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...

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.

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.

...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.

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.

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?