jerusalem. (Note David’s latest post, he seems to agree).
None of you who have been attacking me personally, and my views, have ever shown any support for either of those two conditions. In fact in response to my most recent article all of you basically suggested I was in dream world if I expected them to come about.

I disagree on the border issue, the border issue would not up for negotiation. The refugee issue is.

I am very excited at the recent small constructive steps towards peace. Why belittle my pleasure and the positive move towards a negotiated peace? You’ve shown your real feelings with your negativity. Your real feelings show Israelis fear peace and think domination ensures security. That’s the status quo. That’s what all of you hold dear to your hearts…and support.

Any peace agreement would mean Palestinians and Israelis would have secure homelands and neither would have any need to spend billions annually on weapons.
Two results would ensue: Iran would lose its influence in a secure democratic Palestine.
We’d soon see which country embraced and revelled in its democracy.

It is only Israel from who we have heard veiled threats of nuclear attacks on its neighbours.

Do you have the same low opinion of Olmert as Yutusu?

ps David…I asked: Where do you intend for the rounded up young Palestinian men, their womenfolk and children be exiled? To concentration camps and gas chambers?

Nothing about we, shipping or Arabs there…mate…Only you, young Palestinian men, their women and kids. What would you have done with the older men and their families…already gassed and cremated them? All just so their land can be stolen ? Ever heard of genocide David…yes of course you have…that’s what you are leading to David.
Posted by keith, Thursday, 15 March 2007 9:53:16 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Keith,

I not only accept, but support a sovereign Palestinian state at the 1967 borders. Some remarks about it:

1. Having a sovereign Palestinian state at the 1967 borders is in Israel's true interest and would be one of the best things that could ever happen to Israel.

2. As far as Israel is concerned, the Palestinians were given many opportunities to date to declare their independent state. In fact, nothing prevents them from doing so today.

3. It is the Palestinian leadership that consistently refused all offers for an independent state: perhaps because they realize that it will help Israel and rather have their own people suffer than make life easier for Israel; perhaps because they even have an interest in keeping the suffering of ordinary Palestinians; perhaps also because they understand that with a democratic state they could not continue their corruption and abuse of power; and certainly because with having their own sovereign state they could no longer cry "occupation, cruel occupation", gaining the sympathy of a beggar pretending to have no legs.

4. I foresee that you will respond that the state which Israel offered the Palestinian was not over the full territory and with limitations over air-space: so what? at times it was over 97% of the territory and in any case, if the Palestinians really wanted a state of their own, they could start with what they get and try to expand later.

5. With the rights of a sovereign state, also come responsibilities. One cannot do whatever they like claiming "I am sovereign, I am sovereign": if a state behaves like Nazi Germany or North Korea, then the neighbouring countries have the right to act accordingly in their defence, including re-invade. Did you note that Hamas agreed, in return for the Saudi initiative, to "grant" Israel 10 years of cease-fire...

Olmert? he's dead but not indispensable. I still support his policy which he cannot deliver.

The Israeli government is NOT sanctioning the oppression of Palestinians (some Israeli extremists do): it simply has the responsibility to do what is necessary to protect its citizens.
Posted by Yuyutsu, Thursday, 15 March 2007 3:08:46 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
keith

Sorry to keep the pressure up, but I am sure you are as concerned with the rights of displaced Jews from Arab lands as you are with those of the Palestinians. They were denied passports, given special taxes and discriminated against.

Also with the difference between the treatment of Christians and Druze in Arab Muslim lands and in Israel.

They are the truly forgotten people.

And why can't the rest of the Arab lands treat the Palestinian refugees as well as Israel treated these Jews who fled from Arab lands? After all they once were Jordanian citizens, what is Jordan doing?

And please don't evade the question with specious tricks like accusing me of racism or shouting Zionist propaganda. (Don't the Palestinians shout propaganda themselves?)
Posted by logic, Thursday, 15 March 2007 7:51:46 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Keith,

I never said Israel accepted the Arab League proposal.

Some of the terms (comprehensive peace, normalization, implementation of 242/338) are goals of Israel, but the details of implementation need to be negotiated. Other terms (Palestinian state/capital in Jerusalem) were part of recent Israeli proposals. Those were officially off the table when the Palestinians rejected them, but everyone understands that peace will include Palestinian statehood and some compromise re Jerusalem. Some terms are nonsensical, included for Arab rhetorical reasons only (withdrawal from Lebanon, when Israel already did this two years earlier). Re withdrawal to 1967 borders, I already explained why I believe Israel would do something close to but not exactly this. Discussions and negotiations could be helpful here. But massive Palestinian return to Israel is a non-starter. It completely negates the two-state solution and threatens Israel; Israel will never agree to it. (Interestingly, the proposal, while dismissive of Israeli demographic concerns, shows the utmost sensitivity to Lebanon’s demographic balance.) For more, see http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?apage=1&cid=1173700685670&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

Keith: “I haven’t ever seen any endorsement in any manner by any of the Israeli leader of absolute acceptance of the pre’67 borders”

Hopefully, you never will, for the reasons I’ve already explained.

But many leaders on both sides understand that minor border adjustments make everything possible.

Keith: “nor of acceptance of Palestinian sovereignty over Jerusalem”

Jerusalem is 2/3 Jewish and Israeli, so the deal will never be as simple as “Palestinian sovereignty over Jerusalem”. East Jerusalem alone is almost half Jewish. The formula that Palestinians and Israelis have come up with, time after time in a number of different frameworks, is Palestinian sovereignty over Arab neighborhoods and Israeli sovereignty over Jewish neighborhoods. This is also approximately what Barak offered. Creative solutions would need to be found for the Temple Mount, Rachel’s Tomb, the Mt. of Olives, etc., and many details would need to be worked out re mundane municipal matters, movement between sides, and a few anomalies such as Israeli Beit Safafa, the Armenian Quarter, etc. But with good will and sufficient flexibility on both sides, it could happen.

continued...
Posted by sganot, Thursday, 15 March 2007 10:40:28 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Keith: “None of you who have been attacking me personally, and my views, have ever shown any support for either of those two conditions. In fact in response to my most recent article all of you basically suggested I was in dream world if I expected them to come about. “

You have oversimplified and misinterpreted the conflict, and then oversimplified and misinterpreted the positions of people who disagree with you.

Keith: “I disagree on the border issue, the border issue would not up for negotiation. The refugee issue is.”

The Palestinians and Israelis are already committed to a negotiated solution that deals with all of these issues – borders, refugees, Jerusalem, statehood, etc.

And while you say that the Arab League terms/conditions/demands re borders are non-negotiable and re refugees are negotiable, this isn’t what the Arab League or the Saudis have said. So far, they have said that they won’t change any of the terms, and the entire deal is non-negotiable.

Keith: “I am very excited at the recent small constructive steps towards peace. Why belittle my pleasure and the positive move towards a negotiated peace?”

That’s not what I belittled.

Keith: “Your real feelings show Israelis fear peace and think domination ensures security. That’s the status quo. That’s what all of you hold dear to your hearts…and support.”

1) My feelings are just mine, and not representative of all Israelis.

2) What I support is far from the status quo.

3) It is disrespectful and presumptuous to tell other people what they supposedly think, feel, support, etc., especially when you get it so wrong. If you wish to know what I think, ask me, don’t tell me.

Keith: “Any peace agreement would mean Palestinians and Israelis would have secure homelands and neither would have any need to spend billions annually on weapons.”

Inshallah.

Keith: “It is only Israel from who we have heard veiled threats of nuclear attacks on its neighbours.”

You’re not listening.

Keith: “Do you have the same low opinion of Olmert as Yutusu?”

Pretty much.
Posted by sganot, Thursday, 15 March 2007 10:41:43 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear_Keith
its not rocket science mate.. outright lies ? c’mon man.. thats a rather below the belt approach to debate.
a)Show what I said which was a ‘lie’
b)Show a contrary position which illustrates a)

If you peeeeel back the layers from that article and actually READ it “closely” you will see that I have reported the truth, and nothing but the truth your honor.

QUESTION. Have HAMAS denied their founding charter in anything they have said recently ?
ANSWER: “NO”

BUT but but..says Keith.. errr no mate..sorry. You are not actually ‘reading’ the text, you are inserting your optimism into it.

EXAMPLES. (from_the_article)

The rebel Hamas leaders are charging the others with the following:

Hamas's readiness to accept a temporary state in the West Bank, Gaza Strip and east Jerusalem; its readiness to abandon the armed struggle by accepting a long-term truce with Israel; its readiness to remain committed to the current cease-fire with Israel in the Gaza Strip; its readiness to endorse the Saudi peace initiative from 2002

1/ TEMPORARY state
2/ LONG TERM TRUCE. (during which they will commit to non violence) (ha!)
3/ Committment to CURRENT cease fire.
4/ Readiness to endorse Saudi Peace initiative of 2002.

Point 4 is the crucial one. So, what did that initiative say ?

Does it matter ? Here is the KEY to understanding that deceptive readiness.... (same article)

[In an attempt to calm the fears of the Hamas rebels, some of the movement's TOP OFFICIALS have issued a number of statements clarifying their strategy in the aftermath of the Mecca agreement.] (Hamas Leadership)

STATEMENT 1 : "The agreement does not mean that Hamas will recognize the Israeli entity," said Hamas spokesman Ismail Radwan.

STATEMENT 2: "The resistance will continue," declared Osama Hamdan, Hamas's representative in Lebanon

STATEMENT 3: "Hamas continues to regard the resistance as a strategic option, and there is no room for concessions in this regard."

Soooooo Keith.. who is the liar ? me ? err ‘no’. I’m simply showing things as they really are. I’ll await your apology.
Posted by BOAZ_David, Friday, 16 March 2007 7:01:07 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
anddddd....following on from my last post... we have the UPDATE from the Jerusalem post...basically confirming all that I stated.

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1173879091942&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

Heading: "ISRAEL REBUFFS PA UNITY GOVERNMENT"

Lets now look at the 'reasons'.

1/ Calls for continued observance of a "TRUCE"
2/ Does NOT renounce violence.
3/ Does NOT recognize Israel.
4/ Vague pledge to 'respect' previous peace deals.
5/ Affirms Palestinians right to 'resist' Israeli "aggression".

Israeli Government Spokesman says:

"Unfortunately the new Palestinian government seems to have said no to the three benchmarks of the international community," he said. "Accordingly, Israel will not deal with this new government and we hope the international community will stand firmly by its own principles and refuse to deal with a government that says no to peace and no to reconciliation."

KEY QUESTION:
So, for Keith, Tony Kevin, CJ Morgan and various other 'peace_over_Israels_corpse_nicks' ..the real question now is:

-Are the Israelis deliberately distorting the nature of the agreement of the PA unity government, or are they simply understanding its true nature ?

The answer to this question will help all of us understand the true potential for a peaceful,prosperous future for both protagonists.

RAPTURE and ARMAGEDDON. Just a PS for those who think whacko Christians are drooling at the prospect of an early retirement from this life and the subsequent end time disaster on the rest. We can do NOTHING to help or hinder Gods own timing and plan. So, while we rejoice at the thought of meeting the Lord, the only thing we can do in the mean time is trust and obey. We cannot speed up, or slow down those events. The thought of catastrophic events befalling an unbelieving humanity is not something I enjoy contemplating.
Posted by BOAZ_David, Friday, 16 March 2007 12:51:04 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
keith

You still continue to ignore the non Muslims who were given strong incentives (by way of discrimination sometimes positive coercion) to leave Muslim controlled lands.

Or why the Arab lands did not take in the Palestinian refugees, a sort of adjustment that occurred elsewhere in India, Cyprus etc. Their numbers were not large compared to the total number and the surrounding countries were often rich.

I realise that this spoils your argument but it does strongly explain some of the present ill feeling in the Middle East by Christians, Druze and Jews.

Look at some Middle Eastern anti Jewish websites - the descriptions and cartoons bare an almost psychopathic hatred. This should help you understand the basis of Israeli fears of Islam.

I am not anti-Muslim I just want the fanatics to leave the rest of us alone. And the rest of us includes Israel which shares with us the British system of justice and our way of life.
Posted by logic, Saturday, 17 March 2007 12:41:33 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
All of you spout propaganda or argue against the interests of peace. You should all take a damn good long hard look at yourselves.

Logic, Israel is not a liberal democracy. It is an apartheid system. Israel doesn't support the articles of the Geneva Convention. You believe a 40 year occupation is reasonable behaviour. You blame the Palestinians for the violence

David, your thinking is leading to a holocaust for the Palestinians. Your message is hate filled. You blame the Palestinians for the violence.

Steve, you believe in a Palestinian state so long as Israel can define it's borders. You blame the Palestinians for the violence.

Yutusu, you believe in a Palestinian state so long as Israel can re-invade any time it feels Palestine isn't doing as it wants. You see oppression as justified because you believe it brings security. You blame the Palestinians for the violence.

Aqvarius, you say you believe in a Palestinian state yet deny the Palestinians the right to Jerusalem. You want Palestinians to stick to the borders as they now stand and negiotiate for all their other stolen lands. You want the international community to police those borders and the stolen lands and yet you blame the Palestinians for all the violence.

It's all evidenced in the posts you've made. Read them and see. I don't see how Isreal can ever truely want peace if you blokes are representative of Israeli opinion.

Peace will need to be forced on Israel by an America afraid of the nuclear armed Iranians. The Americans have woken up to that fact and that's what's happening right now. You blokes opinions don't matter any more. Such rubbish will be swept aside in a surge for peace. And that will be in all our interests.
Posted by keith, Saturday, 17 March 2007 1:31:38 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
keith

You are not a Palestinian by any chance? With that sort of attitude there can be no peace. Israel by any definition is a liberal democracy. All religions are given equal rights. It is in no way apartheid. There are no special taxes on non Jews or any forced separation between people. People of different religions can cohabit. Any one is allowed to change their religious faith as long as the others of that faith are happy to accept them.

The land was not stolen.

I did not blame the Palestinians for the violence, shows how carefully you read my contributions.

The occupation is of a group who have and continue to attack Israel with violence, suicide bombings rocket attacks etc. They have in fact been given back their independence, they were in fact part of Jordan before the war.

Now stop your smokescreen and answer my pertinent points of discussion.

What about the non-Muslims pushed out of Muslim Nations? These were often ancient communities which predated Mohammedan by hundreds of years.

Why did the surrounding Muslim nations not take in the refugees in the same way that Israel took in the Jewish refugees and a quite a few Druze and Christians.

If you don't attempt to answer these points it will just show how baseless and one-sided your whole case really is.
Posted by logic, Saturday, 17 March 2007 2:07:19 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Keith.
you are sounding like you have run out of argument mate.. all you are doing is pointing the finger at us as 'warmongers' (in meaning)

All I showed was the following:

1) Hamas is the biggest obstacle to peace because they adamantly :
a)Refuse to renounce violence.
b)Refuse to Recognize Israel.
c)Want all Jews OUT or only 'in' as the lowest of Dhimmi's.

2) Israel rejects the new 'unity' government because of the above.

Who, pray tell do you blame for Hamas having this attitude ? Israel ?

If its "Israels" Fault..and they do all that you ask:

-67 borders
-Give up claim to East Jerusalem

Will Hamas suddenly and miraculously be transformed into anything differnt than they are now ?

A better question is "Will the Pope suddenly become Protestant"

The Israeli 'wall' sure ain't meant to keep people IN.. you know what its for...and its working.

Rather than overload you Keith, I'll limit this post to what I've mentioned, and ask if you have a real world answer for the theological position adopted by Hamas, and while ur at it, do you have an answer for the theological position of the Orthodox and Settlers ?

I think you alluded to your view in that last post by saying a peace must be imposed on Israel by the USA.. well I suggest you read the book of Daniel, and Esther to see just how God superintends the interests of His elect even when they are dispersed and exiled.
How much more when they are returning to their land after all this time ? (yes.. that is my 'theological' view)

CONCLUSION. If you cannot come up with a way of removing Hamas, other than execution or conversion, then .... I hold little hope for any kind of lasting solution.
We are not against peace, we are just against a Chamberlain style "peace in our time"
Posted by BOAZ_David, Saturday, 17 March 2007 2:39:37 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Keith,

"you believe in a Palestinian state so long as Israel can re-invade any time it feels Palestine isn't doing as it wants."

No: what Palestine does within its borders or in relating with other countries is none of Israel's business, but if Israel is attacked, or faces an imminent attack, Israel has the right to defend itself by any means, including re-invasion (should that be the most effective option). If Palestine has no intensions to harm Israel, there should be nothing for them to worry about.

"You see oppression as justified because you believe it brings security."

No: oppression is an intentional act and I do not support it. However, Israel is struggling for its survival, and it is an undesirable but unavoidable and unintentional side-effect of war that people can feel oppressed. It should be minimized wherever possible.

"You blame the Palestinians for the violence."

I already wrote clearly that I blame the extermists on both sides for the violence.

"I don't see how Isreal can ever truely want peace if you blokes are representative of Israeli opinion."

Most Israelis want peace, but wanting is not enough. As I wrote above, there needs to be TRUST and GUARANTEES, and I cannot see how peace can be achieved so long as Israel is so much hated by a world that is full of blokes like you.

"Peace will need to be forced on Israel by an America afraid of the nuclear armed Iranians"

America of all people? that war-mongering empire who sides with the settlers (of which many are American themselves)? Nay, they like wars, and they like to use Israel as their cannon-fodder (including receiving the blame from people like you), they are part of the problem rather than of the solution. They do not allow Israel to make peace against their interests, especially of their arms-industry. Sadly, it is only because of blokes like you that Israel is forced to be subject to American whims.

"You blokes opinions don't matter any more."

1. Did they ever matter?
2. Then why are you discussing anything with us?
Posted by Yuyutsu, Saturday, 17 March 2007 11:51:57 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Keith, you again presume to tell people what they believe. How very disrespectful. And there is no need to “repeat” what we believe. What we believe, we’ve said, in our own words. People here can read.

In any case, what a few random people happen to believe is irrelevant to the conflict. Speak to the issues, instead of making your posts about your misinterpretations of our beliefs.

Keith: “Israel is... an apartheid system.”

Former US President Carter: “I know that Israel is a wonderful democracy with equal treatment of all citizens whether Arab or Jew.”

Keith: “...your thinking is leading to a holocaust for the Palestinians.”

I strongly oppose David’s plan for transferring Arabs out of Israel and PA territories, but it is NOT a holocaust.

Keith: Steve, you believe in a Palestinian state so long as Israel can define it's borders.”

Borders cannot be defined by one side alone, but must be defined by both in a mutual agreement.

You, not me, keep pressing for borders dictated by one side only. You, not me, said “I have endorsed the unconditional existence of Israel…at ’67 borders”, i.e., belief in Israel so long as Palestine can define its borders.

Keith: “You blame the Palestinians for the violence.”

Each side is responsible for the violence it has perpetrated.

Keith: “I don't see how Isreal can ever truely want peace if you blokes are representative of Israeli opinion.”

As far as I know, I’m the only Israeli here. And what makes you think we represent anyone except ourselves?

Keith: “Peace will need to be forced on Israel by an America afraid of the nuclear armed Iranians.”

How can peace be forced?

Keith: “The Americans have woken up to that fact and that's what's happening right now. You blokes opinions don't matter any more. Such rubbish will be swept aside in a surge for peace. And that will be in all our interests.”

This is the sort of giddy, overly optimistic (from your point of view) statement, apparently based on Olmert making one luke-warm, non-committal comment on the Saudi plan, that I belittled earlier.
Posted by sganot, Sunday, 18 March 2007 9:13:33 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Steve
Yes each side is responsible for the violence. But you demand an unconditional stop to all resistance on the part of the Palestinians but refuse to end the occupation without negotiation of borders. You are being deliberately provacative aren't you?

How can peace be forced? You asked. Look to history man.
War can force peace.
Nuclear deterrants can force peace.
Threatening funding can force peace, just as the US forced Israel to accept peace with Egypt and Jordan.
Public opinion can force peace...Did you forget Lebanon?

Why do you think peace can be forced with occupation and domination?

The forced 'mutual agreement' on borders was originally the UN mandate, then the armistice line after the 'mutual agreement' war of '48. Take your pick of either of those as 'mutually agreed' borders. The Israelis have consistantly shown they are unable to accept any borders. The world will decide and force them on Israel. They'll be at the '67 line...with Lebanon, Syria and Palestine.

Olmet's acceptance of that Arab plan as a basis for negotiations is a major departure from the traditional zionist desire for a greater Israel. Your belittling of him and the advance he made only re-inforces that widely and traditionally held Israeli attitude.

The world is starting to recognise the Unity Government of the Palestinians (Norway yesterday). Israel eventually will be forced to do the same and seriously deal with them and that Arab peace proposal. That's what the world will want. The world will force peace onto Israel. The Palestinians are already showing they want peace. It is only Israeli attitudes, of which you exhibit classic examples, that are preventing peace.
Posted by keith, Monday, 19 March 2007 6:55:20 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
keith, your twisting and turning may make a shambles out of my post but, any reasonable person will not find your interpretation. I blame Palestinians for everything they have ever done to promote violence and blame Israeli's for their violence. Outside of that I can see some very obvious realities not being discussed. One, is that Palestinians leave to never return to contribute to a better Palestinian State. The educated and business class immigrate leaving those who never worked for anything or worked to create anything and have no interest in creating, in power, living off world charity, and continuing a war that will never end in victory for Palestine.
Two, is that Israel is a growing and thriving democracy that is attracting people from all over the world to live and contribute to that society. A society that is only going to be made better regardless of any peace initiative.
I'm not like you. I can't blame the Joos for everything and raise up Palestinians as victims of a Zionist intent. My plan was posted as complete redress of all issues. You have chosen to attach an ugliness to it that only suits your emotional protection of the PA as victim.
Posted by aqvarivs, Monday, 19 March 2007 8:01:57 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Keith,

Palestinians are free to engage in nonviolent resistance. If they wish to continue war, they can attack the Israeli army, but then they should expect war, not peace, in return. Most of their “resistance” is terrorism against civilians. That is never OK; it is a violation of international law and a war crime.

Israel and the PLO agreed to settle outstanding issues, including sovereignty and borders, through negotiations, not violence. It is not “deliberately provocative” to demand that existing agreements be kept.

Ending occupation demands a determination of borders. This is also spelled out in 242. A border between two states cannot be determined unilaterally, but only by mutual agreement. Even if one side thought it could settle the issue unilaterally, the two sides have already obligated themselves to a negotiated solution.

Keith: War can force peace. Nuclear deterrants can force peace. Threatening funding can force peace”

These can force a standoff, domination of one side by another, a balance of terror, etc. but not peace.

Keith: “just as the US forced Israel to accept peace with Egypt and Jordan.”

LMAO. The US “forced’ Israel to accept peace with Egypt and Jordan? Are we living on the same planet? Peace was largely negotiated between the sides, who then more or less notified the US about the agreements they made.

Keith: “Public opinion can force peace...Did you forget Lebanon?”

What peace in Lebanon are you talking about?

Keith: “Why do you think peace can be forced with occupation and domination?”

I don’t. You just finished saying why you think it can. You know, war can force peace, nuclear deterrence can force peace, etc. (This conversation is surreal.)

Keith: “The forced 'mutual agreement' on borders was originally the UN mandate”

The mandate was a League of Nations thing, and only fell into the UN’s lap very late. It included no mutual agreement on borders except in the north between Britain and France.

Do you mean UN partition? The partition borders were not mutually agreed, and thus were never implemented. And because one side rejected peace, peace could not be forced.

continued...
Posted by sganot, Monday, 19 March 2007 8:38:56 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Keith

"and that Arab peace proposal"

Hmm.. I believe any 'Arab' Peace proposal will be primarily in their own interests.

"The Israelis have consistantly shown they are unable to accept any borders." Yep.. just like they showed that when the withdrew from Gaza as a "step" toward border recognition, and they were rewarded by.... kasams after kasam continually fired.

"The Palestinians are already showing they want peace"

a) Which Palestinians ?
b) No.. Hamas have not.

http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/palestinians-soften-line-with-new-union/2007/03/18/1174152882391.html
"But the new alliance installed on Saturday, which replaced the militantly anti-Israel government led by the Islamic Hamas, appeared to recognise Israel implicitly by calling for a Palestinian state on lands the Israelis captured in 1967."

The detailed nature of that current 'peace' intiative fulfills 3 stragegic goals for Hamas.

1/ They buy TIME to re-arm, and equip, and strengthen.
2/ It enables them to be funded by overseas aid.
3/ It enables them to retain their militant anti Israel stance while appearing to be more 'moderate'.

NOTE: "Working towards an independant palestinian state" does nothing to renounce the 'destroy Israel' fundamental doctine, rather it provides a staging point, a base, a launch pad for future Hamas attacks.

The Israelis are not stupid, they realize this, hence their rejection of the unity government I reported on yesterday.

JERUSALEM. I don't feel this will ever be resolved, but am happy to be proved wrong. It won't make any difference to what God is doing, so, if some kind of interim arrangement can work.. fine.
Posted by BOAZ_David, Monday, 19 March 2007 9:04:59 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
DB,
You’re fond of quoting from the bible. You’ve probably seen these before. I have. But still, no matter how often I ask, I get no answers. So, are you sincere or just cherrypicking?

Leviticus 25.44 states that I may possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighbouring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to New Zealanders but not to Fijians. Can you clarify? Why can't I own Fijians?

I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21.7. What do you think would be a fair price for her?

I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanness (Leviticus15.19-24). The problem is how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offence.

I have a neighbour who insists on working on Sundays. Exodus 35.2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obliged to kill him myself, or should I ask the police?

A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination (Leviticus11.10), it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this?

Leviticus.21.20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle-room here?

Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Leviticus19.27. How should they die?

I know from Leviticus 11.6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean. May I play football if I wear gloves?

You cite passages in the Koran that support your angry thinking. Here’s your chance to set the record straight regards equally questionable passages in your own scripture. Normally you mention the word “context”. It’s “the bible”, so please don’t.

The moral of the story is…look hard enough and you can justify claiming virtually anything you like.

I look forward to your reply.
Posted by bennie, Monday, 19 March 2007 1:27:19 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
...continued from above

Keith: “then the armistice line after the 'mutual agreement' war of '48.”

The armistice agreements were mutual (though between Israel and Egypt, Lebanon, Jordan, and Syria; the Palestinians were not party to the agreements), but only defined temporary armistice lines, not borders.

Keith: “The Israelis have consistantly shown they are unable to accept any borders”

Huh? Explain our peaceful, mutually defined and respected borders with Egypt and Jordan.

Keith: “ The world will decide and force them on Israel. They'll be at the '67 line...with Lebanon, Syria and Palestine.”

This model of force, imperialism and domination is the peaceful relationship you are offering??

What is it about the exact 1967 line that you feel so strongly about, when it puts Israeli land under Syrian occupation and when Palestinian negotiators have repeatedly agreed that they have a mutual interest with Israel in minor border corrections, territorial exchanges, and such? Why would you prefer a highly unlikely forced Israeli withdrawal to the exact 1967 line, or much more likely the continued dragging on of endless mutual violence and plenty of suffering (mostly on the Palestinian side), to a real, mutually agreed peace based on whatever border the two sides determine is most appropriate for ourselves?

BTW, if everyone goes back to the 1967 line, the Palestinians will be very unhappy. There was no Palestine on the 1948-1967 map you wish to recreate by force.

Keith: “Olmet's acceptance of that Arab plan as a basis for negotiations is a major departure from the traditional zionist desire for a greater Israel.”

Zionism has always had competing schools of thought re territorial compromise vs. “Greater Israel”, and “Greater Israel” was never dominant. Olmert was a major ally to Sharon in the withdrawal from Gaza, and has been talking about “convergence” (major withdrawals from the West Bank) for a while. And no, he didn’t accept the Arab plan as a basis for negotiations, but merely expressed hope that its positive aspects would be emphasized, etc.

Keith: “The world will force peace onto Israel...”

You need to decide whether you support peace or force.
Posted by sganot, Monday, 19 March 2007 3:43:10 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
keith

I am still waiting for answers about the sad story of people who were edged out of Arab lands because they were not Muslims.

You constantly avoid this as do all the anti-Israel mob. It does explain why Israelis fear a single state solution. The half of the Israeli population of middle eastern background still remembers what happened, and could happen again. And this group includes Christians and Druze.

You think that the situation is one sided. Why did for example Iraq and Egypt not take in Palestinian refugees in return for their Jewish and Christian refugees? The numbers were roughly equal.
Posted by logic, Monday, 19 March 2007 6:41:53 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Logic

It appears nobody gives a damn.
Why?
I don't know but I guess it simply doesn't seem to have the same amount of violence or recrimination attached to it as does a 40 year occupation and suppression of a whole nation of people. What do you think?
Posted by keith, Tuesday, 20 March 2007 9:36:18 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
keith

I think that rather than not care about it they are deliberately ignoring it because it spoils their anti Israel argument completely.

Besides which how can you continue to hate Israel when it is known to have provided refuge for the victims of its persecutors (who you passionately support). Too many people have made a great emotional investment in Israel hating and cannot let facts stand in the way. Your own dismissal of the serious situation is a case in point.
Posted by logic, Tuesday, 20 March 2007 4:11:51 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Logic

I will not defend myself from your charges of hate and anti-semitism. They are just the usual Israeli propaganda brigade tactic of smear.

This stupidity just goes to show I shouldn't argue with fools. So I won't.
Posted by keith, Tuesday, 20 March 2007 4:48:27 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Good one keith.

Make a false charge that I am charging you with anti-antisemitism and change Israeli hating to a charge of “hate”. Then accuse me of smear and you have almost completed an all too common form of attack. Throw in the Israeli propaganda brigade comment and you think that you have besmirched me and that you have stopped my line of reasoning.

Well it won't wash. Do you deny that Israel has provided a refuge from Muslim persecution? Can you mount a logical argument against that proposition?
Posted by logic, Tuesday, 20 March 2007 8:08:05 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 10
  7. 11
  8. 12
  9. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy