Israel/Palestine
Related: About this forumWhite House Says US Can’t Stop ‘Tsunami’ Of Boycott And Isolation If Israel Won’T End ‘Occupations’
The press is expressing marvel/shock at a speech by Philip Gordon, a White House adviser, saying that Israels ongoing occupations and settlements are driving its international isolation and the boycott movement.
Philip Gordon blasted Israel, says PowerLine. [H]is oration read as though Gordon is a recent arrival from Planet Zog who has mistaken the Middle East for Finland, says David Horovitz. His paper captures the story:
Top Obama official blasts Israel for denying Palestinians sovereignty, security, dignity.
How can Israel have peace if its unwilling to delineate a border, end the occupation? asks White House Mideast chief, Phillip Gordon, in blistering Tel Aviv speech
Talk about the changing narrative.
Gordons full speech is up at the White House site. Gordon is White House Coordinator for the Middle East, North Africa, and the Gulf Region, and he spoke at Haaretzs international conference. Here are key excerpts, including the inability of the U.S. to defend Israel against international pressure building because of Israels failure to define its borders and end the occupations. The plural is Gordons.
MORE...
http://mondoweiss.net/2014/07/boycott-isolation-occupations.html
Jefferson23
(30,099 posts)R. Daneel Olivaw
(12,606 posts)while they are constantly screaming about anti-Semites all the time?
Jefferson23
(30,099 posts)of Obama's reminder. It would take a lot for the US to not protect Israel and I see this mostly
as pressure to meet that end.
On the other hand, to me, Israel has opened the door to serious problems IF Abbas was willing
to go to the ICC. Reportedly he says he is signing on...he could in theory, serve up Hamas and
Israel. With that said, I would not bet any money on him, yet.
shira
(30,109 posts)Jefferson23
(30,099 posts)shira
(30,109 posts)Jefferson23
(30,099 posts)and the land swaps would translate to most of the WB going to Israel.
* The answer may be found in the Fox News account of the April 7th meeting between U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry and a Palestinian delegation which included President Mahmoud Abbas in Ramallah.
[Palestinian o]fficials say Kerry has proposed two small changes to make it more palatable to Israel, saying the 1967 lines could be modified through mutual agreement and pressing for stronger security guarantees.
Calling these small changes is ridiculous since allowing negotiation on borders negates one of the defining proposals of the API; that there be a full Israeli withdrawal from all territories Israel conquered in 1967. Secondly, requiring stronger security guarantees is a euphemism for less Palestinian sovereignty. Its application usually is understood to include Israeli control of Palestinian air space, borders,water resources, as well as long-term permission to station Israeli troops in the Jordan Valley.
http://mondoweiss.net/2013/04/palestinians-initiative-israelis.html
January, 2014 snip* The framework: http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/1.571179
The warning shots: As the deal Abbas would agree to would leave the Palestinians without a
viable state: March, 2014
snip* The Kerry juggernaut was impossible to predict a year ago. In hindsight, however, it makes perfect sense.
http://www.newleftproject.org/index.php/site/article_comments/the_end_of_palestine_its_time_to_sound_an_alarm
Which followed with another warning here: March 2014
snip*Why John Kerrys peace mission should worry liberal Zionists
http://www.haaretz.com/opinion/.premium-1.579441
Then "Poof" April 2014
http://www.juancole.com/2014/04/squatting-jerusalem-breakdown.html
Also, Peres confirms how much Abbas was willing to give up 3 years ago:
http://www.timesofisrael.com/peres-netanyahu-torpedoed-peace-deal-3-years-ago/
shira
(30,109 posts)Jefferson23
(30,099 posts)On edit, you responded in 3 minutes..you did not even read the OPs.
shira
(30,109 posts)And show us exactly what he agreed to.
Otherwise, you're just spewing more bullshit propaganda.
Jefferson23
(30,099 posts)shira
(30,109 posts)
.you were hoping no one would read.
Jefferson23
(30,099 posts)shira
(30,109 posts)You said he agreed to the Kerry Initiatives.
I call bullshit.
What did he say about Jerusalem, refugees, end-of-conflict
.?
Jefferson23
(30,099 posts)buddies, have at it.
shira
(30,109 posts)Jefferson23
(30,099 posts)in 3 minutes, and that was just about the amount of time that passed when you
responded.
You're a game player...not to be taken seriously. Your demands now are absurd.
Read them if you like, if not, don't.
shira
(30,109 posts)Mondoweiss? Juan Cole?
Which of those articles claim Abbas accepted the Kerry Plan? Haaretz and Times of Israel didn't make such a claim.
Jefferson23
(30,099 posts)The Mondoweiss piece links to a traditional news publication.
Poor you.
shira
(30,109 posts)Like I said, you're all smoke and mirrors.
Jefferson23
(30,099 posts)not reading them is hilarious.
shira
(30,109 posts)You're mouth writes checks your ass can't cash.
And now you're pissed for being busted.
Poor thing.
Jefferson23
(30,099 posts)Like I said, you're a game player not to be taken seriously.
shira
(30,109 posts)
.was the agreement? Point by point, I want to see where Abbas agreed on all terms with either Peres or Kerry.
You don't have shit.
Jefferson23
(30,099 posts)shira
(30,109 posts)Jefferson23
(30,099 posts)on Peres was priceless.
shira
(30,109 posts)Jefferson23
(30,099 posts)shira
(30,109 posts)He's a revolting character.
2 of the 3 lived within Israel and his blog is listed as "Informed Comment"?
More like the Onion.
Jefferson23
(30,099 posts)shira
(30,109 posts)Let's see if you can at least agree with me on that...
King_David
(14,851 posts)Why not just answer her:
"Sorry Shira you got me, I can't show you what's not there because I just fabricated it "
Jefferson23
(30,099 posts)King_David
(14,851 posts)Jefferson23
(30,099 posts)shira
(30,109 posts)Why the fuck can't they do something as simple as that?
Larkspur
(12,804 posts)If Israel's right wing had their way, they would either exterminate or deport Palestinians so that they can claim the territory of Biblical Israel and maybe some more.
shira
(30,109 posts)Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)shira
(30,109 posts)
a peace deal happen with these genocidal maniacs?
Un.real.
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)I said nothign at all about something being Israel's "fault". Just noted that one dosn't engage in diplomacy with those who are already your friends.
shira
(30,109 posts)Remember, sanctions will come down hard on Israel unless they make peace with Hamas.
Hamas are only technocrats in the new PA coalition formed.
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)You don't want to engage in diplomacy. You clearly find the concept of it to be absolutely repulsive. The alternative to diplomacy is, of course, war. War entails killing a lot of people, killing, and killing, and killing. Now, of course, wars have to end sometime, somehow, right? So how do wars end? Wars end in one of two ways.
First, and overwhelmingly the most common, is diplomacy. negotiations between the warring parties until something satisfactory is drawn together and agreed upon to end the fighting. But again, the very idea of diplomacy, of negotiating, offends you. so how does one end a war without diplomacy?
By total annihilation of the enemy. Burn them down to the very last root; salt the earth; cap it with three feet of concrete. Kill them all and let god sort it out.
You absolutely reject the notion of diplomacy, the very concept of it disgusts you as you make very clear. Well, there's only the other alternative to ending a war.
shira
(30,109 posts)I think it's a joke given your enemy wants all your people dead.
And I'm not advocating total annihilation. I think you're projecting your own hatred onto me. I just think Hamas has to be taken out. And that will not require genocide.
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)Whether it's because it disgusts you or because you think it's a joke, you reject the notion.
Well, that only leaves the one resolution to the conflict. You can win a war by negotiating its end in terms favorable to yourself, or you can win a war by eradicating the other side. And if you're going to reject the former, you by default advocate the latter.
Really? You think so? I think that's a very naive perspective.
Okay, you wage a campaign to liquidate all members of Hamas. Just the militant wing? well that leaves the non-militants. of course, since you're slaughtering your way through teir fellows, they're likely to take up arms themselves. so you start eradicating them as well? What about their supporters, who are bound to rally behind them? You start slaughtering the supporters too? How about their families, who are outraged at your killings of their brothers and sons and husbands and uncles? You start killing those families too? What about the peopel who loathe Hamas, but aren't going to just let you massacre and rape your way through all these people?
And of course, there's all that "collateral damage"...
or you could engage in diplomacy... which is a notion that you find less appealing than wholesale carnage, apparnetly.
R. Daneel Olivaw
(12,606 posts)wearing those blinders?
Israel, and its apologistas are going to look pretty felking silly holding what's left of their ass in their hands once sanctions start to take a bite.
But keep on treading water in that river in Egypt.
shira
(30,109 posts)
.to set up camp so close to Israel's major population centers.
Did you catch the news today? Hamas admitted they fired missiles at the Dimona Nuclear plant.
Still think they're using terror to achieve a peaceful 2 state solution?
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)Response to shira (Reply #2)
cerveza_gratis This message was self-deleted by its author.
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)because right now we're only supposed to be paying attention to the Israeli's who are sent scurrying to bomb shelters and may suffer from PTSD -never mind those 'other' people they're only getting what they deserve, they don't love their children like we do, they want to die martyrs - all the stuff that goes into the propaganda of war
shira
(30,109 posts)No one in Israel can take what he said seriously.
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)in any event if this actually happened it only proved his words to be true, and no one in Israel can take what he said seriously- really ?
shira
(30,109 posts)And no dear, Israelis have no illusions that Hamas does what it's doing in order to achieve a 2 state solution. It's impossible to negotiate peace with genocidal maniacs shooting rockets at nuclear facilities.
I double-dare you to tell me Hamas is interested in a genuine, peaceful 2 state solution.
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)nor does it say they had to leave the building in fact they seemed to simply go to another part of the building
Read more: Top Obama official blasts Israel for denying Palestinians sovereignty, security, dignity | The Times of Israel http://www.timesofisrael.com/top-obama-official-blasts-israel-for-denying-palestinians-sovereignty-security-dignity/#ixzz370lHzpbV
Follow us: @timesofisrael on Twitter | timesofisrael on Facebook
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)as with Dimona in a civilian population?
shira
(30,109 posts)
into Gaza with the aim of murdering as many innocents as possible.
Yet another vulgar moral equivalency.
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)and as far as 'murdering innocents I have seen that defended by only one side here and the innocents are Palestinians unless of course the belief is that no Palestinian is innocent ?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/113466651#post1
shira
(30,109 posts)No, I marvel at those who call for peace and protection of innocents. The same people who support Hamas' justified right to terrorize innocents.
Explain that one to me.
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)at civilians, you threw in Larry Derfner who was not mentioned nor had anything to do with the subject for good measure or something your comment was the very first on the thread
here is in part the OP
This morning, the IDF Spokesperson stated that the military had deliberately bombed four homes of persons defined as senior Hamas activists, without mentioning whether the homes were legitimate military objectives, such as, for example, ammunition storages. International humanitarian law permits attacks only against targets that effectively assist military efforts, when attacking them can gain a military advantage. The homes of Hamas activists are not, in themselves, legitimate targets, especially when family members reside in them. Defining them as targets is neither reasonable nor legal and permits harm to civilians who are supposed to be protected by international law.
B'Tselem reiterates its demand that all parties to the hostilities take all possible measures to prevent harm to civilians. The rules of war obligate all parties to a conflict to do their utmost to defend the civilian population. Deliberate targeting of civilians is expressly prohibited.
here is your reply
Protect civilians? While proclaiming Hamas has a given right....
....to shoot rockets at innocent civilians? Reminds me of Larry Derfner's insanity about the Palestinians having a right to terrorize Israelis.
Madness.
If I'm wrong, let's see Israel's most vocal critics condemn the Larry Derfners, Richard Falks, and Richard Silversteins who believe Hamas has a right (and is justified) to blow up innocent civilians.
Protect civilians?
What a sick, fucking joke.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/113466651#post1
shira
(30,109 posts)azurnoir
(45,850 posts)not Derfner
shira
(30,109 posts)
who apparently agree with Derfner but hypocritically post B'tselem reports about protecting innocents.
So once again, do u agree with Derfner?
Yes or No?
sadoldgirl
(3,431 posts)keep up their strongly one sided opinions, Kerry could float down from heaven as Allah or Jehova and there will still be no peace. I wonder sometimes whether they feed on each others hatred.
shira
(30,109 posts)Egypt 1979-1982.
South Lebanon 2000
Gaza 2005
Agreed to Clinton Initiatives to leave 97% of W.Bank in 2000-01.
Annapolis 2008, which ceded 100% of W.Bank land.
============
Meanwhile, there's no evidence the other side desires peace and 2 states.
BillZBubb
(10,650 posts)But of course being an Israel apologist you can't help yourself. Those "agreements" you mention had more stings attached than a million kites. They certainly wouldn't have resulted in a Palestinian state in any real sense of the word.
As for Lebanon and Gaza, the Israelis pulled out for strategic reasons, not as any land for peace initiative. They still kept a noose around Gaza -- essentially making it a ghetto fully dependent on Israel for the basics of life.