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 > Life in the terror zone > Comments

Life in the terror zone : Comments

By Danny Lamm, published 9/2/2007

How can Israel be expected to make peace with a people who are so divided and sustained by violence?

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 7
  7. 8
  8. 9
  9. All
boo hoo.
if you don't like it, leave.
Posted by Chad, Friday, 9 February 2007 10:39:18 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
Danny

I'm not sure how transferring $100 million to one side of an internal conflict and easing border checkpoints to allow the transfer of weapons contributes to establishing the conditions for Palestinians to "keep peace among themselves", your precondition for Israel to make peace with them. Such blatant support for Abbas and the Palestinian Authority from israel and the US can only further undermine an organisation that is already viewed as corrupt in the eyes of many Palestinians (hence the election outcome).

I agree that the attack on Israeli citizens should be vehemently condemned.

Israel's actions in sustaining the conflict, however, would make anyone think that Israel is more than happy for the Palestinians to continue to fight among themselves, thereby drawing attention away from an illegal occupation, and providing a perfect excuse for not negotiating a lasting peace.
Posted by Butters, Friday, 9 February 2007 11:37:13 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
Israel has a chance to get along with Abbas but is has not a chance in hell of ever going anywhere with Hamas. I don’t know of the difference between Hamas and Hezbollah. Perhaps someone could explain it? They are both Iranian funded and supplied. Hamas may be Sunni and Hezbollah Shi'ite?
If Hamas gains control in Palestine I assume Sharia law will follow and women will be kept under those becoming black sheets. I think Israel needs to assume Abbas is unconnected to this latest bombing
Posted by SILLE, Friday, 9 February 2007 12:42:47 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
So an avowed zionist wants peace. Bulldust. This is a rank piece of propaganda from an avowed zionist. And his avowed aim is to dispossess the Palestinian people of all their lands not just 78% of it.

Butters words accurately summed up the Israeli meddling in Palestinian affairs.

Yes and the captured Israelis are still held by the Palestinians. Just shows that war in Lebanon was so effective eh? Danny.
Posted by keith, Friday, 9 February 2007 1:09:25 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
It might well be asked, how the Palestinians can be expected to make peace with a neighbour who has an arsenal of nuclear warheads which could not only destroy Palestine, but Iran as well as any other country that does not warrant Israel's existence in the Middle East.

Israel is now like a poker player with two Aces in his hand, helped along by cheats among the spectators already trained to blink their eyes or purse their lips to tell where the other Aces are.

Highly intelligent academic historians and social scientists are trained to carefully keep an eye on situations like the above, knowing that illegally allowing a small nation like Israel to have nuclear armanents while all other nations in the Middle East are banned from having such artillery, is not only unjust and unlawful, but does not herald much qualitiveness for the future of our world as we know it.

Most journalists who have had training in social and political ethics must be very conscious of the unfairness of the situation also. Unfortunately, for a younster, there is a good chance of losing a job, but for a guy going on 86, not much to lose at all.......
Posted by bushbred, Friday, 9 February 2007 3:25:44 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
It is wrong to suggest that because Israel may have nuclear weapons, the Palestinians should not make peace with Israel. Quite the opposite is more logical. Israel is not a signatory of the 'Nuclear non - prolification Treaty' which means that her alleged possession of nuclear weapons is quite legal. It is only illegal for signatories of the treaty and it was never an obligation for any state to sign up to the treaty. Israel does not consist of 78% of Palestine. Palestine prior to the 1940's consisted of the area now known as Jordan, Judea & Samaria (Now known as the West bank) and the area of Israel. Therefore, Israel consists of only about 17% of Palestine.It is always amazing to me that White Australians, having stolen a whole continent from the Aborginal people have the ultimate hypocracy to criticize Zionism and the creation of Israel where Jews have always lived in varying numbers
Posted by ramir, Friday, 9 February 2007 5:03:34 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
"...denying them the most basic of human rights as enshrined in the Geneva Convention"
I'm sorry doesn't the Geneva convention also state from Article 49 that "The occupying power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies", which is occurring in the form of illegal settlements?.
There is much more depth and history to the conflict than the use of a few incidents as a means to describe whats really happening over there.
"Zionist colonisation must either stop of proceed regardless of the native population. Which means that it can proceed and develop only under the protection of a power that is independent of the native population behind an iron wall, which the native population cannot breach"
(Vladimir Jabotinsky, father of Zionist right)
No amount of rationalisation can refute that fact
"commendable policy of restraint" indeed...
Posted by peachy, Friday, 9 February 2007 10:27:29 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 Geneva convetions are not the pertinent rules in this case. The pertinent ruling relating to the Israeli capture of territories in 1967 is the UN Security Council resolution 242. The most controversial clause in Resolution 242 is the call for the "Withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict." This is linked to the clause calling for "termination of all claims or states of belligerency" and the recognition that "every State in the area" has the "right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force."

Under the resolution Israel is not required to withdraw before the Arabs terminate beligerency, nor does it specify how much territory Israel needs to give up.It did not say Israel must withdraw from "all the" territories occupied after the war. This was deliberate. The Soviets wanted the inclusion of those words holding that their exclusion meant "that part of these territories can remain in Israeli hands." The Arab states tried to include the word "all", but this was rejected. The British Ambassador who drafted the approved resolution, Lord Caradon, said after the vote: "It is only the resolution that will bind us, and we regard its wording as clear."

This interpretation was repeatedly declared to be the correct one by those involved in drafting the resolution. On October 29, 1969, for example, the British Foreign Secretary told the House of Commons the withdrawal noted in the resolution would not be from "all the territories." When asked to explain the British position later, Lord Caradon said: "It would have been wrong to demand that Israel return to its positions of June 4, 1967, because those positions were undesirable and artificial."

Israel has already withdrawn from the Sinai Peninsula nearly two decades ago and in 2005 she unilaterally withdrew from Gaza. By withdrawing from those territories, Israel fully adhered to and complied with the resolution. Therefore the occupation of the West bank is not illegal according to International Law.
Posted by ramir, Saturday, 10 February 2007 12:21:13 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's comments that :- There is much more depth and history to the conflict than the use of a few incidents as a means to describe what's really happening over there is quite correct and the history of conflict associated with this region goes back to when the Persian Government was surreptitiously removed by all of the alleged allies who supported the creation of the new puppet government in the country now known as Iran. The West as we know it and other nations, who were involved with the Sykes-Picot Agreement and its substitutes, created these problems a long time ago and they now have to deal with the consequences. The new PERSIAN Embassy about to be established in Australia will also add to the international problems as the only direct living descendant of the Persian King Soltan Ahmad Shah Qajar has survived the attempts on his life in the Middle East and the many attempts to assassinate him in Australia and this has become a serious problem for our illustrious leader little Jonny. Don't bother attempting to get anything out of the media as they have been paid to suppress all knowledge and information on this particular subject for many years.
Posted by Young Dan, Saturday, 10 February 2007 1:19:43 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
This site provides a very interesting perspective on the Israel vs Palestine conflict.1. www.ifamericaknew.org
Posted by Ho Hum, Saturday, 10 February 2007 9:24:32 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
ramir

Firstly, your logical argument re the illegal possession of nuclear arms would backfire if the future state of Palestine didn’t ratify the Nuclear Non - Proliferation Treaty.

Secondly, Both Israel and Palestine were mandated by the UN in 1948. Of the land allocated to the Palestinians, Israel has occupied all of it, claimed and/or made attempts to claim all but 22% of that Palestinian allocation.

Thirdly you make no reference to the conditions under which Irsaeli Arabs citizen live and of course you’d shudder at the following words:

"I support compulsory transfer. I do not see in it anything immoral ... The Arabs will have to go, but one needs an opportune moment for making it happen, such as a war."

No you wouldn’t ! But if the word Arab was replaced by Jew and the statement was made by an Arab you’d be up in arms and screeching bloody blue murder.

Fourthly, it is a bit rich for you to criticise Australia’s treatment of the Indigenous Australians, either historically or its current practises. At least we as a community have taken some steps to rectifying the wrongs. Many of us consider those steps far too small and insufficient. Our governments, State and Federal, are cognisant of the fact the greater Australian population would react unfavourably to any attempt to impose any sort of restriction on discrimination against our Indigenous peoples.

Now let’s compare that attitude with Israel’s current ongoing discriminatory treatment of it’s 120,000 indigenous Bedouin. (Try some % as a comparison. Australia’s Indigenous population is approx 400,000 and our population 20mill. Israel’s population is?) That treatment verge’s on outright ethnic cleansing and has many of the characteristics of the ancient pogroms of Eastern Europe.
Posted by keith, Saturday, 10 February 2007 1:39:11 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
cont

Prior to ’48 there were approximately 30,000acres used by the Bedouin? Today they exist on 600 acres. They earned their livelihood from grazing livestock.
Their traditional lands have been confiscated by the Israeli Government and allocated to Israel’s Jewish citizens (as opposed to other religious or ethnic groups) by the Israeli Land Authority.
Little or no compensation has been paid.

Of the120,000 Bedouin roughly 60,000 have been confined to townships, the remainder continue in their traditional accommodation, tents.
Those leading the traditional Bedouin lifestyle receive no Government funding whatsoever and their flock size, access to land and water severely restricted. Attacks by Government organisations on their flocks, homes and whole existence continue.
Those Bedouin who live in the townships are also discriminated against in many ways. Here are some statistics.
23% teaching staff in Bedouin schools ere unqualified (1998)
57% of Bedouin students dropped out of school before 12th grade (1997)
9.6% of Bedouin students passed their Bagrut school matriculation exams (1998)
Three out of ten Bedouin women receive no pre-natal care (1998)

Most of my info comes from the following website

http://www.jfjfp.org/factsheets/arabsinisrael.htm

What was that about a kettle and a pot…

And finally the Yanks to their great credit forced Israel to make peace and return all of Sinai to Egypt and that was only after the Egyptian Sadat had ‘whipped’ the Israeli war machine and then extended the hand of peace. That unilateral withdrawal from Gaza is a joke. It lasted but a few weeks with Israel invading and re-occupying several times since. You’ve simply provided another disgraceful example of Orwellian linguistics and the mudding effects of propaganda
Posted by keith, Saturday, 10 February 2007 1:39:25 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
Onya Keith :)

there you go again... being ruled by sentimentality rather than practicality and long term solutions.

You said:
["I support compulsory transfer. I do not see in it anything immoral ... The Arabs will have to go, but one needs an opportune moment for making it happen, such as a war."

No you wouldn’t ! But if the word Arab was replaced by Jew and the statement was made by an Arab you’d be up in arms and screeching bloody blue murder.]

Yep.. bloody blue murder..is probably what YOU would be yelling if some Dark Skinned Aussies came along at 3:00 am and told you "GET OFF OUR LAND"
So, all you have done with that little outburts is remind us all of the reality that Justice is a distant cousin if a relative at all of status quos. They are all based on power, and deep down you know it.
Not one is based on what ALL would consider a fair and equitable outcome. So, in the too and fro of history there are winners and losers.

Most people have been or will be both at different times.

YOUNG DAN.. you response to Stephany does not go far enough, taking it back to some Persian.. is very inadequate. In reality it goes back to Genesis .. from chapter 12 to end of the book. And if you don't believe me ..don't worry I'll say no more but just sit back and watch as it ultimately sinks in too all readers heads here.

The key points in history are Gen 12-end up to AD70 (exile of the Jews); 1948 RE- Establishment of Israel.
All the rest is just parenthesis and sub text. Balfour this, and Sykes that, and Persian such and such... are mildly relevant but don't rate when it comes to 'core' issues.
Posted by BOAZ_David, Sunday, 11 February 2007 1:58:14 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
Your comment about the partition of Palestine is correct except for one important omission: After partition in 1948 7 well equiped Arab armies plus there local Arab allies attacked Israel in order to wipe her off the map and annihilate the Jewish population. They lost, Israel won and thats why she has the land. They have since continued to make war on Israel. The Yom Kippur war was decisively won by Israel not Egypt. When it ended the Egyptian 6th Army was entirely surrounded and starving, The Israelis were about to march on to Cairo. It took the Americans by diplomacy to stop them. That's why President Sadat negotiated peace because he knew that he could not get the Sinai back by warfare.
Please read on in the following few posts about the Israeli Beduins and Australian Aboriginal population.
Posted by ramir, Sunday, 11 February 2007 2:32:46 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
Kieth CONT.

Educational attainment issues for Indigenous children [in Australia]
The 1996 National School English Literacy Survey showed that approximately 70% of all students
in year 3 surveyed met the identified performance standards in reading and writing. Less that 20%
of students in the Indigenous [Aboriginal] sample met the reading standards and less that 30% of students in the Indigenous sample met the writing standards. In addition the lowest achieving year 3 Indigenous
students make little or no progress over the following two years and a similar trend for year 5 students.
Over time this situation deteriorates to the point where many Indigenous students are often 3 to 4 year
levels below other students and students leave school with the English literacy level of a six-year old.
Indigenous students are less likely to continue their education beyond the compulsory
years. Only about 36% of remain at school from the commencement of their
secondary schooling to year 12, compared to about 73% of non-Indigenous students in 2000. In
addition, in some parts of the country, in 1997, only a quarter of these year 12 students may
successfully complete year 12, compared to 50% of non-Indigenous students.

http://72.14.253.104/search?q=cache:_U1J65lPIgoJ:www.mceetya.edu.au/verve/_resources/educationofteachersinecs

In 2004, 5229 non-indigenous students completed year twelve (matric) but only 26 Indigenous [Aboriginal] students completed year 12 in Western Australia [out of a total Aboriginal pop. of 66,000] and only 10 of those had a TER greater than 66. [less than 1 quarter of one percent].

www.dest.gov.au/sectors/indigenous_education/publications_resources/abstudy/documents/13_x4_pdf.htm

http://www.dfat.gov.au/facts/indg_overview.html

No statistics for the number of qualified teachers there are in Aboriginal schools but if they are all qualified it doesn’t say much for the education they are provided with in Australia, does it?

Other Australian statistics:

During this time [since the Royal Commission], incarceration rates for women have increased. Incarcerated sentenced men have increased from 12,429 in 1991 to 20,960 in 2001. A 68.7% increase. Sentenced women increased from 607 to 1,498, an increase of 147% from 1991. In 1991, women represented 5 per cent of the proportion of all Australian prisoners. In 2001, this proportion had increased to 7 percent.

http://www.hreoc.gov.au/Social_Justice/sjreport_02/chapter5.html
Posted by ramir, Sunday, 11 February 2007 2:38:20 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 Palestian and Jewish conflict is the perfect example of how multiculturalism will not work when you have two big tribes hellbent on control of the land. Why do all these multiculturalism supporters out there not see this when its staring them in the face.
Posted by sharkfin, Sunday, 11 February 2007 2:51:50 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, cc: Ramir

Avowed zionist… avowed zionist… avowed aim. Get an avowed life! Support for a people’s right to self-determination and sovereign independence in their homeland is not a crime, and many consider it a matter of protecting human rights. Keith, are your own arguments so weak that you now have to tell other people (Danny in this case) what they supposedly believe ("his avowed aim is to dispossess the Palestinian people of all their lands")? Do you also permit me to tell you what is your "avowed aim"?

And no, Ramir’s argument about nuclear arms would not “backfire”. One is only responsible for keeping treaties that one ratifies.

The Mandate for Palestine is not from 1948, but from 1920. Ramir is correct that Israel exists on about 17% of the originally mandated territory.

Keith: “of course you’d shudder…”

See Benny Morris’s analysis of this half-manufactured quote at http://www.tomgrossmedia.com/mideastdispatches/archives/000805.html , “Hari quotes…”

Ramir did a good job of destroying your attempt to compare indigenous Australians to Bedouin and other Arab Israelis.

Keith: “Try some % as a comparison.”

I didn’t understand your point, but if your numbers are correct, indigenous Australians are ~2% of Australia’s population, Bedouin are ~2% of Israel’s population, and Arabs in general are ~20% of Israel’s population. You are comparing apples to oranges, but never mind.

For more about this, see my message starting at “A meaningful discussion comparing Australia and Israel” at http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=4648 , as well as its continuation in the following message.

Keith, much of your information about Bedouin Israelis is simply wrong – too much to discuss right now. You get the statistics badly wrong, for example quoting 60,000 and 600 acres, when the source for your misstatements mentions the equivalent of 3,150,000 and 60,000 acres. No one who has any real experience in the Negev could possibly think that the Bedouin exist on 600 acres!

By the way, Danny's article was specifically about Palestinian terrorism. In this context, the important, serious issue of the economic and social conditions of Arab Israelis is clearly "ignoratio elenchi", also known as a red herring.
Posted by sganot, Sunday, 11 February 2007 3:42:09 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
Yet more Zionist crud. If Zionist controlled Israel has one thing they're known for, it's breaking ceasefires and cowardly killing innocent people.

The native desert people in Israel who have fought alongside Jews in the military and put money to Israel's economy are now being victimised for being what they are. They are not muslim but of old earthly ways yet the Israeli governments has forced them into huts without water, sewage and power. They aren't allowed employment and their kids aren't allowed an education unless they live by Jewish values.

Remember that in Israel, only Jews are allowed to move out to the desert now, nobody else. So don't give us that we Zionists are wonderful people. Before you lot took control of the media, we knew about Jewish suicide bombers.

Time to take out the trash!
Posted by Spider, Sunday, 11 February 2007 6:10:30 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
Spider, you gave me a huge laugh today. Thanks. That's gotta count as some sort of a mitzvah, even if unintended.

The Bedouin in Israel are all Muslim.

No one forces them to adopt any particular lifestyle. But if anything, the realities and conveniences of modern life; Israel's defense situation, with it's need for secure borders, army training grounds, etc; the pressures of population growth, urbanization, intensified desert agriculture, etc; and the introduction of western concepts of property rights and use; have all worked in exactly the opposite direction than what you describe, encouraging the Bedouin to leave behind their traditional nomadic life, without water, sewage, or power, and to move into developed, permanent villages.

Of course they're "allowed" employment and education, and no, their children are not expected to "live by Jewish values".

"only Jews are allowed to move out to the desert now, nobody else"
What the heck? Where do you come up with this stuff, Spider? You're setting new standards for idiocy.

"Before you lot took control of the media, we knew about Jewish suicide bombers."

Whatever. There have been one or two terrorist attacks by Jews that were virtual "suicide missions". The most prominent was that of Baruch Goldstein, who about thirteen years ago killed 29 people at the Tomb of the Patriarchs in Hebron before he was killed by the crowd he attacked. It's impossible to know whether he expected to die in this attack.

In any case, did you have any trouble finding out about it? Did the so-called Jewish-controlled media cover it up?

Really, Spider, I have to wonder whether you are real or the invention of a Zionist Jewish Israeli trying to make the anti-Zionists look ridiculous. (If the latter, tone it down. "Spider" is so off the wall and over the top, no one is going to believe he's real. And besides, anti-Zionists need no help from us to look bad; they do a good job of that on their own.)
Posted by sganot, Sunday, 11 February 2007 10:31:37 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
David

'being ruled by sentimentality rather than practicality and long term solutions.'
Bit rich really when coming from a fundamentalist christian who is ruled by the myths of a book many thousands of years old.:-)

I'm ruled by my conscience and the words of Jesus's Sermon on the Mount. That I find gives a great balance to the logic of our great Western Greek Heritage.

You agree with the spoils of war argument then if you are to be consistant then you will meekly sit by and listen as the destroy Israel brigade chant their threats then you'll do and say nothing when they are eventually successful.

Stick to your final solutions. But if I was to suggest you replace the removal of the Palestinians with the removal of The Jews then you'd screeh cries of anti-semitism even though, if you were consistant, you'd probably think it the obvious final solution.

ramir

No amount of words can change the fact of the original allocation...nor can subsequent, events and maths are pure logic...derived from our western Greek Heritage.

Israel has occupied all of the Palestinian allocation and Ehud Barak's proposel rejected by Arafat proposed a series of 'Bantustans' equilivant to 22% of that allocation.
Verifiable facts are louder than jabberish spin.


My point re the Indigenous of Israel was that we Australians have faced the fact we have mistreated our Indigenous and accept their rights to land and decent treatment. Israel hasn't and won't.

The Yom Kippur war was about to expand dramatically when the Soviets threatened to enter on the side of the Arabs...That ramir and nothing else scared the c... out of everyone and resulted in the peace treaties. Hindsight with the benefit of the openess of the former soviet archives is wonderful. But unfortunately the Israeli cheer squad tend to overlook the facts of history on so many occassions... and hence the continuing conflict.

vivy

Your ideas are a piece of pure unmitigated half digested ass manure and have no place in a western debating forum. Try to keep them to youself.
Posted by keith, Monday, 12 February 2007 11:22:13 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
sganot

Danny Lamm according to his biographical note is:

'Dr Danny Lamm has been President of the State Zionist Council of Victoria since 2002.

Author's website: State Zionist Council of Victoria'

Still reckon he isn't an avowed Zionist?

I referenced the source of the information provded. I'll not do it again. The simple fact is we Australians as a population have rejected our past and much of our 'current' treatment of our Indigenous peoples. We are endeavouring change. Israel hasn't and won't.
'...the important, serious issue of the economic and social conditions of Arab Israelis is clearly "ignoratio elenchi", also known as a red herring.'

Oh I agree but you'd also agree then that the following statement by ramir introducing the topic was also a giant red hering.

'It is always amazing to me that White Australians, having stolen a whole continent from the Aborginal people have the ultimate hypocracy to criticize Zionism ...'

Why didn't you jump on the source of the fishiness? Too one eyed?
Posted by keith, Monday, 12 February 2007 11:23:17 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
sganot,

I was watching an interview with a senior member of the Israeli government. How interesting it was to hear him call the sand natives as filth and vermin who must behave like Jews if they want to be accepted.

The land of Zion is Jewish Apartheid. Amazing how everything is good when the Zionists do this.

There are those Jewish people who I have listened to as they make their arguements who I agree with and not one of them a fundamental Zionist.
Posted by Spider, Monday, 12 February 2007 12:00:21 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
"The land of Zion is Jewish Apartheid" so true, arguably very similar to that of the period of South African apartheid, where similarly there were its proponents here in Australia claiming that the white South Africans had an inherent right to the land free from self governing black South Africans..
I hold indignation to Lamm's piece which as pointed out is biased and unbalanced. Id invite people such as sganot to go and write about the Palestinian experience and witness the brutality thats occurring there where people live in virtual confinement, with very little or no rights, whom themselves live in fear. A Palestinian doctor Khalid Daahlan observed that
"99.4 percent of children we studied, in camps exposed to constant attack, suffer trauma. 99.2 percent of the study groups homes were bombarded, 97.5 percent were exposed to tear gas, 96.6 percent witnessed shootings, 95.8 percent witnessed bombardment and funerals and almost a quarter saw family members injured or killed and more than a third saw their neighbors killed or injured"..
how many Israeli children have witness the devastation that these children have?

If it were not for the billion dollar Israeli Public Relations machine I'm sure it wouldn't be that difficult to look through the unscrupulous media coverage on the conflict, where Israeli action is almost always met with broad rationalisations, such as a report from the BBC where Israeli F-16 fighters and helicopter gunships took part in an assault on Gaza where the casualties included children from three families and all the BBC reporter could say was that the attack was justified as part of "Israelies war on terror" and ironically you wonder how a young female ambulance driver is driven to strap herself with explosives and commit a devastating act of terror.
Posted by peachy, Monday, 12 February 2007 4:10:27 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
KEITH ... *ouch* :)

mate.. if I'm not mistaken, in my 'FINAL SOLUTION' scenario I actually did suggest it should be either 'all Palestinians' or.. 'all Jews' out. I know I said it somewhere.. and I stick by that.
In my view though, the Jews do have more of a claim than the Palestinians, plus, if you see what the Muslims do to Christians, when in majority, like here...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yiu26Mo_UBo

You will possibly appreciate why I support Israel first and foremost.
Don't forget, my 'FINAL SOLUTION' did have an overiding compassionate goal, and it was with the long term best interests of the Arabs that I suggested it.

As you would have observed.. pretty much like clockwork and on time, as soon as the PLO and Hamas came up with an agreement.. BINGO there is violence over the ramp. Now the ramp has been in progress for a longgg time, so it didn't just suddenly appear. So, how do we explain the sudden outbreak of violence around the Mosque ? Ah..I know.. they are all mossad blokes in arab clothes :)
No..I think more accurately, that violence symbolizes the root core of the whole situation. "ITS ABOUT THE MOSQUE -STUPID" as the saying goes. If not the mosque.. Jerusalem (including the Mosque).

Remember my question ? "If the Arabs were offered land of same value and productivity..... but no more claim on Jerusalem... would they accept it" ? aah.. thats the key question and the answer is NO, because Hamas still have their charter intact..and have avoided like a Sars patient any semblance of 'recognizing Israel' in this latest agreement.
Ultimately Keithy..its about Jerusalem and its spiritual significance.
Posted by BOAZ_David, Monday, 12 February 2007 7:45:19 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
Keith/Spider

Beduins in Israel
There are 33 elementary schools, three high schools and three vocational schools for the Bedouin community in the Negev. At the elementary level, with an enrollment of 95%, the school population is made up of equal proportions of boys and girls. But because Bedouin society regards females as inferior and does not encourage them to study, girls make up no more than 10% of the pupils in high schools. Today 60 percent of the teaching staff is Bedouin.
All the Bedouin high schools and 60% of the elementary schools in the Negev, are located in seven Bedouin towns. Over the past five years, extensive resources have been invested in schools, especially in buildings, services, water pipes, heating and more. Computers and laboratories have also been introduced [1998].
There are clinics in all seven Bedouin towns in the Negev (in Rahat, proclaimed a city in 1994, there are four clinics and a day-hospital). The medical staff includes Jews and Arabs; fifteen of them are Bedouin doctors. Most of the Bedouin living outside the towns can reach the clinics easily; in the more outlying areas, several mobile clinics provide services.
A total of 12 clinics provide services in the Negev at present (one clinic per 6000 persons); another 10 clinics are in various stages of establishment. Hospital facilities are available in Be'er Sheva. If a gap still exists between health services in the rest of the country and in the Bedouin towns, it relates more to the physical domain than to the level of medicine.
Land Rights: In most countries in the Middle East the Bedouin have no land rights, only users' privileges. Israeli Law is derived largely from Mandatory (British) law which in turn incorporated much Ottoman law. Under Israeli law, a person who has not registered his/her land in the Land Registry cannot claim ownership; but in the mid 1970s Israel let the Negev Bedouin register their land claims and issued certificates as to the size of the tracts claimed. These certificates served as the basis for the "right of possession" later granted by the government.
Posted by ramir, Monday, 12 February 2007 8:15:04 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
Following the signing of the Treaty of Peace with Egypt, it became necessary to move an airport to a locality inhabited by 5000 Bedouin. The government, recognizing these land claim certificates, negotiated with the certificate holders and paid compensation to them. Most moved to Bedouin townships, built houses and established businesses.
Two kinds of land offenses make media headlines: illegal building and grazing in protected areas:
Illegal building. Tents and light structures (shacks and huts) built illegally are treated forgivingly. But construction of houses of stone or concrete without a building permit is considered an offense, since adequate infrastructure and services cannot be provided. Some 2,000 such locations with buildings already exist, scattered over an area of about 1,000 sq km.
Grazing in protected areas. Most of the livestock of the Bedouin in the Negev who keep flocks of sheep and goats are registered and approved by the Ministry of Agriculture, which provides pasture land outside the Negev for six to seven months of the year, since the carrying capacity of the Negev is limited.
Permanent locations: The establishment of permanent towns did not begin until the Bedouin themselves constructed buildings to replace tents. But the urbanization process is by no means simple, as the planners have to deal with issues involving tradition and social structure and the Bedouin themselves have difficulty in articulating their wishes in planning terms.
The first Bedouin town, Tel Sheva, was founded in 1967. Subsequently, another six towns have been established in the Negev and an effort was made to learn from each previous experience. But the planning concept focused on urban settlement, while many Bedouin wanted to live in rural localities. Today there are plans to found such rural localities and it is hoped that they will satisfy the traditional aspirations of the Bedouin.

http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/Facts+About+Israel/People/SOCIETY-%20Minority%20Communities

By the way the Jews never stole Beduin children.
I would rather be a Beduin in Israel than an Aboriginal in Australia anytime!
Posted by ramir, Monday, 12 February 2007 8:18:03 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
Spider: "I was watching an interview with a senior member of the Israeli government..."

No, Spider, you were not. That is a lie. Members of the Israeli government simply do not speak in such terms. If you truly heard this, you'll be able to provide a verifiable reference. Who said it? When and where was this interview broadcast? The fact is, these vile words come from the dark recesses of your brain, not theirs.



Peachy,

Use of the word "Apartheid" to the radically different reality of Israel is inappropriate. It adds nothing to our understanding of the situation, and indeed promotes some basic misunderstandings and misconceptions. Even President Carter, who literally wrote the book on this, said that there is no Apartheid in Israel, and that “Israel is a wonderful democracy with equal treatment of all citizens whether Arab or Jew”.

Peachy, Chad might answer you “boo hoo. if you don't like it, leave.” But I won’t. There is much to improve in Israel, and especially in the autonomous Palestinian territories (which perhaps avoid accusations of apartheid by remaining virtually Judenrein), and the West Bank territories that remain under Israeli rule. As you correctly pointed out, the ongoing conflict has had a devastating effect on people, including innocent children on both sides. You gave some of the picture from the Palestinian point of view. Danny Lamm described some of it from the Israeli side. Both are real parts of the overall situation.

One big problem with using words taken from different realities and circumstances that simply don’t apply to ours, such as “Apartheid” (as well as “ethnic cleansing”, “genocide”, “racism”, and yes, “Judenrein”) is that they distract us from the real issues. Now, people who otherwise might have been usefully engaged in building a peaceful relationship between Jews and Palestinians are instead focusing on how inappropriate and inciting one word can be. Likewise, meaningless phrases such as “the billion dollar Israeli Public Relations machine”. What sort of constructive communication can be built on such hostility?

Continued…
Posted by sganot, Monday, 12 February 2007 9:01:31 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
Criticism is vital, but must be balanced, or it becomes part of the problem rather than part of the solution. Use of the word “apartheid” promotes a false black-and-white view of the conflict -- bad guys vs. good guys, aggressors vs. victims, etc. About this, see Muslim commentator Irshad Manji’s “Modern Israel is a far cry from old South Africa” (http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,21194124-7583,00.html ). Manji is plenty critical of Israel, but realizes that “it's absurd to apply the term apartheid to one of the most progressive states in the world”.

Peachy, you write “you wonder how a young female ambulance driver is driven to strap herself with explosives and commit a devastating act of terror”. Who wonders? Not Lamm, and not I or others here. But once would-be “martyrs” are strapping on explosives and looking for buses and restaurants where they can do the most damage to innocent people, the immediate job at hand is not to wonder about their motivation, but to protect their would-be victims by stopping these murderous missions at any cost.

If that requires putting up walls between the West Bank, where such bombers originate, and the thin coastal strip of Israel where most of the country’s population is concentrated and vulnerable to attack, so be it. Does it inconvenience many people? Yes. Is it hard for Palestinians, who were previously accustomed to quick and easy access to Israeli jobs, schools, hospitals, etc., to now adjust to long lines and tighter security along de facto borders? Certainly. Have new injustices been created by all of this? No doubt. But blame for the so-called apartheid falls squarely on those suicide bombers, not on Israel. As one wag put it, so-called “Israeli apartheid” is “a policy that separates terrorists from would-be victims.”



Keith: “Still reckon he isn't an avowed Zionist?”

I never doubted that Lamm is a Zionist. I just wonder why you throw around the term like it is some sort of accusation, and why you comically pepper your writing with “avowed” this and “avowed” that. I guess that makes you an avowed poor writer.
Posted by sganot, Monday, 12 February 2007 11:12:24 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
Here we have the usual leftists talking about "occupation" and "illegal and Aborigines. When is the left going to read a history book and realise that people came to Australia in the 19th century because of persecution political and religious and economic. Methodists in Cornwall, Highlanders in Scotland, Irish etc - all FORCED OUT. If the Aborigines have a problem with white people being on their land - they should take it up with London.

Israel got where it is because of its values. Can one put nuclear weapons in the hands of an irresponsible people like the Arabs? Their values preclude the US or any sane government from giving them access to the ultimate weapon. They would use it and use it in a heart beat. They praise suicide bombers and condemn the US for getting rid of Saddam while cheering on the insurgency as it holds heads up for the cameras. Who exactly are the "palestinians" and what makes them different from other arabs? Where did they come from? Why did the Ottomans encourage Jewish immigration in the early part of the century? I don't hear keith or anyone else question the right of return for the 800,000 Sephardic Jews forced out of the Arab lands.
Posted by magic jess, Tuesday, 13 February 2007 4:17:37 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
Isn't that a reasonable question to ask though? what drives a person to commit such a horrendous act? terrorism, in the blatant sense that we know it by today, did not exist at the establishment of the Israeli state nor were there mass support for extremist, fundamentalist forms of government and all that seems to be occurring is increased mass popular support for such groups as Hamas..

sganot you talk about adding understanding to the situation, but fail to see that terrorism is intrinsically linked to these individuals lives .. It goes beyond the politics of the situation such as exact borders, international law etc. and down to Palestinians "life in the terror zone", there are polar opposite atrocities being committed in Palestine just as bad as what Lamm outlines in his piece, exactly my meaning when i say i hold indignation toward it.. having the mindset that “Who wonders? Not Lamm, and not I or others here”, sounds as if you may as well exterminate every single arab from the land and that “it must not only expel the native population, but also deny the reality of their dispossession” (Nur Masalha, 2003), because all that’s going to happen is more and more terrorists are going to be created, meaning harsher, and harsher vilification and rationalisation for Israeli action.
In the broad sense of the term that’s exactly what’s occurring, apartheid.. any system or practice that separates people according to race, caste, etc? bloody big wall? its certainly not to keep the rabbits out, but again its all part of this vicious, reactionary cycle where a child would use the analysis that “you do this, then I do that"
CONT--->
Posted by peachy, Tuesday, 13 February 2007 12:35:30 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
Solutions to the problems? The TRUTH, and more public understanding, not the lies that’s peddled out by public relations campaigns (I should have called it the American public relations machine before) bastioned by the Murdoch’s press.. id imagine not many Australians would know where Palestine is, but how much luck do you think a Palestinian would have holding a chook raffle down at your local pub to spread awareness? Zilch! I mean these aren’t all bad people whom i’m sure would have the same dreams as aspirations as yourself for a decent way of life, yet how much do you see of that in the press?
This whole argument is not only about terrorists, its about PALESTINIANS
Posted by Peachy1, Tuesday, 13 February 2007 12:46:00 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
.
Posted by keith, Tuesday, 13 February 2007 1:07:02 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
Magic Jess,

Sadly you've arrived late in this discussion. It has been ongoing for some months now.

If you wish to gauge my perspective then I suggest you read an article I wrote for Online opinion.

So What's Changed Since the Most Recent War?
http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=5358

I thought it fair and balanced. I despise violence of any sort. I have suggested compensation be negotiated for all displaced people. I am not tending to support the return of any refugees from either side.

I'm not leftist but am a genuine liberal Westerner with a good grasp of both the great Western traditions...the Greek and the Hebrew .

But Magic Jess you seem to ignore the fact Israel is supported by the greatest proportion of US foreign aid both military and non-military. That makes it a viable state. Israel got where it is by UN mandate and through 'spoils of war' and unwarranted US support. The Palestinians are where they are because they have no state and have suffered an illegal 40 year occupation. Egypt has got where it is through it's unique history, Lebanon through Israeli occupation, and Palestinian, Iranian, Syrian and Israeli meddling. Syria because of the efforts of the elder and now deceased al-Assad, Jordan because of the Hashemite family, Iraq because of the US, Iran because of it's unique Persian history and US meddling, Saudi Arabia because of it's traditional Islam, it's ruling tribal families and their control of oil...oh well I think my point is made.

With the tacit and rumoured threats about an Israeli nuclear attack on Iran, I'm not convinced the Israeli government is all that responsible. With it's destruction of Lebanon, an unjustifiable 40 year occupation, suppression of Palestine and the Palestinians as well as it's deliberatly provocative expansion of illegal settlements, I'd not regard them as anything akin a responsible government.
I've seen all sorts of Israeli apologists defend and praise that Lebanon attack, the occupation and the expansion of those illegal settlements.
So go ahead and tell me which Arabs are irresponsible. If you cannot be specific then your generalisation is certainly racist.
Posted by keith, Tuesday, 13 February 2007 1:18:33 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
cont

David Boaz can tell you exactly where the Arabs come from...I'd hazzard a guess initially probably the same semitic tribe as the Jewish Israelis. (I use Jewish only to show a distinction from the Muslim and Christian Israelis) and they've probably inhabited the region continuously from the time of the Caananites or even earlier.

Ramir, sganot, Magic Jess and spider.

Do any of you want peace in the region?

Why don't you give us a constructive suggestion how it can be achieved?
Why don't you all sit down and express your view on that subject in the same manner that I have ie an article for onlineopinion. It would be quite constructive for us all. But please Magic, ramir and Steve don't take the tack of Danny and imply peace in the region isn't a possibility. That position has been done to death already by all of the pro Israeli writers who submit their ideas to OLO. Spider look past the 'blame game' when you write your piece.

David, don't bother, for I doubt OLO would be interested in an opinion supporting any sort of ethnic cleansing scheme.

Regards Keith Kennelly

ps Magic…those Indigenous Australians have taken the matter up with us other Australians over the last 30 years or so...we've been a bit tardy and not so generous in our responses ... so far.
Posted by keith, Wednesday, 14 February 2007 7:50:57 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
Of course peace is possible between the Israelis & the Palestinians and the rest of the Arab/Muslim world as well. First though, everyone needs to give up the blame game, all sides. I take my que from 'Mandella' who in one of his first great speeches said 'FORGET THE PAST!!' That's what the whole Middle East has to do. Only then can meaningful dialogue take place.

It also means that everyone needs to stop demonizing Israel, Palestinians, Jews, Arabs and Muslims. By this I mean not only the sides involved but also their supporters in other parts of the world. Not every Muslim/Arab/Palestinian is a terrorist or potential suicide bomber. Israel is not an apartheid state. America is not the great Satan.
Most of all, we need to build trust and honest talking and discourse needs to replace hate and rants.
Posted by ramir, Wednesday, 14 February 2007 10:03:26 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 disagree with most of your opinions, reject your analogies as inappropriate, and dispute much of what you consider fact. Perhaps most importantly, I don’t like how you argue – inserting red herrings; demonizing people (using “Zionist” as if it were an insult); and telling others, without supporting evidence, what they supposedly believe (claiming that Lamm’s “avowed aim is to dispossess the Palestinian people of all their lands” and that he somehow implied that “peace in the region isn't a possibility”).

I don’t like your patronizing “Do any of you want peace in the region?”, nor your holding yourself up as some model of constructive opinion. Nor do I like you telling the rest of us who is or is not worth listening to. Keith, you advised Spider to avoid the “blame game”. Terrific advice for someone like you, as your “What’s Changed” article is a model of how the blame game is played. But Spider, though he also plays the blame game, has more serious problems. Given the filth that drips from his keyboard, his biggest challenge is clearly not the “blame game”.

Having said all this, I like your suggestion that we discuss solutions. I did just that in another forum, so I will share with you what I wrote there:

My solution? Tough question because one can approach this in many ways. Do you mean my ideal, wave a magic wand solution? Presumably you don't. There is little point in talking about solutions that have no chance of being accepted.

I have an American Jewish friend who says that, while of course he has his own opinions about what should happen here, he'd support any agreement that had the agreement of both sides. For example, one state or two? He has his opinions about which of these is more fair, more of an expression of each side's desires, more likely to succeed, etc. But regardless of what he personally prefers, if we Israelis and Palestinians here on the ground agree to some arrangement, he'll sign on, too.

That approach seems eminently sensible to me.

continued...
Posted by sganot, Thursday, 15 February 2007 1:58:54 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
He means it as an expression of modesty, considering that whatever happens here, whatever good or bad decisions we make, we'll have to live with the direct, immediate, and most significant consequences. Whatever consequences he'll feel while living in the US are mostly indirect and limited.

But even for those of us living here, some version of that approach makes sense. I have my own preferences about what should happen, what compromises I can live with, what I think others can or should live with, etc., but I'm just one person. And maybe I'm wrong. So, just like I respect the results of a democratic election even if I personally voted differently and perhaps think that the popular choice was a poor one, likewise I would probably support just about any imaginable solution if I saw that it was what most people on both sides wanted.

When we look at what has a realistic chance for success, what can perhaps win the support of most people on both sides -- the area of overlap between the greatest compromise Israel is likely to contemplate and the greatest compromise Palestine is likely to contemplate -- we're talking about a very narrow area or possibly no area at all. IOW, there aren't so many choices.

That's why all serious peace plans in recent years -- the Beilin-Abu Mazen document, the unofficial Geneva Accord, the plans put forward by Barak and Clinton at Camp David and Taba, etc. -- look very similar. There are small variations here and there, but the broad outlines of the only solution possible if there is to be peace, are well known to both sides.

If you want to know my solution, it lies somewhere in there. We can talk about specifics if you want, but IMO once the strategic decision has been made on both sides to go for a peaceful two-state solution, exactly where the border goes, how the experts work out the water issue, how travel between a Palestinian Gaza and West Bank is accommodated, exactly what security arrangements are made, etc., become solvable issues.
Posted by sganot, Thursday, 15 February 2007 2:00:09 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
Wonderful steve. You are getting somewhere near what is needed.

You recognise the Palestinians as well as the Israelis need a peaceful and secure state but there is just one small problem you highlight.

The only peace proposals you look at are as reasonable are those proposed by non-Arabs. Is is possible to take that small step and acknowledge the Arabs and Palestinians have a negotiable peace propasal as well.

Any discussion without that acknowledgement becomes insincere.

And that insincerity is one of the many things that gets up my nose. The supporters of Israeli positions display that over and over and over. Is this to be another example of that? And Steve why don't you write that article discussing all the avenues to peace and show as much balance as I and include an assessment of that Arab proposal.
Posted by keith, Thursday, 15 February 2007 2:27:20 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 what is the difference between a "palestinian" and a "jordanian". What is the difference in language, culture, music, literature? Religion? Isn't Jordan in Palestine? Why do the arabs need a 22nd or 23rd state (I forget)? My people the Cornish don't have a state. Even though in English law Cornwall is separate from England. Maybe we need to start setting off bombs and Keith write a dissertation for us.

The Arabs have a superiority complex with other peoples. If the Arabs could have allowed the Jews self determination then they wouldn't have invaded a nascent Israel in 1948 and got their noses bloodied. SOME of the "palestinians" would never have left their villages/settlements and they would never have had their "nakhba". They - the ARABS will always have "nakhbas" as they don't respect other peoples.

Tell me Keith why are Jewish settlements "illegal"? If its illegal go call a cop. Many Jewish settlements were in "occupied Palestine" back in the early 1900s - all those Jews got cleaned out Keith. Remember 1929? Also if the Arabs wanted peace they could have recognised their own ethnic cleansing of Sephardic Jews in the 1940s and 50s and be willing to resettle the 3-4th generation refugees in Gaza...but they don't do they Keith. The fact that there are no tourists on the beaches in Gaza has nothing to do with Israel but with islamic/arab values.

I am no Jew Keith. All I do is compare the lavish funding given to the Arabs called Palestinians with far more legitimate causes including the Welsh, Basques and Sahrawis (go look em up). I am sick of tired of leftists like you that whine about America and Israel and refuse to look at the totalitarian islamic values you champion.
Posted by magic jess, Thursday, 15 February 2007 10:47:24 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
Israel is supported by the US but then so is Egypt and a lot of other islamic countries...do the Americans get what they pay for? Judging from the Egyptian press it would seem not. I would think the entire aid given to Israel would not exceed the islamic world. In addition to the transfer of $ for oil. Lebanon was messed up long before Israel came in to take out the PLO. I remember the Shia of south lebanon welcoming the Israelis. Israel is a responsible western state. They are entitled to nuclear weapons because they are like us. Why should Iran get nuclear weapons given its statements of wiping Israel out and denial of the holocaust? Do you remember the keys to paradise? All those kids running into minefields in the Iran-Iraq war as mine detectors. Do you think Iran is mature enough to have nukes? If you do then you have shown your true colours - you love despots and hate America -thats the road you are on.

Lebanon is partly governed by Hezbollah - it launched a kidnapping and unprovoked attack upon Israel last year. Its reason was to free some deranged islamo nut who killed a little girl and her father on an israeli beach back in 1979. I don't hear any reciprocity for Ron Arad? Hezbollah got bailed out because Olmert was incompetent. If you want to call me a racist - fine - nowadays people don't care - they didn't care too much at Cronulla did they? Its lost its meaning. Arabs are irresponsible - they praise the murder of civilians in Israel. But thats alright for you as they are "illegal occupiers". If I used their analogy then all the muslims/english/rest of the emmets in Britain are "illegal occupiers". Where will be then Keith?
Posted by magic jess, Thursday, 15 February 2007 11:04:12 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: "The only peace proposals you look at are as reasonable are those proposed by non-Arabs."

Not true. Among the proposals I mentioned were the Beilin-Abu Mazen Document and the Geneva Accord.

Abu Mazen is Mahmoud Abbas, Arafat's successor and the current president of the Palestinian Authority. For more on the Beilin-Abu Mazen Document, see http://www.bitterlemons.org/docs/beilinmazen.html

The Geneva Accord was negotiated by teams of Palestinian and Israeli public figures -- government ministers, parliament members, military leaders, mayors, academics, intellectuals, business leaders, etc. The most prominent name on the Palestinian side is probably Yasser Abd-Rabbo, a former minister in the Palestinian government and a member of the Executive Committee of the PLO. For more on this, see http://www.geneva-accord.org

Keith: "Is is possible to take that small step and acknowledge the Arabs and Palestinians have a negotiable peace propasal as well."

One significant problem with both of these "agreements" is that they are unofficial. They were negotiated by prominent national leaders on both sides who wish to show the parameters of agreements that realistically could be reached, but they in themselves do not constitute official offers or proposals by either side.

You wish for me to "acknowledge the Arabs and Palestinians have a negotiable peace propasal as well". I have never denied that Palestinians and other Arabs are capable of producing peace agreements to which Israelis can also agree, as these documents, and indeed as the official peace agreements between Israel and Egypt and Jordan, respectively, demonstrate.

But to date, the Palestinian Authority has yet to produce a single official peace offer. In this sense, there is no Palestinian peace proposal that Israel could accept, reject, or agree to use as a basis for further negotiation. Israel did produce such offers at Camp David, but the Palestinian team rejected them without making any counterproposals. Though it often helps to find balance between the two sides, regarding this basic issue, the two sides are not balanced.
Posted by sganot, Friday, 16 February 2007 11:07:21 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

Your post typifies the problem. Your post makes it clear you think it is only the Israelis who seek peace.

You just will not accept any proposal that is put forward that does not toady to Israeli interests at the expense of the Palestinian interests. Either in land or security interests. Every proposal you've supported severely limits the Palestinians in some way where Israelis on similar issues are allowed carte blanche. They are not just in their treatment of the Palestinians.

Yet the Arab League proposal which reflects a true desire for a just peace with the exception of the clause demanding the return of the refugees, you simply ignore and turn the focus onto the Palestinians and attempt to wedge them from the Arabs in peace proposals. The PLO as a representative for the Palestinian people has been a member of the Arab League since 1974.

See the problem.

Basically when it comes to peace the problem is two fold. The Israelis want secure borders and to retain the occupied and settled Palestinian territory. The Palestinians want their lands back ('67 border), their own secure and independant State, with Jeresulem as their Capital, and a return for the refugees.

The only things that really stops peace from occurring is those illegal settlements, the Palestinian Capital and the return of the refugees.

So why not support a just peace proposal that makes compromises, by both sides on those conditions?

And that Arab peace proposal meets those conditions more significantly than any of those proposals you support. Peace can never be attained where one side is treated unjustly.

Those proposals by Ehud Barak were far from just. A quick look at the map proposing the borders of the Palestinian state shows that clearly.

No Magic Jess you're not racist but you seem to prefer war and killing rather than peace.
Posted by keith, Friday, 16 February 2007 3:53:11 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: “You just will not accept any proposal that is put forward that does not toady to Israeli interests at the expense of the Palestinian interests.”

As I said, I would support just about any imaginable solution that gains the support of most people on both sides.

I didn’t tell you what I personally think about each of the plans I mentioned. I have problems with all of them. But to me, they represent that narrow band of overlap between Israeli and Palestinian interests, and thus the only area of possible agreement. They are the sorts of agreements that could garner majority support on both sides. The Arab League plan does not have that potential.

Toadies? One proposal was negotiated by the current President of Palestine. The other by a long list of Palestinian national leaders, who have credibility in their own society as statesmen, opinion shapers, patriots, freedom fighters, and heroes. Some were deeply involved in terrorism, and spent significant time in Israeli jails. None is a toady to Israeli interests. Likewise, the Israeli negotiators are national leaders, statesmen, opinion shapers, patriots, heroes, etc., including quite a few senior military figures. None are toadies.

You say that these proposals “are not just in their treatment of the Palestinians”. The Palestinians who helped write them disagree.

Israelis like myself cannot represent Palestinian interests. Nor can you. That is something they must do themselves, and some do it quite well. If they say these are good, fair agreements from their own perspective, it isn’t my place or yours to say otherwise.

Keith: “Yet the Arab League proposal which reflects a true desire for a just peace with the exception of the clause demanding the return of the refugees, you simply ignore and turn the focus onto the Palestinians….”

I don’t ignore the Arab League proposal; I simply think it cannot serve as a basis for peace. The demand for a return of refugees to Israel is, by itself, enough to doom that proposal, and there are additional serious objections as well.

continued...
Posted by sganot, Friday, 16 February 2007 5:45:18 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
Just a naive question for everyone/anyone who knows the answer.
Where do the settlers come from?
Posted by vivy, Friday, 16 February 2007 5:46:15 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
Hey Keith.. enuf alredi of the verbal discrimination and censorship..:) grrr

I've said most of what needed to be said mate.. in terms of broad brush strokes solutions. I realize very few will agree with me, but I do maintain that at the end of the day my approach is the most viable.

If I may borrow a phrase uttered in the mid term of Alzheimers by my late adopted dad "They're all idiots but us"... he said it over and over....

What most of you who are looking for solutions of a 'human rights' nature neglect, or forget..or simply do a 'head in the sand' over is the following:

RADICALS DRIVE AGENDAS.. I think I'll make it a point to simply repeat this in every post I make about any subject until it finally sinks in.

Its the same problem that Professor Raphael Israeli (now scorned by the AIJAC for his 'Muslim population' remarks in the SMH) recognized in his controversial but wise assessment of inter-racial/religious affairs involving Muslims.

Then there is the other point....

EXTERNAL VESTED INTERESTS DRIVE THE RADICALS.

So, you have at least 2 major layers which must be considered.
The 2nd one is not so apparent and will goto extreme lengths NOT to be recognized. But they can be identified by simply doing 2 things.
1/ Look for the money and/or 'sphere of influence' trail.
2/ Look for the religious aspect.

So, such things as the Israel Palestinian conflict can never be understood purely in terms of human displacement and land gripes.
We will increasingly see the exploitation of Aboriginal disconent by outside parties.. the Union movement, the Islamist movement, Indonesia ? Iran ? and any group seeing advantage in the radicalization of a disgruntled group in Australia.

Just like the Dutch & French Resistance could not become viable without the weapons drops by the British, just so the Palestinians cannot without assistance from outside.

So, in the interests of ultimate compassion, I recommend again, removing ALL Palestinians from problem areas at least.. (refugee camps) and their re-location far enough away not to cause trouble
Posted by BOAZ_David, Saturday, 17 February 2007 7:15:48 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
RADICALS DRIVE AGENDA'S.... In Israel/Palestine and anywhere.

and here is a very simple and recent example.

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,21239882-601,00.html

AUSSIE FLAG TO FLY AT MOSQUES ?

While the idea is accepted by many high profile Muslim leaders... good old Lakemba.. a-gain.....

[And prominent Sydney-based Islamic cleric, Khalil Shami, expressed fears yesterday that hoisting the flag outside mosques would lead to potential violence and further division within the community among factions opposed to the idea.]

Fear of Violence from radicals... Same problem as with the Palestinian issue.
Posted by BOAZ_David, Saturday, 17 February 2007 7:42:31 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
"So, in the interests of ultimate compassion, I recommend again, removing ALL Palestinians from problem areas at least.. (refugee camps) and their re-location far enough away not to cause trouble"

DB you nong. The Palestinians are living on their own land. Try a simple exercise. Substitute 'palestinian' with 'jew' & see how that looks.
Posted by bennie, Saturday, 17 February 2007 11:36:05 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
Already been suggested Bennie ... with a devastating absence of any comment anywhere.

Like all truths the Israeli cheer squad are forced to face it is ignored. I think they are so one-eyed equivalents such as you suggest just cannot possibly exist.
Posted by keith, Saturday, 17 February 2007 3:10:23 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 article is but one narrow perspective on the disastrous but inevitable outcome of US and Israeli foreign policy. While the author mentions three soldiers captured by Palestinians it fails to acknowledge the thousands of Palestinians held without charge in Israel, in both official and secret locations. Is Danny Lamm prepared to make any criticism of places like Facility 1391, aka Israel’s Gitmo?

Israel has Palestine exactly where it wants it - in total disarray. Funds withheld, regular incursions, a steady diet of military interventions, restricted movement, refusal to recognise its democratic government, tacit approval from the US of human rights violations - is there any wonder they’re fighting among themselves? This can only be a bad thing for Israel and they know it. The disingenuousness of the current Israeli government, such as it is, only serves to reconfirm the widely held belief they do themselves no favours. Following the provocation towards Muslim worshippers in Jerusalem last week the Israeli foreign minister set out to cast the aggressor as victim. But it isn’t enough to act as Alice and behave as the witch, and no doe-eyed zealot will convince the world otherwise.

Danny Lamm needs to know that while Israel holds all the cards - the money, the sophisticated weaponry from the US, an impotent UN, the land, the water, a functioning economy (albeit dependent upon US hegemony) - it will never be able to claim the moral high ground. Legitimacy doesn’t come from indiscriminate use of bulldozers. Articles such as this simply tend more to focus interest on the Palestinian situation. The world already knows why suicide bombers do what they do but they’ve been wondering for years why Israel seems bent on pariahdom. How about it, Danny Lamm?
Posted by bennie, Sunday, 18 February 2007 8:25:18 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
(continued from above)

And yes, when it comes to an Israeli-Palestinian peace agreement, the focus is very much on Palestinians and Israelis, not on the Arab League.

Keith: “The PLO as a representative for the Palestinian people has been a member of the Arab League since 1974. See the problem.”

A full member since 1976, and yes, I see the problem: You're dissatisfied with the agreements I mentioned because they have significant support on both sides. If Israelis agree, the plans must be tricks or unjust. Palestinians who agree must be toadies.

Keith: “…the problem is two fold. The Israelis want… The Palestinians want…..”

As in any negotiation, what each side wants and what it is willing to accept are two different things.

Israel may “want” the occupied territories and their settlements, but in the proposals I mentioned, Israel would give up all of Gaza (which was subsequently done unilaterally) and the vast majority of the West Bank. Most of the settlements would end up dismantled, and the situation in any that remain would be “normalized” by their inclusion in Palestine or annexation to Israel. In the end, there would be no more “illegal settlements”. And some of these proposals also stipulate that Israel will give up additional areas not in the occupied territories but within the current sovereign borders of Israel.

The Palestinians may “want” 100% of the West Bank and East Jerusalem – in fact, they “want” 100% of Israel, too -- but in the proposals I mentioned, they agreed to a compromise – 90% of the West Bank, 95%, whatever, Israeli control of the Jewish neighborhoods in East Jerusalem, etc. Likewise regarding the refugees – they may “want” millions of descendents of refugees to “return” to Israel, but in these proposals, they showed a willingness to put aside this dream for the sake of peace.

Keith: “The only things that really stops peace from occurring is those illegal settlements, the Palestinian Capital and the return of the refugees. So why not support a just peace proposal that makes compromises, by both sides on those conditions?”

I did.
Posted by sganot, Sunday, 18 February 2007 8:53:41 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
Vivy: “Where do the settlers come from?”

From a 1995 poll (http://www.pcpsr.org/survey/cprspolls/95/setpoll1.html#who):

“…most settlers are well-educated and have an above-average income. Most immigrated to Israel before 1988 [Steve: This statement seems to mean “among those who immigrated, most did so before 1988. As this report goes on to say, most are native Israelis, not immigrants at all.] About 45% of them define themselves as Orthodox or ultra-Orthodox, while 20% see themselves as "traditional" and 34% as secular. About 51% of the settlers work inside Israel and 49% work in the West Bank. Only 20% of them own houses inside Israel. Most settlers (70%) were born in Israel and the rest came from Asian-African countries (10%); the former Soviet Union (6%); Europe and North America (10%). About 40% are Sephardi, 39% are Ashkinazi, and 21% have Israeli-born parents.”



Bennie and Keith,

The overwhelming majority of the “Israeli cheer squad” rejects Boaz_David’s idea of transfer.

But he’s right that Palestinians should not live in refugee camps. Few residents of those camps are refugees in the normal sense of the word, and no population should be kept in camps for ~60 years. It isn’t right. It isn’t humane. In all other refugee cases, permanent solutions were found after far less time.

The reason Palestinian refugees are kept in camps rather than being absorbed by their host countries is political – to serve as weapons against Israel.

All this applies to the camps outside of the Palestinian Authority. There is an even stronger case to destroy the 26 camps within PA territory, which house ~650,000 people. These camps certainly should be dismantled, not to remove the residents but to settle them in permanent housing. Even though they are vastly improved over what they once were under Jordanian and Egyptian occupation, they are miserable places, and humanitarian disasters. And they never should have existed in the first place. As Bennie said, “the Palestinians are living on their own land.” That is, they are living in Palestine. How a Palestinian can be a refugee in Palestine is one of the mysteries of the modern age.
Posted by sganot, Sunday, 18 February 2007 8:54:44 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
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 7
  7. 8
  8. 9
  9. All

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