HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Topics » Foreign Affairs & National Security » Israel/Palestine (Group) » 'This Time, Israel Has De...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Wed Dec 5, 2012, 03:37 PM

'This Time, Israel Has Defied the Whole World'

December 4, 2012

Europe is furious with Israel for its plan to build 3,000 new settler units to punish the Palestinians, following their elevation to "non-member observer status" in the UN last week. While sanctions appear not to be on the table, German commentators say it is time to get tough with Israeli premier Netanyahu.

One might think that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's Wednesday visit to Berlin could provide for some fireworks. He has come under significant criticism from the European Union for Israel's announcement last Friday that it would build 3,000 new settler homes in the occupied West Bank and East Jerusalem. Britain and France denied reports on Monday that they were considering recalling their ambassadors from Israel, though both nations, in addition to Sweden, did vent their anger by summoning the Israeli ambassadors to voice their concerns.


On Tuesday, cooler heads seem to be prevailing. British Foreign Secretary William Hague ruled out the possibility of European sanctions on Israel. "I don't think there is enthusiasm around the European Union Ö about economic sanctions in Europe on Israel," he said. "I don't believe there would be anywhere near a consensus nor is that our approach." France too has indicated that it would not pursue sanctions.

Furthermore, despite Merkel's own warning on the settlement construction plan -- her spokesman said on Monday that the chancellor was "extremely concerned" -- it seems more likely that the experienced stateswoman would chide Netanyahu in private rather than openly.

remainder: http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/german-commentators-blast-israel-for-settlement-building-plan-a-870924.html

96 replies, 7154 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 96 replies Author Time Post
Reply 'This Time, Israel Has Defied the Whole World' (Original post)
Jefferson23 Dec 2012 OP
geek tragedy Dec 2012 #1
bunnies Dec 2012 #2
Mosby Dec 2012 #3
TexasProgresive Dec 2012 #4
shira Dec 2012 #5
azurnoir Dec 2012 #6
shira Dec 2012 #7
azurnoir Dec 2012 #8
shira Dec 2012 #9
azurnoir Dec 2012 #10
shira Dec 2012 #12
geek tragedy Dec 2012 #15
Scootaloo Dec 2012 #19
shira Dec 2012 #28
Scootaloo Dec 2012 #47
shira Dec 2012 #48
Scootaloo Dec 2012 #53
shira Dec 2012 #24
geek tragedy Dec 2012 #34
azurnoir Dec 2012 #22
shira Dec 2012 #25
azurnoir Dec 2012 #27
shira Dec 2012 #29
azurnoir Dec 2012 #30
shira Dec 2012 #31
azurnoir Dec 2012 #33
Jefferson23 Dec 2012 #83
geek tragedy Dec 2012 #35
Fantastic Anarchist Dec 2012 #63
Scootaloo Dec 2012 #87
King_David Dec 2012 #90
Fantastic Anarchist Dec 2012 #61
shira Dec 2012 #62
Fantastic Anarchist Dec 2012 #72
shira Dec 2012 #75
Fantastic Anarchist Dec 2012 #78
shira Dec 2012 #96
Scootaloo Dec 2012 #17
shaayecanaan Dec 2012 #42
shira Dec 2012 #50
Fantastic Anarchist Dec 2012 #58
Fantastic Anarchist Dec 2012 #57
shira Dec 2012 #59
Fantastic Anarchist Dec 2012 #77
Scootaloo Dec 2012 #18
shira Dec 2012 #26
delrem Dec 2012 #44
shira Dec 2012 #46
delrem Dec 2012 #49
shira Dec 2012 #51
Fantastic Anarchist Dec 2012 #56
shira Dec 2012 #60
Fantastic Anarchist Dec 2012 #73
shira Dec 2012 #74
Fantastic Anarchist Dec 2012 #79
Scootaloo Dec 2012 #88
shira Dec 2012 #95
Jefferson23 Dec 2012 #11
shira Dec 2012 #13
Mosby Dec 2012 #16
Jefferson23 Dec 2012 #20
azurnoir Dec 2012 #23
ForgoTheConsequence Dec 2012 #52
Scootaloo Dec 2012 #54
shira Dec 2012 #68
Scootaloo Dec 2012 #89
shira Dec 2012 #94
shira Dec 2012 #69
Fantastic Anarchist Dec 2012 #64
shira Dec 2012 #66
Fantastic Anarchist Dec 2012 #71
shira Dec 2012 #76
Fantastic Anarchist Dec 2012 #80
Scootaloo Dec 2012 #91
frylock Dec 2012 #32
Mosby Dec 2012 #36
azurnoir Dec 2012 #37
geek tragedy Dec 2012 #38
Mosby Dec 2012 #39
geek tragedy Dec 2012 #40
Mosby Dec 2012 #41
geek tragedy Dec 2012 #43
Fantastic Anarchist Dec 2012 #55
oberliner Dec 2012 #14
geek tragedy Dec 2012 #21
delrem Dec 2012 #45
Fantastic Anarchist Dec 2012 #65
oberliner Dec 2012 #67
Fantastic Anarchist Dec 2012 #70
oberliner Dec 2012 #81
Fantastic Anarchist Dec 2012 #82
pelsar Dec 2012 #84
Raksha Dec 2012 #85
pelsar Dec 2012 #86
Scootaloo Dec 2012 #92
pelsar Dec 2012 #93

Response to Jefferson23 (Original post)

Wed Dec 5, 2012, 03:50 PM

1. Gawd, they're almost as bad as the Americans.

Sternly worded letters and lectures, but a refusal to do anything about it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jefferson23 (Original post)

Wed Dec 5, 2012, 04:07 PM

2. "youd better stop it or one day you might get a slap on the wrist...

of some sort but probably not really."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jefferson23 (Original post)

Wed Dec 5, 2012, 04:31 PM

3. wow, that sounds bad.

I can't think of a worse crime against humanity than building houses.

The zionist state should be dismantled and the leadership imprisoned for life.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Mosby (Reply #3)

Wed Dec 5, 2012, 04:39 PM

4. Building on someone elses land

is not acceptable. Might does not mean right.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TexasProgresive (Reply #4)

Wed Dec 5, 2012, 04:47 PM

5. It's disputed land. Not someone else's. In fact, E1 was to be Israeli territory....

...according to the Clinton Parameters of 2001 (Taba).

Arafat regretted turning down that offer later and even called Bill Clinton to tell him he wanted to accept it a couple years later.

History 101.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to shira (Reply #5)

Wed Dec 5, 2012, 05:17 PM

6. why can you only talk about the past is the future that scarey or disturbing to you?

Arafat is dead and Sharon ain't exactly talking either Bill is not POTUS we're dealing with the now but if you want to go there then why did Israel continue to create facts on the ground after those dates? The settler population of the West Bank has doubled since then and more than tripled since Oslo why if Israelis presumably so interested in peace does it continue to make that peace so difficult?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to azurnoir (Reply #6)

Wed Dec 5, 2012, 05:21 PM

7. Just saying E1 would be Israeli territory in any reasonable peace deal....

All the noise right now is ridiculous in light of that fact.

I don't see you coming out in support of either of the offers Israel has made in the past 12 years.

At least Arafat admitted he made a mistake.

========

But if you wish to speak of the present and future, how did the UN vote bring the 2 peoples closer to peace? All the PA has done is threaten to take the conflict to a new level.

Congrats "world"!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to shira (Reply #7)

Wed Dec 5, 2012, 06:06 PM

8. reasonable for who? you? rightist Israeli's?

from the sounds of thing Palestinians and the majority of the world as of right now do not agree with that

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to azurnoir (Reply #8)

Wed Dec 5, 2012, 06:16 PM

9. To Bill and Hillary Clinton, and Arafat. From Rabin to Peres to Olmert in 2008.

So why all the screaming harpies?

No Israeli PM will concede it. E1 is high ground that overlooks Jerusalem and the Jordan Valley. In no way will Israel allow the PLO, let alone Hamas, to use that as a base for further attacks.

Recall that the Geneva Initiative folks lauded Olmert's Napkin map offer. That map of a future Israel included Maale Adumim. Abbas has admitted repeatedly that Olmert's offer was serious.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to shira (Reply #9)

Wed Dec 5, 2012, 06:52 PM

10. again with the past Hill and Bill are no longer POTUS and First Lady

and as of last Thursday the world declared differently

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to azurnoir (Reply #10)

Thu Dec 6, 2012, 05:45 AM

12. It's a consensus issue in Israel. Both Left and Right agree....

It's not going to Palestine.

You need a kleenex?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to shira (Reply #12)

Thu Dec 6, 2012, 10:17 AM

15. Well, then, you are a per se, de facto supporter of apartheid in the Holy Land.

Maybe Netanyahu can declare himself pharoah just to bring things full circle.

At least you're honest about your agenda of Greater Israel and don't pretend to give a f@ck about the two-state solution or Palestinians as human beings.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to geek tragedy (Reply #15)

Thu Dec 6, 2012, 03:26 PM

19. Shira doesn't believe political rights are civil rights



Which is an odd position for a Jewish woman to take, much less garner support from Jewish gay people like some of our other regulars.

But so long as it applies to Arabs, and not gays, women, or Jews, I guess they think it's a fine argument to make.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scootaloo (Reply #19)

Thu Dec 6, 2012, 04:33 PM

28. Scoot...I never wrote any such thing. It appears the best you've got....

....are lying ad-hominem attacks. I explained myself already to you. You never replied to this...

See #63:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/113424023#post63

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to shira (Reply #28)

Thu Dec 6, 2012, 09:58 PM

47. Clearly you did write it, Shira

You very clearly stated that political rights are not civil rights. Here's a link to the post, in case you want to try to squawk that I somehow faked the screencapture;
http://www.democraticunderground.com/113420501#post68

If we were having a discussion on the best topping on a pizza and I pulled out your post there to demonstrate why we should not accept your judgement that sauerkraut is the best pizza topping, that would be ad hominem.

However, bringing out the plain fact that you believe that Palestinians should have no political rights, that political rights are separate from civil rights, to back up a poster who is saying you support Apartheid (you know, where one class of people has separate and diminished rights from a preferred class of people) is actually quite topical and relevant to the discussion at hand.

Also relevant is that the post you linked to me clearly demonstrates that you have a hard time keeping your story straight about settlements. 'Cause in that post, you oppose them. In this thread you support them.

It's amazing how mutable your positions are. I'd have to wonder what a full documentation of your posts on DU would look like. I imagine it would be a terribly confusing thing to read, since your positions and opinions seem to radically shift from moment to moment.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scootaloo (Reply #47)

Fri Dec 7, 2012, 02:20 AM

48. Don't put words in my mouth. If you have questions about my positions, ask.

If you're genuinely confused, ask.

I'm not sure you're genuinely confused. This seems to be some debating tactic of yours.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to shira (Reply #48)

Fri Dec 7, 2012, 05:04 AM

53. You're the one who used those words, Shira.

Maybe you're confused about how on the internet, shit you say sticks around for a while.

To me, your position is crystal clear. In fact I don't even need to read your posts, I can just skip the middleman and go straight to Arutz Sheva, Samsonblinded, Gatestone Institute, or the like to see what your gibberishing points for the day will likely be.

Also, you think we're debating. That's so cute.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to geek tragedy (Reply #15)

Thu Dec 6, 2012, 04:24 PM

24. Huh?

I'm all for 2 states.

In 2001 and 2008, fair offers were made to the PA. They were both rejected. Both put Israel in control of Maale Adumim and E1. Arafat later wanted to accept the 2001 deal, but it was too late.

There's no reason Maale Adumim cannot be part of Israel in a future peace deal. Even the Geneva Initiative (which Carter and Chomsky have endorsed) puts Maale Adumim and E1 under Israeli control.

---------

The problem isn't Israel. It's that the Palestinians, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Iran, etc.. won't accept Israel as a Jewish state.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to shira (Reply #24)

Thu Dec 6, 2012, 05:45 PM

34. E1 under Israeli accord was never part of the Geneva Accord.

And spare us the "I favor a Palestinian state, so long as it doesn't resemble anything close to an actual state" line.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to shira (Reply #12)

Thu Dec 6, 2012, 04:10 PM

22. No there is no consensus globally or otherwise

especially on the left and center the right is however another story heck take a look upstairs Israel has even lost Harper on this one

and why on earth would I need a kleenex?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to azurnoir (Reply #22)

Thu Dec 6, 2012, 04:25 PM

25. It's a consensus issue in Israel in which both Left and Right agree. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to shira (Reply #25)

Thu Dec 6, 2012, 04:33 PM

27. No it is not -not anymore at least if iindeed it ever was

now maybe if you have ruby slippers and click your heels 3 times and wish real real hard.........

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to azurnoir (Reply #27)

Thu Dec 6, 2012, 04:36 PM

29. Yes, it is. Here's Larry Derfner just 2 days ago...

Israeli consensus much prefers Ma'aleh Adumim to peace

Netanyahu didnít invent the E-1 dealbreaker thatís got the world so mad at him; it goes back to Rabin and reflects overwhelming Israeli opinion....

http://972mag.com/israeli-consensus-much-prefers-maaleh-adumim-to-peace/61434/

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to shira (Reply #29)

Thu Dec 6, 2012, 05:11 PM

30. well yes in Israel and sadly yes we know the Israeli public prefers

continued settlement (colonization) to peace thanks for highlighting that for us, but Israel is not the world

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to azurnoir (Reply #30)

Thu Dec 6, 2012, 05:25 PM

31. Carter and Chomsky endorsed a deal that gave Israel control....

...over E1 territory.

It was called the Geneva Initiative.

It's not Israel's fault that the world is largely oblivious to how important E1 is to Israeli security. Or that they simply don't care about Israeli security... That "world" was mighty silent over the past decade while > 12,000 rockets fell over into Israeli territory. They shouldn't get to dictate terms pertaining to Israeli security.

It's nice to see you admit you believe almost all Israelis are in favor of war and conflict and that they're either delusional or lying about how vital E1 is to their security.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to shira (Reply #31)

Thu Dec 6, 2012, 05:40 PM

33. you posted it I did not even though I read that piece days ago

and no matter how you choose to phrase it the end conclusion is the same

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to shira (Reply #31)

Fri Dec 7, 2012, 01:51 PM

83. Really now? Carter and Chomsky endorsed a deal that gave Israel control over E1 territory?

Link it please. I can't wait to read this.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to shira (Reply #29)

Thu Dec 6, 2012, 05:46 PM

35. You are correct--the problem isn't Netanyahu, it's Israel itself. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to geek tragedy (Reply #35)

Fri Dec 7, 2012, 06:02 AM

63. No, it's not Israel. It's Shira.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fantastic Anarchist (Reply #63)

Sat Dec 8, 2012, 02:48 AM

87. Oh, if only it were so isolated n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to geek tragedy (Reply #35)

Sat Dec 8, 2012, 03:12 AM

90. We know your views on Israel

And "Zionists " etc bro, it consumes you .Us people are driving you crazy.
You gonna burst a blood vessel and blame us for it.
You should see your doctor and get some Ambien ,assuming you can tolerate one of my family.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to shira (Reply #12)

Fri Dec 7, 2012, 05:57 AM

61. No, the Left doesn't agree.

Neither does the Right, for that matter.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fantastic Anarchist (Reply #61)

Fri Dec 7, 2012, 06:00 AM

62. See #29 above. Except for the extreme fringe, it's a consensus. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to shira (Reply #62)

Fri Dec 7, 2012, 06:42 AM

72. Nice back peddle ...

You said that the Left and Right agree in Israel.

For reasons that I think you'll understand, I won't go into the Left's position.

Yet, Yisrael Beiteinu, a right-wing party, also wants a Palestinian state, albeit for racist reasons, what, with no Arabs around.

So, in Israel, the Left and Right do not agree - yes, they both want to states, but for two different reasons - one, for humanitarian reasons, the latter, for racist ones.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fantastic Anarchist (Reply #72)

Fri Dec 7, 2012, 07:02 AM

75. Do you consider liberal zionists in Israel to be Left? Or just the extreme fringe? n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to shira (Reply #75)

Fri Dec 7, 2012, 07:18 AM

78. I'm sorry, but I don't acknowledge your question.

It doesn't matter what I consider.

"Liberal zionists?" "Extreme fringe?"

Can you define these terms for me?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fantastic Anarchist (Reply #78)

Sat Dec 8, 2012, 09:05 AM

96. On E1 and Maale Adumim, the Left and Right in Israel agree....

By consensus, I mean the liberal Left included with the rest of Israel.

The anti-zionist Israeli Left is another story (extreme fringe).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to shira (Reply #9)

Thu Dec 6, 2012, 02:56 PM

17. Six people who think the Palestinians should get fucked agree; "Fuck the Palestinians"

What an argument.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to shira (Reply #9)

Thu Dec 6, 2012, 06:57 PM

42. I thought you said that you supported the Geneva accord

Pursuant to the Geneva Accord, E1 is to be returned to the Palestinians.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to shaayecanaan (Reply #42)

Fri Dec 7, 2012, 03:09 AM

50. I do. You don't. In fact, none of your comrades here support...

...any of the 2 state proposals offered since Camp David.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to shira (Reply #9)

Fri Dec 7, 2012, 05:53 AM

58. Ma'al Adumim goes all the way to Jericho.

Edit: phone

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to shira (Reply #7)

Fri Dec 7, 2012, 05:50 AM

57. If you go by the Clinton Parameters ...

... which I'll go gladly by, you'll find out that the Palestinians made the concessions. I'll go in detail if you'd like. I'm on my phone and will come back.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fantastic Anarchist (Reply #57)

Fri Dec 7, 2012, 05:54 AM

59. If Arafat made the concessions, why did he reject it?

And not only that, go full-on war via Intifada 2?

He declared war on Israel (Intifada 2) that started while the talks were going on, FFS!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to shira (Reply #59)

Fri Dec 7, 2012, 07:13 AM

77. You didn't hear of Taba? Nevermind ...

I'm going to let some excerpts help me out, only because I went out tonight and had a good time, so I'm a little drunk.

Oh, and spare me the whole character assassination of Norman Finkelstein - no one has been able to dispute his facts based on historical record.

The context:

NORMAN FINKELSTEIN: Iím going to try to focus on the key points or issues about the refugees in Jerusalem, which for now I canít get into, but I will be happy to return to them later when we discuss what was the impasse at Oslo ó excuse me, the impasse at Camp David and Taba, but I want to set the context, and I donít think ó I agree in part with the context that Dr. Ben-Ami set out, but not fully.

The main context, in my opinion, is as follows. Since the mid-1970s, thereís been an international consensus for resolving the Israel-Palestine conflict. Most of your listeners will be familiar with it. Itís called a two-state settlement, and a two-state settlement is pretty straightforward, uncomplicated. Israel has to fully withdraw from the West Bank and Gaza and Jerusalem, in accordance with the fundamental principle of international law, cited three times by Mr. Ben-Ami in the book, his book, that itís inadmissible to acquire territory by war. The West Bank, Gaza and Jerusalem, having been acquired by war, itís inadmissible for Israel to keep them. They have to be returned. On the Palestinian side and also the side of the neighboring Arab states, they have to recognize Israelís right to live in peace and security with its neighbors. That was the quid pro quo: recognition of Israel, Palestinian right to self-determination in the West Bank and Gaza with its capital in Jerusalem. Thatís the international consensus.

Itís not complicated. Itís also not controversial. You see it voted on every year in the United Nations. The votes typically something like 160 nations on one side, the United States, Israel and Naru, Palau, Tuvalu, Micronesia and the Marshall Islands on the other side. Thatís it. Now, the Israeli government was fully aware that this was the international consensus, but they were opposed (a) to a full withdrawal from the West Bank and Gaza and Jerusalem, of course, and (2) they were opposed to creating a Palestinian state in the Occupied Territories.

Come 1981, as pressure builds on Israel to reach a diplomatic settlement in the Israel-Palestine conflict, they decide to invade Lebanon in order to crush the P.L.O., because the P.L.O. was on record supporting a two-state settlement. As Dr. Ben-Amiís colleague, Avner Yaniv, put it in a very excellent book, Dilemmas of Security, he said, "The main problem for Israel was," and now Iím quoting him, "the P.L.O.ís peace offensive. They wanted a two-state settlement. Israel did not." And so Israel decides to crush the P.L.O. in Lebanon. It successfully did so. The P.L.O. goes into exile.

Come 1987, Palestinians in the Occupied Territories despair of any possibility of international intervention, and they enter into a revolt ó the Palestinian Intifada ó basically nonviolent civilian revolt by the Palestinians. And the revolt proves to be remarkably successful for maybe the first couple of years. Come 1990, Iraq invades Kuwait. The P.L.O. supports, ambiguously, but I think we fairly can say, and I agree with Dr. Ben-Ami on this, they lend support to Iraq. The war ends, Iraq defeated, and all the Gulf states cut off all of their money to the P.L.O. The P.L.O. Is going down the tubes.

Along comes Israel with a clever idea. Mr. Rabin says, íLetís throw Arafat a life preserver, but on condition.í And Dr. Ben-Ami puts it excellently, that "the P.L.O. will be Israelís subcontractor and collaborator in the Occupied Territories," and Iím quoting Dr. Ben-Ami, "in order to suppress the genuinely democratic tendencies of the Palestinians." Now, itís true, exactly as Dr. Ben-Ami said, that Israel had two options after the Iraq war. It could have negotiated with the real representatives of the Palestinians who wanted that full two-state settlement in accordance with the international consensus, or it can negotiate with Arafat in the hope that heís so desperate that heís going to serve as their collaborator and subcontractor in order to deny the Palestinians what theyíre entitled to under international law. The Israelis chose Arafat, not only because Arafat himself was desperate. They chose him because they thought he would deny them what they were entitled to. He would suppress all resistance to the occupation.


With the context set, and I invite you to view or read the whole interview (it's fascinating), I will present this excerpt which answers your "concessions" theory:

NORMAN FINKELSTEIN: My concern is letís look at the diplomatic record, the factual record. What were the offers being made on each side of the Camp David and in the Taba talks? And the standard interpretation, which comes ó- which is -ó you can call it the Dennis Ross interpretation, which, I think, unfortunately Dr. Ben-Ami echoes, is that Israel made huge concessions at Camp David and Taba; Palestinians refused to make any concessions, because of what Dr. Ben-Ami repeatedly calls Arafatís unyielding positions; and that Arafat missed a huge opportunity. Now, it is correct to say that if you frame everything in terms of what Israel wanted, it made huge concessions. However, if you frame things in terms of what Israel was legally entitled to under international law, then Israel made precisely and exactly zero concessions. All the concessions were made by the Palestinians.
Briefly, because we donít have time, there were four key issues at Camp David and at Taba. Number one, settlements. Number two, borders. Number three, Jerusalem. Number four, refugees. Letís start with settlements. Under international law, there is no dispute, no controversy. Under Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention, itís illegal for any occupying country to transfer its population to Occupied Territories. All of the settlements, all of the settlements are illegal under international law. No dispute. The World Court in July 2004 ruled that all the settlements are illegal. The Palestinians were willing to concede 50% ó 50% of the Israeli settlements in the West Bank. That was a monumental concession, going well beyond anything that was demanded of them under international law.
Borders. The principle is clear. I donít want to get into it now, because I was very glad to see that Dr. Ben-Ami quoted it three times in his book. It is inadmissible to acquire territory by war. Under international law, Israel had to withdraw from all of the West Bank and all of Gaza. As the World Court put it in July 2004, those are, quote, "occupied Palestinian territories." Now, however you want to argue over percentages, there is no question, and I know Dr. Ben-Ami wonít dispute it, the Palestinians were willing to make concessions on the borders. What percentage? Thereís differences. But there is no question they were willing to make concessions.
Jerusalem. Jerusalem is an interesting case, because if you read Dr. Ben-Ami or the standard mainstream accounts in the United States, everyone talks about the huge concessions that Barak was willing to make on Jerusalem. But under international law Israel has not one atom of sovereignty over any of Jerusalem. Read the World Court decision. The World Court decision said Jerusalem is occupied Palestinian territory. Now, the Palestinians were willing, the exact lines Iím not going to get into now Ė they are complicated, but Iím sure Dr. Ben-Ami will not dispute they were willing to divide Jerusalem roughly in half, the Jewish side to Israel, the Arab side to the Palestinians.
And number four, refugees. On the question of refugees, itís not a dispute under international law. Remarkably, even fairly conservative human rights organizations like Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, in 2000, during the Camp David talks, they issued statements on the question of the right of return. And they stated categorically, under international law every Palestinian, roughly five to six million, has the right to return, not to some little parcels, 1% of Israel, which Israel is about ó which Israel would swap, return to their homes or the environs of their homes in Israel. Thatís the law. Now, Dr. Ben-Ami will surely agree that the Palestinians were not demanding and never demanded the full return of six million refugees. He gives a figure of 4-800,000. In fact Ė Iím not going to get into the numbers, because itís very hard to pin it down ó other authors have given figures of the tens of thousands to 200,000 refugees returning. Thatís well short of six million.
On every single issue, all the concessions came from the Palestinians. The problem is, everyone, including Dr. Ben-Ami in his book ó he begins with what Israel wants and how much of its wants itís willing to give up. But thatís not the relevant framework. The only relevant framework is under international law what you are entitled to, and when you use that framework itís a very, very different picture.


Now, I'm sure you and any reader here will understand is that Dr. Ben-Ami, himself the lead negotiator at Camp David, said that he wouldn't have accepted what was offered if he were a Palestinian. This is quite damning. Why? Finkelstein and Ben-Ami are pretty much on the same side, but they quibble a bit, but when it comes down to spades, ultimately, the Palestinians have a very legitimate grievance - and beyond that, they are offering concessions!!!

But, yes, we shall call them "disputed." We can call them "fried chicken (I'm hungry now)" for all I care. I'm interested in the historical record. I'm interested in facts. I'm interested in a peaceful approach to this conflict, not forwarding more propaganda.

Apparently the international community, when not bullied by my government, is interested in the same.

For those who are "pro", "anti" or "anything" in between, please visit:

http://www.democracynow.org/2006/2/14/fmr_israeli_foreign_minister_shlomo_ben

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to shira (Reply #5)

Thu Dec 6, 2012, 03:23 PM

18. I thought you were against settlements, Shira?

Now you're gung-ho for them and are making up this "disputed land" bullshit claim.

Why the change?

Do you even realize there was a change, or is this another "Eurasia has always been at war with Oceania" moment for you?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scootaloo (Reply #18)

Thu Dec 6, 2012, 04:26 PM

26. I'm for reasonable land swaps in a future 2 state deal.

The Palestinians are going to have to be reasonable at the negotiating table in order to get their state.

If they really want peace, they'll come around.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to shira (Reply #26)

Thu Dec 6, 2012, 09:26 PM

44. Let's see: Israel annexes land by force, now - then offers a nuclear waste dump later.

Then, with military control of all the prime strategic land in hand, control of all water and mineral wealth, when Israel's "reasonable offer of a land swap" is rejected in its US brokered "peace negotiation", Israel can can claim the moral high ground.
Yup, sounds familiar. How many years have you been banging out that tune, shira?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to delrem (Reply #44)

Thu Dec 6, 2012, 09:56 PM

46. Palestinians could have had their own state way back in 1947

Or in 2001 or 2008.

They don't just want their own state, now do they?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to shira (Reply #46)

Fri Dec 7, 2012, 02:53 AM

49. Whoever you're trying to convince, and whatever of,

you make for a terrible, just terrible representative of Israel.
If an enemy of Israel wanted to portray Israel in the worst light possible, your posts could be a model. Is that your intent? Do you like to taunt the indigenous Palestinian population about occupying and systematically annexing their land, driving them out? Because it is that, even more than the annexing of Palestinian land, that you appear to enjoy. Or maybe your taunting is all that is left for you, and that you having else to hide behind?

In any event, posts like yours paint a vivid picture of a reason-defying inhumanity, showing why a worldwide BDS movement has to be ramped NOW.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to delrem (Reply #49)

Fri Dec 7, 2012, 03:46 AM

51. So why have they rejected one offer after another since 1947?

And tell me this, what kind of 2 state proposal would you back? Or are you a 1-stater?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to shira (Reply #5)

Fri Dec 7, 2012, 05:45 AM

56. In your own head.

Disputed is not the recognized term by the international community. They are occupied. We can quibble about the details, but anyone who says otherwise is a reactionary.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fantastic Anarchist (Reply #56)

Fri Dec 7, 2012, 05:57 AM

60. Extremists says Jews have no right to any part of the territories...

They do this to portray Jews (they call them Zionists) as thieves.

Both people have legit claims to the land. When you hold to such a position, you are stirring shit and working towards keeping the conflict going.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to shira (Reply #60)

Fri Dec 7, 2012, 06:46 AM

73. I held no position ...

And you saying that shows the void in your argument.

I actually would prefer Jews in the Occupied Territories. I would also prefer Arabs there, also. In fact, I would like them both to peacefully coexist.

Calling them "disputed" doesn't promote that.

Did you want to rearrange my argument anymore?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fantastic Anarchist (Reply #73)

Fri Dec 7, 2012, 07:01 AM

74. My original response was to another DU'er who says...

...the Zionists (Jews/Israelis) are building on someone else's land.

As if Jews have zero legitimate claims to any part of the West Bank. They do have rights.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to shira (Reply #74)

Fri Dec 7, 2012, 07:22 AM

79. Zionists can also be Christian ...

But, I will concede your point, momentarily, because you haven't even entertained mine, that I agree with you, they have every right to the land.

But, that's not what we were arguing, were we?

I believe we were discussing if anyone else has equal rights to the land ... and perhaps, to be free - just as we "Zionists (Jews/Israelis)" as you put it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to shira (Reply #60)

Sat Dec 8, 2012, 03:01 AM

88. And antisemites equate "Israel" and "Jew"

Hmmmm. You do that pretty often, too. How weird.

Israel has no claim to a scrap of land within the territories. None. Squat. Zero. Zilch. Nada. Nothing. This is because Israel has these things called "borders." Land outside these border is not Israel's. This is a pretty simple notion that has defined the way the world works since World War II, when we did way with the notion that you could expand your turf by killing your neighbors.

If you wan to acquire territory from your neighbors, you go to them and make an offer, and be ready to accept that you're very likely to just be flat-out told "no."

if an individual wants to acquire land outside their nation, well, they need to find a seller, and will have to follow whatever laws apply in the land they want to emigrate to. If they cannot find a seller, they have no right to take that land anyway. if they do not want to follow the laws of the place they are moving to, they have no right to demand their own nation take that land for them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scootaloo (Reply #88)

Sat Dec 8, 2012, 06:59 AM

95. Yes, they do. They're not even hiding it anymore....

The 1949 armistice lines are not borders. That was made clear way back then.

And Jews do have rights to what was Judea/Samaria for 3000 years. I find the denial here fascinating.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Mosby (Reply #3)

Wed Dec 5, 2012, 07:21 PM

11. Not a surprising response, all considered. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jefferson23 (Reply #11)

Thu Dec 6, 2012, 05:53 AM

13. You've gotta admit....

When "the world" gets far more worked up over building houses than they do WRT what's happening elsewhere around the globe, something's seriously wrong.

Talk about anti-Israel firsters.

Hereís a snapshot of the world today:

Muslims are crucifying (yes, crucifying) other Muslims in Yemen

Shia Muslims are bombing Sunni Muslims to smithereens every day in Iraq

Sunni Muslims are bombing the daylights out of Shia Muslims in Iraq during Eid

Shia Iran is rounding up, imprisoning and executing (by hanging them from cranes Ė no BDS action to boycott the makers of those cranes, strangely enough) anyone who the regime summarily accuse of being in the drug trade, gay, Christian, Zionist, spy or political dissident, including women

Sunni Turkey has imprisoned more journalists than any other nation on earth, and that includes some nations that are pretty horrific dictatorships, all of which enjoy full voting rights at the UN

Taliban Islamists in Afghanistan are busy killing little schoolgirls to prevent them from attending classes

Pakistani Taliban frequently kill and maim schoolgirls to prevent them from acquiring an education

Other Islamists in Mali are smashing centuries-old Islamic shrines because they belong to a group of Muslims they donít like

Turkey is continuously hunting down Kurdish Muslims and killing them because the Kurds want an independent Kurdistan

Islamist Saudi Arabia refuses to let women drive cars because, as we all know, that will mean the ďend of virginityĒ in the Royal Kingdom. No, seriously, thatís an official quote

Islamists in Pakistan are in the habit of routinely beheading (watch this only if you have a strong stomach), burning Christians alive and burning girls with acid to ďprotect family honourĒ

Islamists in Nigeria routinely kill Christians and burn churches

Church burnings in Egypt are a national sport that barely rate a mention in the news

Muslim Turkey has further strengthened its hold on northern Cyprus, a Christian territory it invaded and occupied four decades ago.

Turkey is the only UN member nation that recognises Turkeyís occupation of northern Cyprus

The Syrian Muslim regime is massacring its Muslim citizens on an industrial scale, played out on our TV screens every single day with a sickening regularity

The latest Egyptian dictator, Islamist Mohammed Morsi, has granted himself sweeping dictatorial powers that exceed even the powers of his secular predecessor Hosni Mubarak. Egypt is once again in flames

Palestinian Arab terrorist groups Fatah and Hamas are battling it out for supremacy at an almost daily cost in Muslim lives

The Islamist regime ruling Gaza, Hamas, has only just concluded its latest round of aggression against its neighbour Israel, deliberately using its own Muslim population as human shields. This is nothing new, they were doing this back in 2009 too Ė hereís what Human Rights Watch had to say about it back then, which is why Israel is always wary of ďagreementsĒ with Hamas

The increasingly extremist Muslim Fatah regime ruling Judea & Samaria, a territory also known as the West Bank following Jordanís previous illegal occupation and annexation of that territory, is openly admitting that it intends to overrun its neighbouring state Israel


http://blogs.timesofisrael.com/what-a-wonderful-world-this-would-be/

Have you ever really asked yourself: "WHY this "world" obsession with the Jews and Israel"? I know it'll be hard for you to admit - but don't you think it's at least LIKELY that this obsession exists in order to run interference away from all the truly awful shit happening in the world today?

Sorry, but if the "world" is more concerned about houses in Maale Adumim than the above, then the world seriously has its priorities fu**ed up and is deservedly going to hell.

It's shameful.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to shira (Reply #13)

Thu Dec 6, 2012, 02:10 PM

16. +1

That post should be an OP.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to shira (Reply #13)

Thu Dec 6, 2012, 03:38 PM

20. This is tantamount to an apportionment position, very sad but not surprising.

Good luck with this approach if the Israeli government is ever brought to the Hague.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to shira (Reply #13)

Thu Dec 6, 2012, 04:12 PM

23. why is that ProIsrael people always equate all Arabs/Muslims to Palestinians?

you do realize the concept of separate issues don't you? oh and once again this is I/P

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to azurnoir (Reply #23)

Fri Dec 7, 2012, 04:19 AM

52. Its simple

They're anti-Arab racists. They just happen to be progressives in the US because its convenient. They see no conflict with supporting right-wing fascists regimes abroad.

And no I don't support Hamas or any other oppressive, fundamentalist governments.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ForgoTheConsequence (Reply #52)

Fri Dec 7, 2012, 05:08 AM

54. +100

The only argument I have would be that I don't think any of them are "progressives." You'll notice that most of them have no comment outside of this one group. I figure that's probably because nothing they have to say on progressive issues would be tolerated among the rest of the community.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ForgoTheConsequence (Reply #52)

Fri Dec 7, 2012, 06:30 AM

68. Oh yeah. Racist zionists in the US are fake progressives.

Progressive Washing?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to shira (Reply #68)

Sat Dec 8, 2012, 03:11 AM

89. Yes, they are. I'm glad you're catching on.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scootaloo (Reply #89)

Sat Dec 8, 2012, 06:58 AM

94. Fascinating generalization.

Reminds me of Ali Abunimah of EI calling J-Street and PeaceNow racist Zionist organizations.

This doesn't leave any room for anti-racist Zionists as they're all racists. Every last one.

Or, it could be that those calling them racist do so because they're the ones who are intolerant. The Stormfront crowd does that constantly WRT Jewish Supremacy, etc.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to azurnoir (Reply #23)

Fri Dec 7, 2012, 06:31 AM

69. I don't know. Why is that? Did it happen here recently? n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to shira (Reply #13)

Fri Dec 7, 2012, 06:04 AM

64. Oh, no, look over here!

Red Herring ...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fantastic Anarchist (Reply #64)

Fri Dec 7, 2012, 06:12 AM

66. That "look over there" is obviously in reverse.

Syria:

"Look over there! Jews are building houses in Jerusalem again. Those warmongers!".

Sudan:

"I know. I'm so appalled. What those horrible people are doing to the Palestinians."

Iran:

"The persecuted Zionist entity has become the persecuters."

Saudi Arabia:

"Apartheid! Apartheid!".

UN Human Rights Commission:

"Time for another Emergency Session. "

Syria, Sudan, Saudi Arabia, Iran

"Yes, yes. Good idea! For the benefit of humanity!"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to shira (Reply #66)

Fri Dec 7, 2012, 06:35 AM

71. You're prolific ...

... and still make no sense.

So, with your red herring, you wish to post what you just did?

Yikes!

(Oh, I don't make a habit of letting others frame the debate for me ... and I'm not going to let you, either).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fantastic Anarchist (Reply #71)

Fri Dec 7, 2012, 07:04 AM

76. I was agreeing to Mosby's comment.

That the world is far more outraged at houses than the truly awful shit that's happening all around the planet.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to shira (Reply #76)

Fri Dec 7, 2012, 07:24 AM

80. I hope we can be progressive together in another thread!

Do you participate in any?

This is the I/P thread, so my concentration, if you'll forgive me, is on Israel/Palestine.

I'm a member of "Occupied Underground" and "Socialist Progressives", so if you'd like to discuss other issues, I welcome them!

Hope to see you there!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fantastic Anarchist (Reply #80)

Sat Dec 8, 2012, 03:13 AM

91. Shira does not post outside of I/P. Ever

If she did, I doubt we'd ever see her again.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Mosby (Reply #3)

Thu Dec 6, 2012, 05:40 PM

32. what's your street address?

i need to build a shed to store some things.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to frylock (Reply #32)

Thu Dec 6, 2012, 06:14 PM

36. that's not a good argument

Do a little research.

I'll discuss it with you but first a couple questions.

Do you think Jews should be allowed to be citizens of the future state of Palestine?

If they are allowed citizenship should they have to follow dhimmi law?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Mosby (Reply #36)

Thu Dec 6, 2012, 06:18 PM

37. your questions are rather nonsensical

especially the one about dhimmi law why would that be considering that a fair number of Palestinians are Christians?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Mosby (Reply #36)

Thu Dec 6, 2012, 06:24 PM

38. Sure, Jews should be free to pay taxes to a Palestinian state, rely on the Palestinian

state for all of their services (including any law enforcement functions) and subject themselves to the jurisdiction of Palestinian courts and executive officials, without exception.

Oh, and no more IDF to provide security.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to geek tragedy (Reply #38)

Thu Dec 6, 2012, 06:44 PM

39. I agree

All of the two state configurations bring the large majority of Jewish settlers into Israel. The ones that are left like in the Jordan Valley could provide many kinds of tax revenue including sales tax, property tax, income tax and payroll tax.

Unfortunately though the Palestinian leadership would prefer that Palestine is free of Jews and will demand during negotiations that all Jews are ethnically cleansed from their country.

PLO official: Palestine should be free of Jews

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4122473,00.html

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Mosby (Reply #39)

Thu Dec 6, 2012, 06:46 PM

40. Well, you can see issues arising with armed settlers out there.

The second they are ordered to disarm by Palestinian police . . .

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to geek tragedy (Reply #40)

Thu Dec 6, 2012, 06:53 PM

41. so what

Lots of guns in the hands of Palestinians right now, why would settlers having guns be a problem?

Are the 300,000,000+ guns in the hands of US citizens stopping the American cops from doing their jobs?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Mosby (Reply #41)

Thu Dec 6, 2012, 07:09 PM

43. Because those settlers tend to be really violent people who hate Arabs. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Mosby (Reply #3)

Fri Dec 7, 2012, 05:41 AM

55. Stupid

Oh, but it's not happening to you. oh.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jefferson23 (Original post)

Thu Dec 6, 2012, 09:55 AM

14. The whole world has always been against Israel

Curiously, it was even worse before there was such a country.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to oberliner (Reply #14)

Thu Dec 6, 2012, 03:40 PM

21. If the whole world was always against Israel, how did the UN manage to create it? nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to oberliner (Reply #14)

Thu Dec 6, 2012, 09:30 PM

45. textbook insanity nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to oberliner (Reply #14)

Fri Dec 7, 2012, 06:08 AM

65. I've respected your posts.

But that was one of your weaker ones.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fantastic Anarchist (Reply #65)

Fri Dec 7, 2012, 06:18 AM

67. They can't all be winners

I do, however, think it is foolish to completely divorce the Jewish character of Israel from any attempt to understand the situation.

Those who argue that all criticism of Israel is antisemitic are ridiculous and that assertion is indeed insulting.

However, those who argue that antisemitism does not play some role for some people in their approach to their view of Israel is similarly ridiculous and insulting.

Especially if you look at some of the iconography used in terms of, for instance, cartoons that incorporate classic Jewish stereotypical tropes and apply them to Israel.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to oberliner (Reply #67)

Fri Dec 7, 2012, 06:31 AM

70. I agree ...

Yet, nothing is absolute.

I don't think that because there are antisemites who hold my positions nullifies mine.

They can like ice cream. I happen to like ice cream. I'm still not an antisemite. Though, I don't think it's possible for me to be one.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fantastic Anarchist (Reply #70)

Fri Dec 7, 2012, 10:43 AM

81. This particular OP is about Israel feeling like the world is against them

There is a sense of unfairness with relation to the amount of focus, attention, and condemnation that Israel receives internationally, especially in comparison to other states whose behavior ought to be even more condemnable.

This is especially true when you look at international organizations such as the UNHRC, which has at various times had members who were clearly in grave violation of many basic human rights in their own countries passing judgement and drawing focus towards Israel.

With Israel being the only state that defines itself as Jewish in character, one cannot help but at least make note of the possibility that there may be some relationship between this perceived disproportionate focus and that Jewish character.

This is especially something that one who has an awareness of the historical discrimination (to put it mildly) that Jewish people have dealt with over the years in many parts of the world might be justified in mentioning.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to oberliner (Reply #81)

Fri Dec 7, 2012, 11:10 AM

82. That's more than a fair concern.

Personally, I don't have much use for many of the international bodies precisely because of the reasons you cite.

However, it also doesn't automatically put up force field for Israel. Now, we can discuss, and I'd be happy to, and plus I could use the education, other conflicts and abuses.

This is, however, the Israeli/Palestinian conflict forum, so, as much it is exclusive of other abuses (which to me is kind of bullshit that we can discuss beyond these parameters), we are only to discuss this one.

And to me, having grown up with parents glued to the TV about this, I've studied a lot about what I was arguing about. I have come to one conclusion.

Israel holds the power. She can end this conflict immediately. It's within her power to stop the settlements, to stop being belligerent to her captives, and to let them have their own state. If conflict resumes, we can then revisit this as a conflict between two states.


And yes, I'm well aware of the "historical discrimination that the Jewish people have dealt with" having two Great Grand Parents parish during the Shoah.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fantastic Anarchist (Reply #82)

Fri Dec 7, 2012, 05:23 PM

84. excuse me..but israel does not have such power to end the conflict

Last edited Sat Dec 8, 2012, 02:50 AM - Edit history (1)

Your very base belief is simply wrong, you belittle the Palestinians and their abilities...

The obvious example of how wrong your belief is, is in gaza. Settlements destroyed, agreements made, EU involved and the rockets and attacks coming out of gaza only intensified, worse, hamas took over. Gaza was supposed to start on the path to being "club med" one step at a time....it didn't even get one step in that direction, thanks to internal PA politics, a choice solely made by the Palestenians of gaza. They could have ended the gaza part of the of the conflict or not, they chose not. Israel had no 'say" in the matter, it did give them, however a real choice. And that is the best Israel can do, offer options and choices.

In fact the Palestinians themselves do not control "their side of the conflict" Even now they have two govts, at odds with each other and only a hair breath away from their own "arab spring" in the west bank.

Hence israel may be the stronger party, but it does not control the conflict as you wrote.

as far a two state war that you seem to be so casual about......
Do you have any idea of the carnage that would be involved if the conflict resumed at that level? Not to mention the potential for a larger conflict with iran and egypt, now that egypt is in full control of the Muslim Brotherhood?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pelsar (Reply #84)

Fri Dec 7, 2012, 09:32 PM

85. Egypt is in full control of the Muslim Brotherhood? Really?

Have you seen the size of the anti-Morsi demonstrations in Tahrir Square and elsewhere this past week? I haven't followed this too closely, but I believe Alexandria just declared its independence from Egypt. Most people say that's a "symbolic" gesture, but it doesn't exactly add to "full control."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Raksha (Reply #85)

Sat Dec 8, 2012, 02:46 AM

86. a revision is necessary..thanks

guess i wasnt up to date....which to a certain degree further makes my point. arab dictators in the particular period are highly vulnerable to being over thrown with the end results both long term and short term being totally unknown (if anybody can read the future they are welcome to explain to me how they know what will be and what stocks should i invest in....)

both hamas and abbas in the westbank are now dictatorships with no elections in sight....i.e. very vunerable and in their short histories none of them control the armed subgroups (as per their claims) that attack israel an have plans to take over their govts given the opportunity....

hence the conclusion that Israel does not have full control over the conflict still stands, only it can get worse, if neither hamas nor abbas can hang on....which is debatable

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pelsar (Reply #84)

Sat Dec 8, 2012, 03:40 AM

92. Interesting thing you just said, Pelsar...

In fact the Palestinians themselves do not control "their side of the conflict"


Yet you place 100% of the onus of ending it on them.

Hence israel may be the stronger party, but it does not control the conflict as you wrote.


Yes, stronger parties in conflicts are famed for their utter and complete lack of ability to control the situation.

I don't think you understand this conflict beyond "ARAB BAD!" Pelsar.

For instance, here's what the Israeli government had to say about the Disengatement Plan from Gaza;
ďThe significance of the disengagement plan is the freezing of the peace process,Ē said Sharonís closest adviser, Dov Weissblas. ďWhen you freeze that process, you prevent the establishment of a Palestinian state and you prevent a discussion on the refugees, the borders and Jerusalem. Disengagement supplies the amount of formaldehyde that is necessary so there will not be a political process with the PalestiniansĒ
http://mondediplo.com/2006/02/03sharon

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scootaloo (Reply #92)

Sat Dec 8, 2012, 06:20 AM

93. I/P conflict Lesson number 1

Last edited Sat Dec 8, 2012, 07:13 AM - Edit history (1)

nothing is black and white, nothing is 100% on one side or the other. If you believe this, then you have little understanding of the conflict, the people involved or the dynamics involved.

lesson no 2:
if you claim someone in a discussion of the conflict believes that one side has 100% of all the cards and power, then:

either that person has no understanding or (in this case) the one (you) who is making that claim either
1)has no understanding of the arguments being made,
2)cannot understand the arguments being made, or
3)does not want to understand the arguments being made

100% of anything does not exist in this conflict

lesson no 3
it doesnt make a difference what any particular politician/govt official may say or believe, they do not have control over any particular situation.... the dynamics on the ground make their own reality with a different set of people influencing the process, especially years after the initial change.

comment no 1
you seem to believe that if one disagrees with one of your "holy writs" that person must be racist....granted its not a surprise given the intolerance of this place, but your really just wasting bandwidth with the silly accusations, but if it makes you feel better you can call me a arab -baiting racist jew (israeli) who believes in the supremacy of the jewish race, and has rights beyond all non jews who ae genetically inferior and this especially includes "our cousins" the arabs, all of them and muslim too, even if they arent arabs. (and some native indians as well, specifically the blackfoots)

feel free.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread