No more ideas, we need implementation

[Resistance]

written by Rifat Odeh Kassis for Electronic Intifada

For the past three decades, tens if not hundreds of initiatives have been launched and each new one has claimed that it is better than the previous initiative. In almost every Arab summit since the early eighties, there has been a peace initiative that did not see the light of day for various and sundry reasons; the most prevalent reason has been the continuous Israeli rejection of Arab peace plans.

We don’t need more ideas. We need implementation.

The aim of the Zionist movement was and still is the creation of a Greater Israel and the destruction of any possibility for Palestinians to build their own state, especially in Palestine. In order to do this, Israel has tried and continues to do its best to keep instability in the region by threatening its neighbors and by interfering in the internal affairs of all Middle Eastern countries.

It is important to mention here that Israel has had the chance to be integrated into the region since they signed the first treaty with Egypt in the late 1970s. Their chances were greatly increased in 1988 when the PLO recognized the state of Israel and stopped demands for the whole of historical Palestine. Israel, however, did not listen to the sound of logic and continued its policies of occupying Palestinian and other Arab territories. The only change in policy was their demand, backed by the Americans, that the Arabs and the entire Islamic world recognize their State but without receiving anything from Israel in return. Instead of “Land for Peace,” they raised the slogan of “Peace for Peace.” This slogan was carried by both the Labor Zionist party and the Likud Zionist party. The worst among the two parties was Labor.

Why? Simply because when they are in power, they do whatever they can to continue the occupation. They were the first to start building settlements in the Occupied Territories; they were the first to start the deportation policy; they demolished homes; the list is countless. Whenever there is a need to change their policies, they simply put silk gloves over their iron fists. The irony is that when Labor is the opposition party they hypocritically talk of peace for when they return to power, their actions are war.

[Cassandra]

1. This is garbage

"The aim of the Zionist movement was and still is the creation of a Greater Israel and the destruction of any possibility for Palestinians to build their own state, especially in Palestine. In order to do this, Israel has tried and continues to do its best to keep instability in the region by threatening its neighbors and by interfering in the internal affairs of all Middle Eastern countries."
and so is this
" It is important to mention here that Israel has had the chance to be integrated into the region since they signed the first treaty with Egypt in the late 1970s. Their chances were greatly increased in 1988 when the PLO recognized the state of Israel and stopped demands for the whole of historical Palestine. Israel, however, did not listen to the sound of logic and continued its policies of occupying Palestinian and other Arab territories. The only change in policy was their demand, backed by the Americans, that the Arabs and the entire Islamic world recognize their State but without receiving anything from Israel in return. Instead of “Land for Peace,” they raised the slogan of “Peace for Peace.” This slogan was carried by both the Labor Zionist party and the Likud Zionist party. The worst among the two parties was Labor."

I understand that you'd like all that to be true, but wishing won't make it so. This is just spin.

[GabysPoppy]

2. Not only garbage but a trifle biased

"I should confess that I, myself, did not read this accord and, honestly, I do not intend to read it. This is not because I am passive. It is not because I am frustrated. Nor is it because I have my prejudices about it. I am not going to read the Accord simply because I am fed up with new initiatives."

Taken from the second paragraph mysteriously deleted or thought to be unimportant by the originator of the thread.

A serious example of the meaning and willingness to negotiate.

[Resistance]

6. the point is

implementation of a peace plan is what is needed, or it will be too late and Israel will have stolen the rest of the land they wanted to steal in the first place.

[GabysPoppy]

9. The point is

Statements like yours are not intended or helpful for a useful discussion of the issues.

[Resistance]

18. what?

talking about Israel's stealing of land isn't helpful? Why is that? You want to just ignore it altogether?

[tinnypriv]

16. It is?

So I can infer that Sharon refusing to take a copy of Geneva shows that he does not mean to and has no willingness to negotiate?

Thanks.

[GabysPoppy]

17. You can infer anything you want

I would say the same for Sharon in the same circumstance.

And thanks for trying to put words in my mouth.

[tinnypriv]

19. Seems churlish to complain

Considering your admission that my inference would be correct.

For: "Put words in your mouth"

Try: understanding your position.

So, I'll meet you in a Sharon-bashing thread then. First one to bring up Kibya wins a gold star! ;-)

[GabysPoppy]

20. Not interested

[tinnypriv]

21. Aww (nt)

[Name removed]

3. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Darranar]

4. That was never the aim of the entire Zionist movement.

[Resistance]

5. sure it was

(unless you are going to try and trap me with the use of the word "entire"?)

[Darranar]

7. It was the goal of certain elements within the Zionist movement...

and it was and is the goal of a considerable portion of the Israeli government, but there were many Zionists who did not support a Greater Israel.

[Resistance]

8. thanks for the clarification

Heck there were some Zionists who didn't want Palestine at all. They argued (correctly) that Palestine didn't belong to them, and therefore they had no right to go about kicking people off their land to make room for a new state for themselves. Of course, that group of sane voices was entirely ignored (much as it is today).

[Aidoneus]

11. dominant and most active, maybe

Not all, of course, no group of diverse people is *all* of any single thing.

[Darranar]

13. Yes, I'd have to agree with that...

my point is simply that the piece went too far.

On edit: Well, it really depends on what you define as Greater Israel.

[rini]

23. I am such an optimist

now I am disappointed once again

[rini]

22. You are correct

Thank you for posting the truth.

[drdon326]

10. Even laughable by EI standards....

"The aim of the Zionist movement was and still is the creation of a Greater Israel and the destruction of any possibility for Palestinians to build their own state, especially in Palestine. In order to do this, Israel has tried and continues to do its best to keep instability in the region by threatening its neighbors and by interfering in the internal affairs of all Middle Eastern countries."

Only one problem....after each war, israel begged for peace.

I'M sure Adam Schapiro enjoys this nonsense.

[Name removed]

12. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

14. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Aidoneus]

15. When exactly was that?

before '56, Nasser offered a peace deal if they would not plot with the British & French. Ben Gurion refused it, and colloborated with these imperialist aggressors in an invasion of Egypt (that would be the first full-scale event that they stormed into Gaza and Sinai with an eye towards colonization and occupation of these lands). After '67 and Nasser's death, Sadat offered a seperate deal with the Israelis to return Sinai--seperate, not tied to the occupation of Palestine or Syrian land--, which was arrogantly refused. They would accept the same deal that was offered again within a decade, after the Egyptian army broke the Israeli lines in Sinai. (and besides, they needed to free up the southern front so they could murder and destroy on the northern front within just a couple years of that, in their efforts to destroy that independent Palestinian existance that is obviously never attempted..)

What is the purpose of the colonies and the seperation wall deep within occupied land if not to destroy the possibility of anything? Would the pre-Israeli Zionist leadership have accepted seperated and walled in cantons or is that something you just expect for the Arabs alone to accept with a smile?

[Aidoneus]

24. no response?

Maybe you had to dig deep to find all of that begging.. I can see how that could happen, seeing as how the begging never did..

Besides Darranar's objection, explain how a line in this piece is a lie. I expect Queen's English, show your work on any long division, but I don't accept bribes anymore. (flattery still gets nowhere..)