This is really starting to piss me off. (http://www.economist.com/world/middleeast-africa/displayStory.cfm?story_id=14816791&source=features_box4)
We give them money, support them in every conflict for no practical Geo-Strategic reason and they can't so much as freeze their colonization of the West Bank.
Quote
Is Israel too strong for Barack Obama?
Nov 5th 2009 | CAIRO AND JERUSALEM
From The Economist print edition
As America drops its demand for a total freeze on the building of Israeli settlements in the West Bank, angry Palestinians say there is no scope for resuming talks
Illustration by Peter Schrank
FIVE months after Barack Obama went to Cairo and persuaded most of the Arab world, in a ringing declaration of even-handedness, that he would face down Israel in his quest for a Palestinian state, American policy seems to have run into the sand. The American president's mediating hand is weaker, his charisma damagingly faded. From the Palestinian and Arab point of view, his administration—after grandly setting out to force the Jewish state to stop the building of Jewish settlements on Palestinian land as an early token of good faith, intended to bring Israelis and Palestinians back to negotiation—has meekly capitulated to Israel.
The upshot is that hopes for an early resumption of talks between the main protagonists seem to have been dashed. Indeed, no one seems to know how they can be restarted. The mood among moderates on both sides is as glum as ever.
Mr Obama's secretary of state, Hillary Clinton, made matters worse by actually praising Israel's prime minister, Binyamin Netanyahu, for promising merely to "restrain" Israel's building rather than stop it altogether, as he was first asked to do. Previously Mrs Clinton had insisted that stop meant stop. There should be no "organic growth" of existing settlements and no exceptions for projects under way. Nor did she specifically exempt East Jerusalem, which Palestinians view as their future capital but which many Israelis see as theirs alone. And she had earlier castigated Israel for demolishing Palestinian houses in the city's eastern part. Now, in Israel on October 31st, she changed her tune, seeming to acquiesce in Mr Netanyahu's refusal to meet those earlier American demands and congratulating the prime minister on his "unprecedented" offer to build at a slower rate than before.
Mr Netanyahu's case is that being "prepared to adopt a policy of restraint on the existing settlements" is indeed a concession. No new settlements would be started, no extra Palestinian land appropriated for expansion. But some 3,000 housing units already commissioned must, he said, be completed. Building must go on in East Jerusalem, he has repeatedly said, as it cannot be part of a Palestinian state.
Mrs Clinton later awkwardly backpedalled, assuring the Palestinians that she still considered all settlements "illegitimate", while pleading with them to resume talks. That seems unlikely. A storm of abuse raged in the Palestinian and Arab press. Mr Obama, it was widely deduced, had caved in after his own ratings in Israel had slumped, according to some Israeli polls, to as low as 4%. Mahmoud Abbas, the head of the Fatah party who presides over the Palestinian Authority in the West Bank, expressed extreme disappointment—and continued to insist that talks could not resume until there was a full building freeze.
Among Palestinians at large, Mr Abbas has been derided for putting his faith in the new American administration. Hamas, the Islamist movement that runs the Gaza Strip, the smaller of the two main parts of a future Palestinian state, mocked him for ever thinking that Mr Obama could change American policy towards the Middle East.
Last month he called a general and presidential election for January 24th. But with opinion polls showing his popularity diving, on November 5th he said he would not stand for re-election. Hamas, in any event, said it would refuse to take part in the polls. Mr Abbas, it seems, has been forced to acknowledge that his authority—and his ability to grapple with the Israelis in negotiations if they had resumed—has been eviscerated.
Besides, even if talks did start again, no agreement would stick without the acquiescence of Hamas, which won the last Palestinian election, in 2006, and is still strong enough to kibosh any deal done without it. Yet discussions between the two rival groups, under the aegis of the Egyptians, have been stuttering along for more than a year without getting anywhere.
Mr Netanyahu, on the other hand, was cock-a-hoop. The right-wing and religious ministers who make up the bulk of his coalition government can scarcely believe his luck. The prime minister is riding high in the Israeli people's esteem. Building work is proceeding apace in many of the settlements. He looks as if he has emerged unscathed from a brush with a hostile American president.
Mr Obama is being criticised, even by Israelis and Americans on the left, for making demands of Mr Netanyahu that he should have known would never be met. Some say the president should himself fly to Israel to address the Israeli people directly with a game-changing plan of his own. But no one, least of all in Washington, seems to know what that might be.
Old story. Poppy Bush tried to get them to stop too, even threatening loan guarantees, and to no avail.
The Israelis will do what they want to do, end of story.
Yes. Israel is too strong for America, and far too strong for Obama.
They're not gonna be too strong for Iran
Quote from: DisturbedPervert on November 08, 2009, 12:23:50 PM
They're not gonna be too strong for Iran
Yeah, people said the same thing about the arabs in '48.
Quote from: Razgovory on November 08, 2009, 12:36:57 PM
Quote from: DisturbedPervert on November 08, 2009, 12:23:50 PM
They're not gonna be too strong for Iran
Yeah, people said the same thing about the arabs in '48.
The benefit to Israel is if Iran was to go to war with Israel, the rest of the Muslim world would have a predicament: What is better? Killing Jews or Shiites?
Quote from: Razgovory on November 08, 2009, 12:36:57 PM
Quote from: DisturbedPervert on November 08, 2009, 12:23:50 PM
They're not gonna be too strong for Iran
Yeah, people said the same thing about the arabs in '48.
And '56. And '67. And '73.
Quote from: Razgovory on November 08, 2009, 12:36:57 PM
Quote from: DisturbedPervert on November 08, 2009, 12:23:50 PM
They're not gonna be too strong for Iran
Yeah, people said the same thing about the arabs in '48.
Yes, but the Arabs' words in 1948 were not backed with: NUCLEAR WEAPONS
Quote from: Jaron on November 08, 2009, 12:38:52 PM
The benefit to Israel is if Iran was to go to war with Israel, the rest of the Muslim world would have a predicament: What is better? Killing Jews or Shiites?
Survey says: Killing Jews!
It was a diplomatic defeat for Obama. But I doubt the American public was sufficiently invested in a settlement freeze for it to qualify as a defeat for America.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 08, 2009, 02:49:11 PM
It was a diplomatic defeat for Obama. But I doubt the American public was sufficiently invested in a settlement freeze for it to qualify as a defeat for America.
:yes:
We'd need to be able to identify Israel on a map first.
Hitler Youth would not want Israel to expand :mad:
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 08, 2009, 02:49:11 PM
It was a diplomatic defeat for Obama. But I doubt the American public was sufficiently invested in a settlement freeze for it to qualify as a defeat for America.
To be honest, I think that it most clearly is in our national interest to freeze settlement growth, and eventually roll it back. :unsure:
Give the Palestinians guns instead of the Israelis.
Quote from: Queequeg on November 08, 2009, 02:53:41 PM
To be honest, I think that it most clearly is in our national interest to freeze settlement growth, and eventually roll it back. :unsure:
OK. You and Obama.
Quote from: Queequeg on November 08, 2009, 02:53:41 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 08, 2009, 02:49:11 PM
It was a diplomatic defeat for Obama. But I doubt the American public was sufficiently invested in a settlement freeze for it to qualify as a defeat for America.
To be honest, I think that it most clearly is in our national interest to freeze settlement growth, and eventually roll it back. :unsure:
But in real life, it isn't.
Quote from: Queequeg on November 08, 2009, 02:53:41 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 08, 2009, 02:49:11 PM
It was a diplomatic defeat for Obama. But I doubt the American public was sufficiently invested in a settlement freeze for it to qualify as a defeat for America.
To be honest, I think that it most clearly is in our national interest to freeze settlement growth, and eventually roll it back. :unsure:
You are confusing means with ends.
Quote from: Queequeg on November 08, 2009, 02:53:41 PM
To be honest, I think that it most clearly is in our national interest to freeze settlement growth, and eventually roll it back. :unsure:
That determination relies on way too many unknowns.
And unknown knowns.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on November 08, 2009, 03:09:58 PM
That determination relies on way too many unknowns.
I can think of just one: the willingness of the Palestinian people and leadership to respond in kind to the gesture.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 08, 2009, 03:12:30 PM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on November 08, 2009, 03:09:58 PM
That determination relies on way too many unknowns.
I can think of just one: the willingness of the Palestinian people and leadership to respond in kind to the gesture.
Not an unknown.
Quote from: Alexandru H. on November 08, 2009, 02:52:42 PM
Hitler Youth would not want Israel to expand :mad:
The local Neo-Nazis here in Norway have decided to stop being anti-semites. They are well impressed by Joo fighting strength and after careful consideration had decided that Joos are not untermenchen and besides, the neo-nazis like the killing arabs bit.
Quote from: Viking on November 08, 2009, 03:15:24 PM
Quote from: Alexandru H. on November 08, 2009, 02:52:42 PM
Hitler Youth would not want Israel to expand :mad:
The local Neo-Nazis here in Norway have decided to stop being anti-semites. They are well impressed by Joo fighting strength and after careful consideration had decided that Joos are not untermenchen and besides, the neo-nazis like the killing arabs bit.
A nice paradox. I have another: antisemite party in a state in which Jews are 0.0025 percent of the total population... :P
Quote from: Alexandru H. on November 08, 2009, 03:20:53 PM
Quote from: Viking on November 08, 2009, 03:15:24 PM
Quote from: Alexandru H. on November 08, 2009, 02:52:42 PM
Hitler Youth would not want Israel to expand :mad:
The local Neo-Nazis here in Norway have decided to stop being anti-semites. They are well impressed by Joo fighting strength and after careful consideration had decided that Joos are not untermenchen and besides, the neo-nazis like the killing arabs bit.
A nice paradox. I have another: antisemite party in a state in which Jews are 0.0025 percent of the total population... :P
Not that uncommon.. it's like that all over the arab world. But then again, almost all political parties in the arab world are antisemitic.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on November 08, 2009, 03:02:07 PM
You are confusing means with ends.
I don't see how Middle-East stabilization (let alone peace) is accomplished while Likud and their far-right buddies are colonizing the West Bank. One should be a part of the other.
Quote from: Alexandru H. on November 08, 2009, 03:20:53 PM
Quote from: Viking on November 08, 2009, 03:15:24 PM
Quote from: Alexandru H. on November 08, 2009, 02:52:42 PM
Hitler Youth would not want Israel to expand :mad:
The local Neo-Nazis here in Norway have decided to stop being anti-semites. They are well impressed by Joo fighting strength and after careful consideration had decided that Joos are not untermenchen and besides, the neo-nazis like the killing arabs bit.
A nice paradox. I have another: antisemite party in a state in which Jews are 0.0025 percent of the total population... :P
I've a better paradox: anti-semitism as a pop culture theme in a place that has no Jews at all, and never did: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antisemitism_in_Japan
QuoteIn this book, Kubota spread the rumor that Enola Gay means "Kill the Emperor" in Yiddish.
:D
QuoteIn 1936, lieutenant general Shioden Nobutaka (四王天延孝), translated the Protocols into Japanese. Shioden became a believer in a Jewish conspiracy while he was studying in France. According to Dr. David Kranzler, "The key to the distinction between the Japanese and the European form of antisemitism seems to lie in the long Christian tradition of identifying the Jew with the Devil, the Antichrist or someone otherwise beyond redemption ... The Japanese lacked this Christian image of the Jew and brought to their reading of the Protocols a totally different perspective. The Christian tried to solve the problem of the Jew by eliminating him; the Japanese tried to harness his alleged immense wealth and power to Japan's advantage."
:lol: :lol:
One bizzare feature of Japanese anti-Semitism: the Japanese who believe in this stuff are as likely to
admire Jews for their "success" (in ruling the world) as they are to hate & fear them.
Quote from: Queequeg on November 08, 2009, 03:28:05 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on November 08, 2009, 03:02:07 PM
You are confusing means with ends.
I don't see how Middle-East stabilization (let alone peace) is accomplished while Likud and their far-right buddies are colonizing the West Bank. One should be a part of the other.
Is the stabilization of the Middle East in the US national interest?
Quote from: Queequeg on November 08, 2009, 03:28:05 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on November 08, 2009, 03:02:07 PM
You are confusing means with ends.
I don't see how Middle-East stabilization (let alone peace) is accomplished while Likud and their far-right buddies are colonizing the West Bank. One should be a part of the other.
Well once the ayarbs leave the west bank there will be stability.
Quote from: Queequeg on November 08, 2009, 03:28:05 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on November 08, 2009, 03:02:07 PM
You are confusing means with ends.
I don't see how Middle-East stabilization (let alone peace) is accomplished while Likud and their far-right buddies are colonizing the West Bank.
It doesn't
The next question: does it get accomplished even if the Likud coaliation temporarily halts the settlements?
That stuff about the Japanese in the 30s with the Jews is indeed funny.
Just goes to show that though they were modern in some ways in others they really were just 80 years from medieval.
Quote from: Tyr on November 08, 2009, 03:34:11 PM
That stuff about the Japanese in the 30s with the Jews is indeed funny.
Just goes to show that though they were modern in some ways in others they really were just 80 years from medieval.
... as, apparently, was most of Europe, as the '30s and '40s was to prove. :lol:
Anyway, this part is just plain odd:
QuoteThe end of 20th, many books about "Plot of Jews" or "The theory that Japanese and Jews have common ancestry" were sold.
Huh? :huh:
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on November 08, 2009, 03:33:16 PM
It doesn't
The next question: does it get accomplished even if the Likud coaliation temporarily halts the settlements?
I think it would make our relationship with the Arab World far easier.
Secondly, I suspect that a reasonably functional West Bank Arab got. would help, at least, calm things down for a bit and allow for the Arab world to set itself on a path towards development.
Thirdly, even if the Likud coalition halts the growth of settlements and nothing is accomplished, I don't see this as a bad thing. The settlements are a bad thing. We are not debating whether or not Israel should quit doing something positive so that the West Bank can develop; we are arguing that Israel should attempt to abandon West-Bank settlements because it flies in the face of Palestinian national sovereignty, the development of which is the only realistic solution to this problem.
The question is what is in the US national interest.
Making settlements in the West may be bad policy (for Israel) and may be an obstacle to resolution of the Palestinian Question in a manner conducive to US interests. But remove that obstacle, and nothing is going to change with the present state of affairs. This Israeli government is not going to be able to reach any meaningful resolution with any conceivable set of Palestinian counterparties that can actually get a deal done.
So from the POV of US national interests, Israeli settlement policy doesn't really matter much right now.
Quote from: Queequeg on November 08, 2009, 03:45:45 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on November 08, 2009, 03:33:16 PM
It doesn't
The next question: does it get accomplished even if the Likud coaliation temporarily halts the settlements?
I think it would make our relationship with the Arab World far easier.
Secondly, I suspect that a reasonably functional West Bank Arab got. would help, at least, calm things down for a bit and allow for the Arab world to set itself on a path towards development.
Thirdly, even if the Likud coalition halts the growth of settlements and nothing is accomplished, I don't see this as a bad thing. The settlements are a bad thing. We are not debating whether or not Israel should quit doing something positive so that the West Bank can develop; we are arguing that Israel should attempt to abandon West-Bank settlements because it flies in the face of Palestinian national sovereignty, the development of which is the only realistic solution to this problem.
The Israeli extremists are clearly of the opinion that a comprehensive peace with the Arabs is not possible at this time, if at all - that lack of concessions they will take as "provocation" and presense of concessions they will take as "weakness". So they intend it would seem to simply grab the real estate they want and built a wall around it.
The problem for the rest of us is to find something that will disabuse them of this notion. The events in Gaza were particularly unfortunate in that respect - the Israeli withdrawal from Gaza isn't a good precident for further Israeli withdrawals, or the notion that Israeli concessions are a good starting-point for peace in the region.
Quote from: Queequeg on November 08, 2009, 03:45:45 PM
I think it would make our relationship with the Arab World far easier.
This argument would be stronger if there were actual examples of the US working on behalf of Palestinian/Arab interests being rewarded with good will. I can think of only one: Kuwait. The US's actions in Suez didn't create any discernable good will. The US's (very limited) actions in Oslo didn't create any discernable good will.
QuoteThirdly, even if the Likud coalition halts the growth of settlements and nothing is accomplished, I don't see this as a bad thing. The settlements are a bad thing. We are not debating whether or not Israel should quit doing something positive so that the West Bank can develop; we are arguing that Israel should attempt to abandon West-Bank settlements because it flies in the face of Palestinian national sovereignty, the development of which is the only realistic solution to this problem.
Which is it Squeelus? Are you opposed to settlements because you find them morally reprehensible and outcomes are not important, or because freezing settlements will lead to (or at least increase the odds of) a lasting peace?
Fuck the nazi death cult palestinians. If there is any group of people less deserving of a state i can't think of it.
If the palestinians want the West Bank, they first need to end their genocidal mania. Israelis are far too soft on the palestinians, they should engage in contiuous carpet bombing until resistance is broken.
Quote from: Hansmeister on November 08, 2009, 06:46:26 PM
Fuck the nazi death cult palestinians. If there is any group of people less deserving of a state i can't think of it.
Confedertards.
Quote from: Barrister on November 08, 2009, 06:51:45 PM
Quote from: Hansmeister on November 08, 2009, 06:46:26 PM
Fuck the nazi death cult palestinians. If there is any group of people less deserving of a state i can't think of it.
Confedertards.
Whoever Spellus has a crush on this week.
Quote from: Barrister on November 08, 2009, 06:51:45 PM
Quote from: Hansmeister on November 08, 2009, 06:46:26 PM
Fuck the nazi death cult palestinians. If there is any group of people less deserving of a state i can't think of it.
Confedertards.
Africans. Chinese.
Quote from: Hansmeister on November 08, 2009, 06:46:26 PM
Fuck the nazi death cult palestinians. If there is any group of people less deserving of a state i can't think of it.
If the palestinians want the West Bank, they first need to end their genocidal mania. Israelis are far too soft on the palestinians, they should engage in contiuous carpet bombing until resistance is broken.
:lol:
Stop a genocidal death cult
by committing genocide. Brilliant.
Quote
Which is it Squeelus? Are you opposed to settlements because you find them morally reprehensible and outcomes are not important, or because freezing settlements will lead to (or at least increase the odds of) a lasting peace?
I fail to see how these two are mutually exclusive, though I think the outcome of the eventual Israeli pull out of the West Bank will, ultimately, be positive. Gaza was a freak case, and I think allowing a vote in Palestine was stupid anyway.
Quote
So from the POV of US national interests, Israeli settlement policy doesn't really matter much right now.
Having a unilateral Israeli freezing of settlement growth and construction, and eventual pulling out, would nicely coincide with the Cairo speech and help improve our image in the ME. However, this is fantasy, and in retrospect you are largely right on this point. We need a Likud PM with the foresight to realize that pulling out of the West Bank is in Palestine's interest, as the Israeli left is moribund and would never be able to do it anyway.
Quote from: Queequeg on November 08, 2009, 07:28:26 PM
Stop a genocidal death cult by committing genocide. Brilliant.
Interesting fact: It's the only solution that has ever been successful. Assuming that you believe that carpet bombing civilians is genocide, in which case, you're wrong.
I have to laugh at PS' delusion that a settlement freeze would do anything to change public opinion in the ME. Talk about clueless. :lmfao:
Quote from: Neil on November 08, 2009, 03:31:05 PM
Quote from: Queequeg on November 08, 2009, 03:28:05 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on November 08, 2009, 03:02:07 PM
You are confusing means with ends.
I don't see how Middle-East stabilization (let alone peace) is accomplished while Likud and their far-right buddies are colonizing the West Bank. One should be a part of the other.
Is the stabilization of the Middle East in the US national interest?
You know, probably not.
Quote from: Hansmeister on November 08, 2009, 07:46:54 PM
I have to laugh at PS' delusion that a settlement freeze would do anything to change public opinion in the ME. Talk about clueless. :lmfao:
In the long term? I think it will help. You're an idiot if you think that Israel hasn't contributed to the current fucked up situation, or if you think that we gain anything from the Israeli Far Right dominating the country and exploiting the West Bank.
Oh wait, you're not an idiot, you're just a troll.
Quote
Assuming that you believe that carpet bombing civilians is genocide, in which case, you're wrong.
Continued terror bombing until they all just give up? Firstly, I don't think it has ever really happened, as both Shanghai and Warsaw ended up being a pain after their respective terror bombings. Secondly, it just kills people, and most of the people in Palestine are kids. I don't know why anyone would ever want to bomb thousands/millions of kids to death.
Quote from: Queequeg on November 08, 2009, 07:28:26 PM
I fail to see how these two are mutually exclusive, though I think the outcome of the eventual Israeli pull out of the West Bank will, ultimately, be positive. Gaza was a freak case, and I think allowing a vote in Palestine was stupid anyway.
Was Oslo a freak case too? :lol:
I thought of another one Squeelus. How much did Camp David improve ME public opinion towards the US?
Quote from: Queequeg on November 08, 2009, 08:01:21 PM
Continued terror bombing until they all just give up? Firstly, I don't think it has ever really happened, as both Shanghai and Warsaw ended up being a pain after their respective terror bombings. Secondly, it just kills people, and most of the people in Palestine are kids. I don't know why anyone would ever want to bomb thousands/millions of kids to death.
The British firebombed the shit out of Germany, and even the American daylight 'precision' raids weren't so precise.
Why would you want to kill kids? To deny them to the enemy. The kids of Palestine are a resource, and it is important to deny them to the Palestinian terror movements, until such time as the Palestinians accept peace on Israeli terms.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 08, 2009, 08:08:52 PM
Quote from: Queequeg on November 08, 2009, 07:28:26 PM
I fail to see how these two are mutually exclusive, though I think the outcome of the eventual Israeli pull out of the West Bank will, ultimately, be positive. Gaza was a freak case, and I think allowing a vote in Palestine was stupid anyway.
Was Oslo a freak case too? :lol:
I thought of another one Squeelus. How much did Camp David improve ME public opinion towards the US?
We just need a second Camp David accord. That'll do the trick and cause the nuts in the ME to love us. :lol:
The hate towards the US and Israel are entirely internally created ME phenomena. Queequeg's delusion seems to think that the islamoturds are actually sincere in their complaints. Arabs don't really give a fuck about the palestinians and use them only as an excuse to project the responsibility for their collective failures outward. Only an idiot would believe that any concession that we or Israel give would result in the arabs taking responsibility for their own fucked up mess.
If the jews didn't exist the arabs would have to invent them.
Quote from: Barrister on November 08, 2009, 06:51:45 PM
Quote from: Hansmeister on November 08, 2009, 06:46:26 PM
Fuck the nazi death cult palestinians. If there is any group of people less deserving of a state i can't think of it.
Confedertards.
That is a single possibly fictitious person until I see concrete proof otherwise. :mad:
QuoteArabs don't really give a fuck about the palestinians and use them only as an excuse to project the responsibility for their collective failures outward.
Say Hans, have you ever talked to a real Arab, or just the caricatures in your own imagination?
Quote from: Malthus on November 08, 2009, 03:57:39 PM
The Israeli extremists are clearly of the opinion that a comprehensive peace with the Arabs is not possible at this time, if at all - that lack of concessions they will take as "provocation" and presense of concessions they will take as "weakness". So they intend it would seem to simply grab the real estate they want and built a wall around it.
The problem for the rest of us is to find something that will disabuse them of this notion. The events in Gaza were particularly unfortunate in that respect - the Israeli withdrawal from Gaza isn't a good precident for further Israeli withdrawals, or the notion that Israeli concessions are a good starting-point for peace in the region.
This is precisely my own opinion. Those wanting Israel to give concessions must either:
1. Be ignorant idiots
2. Think the Israelis are ignorant idiots
3. Are anti-Israel and want it to be destroyed
Until Gaza resolves into something peaceful and stable there can be no question of Palestinian advancement...anybody who wants the situation to resolve itself peacefully must direct all their efforts to that end.
So far nobody gives a rats ass about Gaza and never have ever since 2005 which leads me to believe the international community doesn't care about the Palestinians. Their actions speak louder than their idiotic rhetoric.
Actually I agree with Hansmeister on quite a bit. Israel is used in the Mid-East like Goldstein in 1984; an object of hate used by the state as a vent for everyone's despair and hatred of their regime or their situation. Roads are shitty? OH SHIT PALESTINE! Not becoming literate? OH SHIT PALESTINE!
And frankly, fuck anyone who accuses me of being an anti-Semite. I was as staunch a supporter of Isreal as anyone until the Gaza campaign and the attack on Tony Judt.
With that said, I don't think it is an excuse to attack civilian areas, or to colonize nations. It is wrong in Cyprus, and it is wrong in the non-ethnically Armenian areas of Nagorno-Kharabakh, and it is wrong in the West Bank, particularly as Mahmoud Abbas isn't a bad sort.
By the way I think it is absurd to the point of comedy that pressure is put on the Israelis to help out the Palestinians. Why should they do that?
The pressure should be on the Palestinians Arab "brothers" whose policies are so incredibly anti-Palestinian and discriminatory it makes the Israelis look benevolent by comparison. If the other Arab nations are not willing to do anything for them...why the fuck would the Israelis?
Quote from: Queequeg on November 08, 2009, 10:00:53 PM
With that said, I don't think it is an excuse to attack civilian areas, or to colonize nations. It is wrong in Cyprus, and it is wrong in the non-ethnically Armenian areas of Nagorno-Kharabakh, and it is wrong in the West Bank, particularly as Mahmoud Abbas isn't a bad sort.
I totally agree and I wish somebody was interested in doing something to stop it. It all boils down to making it work in Gaza. If Gaza can work it leaves the nutty right wing Israelis without a leg to stand on, with Hamas in charge you can count on the colonization and attacks to continue. Hamas is the ultimate force destroying Palestine by giving the right wing nutters in Israel all they need.
Quote from: Warspite on November 08, 2009, 08:42:56 PM
QuoteArabs don't really give a fuck about the palestinians and use them only as an excuse to project the responsibility for their collective failures outward.
Say Hans, have you ever talked to a real Arab, or just the caricatures in your own imagination?
Well you have to admit the policies of the Arab nations towards the Palestinians are outrageous and it makes them look rather bad...
Anyone who opposes colonization is inherently immoral.
Quote from: Neil on November 08, 2009, 10:35:34 PM
Anyone who opposes colonization is inherently immoral.
This isn't even really colonization. The Gauls got Wine from the Romans. We gave the Native Americans liquor and guns. Israel gives the Palestinians...what?
Quote from: Queequeg on November 08, 2009, 11:13:56 PM
Quote from: Neil on November 08, 2009, 10:35:34 PM
Anyone who opposes colonization is inherently immoral.
This isn't even really colonization. The Gauls got Wine from the Romans. We gave the Native Americans liquor and guns. Israel gives the Palestinians...what?
Bombs and bullets?
Quote from: Queequeg on November 08, 2009, 11:13:56 PM
Quote from: Neil on November 08, 2009, 10:35:34 PM
Anyone who opposes colonization is inherently immoral.
This isn't even really colonization. The Gauls got Wine from the Romans. We gave the Native Americans liquor and guns. Israel gives the Palestinians...what?
Public order. The advantages of citizenship in the first world.
That's certainly the situation for Israeli Arabs, not for Palestinians in Palestine.
Quote from: Queequeg on November 08, 2009, 11:13:56 PM
Quote from: Neil on November 08, 2009, 10:35:34 PM
Anyone who opposes colonization is inherently immoral.
This isn't even really colonization. The Gauls got Wine from the Romans. We gave the Native Americans liquor and guns. Israel gives the Palestinians...what?
Water and Electricity and until the palestinians started blowing themselves up on busses; Jobs.
Quote from: Viking on November 08, 2009, 11:26:35 PM
Water and Electricity and until the palestinians started blowing themselves up on busses; Jobs.
:lol:
They have to get permission to walk across the street if they live near a settlement. They are stifling economic activity in the West Bank at every opportunity, intended or not.
I thought the Romans gave them water?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ExWfh6sGyso (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ExWfh6sGyso)
;)
Quote from: Queequeg on November 08, 2009, 10:00:53 PM
And frankly, fuck anyone who accuses me of being an anti-Semite. I was as staunch a supporter of Isreal as anyone until the Gaza campaign and the attack on Tony Judt.
With that said, I don't think it is an excuse to attack civilian areas, or to colonize nations. It is wrong in Cyprus, and it is wrong in the non-ethnically Armenian areas of Nagorno-Kharabakh, and it is wrong in the West Bank, particularly as Mahmoud Abbas isn't a bad sort.
So basically you were pro-israeli until they dared to defend themselves from rocket attacks on israeli villages. What a bunch of uppity jews thinking they have the right of self-defense.
The fact that you think that Abbas "isn't a bad sort" is quite telling. I guess at least he isn't one of those filthy jews, so when he sends suicide bombers to blow up school buses that's alright.
Hans, I'm not having this conversation. I went to a Jewish Pre-School. I wanted to convert to Judaism since about age five. Almost all the girls I've ever had a crush on were Jewish. Frankly, the Jews were the first people I was obsessed with. My interest in Russia grew out of the fact that most Chicago Jews have roots in Russia, and, well, the parallels between the Armenians and Jews are everywhere.
If I'm concerned about anything, it is that Netanyahu's colonization will end up biting Israel in the ass and will be bad for Israel and the Jewish people in the long run. Unlike you, you brownshirt fuck.
What attack on Tony Judt?
Quote from: Queequeg on November 09, 2009, 01:02:15 AM
Hans, I'm not having this conversation. I went to a Jewish Pre-School. I wanted to convert to Judaism since about age five. Almost all the girls I've ever had a crush on were Jewish. Frankly, the Jews were the first people I was obsessed with. My interest in Russia grew out of the fact that most Chicago Jews have roots in Russia, and, well, the parallels between the Armenians and Jews are everywhere.
*cue Caliga commenting about how Jewish women give great bjs*
Hans is almost more machine than man. But I think he needs a new patch.
Some of my best friends are jews.
Quote from: Valmy on November 08, 2009, 10:01:21 PM
By the way I think it is absurd to the point of comedy that pressure is put on the Israelis to help out the Palestinians. Why should they do that?
For money and for peace.
If the present situation is continued for too long, a new intifadah will emerge. And many Palestinians will support more and more the extremists, like Hamas and Hezbollah. Not a very peaceful future.
These days, Europe pays mainly for the "Palestinian state". Police, hospitals, schools, the administration on the West bank are kept alive by European subsidies. If this situation goes on, Europe could decide that this "Palestinian state" isn't a real state, but a country occupied by Israel and stop paying for it. That means that Israel is responsable for the situation in the West Bank, so they have to pay for police, health care, etc. That's one of the reasons why Netanyahu recognised the "Palestinian state" at the start of his government. It was too expensive to deny that.
It's pretty clear that Isreali settlements in the West Bank are an obstacle to peace, but it's also clear that it's not the main obstacle, and even removing them (much less merely stopping the construction of new settlements or the expansion of existing ones) isn't going to lead to peace,
It is clear that expanding settlements sends this message to the Palestinians: "fuck you".
What the response to that message will be is unpredictable, but not very positive.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on November 09, 2009, 02:30:20 AM
*cue Caliga commenting about how Jewish women give great bjs*
There is no need as you have done my work for me, good sir.
Quote from: Jos Theelen on November 09, 2009, 04:53:43 AM
These days, Europe pays mainly for the "Palestinian state". Police, hospitals, schools, the administration on the West bank are kept alive by European subsidies. If this situation goes on, Europe could decide that this "Palestinian state" isn't a real state, but a country occupied by Israel and stop paying for it. That means that Israel is responsable for the situation in the West Bank, so they have to pay for police, health care, etc. That's one of the reasons why Netanyahu recognised the "Palestinian state" at the start of his government. It was too expensive to deny that.
Pretty unlikely, given Europe's large Muslim population, high level of antisemitism and unwillingness to make bold international moves.
Quote from: Neil on November 09, 2009, 07:45:37 AM
Quote from: Jos Theelen on November 09, 2009, 04:53:43 AM
These days, Europe pays mainly for the "Palestinian state". Police, hospitals, schools, the administration on the West bank are kept alive by European subsidies. If this situation goes on, Europe could decide that this "Palestinian state" isn't a real state, but a country occupied by Israel and stop paying for it. That means that Israel is responsable for the situation in the West Bank, so they have to pay for police, health care, etc. That's one of the reasons why Netanyahu recognised the "Palestinian state" at the start of his government. It was too expensive to deny that.
Pretty unlikely, given Europe's large Muslim population, high level of antisemitism and unwillingness to make bold international moves.
The likelihood is proportional to the number of settlements on the West Bank.
Quote from: Jos Theelen on November 09, 2009, 08:07:58 AM
The likelihood is proportional to the number of settlements on the West Bank.
Yeah right! :lol:
Quote from: Queequeg on November 08, 2009, 11:28:22 PM
Quote from: Viking on November 08, 2009, 11:26:35 PM
Water and Electricity and until the palestinians started blowing themselves up on busses; Jobs.
:lol:
They have to get permission to walk across the street if they live near a settlement. They are stifling economic activity in the West Bank at every opportunity, intended or not.
But still they have water and electricity provided by the state of Israel. Now, as to the movement restrictions. They are an occupied people at war. Israel has the right as the occupying power to take reasonable security measures, which seem to have worked.
As for your flippant street crossing line. That is patently false. I'll agree with you if you want to argue that many Israeli occupation policies are counter productive, but do stick to the facts. Palestinians did work in Israel freely until that free access was exploited to blow up buses, Palestinians did move freely between their own cities until they started fighting battles with the IDF. Remember, Netanyahu wasn't elected until 137 Israelis had already been killed by suicide bombers.
Quote from: Jos Theelen on November 09, 2009, 04:53:43 AM
For money and for peace.
If the present situation is continued for too long, a new intifadah will emerge. And many Palestinians will support more and more the extremists, like Hamas and Hezbollah. Not a very peaceful future.
Yes the perception Hezbollah and Hamas are winning has certainly destroyed their recruiting.
Remember how all the Palestinians and Shia Lebanese started to like Israel and stop supporting them when Israel pulled out of Lebanon and Gaza? Oh wait that never happened.
Your reasoning has been proven false by facts unfortunately. Concessions to the Palestinians have proven to have exactly the opposite effect than what you are saying. How can you possibly support the idea that making concessions will bring Israel money and peace given that fact?
Quote from: Jos Theelen on November 09, 2009, 05:41:30 AM
It is clear that expanding settlements sends this message to the Palestinians: "fuck you".
What the response to that message will be is unpredictable, but not very positive.
No more than the Palestinians voting in Hamas after Israel left Gaza and dismantled settlements in the West Bank was a message "fuck you" to the Israelis. The results: Israel more and more supporting their own right wing is fairly predictable.
Quote from: Valmy on November 09, 2009, 11:05:58 AM
Quote from: Jos Theelen on November 09, 2009, 05:41:30 AM
It is clear that expanding settlements sends this message to the Palestinians: "fuck you".
What the response to that message will be is unpredictable, but not very positive.
No more than the Palestinians voting in Hamas after Israel left Gaza and dismantled settlements in the West Bank was a message "fuck you" to the Israelis. The results: Israel more and more supporting their own right wing is fairly predictable.
Did the Palestinians vote in Hamas to say fuck you to Israelis or because Fatah was outrageously corrupt?
Quote from: Warspite on November 09, 2009, 12:18:18 PM
Did the Palestinians vote in Hamas to say fuck you to Israelis or because Fatah was outrageously corrupt?
Entirely and completely irrelevent. You don't vote for a party whose central part of the platform is war with Israel if you want peace with Israel. I cannot believe that Palestinians would entirely ignore their relations with Israel while voting. I mean that is sort of central part of their national interests right now no?
I am not going to vote for the 'Death to Croatia' party no matter how awesome their dog catching services run.
Quote from: Valmy on November 09, 2009, 12:20:40 PM
Quote from: Warspite on November 09, 2009, 12:18:18 PM
Did the Palestinians vote in Hamas to say fuck you to Israelis or because Fatah was outrageously corrupt?
Entirely and completely irrelevent.
No, it's quite relevant.
QuoteYou don't vote for a party whose central part of the platform is war with Israel if you want peace with Israel. I cannot believe that Palestinians would entirely ignore their relations with Israel while voting. I mean that is sort of central part of their national interests right now no?
Assuming every Palestinian voter had a eternal war with Israel as their primary issue. But we know Hamas campaigned back then on an anti-corruption ticket, which suggests a good number of Palestinians are acutely concerned with more mundane things like public services. Whether or not Hamas have delivered I have no clue, but I do know that is what they won votes with.
It's a pretty awful choice, yes. But it also shows how the voter's choice is not as clear cut between good and evil as you would like.
QuoteI am not going to vote for the 'Death to Croatia' party no matter how awesome their dog catching services run.
But you might if they are delivering bread to your home every two days, whereas the local 'We could cut a deal with Croatia, perhaps' party is busy stuffing its pockets. Normal people fall in with awful political crowds all the time.
Quote from: Valmy on November 09, 2009, 12:20:40 PM
I am not going to vote for the 'Death to Croatia' party no matter how awesome their dog catching services run.
As If I'd ever need any other reason to vote for a "Death to Croatia" party. Damn ustache scum. <_<
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 09, 2009, 02:04:27 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on November 09, 2009, 09:56:39 AM
I don't know who he is.
He wrote Postwar.
Pretty good book, but it's a bit of an epic volume. I get a work out just reading it every morning on the underground.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 09, 2009, 02:04:27 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on November 09, 2009, 09:56:39 AM
I don't know who he is.
He wrote Postwar.
He's a very bright, very talented British Jewish historian who was labelled an Anti-Semite and almost forced out of public life because he made a few comments a bout a One State solution. I thought that was pretty despicable, as the guy fought in the IDF and has a right to any opinion he wants on the matter, and he's not some insanely rabid pseudo-intellectual Self-Hating Jew like Finkelstein or an eccentric like Chomsky.
I just got really tired of the Right accusing anyone who comments on Israeli politics of being an Anti-Semite or, worse, a Self-Hating Jew. Its really goddamn unhealthy, and I think it has warped both American and, through America, Israeli politics. We have fools like Hansmeister and Jonah Goldberg who throw around anti-Semite at anyone who doesn't want to go Vespasian on the Palestinians, while ignoring the Tea-Baggers abusing Holocaust imagery and accusing Obama of being in league with George Soros and the Israelis.
You got any links to the story? Would be interested to read.
Quote from: Warspite on November 09, 2009, 12:18:18 PM
Did the Palestinians vote in Hamas to say fuck you to Israelis or because Fatah was outrageously corrupt?
Fatah's outrageous corruption would explain why Palestinians would vote for the other guy; it doesn't explain why the only other significant party out there to support is a notorious terrorist organization.
Quote from: Warspite on November 09, 2009, 02:20:30 PM
You got any links to the story? Would be interested to read.
This is the article that got him blacklisted. (http://www.nybooks.com/articles/16671)
This is an example of the shitstorm it caused. (http://97.74.65.51/readArticle.aspx?ARTID=36238)
That article got him pulled from the board at the New Republic.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on November 09, 2009, 02:24:56 PM
Quote from: Warspite on November 09, 2009, 12:18:18 PM
Did the Palestinians vote in Hamas to say fuck you to Israelis or because Fatah was outrageously corrupt?
Fatah's outrageous corruption would explain why Palestinians would vote for the other guy; it doesn't explain why the only other significant party out there to support is a notorious terrorist organization.
There were other options, Musafa Baghouti's list (which came in third in that election) for example.
I don't care if the Nazi's had an excellent program for building autobahns, voting for the Nazis is still voting for the Nazis.
Just for the record, I think Judt's binational state is far less likely to happen than, say, the problem being solved by all of humanity being wiped out in the aftermath of a nuclear holocaust. I just think he had a right to voice his opinion without being, well, blacklisted.
Does anybody here actually believe that any one state solution will result in anything other than civil war as soon as arabs have enough votes in the "knesset" to disband the IDF?
Quote from: Queequeg on November 09, 2009, 02:30:16 PM
This is the article that got him blacklisted. (http://www.nybooks.com/articles/16671)
This is an example of the shitstorm it caused. (http://97.74.65.51/readArticle.aspx?ARTID=36238)
That article got him pulled from the board at the New Republic.
David Horowitz is an American. The New Republic is an American magazine. Where is the "Israeli attack on Tony Judt?"
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 09, 2009, 02:43:47 PM
David Horowitz is an American. The New Republic is an American magazine. Where is the "Israeli attack on Tony Judt?"
:Embarrass:
I am very embarrassed. I meant the American right's attack on him. He has a few articles in Haaretz, and at least until recently I think dialog about Israeli policy in Palestine was way more open in Israel than in the United States.
Quote from: Queequeg on November 09, 2009, 02:33:48 PM
Just for the record, I think Judt's binational state is far less likely to happen than, say, the problem being solved by all of humanity being wiped out in the aftermath of a nuclear holocaust. I just think he had a right to voice his opinion without being, well, blacklisted.
I'm not seeimng any necessary connection between Judt's problems and Israel. Are you claiming
Israel organized a persecution of this fellow for his views?
Quote from: Malthus on November 09, 2009, 02:55:22 PM
Quote from: Queequeg on November 09, 2009, 02:33:48 PM
Just for the record, I think Judt's binational state is far less likely to happen than, say, the problem being solved by all of humanity being wiped out in the aftermath of a nuclear holocaust. I just think he had a right to voice his opinion without being, well, blacklisted.
I'm not seeimng any necessary connection between Judt's problems and Israel. Are you claiming Israel organized a persecution of this fellow for his views?
Looking back, this misunderstanding is due primarily to a miscommunication in an earlier post. I don't think Israel attacked Tony Judt; that would be really silly. I think certain right-wing Jewish groups in America did, and unfairly. Not having a dialog in the United States about our relationship with Israel has ended up just empowering Likud and a lot of fringe-right parties in Israel.
Quote from: Queequeg on November 09, 2009, 02:53:15 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 09, 2009, 02:43:47 PM
David Horowitz is an American. The New Republic is an American magazine. Where is the "Israeli attack on Tony Judt?"
:Embarrass:
I am very embarrassed. I meant the American right and AIPAC's attack on him. He has a few articles in Haaretz, and at least until recently I think dialog about Israeli policy in Palestine was way more open in Israel than in the United States.
I thought the New Republic was a liberal paper.
Quote from: Queequeg on November 09, 2009, 02:53:15 PM
:Embarrass:
I am very embarrassed. I meant the American right and AIPAC's attack on him. He has a few articles in Haaretz, and at least until recently I think dialog about Israeli policy in Palestine was way more open in Israel than in the United States.
Ooops. :P
What does that do to your previous statement that you supported Israel up to the point when they attacked civilian areas in Gaza and attacked Tony Judt?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 09, 2009, 03:00:39 PM
What does that do to your previous statement that you supported Israel up to the point when they attacked civilian areas in Gaza and attacked Tony Judt?
I still support Israel, but we are talking about Israel's policies in the West Bank. I supported those policies and various other Israeli Right-allied forces up until Judt was attacked as an Anti-Semite, and the Gaza campaign. I began to think that we needed a more honest conversation about our alliance with Israel, and I generally think groups like J-Street are helping us move in that direction.
Quote from: Razgovory on November 09, 2009, 02:59:39 PM
I thought the New Republic was a liberal paper.
It is pretty famously pro-Israel, and often quite hawkish.
Quote from: Valmy on November 09, 2009, 11:02:26 AM
Your reasoning has been proven false by facts unfortunately. Concessions to the Palestinians have proven to have exactly the opposite effect than what you are saying. How can you possibly support the idea that making concessions will bring Israel money and peace given that fact?
The concessions to the Palestinians on the West Bank have caused a halt on suicidebombing. And compare the present situation with the situation in the 70's, 80's or 90's. How many planes are taken over by Palestinians since then?
Rabin died for nothing. :(
Quote from: Jos Theelen on November 09, 2009, 03:08:29 PM
Quote from: Valmy on November 09, 2009, 11:02:26 AM
Your reasoning has been proven false by facts unfortunately. Concessions to the Palestinians have proven to have exactly the opposite effect than what you are saying. How can you possibly support the idea that making concessions will bring Israel money and peace given that fact?
The concessions to the Palestinians on the West Bank have caused a halt on suicidebombing. And compare the present situation with the situation in the 70's, 80's or 90's. How many planes are taken over by Palestinians since then?
Rabin died for nothing. :(
Serious question:
If the halt in westbank suicide bombings due to fewer attempts being made, or better and tighter security on behalf of the Israelis? Same question for the decline in airline hijackings.
Quote from: Jos Theelen on November 09, 2009, 03:08:29 PM
The concessions to the Palestinians on the West Bank have caused a halt on suicidebombing. And compare the present situation with the situation in the 70's, 80's or 90's. How many planes are taken over by Palestinians since then?
Rabin died for nothing. :(
Which concessions are you referring to? The big wave of suicide bombings came after the concessions of Oslo.
Quote from: Warspite on November 09, 2009, 01:23:51 PM
It's a pretty awful choice, yes. But it also shows how the voter's choice is not as clear cut between good and evil as you would like.
It is not a question of "good" or "evil". It is a question of what sort of people the voters want to decide the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
Hamas might be very good people but the fact remains that when given a chance to make their voices heard Palestine voted in the hardliners. Now increasingly the Israelis are as well.
To act like somehow the Palestinian Voters overlooked the primary and defining element of Hamas' platform is a huge insult to my intelligence and the intelligence of the Palestinian voter. It would be similarly absurd to suggest the Israelis are increasingly voting right wing because of the corruption of the centrist Olmert Ministry.
Quote from: Jos Theelen on November 09, 2009, 03:08:29 PM
The concessions to the Palestinians on the West Bank have caused a halt on suicidebombing. And compare the present situation with the situation in the 70's, 80's or 90's. How many planes are taken over by Palestinians since then?
Rabin died for nothing. :(
Sure the situation was actually better in the 70s and 80s which is ridiculously absurd but then...this is the Israeli-Palestinian conflict where nothing makes any sense.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on November 09, 2009, 02:24:56 PM
Fatah's outrageous corruption would explain why Palestinians would vote for the other guy; it doesn't explain why the only other significant party out there to support is a notorious terrorist organization.
Thank you. The entire reason Hamas is a significant political force capable of winning that election in the first place is because of their hardline anti-Israel position in the first place.
Interesting article but, I fear, terribly... optimistic (in its own weird way).
Quote"but because it is a Jewish state in which one community—Jews—is set above others, in an age when that sort of state has no place"
A state like this only seems to have no place in what are western-influenced sensibilities. As we can see there are states all over the world where there is something as described in the quote in place, with nary a person batting an eye. Even more, many of these states are mid-eastern states where if you're not arab or (sunni/shia) muslim (or in some cases both) you're a second or third rank citizen. In some cases this attitude is there because of nationalism/ethnicism (like morocco and it's second-tier berbers), in other cases because of religion (almost every muslim country vis-à-vis religious minorities), in a few cases because of both (like Malaysia)
The Palestinians suffer from this affliction too, probably because of religious sentiment (I guess).
So until attitudes change a bination state is unlikely to work. It'd only result in a new phase of acrimony as one group tries to gain the upper hand and twist the state towards its nefarious goals.
A bination jewish-palestinian state would suffer the same fate as Lebanon: dwindling non-muslim minorities until they eventually become irrelevant.
The only possible positive outcome of the situation is the exact same one we wanted way back in the 40s: a partition of the territory into an Arab and a Jewish state. Unfortunately the Arabs have never been very interested in that and now the Israelis are increasingly starting to agree with them.
I am not sure what the outcome will be...it seems incredible it can continue like this indefinitely but then it kinda has been I suppose.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on November 09, 2009, 02:24:56 PM
Quote from: Warspite on November 09, 2009, 12:18:18 PM
Did the Palestinians vote in Hamas to say fuck you to Israelis or because Fatah was outrageously corrupt?
Fatah's outrageous corruption would explain why Palestinians would vote for the other guy; it doesn't explain why the only other significant party out there to support is a notorious terrorist organization.
A failure of the political class.
Quote from: Jos Theelen on November 09, 2009, 03:08:29 PM
Quote from: Valmy on November 09, 2009, 11:02:26 AM
Your reasoning has been proven false by facts unfortunately. Concessions to the Palestinians have proven to have exactly the opposite effect than what you are saying. How can you possibly support the idea that making concessions will bring Israel money and peace given that fact?
The concessions to the Palestinians on the West Bank have caused a halt on suicidebombing. And compare the present situation with the situation in the 70's, 80's or 90's. How many planes are taken over by Palestinians since then?
Rabin died for nothing. :(
Israelis tend to believe that the relative lack of suicide attacks on them is a function of the huge-ass wall they've built between themselves and the Palestinians on the WB.
As for lack of hijackings - airline security is now rather different than it was.
Quote from: Warspite on November 09, 2009, 03:22:06 PM
A failure of the political class.
Well whatever the reason the effect is the same. Any chance of any good things happening with the Palestinians is shot while Hamas controls Gaza.
Quote from: Valmy on November 09, 2009, 03:21:36 PM
The only possible positive outcome of the situation is the exact same one we wanted way back in the 40s: a partition of the territory into an Arab and a Jewish state. Unfortunately the Arabs have never been very interested in that and now the Israelis are increasingly starting to agree with them.
I am not sure what the outcome will be...it seems incredible it can continue like this indefinitely but then it kinda has been I suppose.
my thought too.
We'll see what happens but it's not something that'll be decided by US, EU or Russian mediation. It'll be settled by the Israelis and the Arabs. It my be relatively bloodless but I doubt it, given what went before.
Quote from: Queequeg on November 09, 2009, 02:53:15 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 09, 2009, 02:43:47 PM
David Horowitz is an American. The New Republic is an American magazine. Where is the "Israeli attack on Tony Judt?"
:Embarrass:
I am very embarrassed. I meant the American right's attack on him. He has a few articles in Haaretz, and at least until recently I think dialog about Israeli policy in Palestine was way more open in Israel than in the United States.
David Horowitz is a jackass and FrontPage is a joke. Being attacked by him is meaningless.
The TNR thing is more serious b/c Judt was associated with them for many years, but it is more of a personal thing with Martin Peretz (the publisher) than reflecting anything broader about Judt's standing with the punditocracy in general.
Quote from: Warspite on November 09, 2009, 03:22:06 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on November 09, 2009, 02:24:56 PM
Quote from: Warspite on November 09, 2009, 12:18:18 PM
Did the Palestinians vote in Hamas to say fuck you to Israelis or because Fatah was outrageously corrupt?
Fatah's outrageous corruption would explain why Palestinians would vote for the other guy; it doesn't explain why the only other significant party out there to support is a notorious terrorist organization.
A failure of the political class.
That's a tactful way to put it. Another way to put it is a deeply dysfunctional political culture, characterized by intimidation, pervasive conspiratorial thinking and deliberate dissemination of disinformation and racist propaganda.
Quote from: Malthus on November 09, 2009, 03:24:59 PM
Israelis tend to believe that the relative lack of suicide attacks on them is a function of the huge-ass wall they've built between themselves and the Palestinians on the WB.
As for lack of hijackings - airline security is now rather different than it was.
I think the wall has something to do with it as well. The switch to rocket attacks indicates that there was still a desire to kill Jews.
The article I read way back in the Atlantic on torture by that Blackhawk Down author claimed that a significant factor in the decrease in suicide bombings was the development of the Israeli intelligence services ability to track down and kill the enablers, planners, recruiters, etc.
Quote from: Malthus on November 08, 2009, 03:35:35 PM
Quote"The theory that Japanese and Jews have common ancestry" were sold.
Huh? :huh:
Well, technically, they do. I'd suspect it's a pretty prosaic topic for a book, though.
QuoteIf the halt in westbank suicide bombings due to fewer attempts being made, or better and tighter security on behalf of the Israelis? Same question for the decline in airline hijackings.
Which concessions are you referring to? The big wave of suicide bombings came after the concessions of Oslo.
Sure the situation was actually better in the 70s and 80s which is ridiculously absurd but then...this is the Israeli-Palestinian conflict where nothing makes any sense.
The whole situation today is far better than the situation in the last 40 years. The Palestinians have more or less a bit of their own state, the extremists are confined to the Gazastrip. Israelian civilians are much, much safer from suicide bombers. The last "real" war was in 1982 in Lebanon (around 17000 deaths, compare that with the present situation).
This makes perfectly sense. If you work hard to contain conflicts and make concessions, you can end conflicts, like what happened in Spain, Belfast, Kosovo and other places. Rabin and other Israelian leaders understood that, some Palestinian leaders understand that as well. It will takea lot more time, but that's what you get in a 50 years old conflict.
The people who think that concessions are futile, have no effect, are contraproductive or are defeats, are wrong. People who don't want to make concessions, have to fight their whole life.
Quote from: Jos Theelen on November 10, 2009, 04:38:30 AM
The last "real" war was in 1982 in Lebanon (around 17000 deaths, compare that with the present situation).
There was a "real" war in Lebanon only three years ago.
Quote from: Fate on November 10, 2009, 05:03:51 AM
Quote from: Jos Theelen on November 10, 2009, 04:38:30 AM
The last "real" war was in 1982 in Lebanon (around 17000 deaths, compare that with the present situation).
There was a "real" war in Lebanon only three years ago.
That was not a war. It was some kind of punishment act from Israel for Hezbollah/Lebanon. You cannot compare these acts with 1948, 1967, 1973 and 1982.
Quote from: Ideologue on November 10, 2009, 12:20:55 AM
Quote from: Malthus on November 08, 2009, 03:35:35 PM
Quote"The theory that Japanese and Jews have common ancestry" were sold.
Huh? :huh:
Well, technically, they do. I'd suspect it's a pretty prosaic topic for a book, though.
I don't suspect they were talking about our common Cro-Magnon heritage. :lol:
Quote from: Jos Theelen on November 10, 2009, 04:38:30 AM
The whole situation today is far better than the situation in the last 40 years. The Palestinians have more or less a bit of their own state, the extremists are confined to the Gazastrip. Israelian civilians are much, much safer from suicide bombers. The last "real" war was in 1982 in Lebanon (around 17000 deaths, compare that with the present situation).
This makes perfectly sense. If you work hard to contain conflicts and make concessions, you can end conflicts, like what happened in Spain, Belfast, Kosovo and other places. Rabin and other Israelian leaders understood that, some Palestinian leaders understand that as well. It will takea lot more time, but that's what you get in a 50 years old conflict.
The people who think that concessions are futile, have no effect, are contraproductive or are defeats, are wrong. People who don't want to make concessions, have to fight their whole life.
I think you are misrepresenting what I am trying to say. Key concessions have been made and I was in favor of those. Eventually though those concessions have to lead to positive results for those making them. If you keep making concessions based on the expectation certain results are going to be the outcome, you rightly should expect some of those results to occur. Concessions have to be a two way street. Israel made a major concession and Gaza was handed over to Hamas. They are not "confined" to Gaza, they went from being an extremist group to controlling the only unoccupied part of the Palestinian territories.
Things are not better now, only the Israelis are alot more numerous and have cordoned themselves off better and Arab tactics have changed away from massive wars but that is only because those wars were unsuccessful. I am not really sure if Hamas and Hezbollah controlling their own territories with massive public support is really an indication that things are great and more concessions should be made.
The problem is with the results the way they have been so far, I fail to see how we can honestly convince the Israelis to make more and more need to be made.
Jos, no concessions have been made in Spain. There have been several rounds of talks by 3 different administrations, all without bearing fruit.
The problem it seems is that we all have a narrative in mind about how a peace in the middle east *ought* to go - Israel gives up the WB settlements, the Palestinians get a state, and there is a comprehensive peace.
This is all very well, but it sort of relies on the players on the ground having the same narrative - and not all of them do.
In particular, the Palestinians seem to have a narrative based more on the pattern of the Crusades - Europeans show up in the Holy Land, establish an armed camp, are worn down by years of fighting, and eventually driven into the sea by a Jihad.
In this narrative, all truces and concessions are basically temporary - designed only to gain some advantage for the final confrontation.
The issue is whether by making those concessions and delivering results, those in favour of the first narrative can win over Palestinians who are, it would appear on present evidence, mostly wedded to the second. So far, there is precious little evidence that this will happen, yet its happening is basically an article of faith in left-leaning circles and among most Europeans, who view the "problem" as being Israeli unwillingness to make deep enough concessions to achieve this goal. They view Israeli concessions already made as being too little, made cynically, and reserving the best advantages for Israelis.
The Israelis have by and large come to the conclusion that further concessions will not "work", that the Palestinians are more or less wedded to the Jihadi view, and thus that there is little point to making further concessions.
Quote from: Malthus on November 10, 2009, 09:46:17 AM
The Israelis have by and large come to the conclusion that further concessions will not "work", that the Palestinians are more or less wedded to the Jihadi view, and thus that there is little point to making further concessions.
And under the circumstances I cannot blame them. The Palestinians have to show they are interested in playing along before we can expect the Israelis to concede anymore.
Frankly I would be shocked if what I want, two states living side by side, ever actually occurs. I am pretty convinced the present state of affairs will continue indefinitely.
Quote from: Iormlund on November 10, 2009, 09:42:37 AM
Jos, no concessions have been made in Spain. There have been several rounds of talks by 3 different administrations, all without bearing fruit.
The situation is far better than the situation during Franco. I am not only referring to the ETA. During Franco Spain was far more centralised, languages were forbidden, etc. Most of these things have disappeared.
Quote from: Valmy on November 10, 2009, 09:49:33 AM
Quote from: Malthus on November 10, 2009, 09:46:17 AM
The Israelis have by and large come to the conclusion that further concessions will not "work", that the Palestinians are more or less wedded to the Jihadi view, and thus that there is little point to making further concessions.
And under the circumstances I cannot blame them. The Palestinians have to show they are interested in playing along before we can expect the Israelis to concede anymore.
Frankly I would be shocked if what I want, two states living side by side, ever actually occurs. I am pretty convinced the present state of affairs will continue indefinitely.
I dunno; it is always possible that a truly charismatic leader emerges from among the Palestinians, and achieves a major change in policy (without being assasinated). Unlikely but possible.
After all, I'd never have imagined the Soviet Empire could collapse either - and it did.
Quote from: Jos Theelen on November 10, 2009, 09:51:29 AM
The situation is far better than the situation during Franco. I am not only referring to the ETA. During Franco Spain was far more centralised, languages were forbidden, etc. Most of these things have disappeared.
Well...I don't know if "not being fascist" is really a concession.
The Palestinians haven't made concessions. They don't need to, Israel is doing that for them. Every settlement that is build on the West Bank, is a Palestinian concession forced upon them. Every Israelian move in East-Jerusalem is a concession forced upon them. Every piece of land taken for the wall is a concession forced upon them.
If Israel wants peace, they have to make concessions. The first one is halt those settlements. But the reason that the USA cannot halt the building of the settlements, is not because they disagree with the Palestinians about it, but because they are afraid for the internal reaction. And that will probably decide the outcome of this conflict. Not the Palestinians, but the people in the US. When they agree with a firmer attitude against these kind of actions, they will force Israel to do the concessions this conflict needs.
For the Palestinians the situation is much simpler. They too have to make some concessions. Like the right to return. However nobody cares if they make that concession. Whether they do it or not, they don't have the right to return and will never get it.
Jos nationalist tensions were not alone against the regime. Most people cheered ETA's assassination of Franco's heir apparent (Adm. Carrero Blanco), for example. In fact, despite having not yet been born when it happened, I can still quote the verses of a very popular song commemorating the event. Communists, socialists, liberals (in the European sense) and even religious and military figures advocated the end of the dictatorship.
Anyway, and back to Israel: because of the Fatah-Hamas divide, I think it could be a worthwhile pursuit to further drive the wedge between Gaza and the West Bank. Use the stick with the former, the carrot with the latter (especially when it comes to outside perception). The gains to be made I think justify the attempt, however futile.
Quote from: Jos Theelen on November 10, 2009, 10:10:13 AM
The Palestinians haven't made concessions. They don't need to, Israel is doing that for them.
That have to make the concession of showing they are interested in making it work in Gaza. Granted that is not really a concession since they SHOULD do that anyway in their best interests, but that is what they need to do and it is too hard. Actually all we fucking asked them to do is SAY they are not interested in destroying Israel and Hamas could not even do that.
So when I say Palestinians must make concessions all I really mean is: not be fucking insane and do what is in their best interests for once.
QuoteIf Israel wants peace, they have to make concessions.
They did: they withdrew, they tore down settlements. No progress resulted. In fact the extremists in the Palestinian camp got stronger and the situation got worse.
There is only so much the USA can do right now. Our plan: having a democratically elected responsible Palestinian government with some legitimacy based in Gaza we could negotiate with went to shit when the Palestinians elected Hamas. How can we force the Israelis to do anything when we have no plan?
Quote from: Jos Theelen on November 10, 2009, 10:10:13 AM
The Palestinians haven't made concessions. They don't need to, Israel is doing that for them. Every settlement that is build on the West Bank, is a Palestinian concession forced upon them. Every Israelian move in East-Jerusalem is a concession forced upon them. Every piece of land taken for the wall is a concession forced upon them.
If Israel wants peace, they have to make concessions. The first one is halt those settlements. But the reason that the USA cannot halt the building of the settlements, is not because they disagree with the Palestinians about it, but because they are afraid for the internal reaction. And that will probably decide the outcome of this conflict. Not the Palestinians, but the people in the US. When they agree with a firmer attitude against these kind of actions, they will force Israel to do the concessions this conflict needs.
For the Palestinians the situation is much simpler. They too have to make some concessions. Like the right to return. However nobody cares if they make that concession. Whether they do it or not, they don't have the right to return and will never get it.
The US has seemingly zero political appetite for forcing Israel to make concessions, under Obama at least.
The issue though is, as I've said, whether making concessions will make any difference. Merely saying that Israel must do it does not answer that question. If the Israelis remain of the opinion that concessions will not make any difference, none will be made; if the Israelis are right to think that none will make any difference, merely demanding them isn't going to solve anything.
Quote from: Malthus on November 10, 2009, 10:21:44 AM
The US has seemingly zero political appetite for forcing Israel to make concessions, under Obama at least.
The main reason for this is good: it will probably blow up in our faces and make us look foolish. Relying on Palestine to behave for your international reputation is a sure loser.
Quote from: Iormlund on November 10, 2009, 10:18:05 AM
Jos nationalist tensions were not alone against the regime. Most people cheered ETA's assassination of Franco's heir apparent (Adm. Carrero Blanco), for example. In fact, despite having not yet been born when it happened, I can still quote the verses of a very popular song commemorating the event. Communists, socialists, liberals (in the European sense) and even religious and military figures advocated the end of the dictatorship.
Anyway, and back to Israel: because of the Fatah-Hamas divide, I think it could be a worthwhile pursuit to further drive the wedge between Gaza and the West Bank. Use the stick with the former, the carrot with the latter (especially when it comes to outside perception). The gains to be made I think justify the attempt, however futile.
It's a reasonable approach, if it had any chance of success. Many in Israel (and Palestine) believe that fatah is a broken reed, filled with corrupt and incompetent place-seekers. They are not the stuff of which viable governments are made. The Palestinian situation resembles the
Second Comming, in that "the worst are filled with a passionate intensity" and "the best lack all conviction".
So far, the
reasonable plan is to make concessions to "the best" in the hope of injecting some conviction into their stance. The problem is that history has not demonstrated any successes with this policy in the past.
Quote from: Warspite on November 08, 2009, 08:42:56 PM
QuoteArabs don't really give a fuck about the palestinians and use them only as an excuse to project the responsibility for their collective failures outward.
Say Hans, have you ever talked to a real Arab, or just the caricatures in your own imagination?
I do all the time, while I flexcuff them, if they were lucky enough to be unarmed.
Quote from: Jos Theelen on November 10, 2009, 09:51:29 AM
The situation is far better than the situation during Franco. I am not only referring to the ETA. During Franco Spain was far more centralised, languages were forbidden,
Yeah, in those times, people in Spain had to communicate with grunts and gestures. :D
Quote from: Jos Theelen on November 10, 2009, 07:39:25 AM
Quote from: Fate on November 10, 2009, 05:03:51 AM
Quote from: Jos Theelen on November 10, 2009, 04:38:30 AM
The last "real" war was in 1982 in Lebanon (around 17000 deaths, compare that with the present situation).
There was a "real" war in Lebanon only three years ago.
That was not a war. It was some kind of punishment act from Israel for Hezbollah/Lebanon. You cannot compare these acts with 1948, 1967, 1973 and 1982.
I can compare them as the Israeli government refers to the 2006 invasion of Lebanon as a war.
Quote from: Jos Theelen on November 10, 2009, 04:38:30 AM
The whole situation today is far better than the situation in the last 40 years. The Palestinians have more or less a bit of their own state, the extremists are confined to the Gazastrip. Israelian civilians are much, much safer from suicide bombers. The last "real" war was in 1982 in Lebanon (around 17000 deaths, compare that with the present situation).
And they were worse 10 years ago then they were 40 years ago. Like I already said, the concessions of Oslo lead to a surge in suicide bombings, not a decrease. Withdrawal from Gaza lead to an increase in rocket attacks. And you continue to ignore the impact of things like the security wall.
Quote from: Fate on November 10, 2009, 04:36:58 PM
I can compare them as the Israeli government refers to the 2006 invasion of Lebanon as a war.
You can try, but it wasn't much of a war.
I really don't understand the insistance on creating yet another arab state on Israeli soil.
Jordan should be the only "palestinian" state.
Quote from: Siege on November 15, 2009, 01:21:22 PM
I really don't understand the insistance on creating yet another arab state on Israeli soil.
Jordan should be the only "palestinian" state.
Okay, I'll admit it, Siege is another reason why I've reconsidered my longstanding support of Israeli policy in Palestine.
Quote from: Queequeg on November 15, 2009, 01:41:15 PM
Quote from: Siege on November 15, 2009, 01:21:22 PM
I really don't understand the insistance on creating yet another arab state on Israeli soil.
Jordan should be the only "palestinian" state.
Okay, I'll admit it, Siege is another reason why I've reconsidered my longstanding support of Israeli policy in Palestine.
You mean "israeli policy in Yesha".
There have never been a country called Palestine.
Quote from: Siege on November 15, 2009, 01:44:21 PM
Quote from: Queequeg on November 15, 2009, 01:41:15 PM
Quote from: Siege on November 15, 2009, 01:21:22 PM
I really don't understand the insistance on creating yet another arab state on Israeli soil.
Jordan should be the only "palestinian" state.
Okay, I'll admit it, Siege is another reason why I've reconsidered my longstanding support of Israeli policy in Palestine.
You mean "israeli policy in Yesha".
There have never been a country called Palestine.
There has never been a country called 'Yesha' either. At least Palestine was the name of the British mandate.
Right. And Jews hadn't been a majority in Palestine since the Arab Invasion, and probably beforehand. And Poles weren't a majority in Pomerania for 600 years. Maps are flexible.
This is a dumb fucking game, Siege. I should think that if anyone should have sympathy for a crazy religious people trying to regain their homeland through occasional, violent rebellions marked by riotous infighting against a technologically superior foe, it should be the Jews. :lol:
Quote from: Siege on November 15, 2009, 01:44:21 PM
Quote from: Queequeg on November 15, 2009, 01:41:15 PM
Quote from: Siege on November 15, 2009, 01:21:22 PM
I really don't understand the insistance on creating yet another arab state on Israeli soil.
Jordan should be the only "palestinian" state.
Okay, I'll admit it, Siege is another reason why I've reconsidered my longstanding support of Israeli policy in Palestine.
You mean "israeli policy in Yesha".
There have never been a country called Palestine.
And before 1776 there had never been a country called The United States of America, so fuck you.
Quote from: Siege on November 15, 2009, 01:21:22 PM
I really don't understand the insistance on creating yet another arab state on Israeli soil.
Jordan should be the only "palestinian" state.
Nobody wants to create another Arab state, just for Israel to stop occupying the one created in 1948.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on November 15, 2009, 04:43:58 PM
Nobody wants to create another Arab state, just for Israel to stop occupying the one created in 1948.
Suggested you mean.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 10, 2009, 04:54:53 PM
And they were worse 10 years ago then they were 40 years ago. Like I already said, the concessions of Oslo lead to a surge in suicide bombings, not a decrease. Withdrawal from Gaza lead to an increase in rocket attacks. And you continue to ignore the impact of things like the security wall.
Nonsense. Golda Meir said in 1969, that the Palestinians didn't exist. Compare that with the situation 10 years ago.
Quote from: Jos Theelen on November 16, 2009, 05:55:42 AM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 10, 2009, 04:54:53 PM
And they were worse 10 years ago then they were 40 years ago. Like I already said, the concessions of Oslo lead to a surge in suicide bombings, not a decrease. Withdrawal from Gaza lead to an increase in rocket attacks. And you continue to ignore the impact of things like the security wall.
Nonsense. Golda Meir said in 1969, that the Palestinians didn't exist. Compare that with the situation 10 years ago.
There's a quote I'd like to see in context. :lol:
Quote from: Siege on November 15, 2009, 01:21:22 PM
Jordan should be the only "palestinian" state.
Jordan may have alot of Palestinians but last I checked that state belongs to the Hashemite Dynasty.
Quote from: Malthus on November 16, 2009, 09:17:53 AM
Quote from: Jos Theelen on November 16, 2009, 05:55:42 AM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 10, 2009, 04:54:53 PM
And they were worse 10 years ago then they were 40 years ago. Like I already said, the concessions of Oslo lead to a surge in suicide bombings, not a decrease. Withdrawal from Gaza lead to an increase in rocket attacks. And you continue to ignore the impact of things like the security wall.
Nonsense. Golda Meir said in 1969, that the Palestinians didn't exist. Compare that with the situation 10 years ago.
There's a quote I'd like to see in context. :lol:
You mean this context?
QuoteThat set the trend for the Israeli State's attitude towards the Palestinians. In 1969, Israeli Prime Minister Golda Meir said, "Palestinians do not exist." Her successor, Prime Minister Levi Eschol said, "What are Palestinians? When I came here (to Palestine), there were 250,000 non-Jews, mainly Arabs and Bedouins. It was a desert, more than underdeveloped. Nothing." Prime Minister Menachem Begin called Palestinians "two-legged beasts." Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir called them "grasshoppers" who could be crushed. This is the language of Heads of State, not the words of ordinary people.
What's with all the ad homs against Palestinians :mad:
Quote from: Jos Theelen on November 16, 2009, 09:46:31 AM
Quote from: Malthus on November 16, 2009, 09:17:53 AM
Quote from: Jos Theelen on November 16, 2009, 05:55:42 AM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 10, 2009, 04:54:53 PM
And they were worse 10 years ago then they were 40 years ago. Like I already said, the concessions of Oslo lead to a surge in suicide bombings, not a decrease. Withdrawal from Gaza lead to an increase in rocket attacks. And you continue to ignore the impact of things like the security wall.
Nonsense. Golda Meir said in 1969, that the Palestinians didn't exist. Compare that with the situation 10 years ago.
There's a quote I'd like to see in context. :lol:
You mean this context?
QuoteThat set the trend for the Israeli State's attitude towards the Palestinians. In 1969, Israeli Prime Minister Golda Meir said, "Palestinians do not exist." Her successor, Prime Minister Levi Eschol said, "What are Palestinians? When I came here (to Palestine), there were 250,000 non-Jews, mainly Arabs and Bedouins. It was a desert, more than underdeveloped. Nothing." Prime Minister Menachem Begin called Palestinians "two-legged beasts." Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir called them "grasshoppers" who could be crushed. This is the language of Heads of State, not the words of ordinary people.
That's exactly
not what I mean - those are obviously cherry-picked quotes strung together by a (hostile) third party.
I mean the actual context of the quote.
For example, in 1966 it was two years since the WB was part of
Jordan. To say that "
Palestine doens't exist" would be a mere statement of fact - it didn't. Is that what she meant? Impossible to say, out of context.
Check this out: http://books.google.com/books?id=3kbU4BIAcrQC&pg=PA444&lpg=PA444&dq=%22Palestinians+do+not+exist%22+meir&source=bl&ots=Szj5XzDdWh&sig=285nOlmvvHtMcKJnTaGt3LE6YGk&hl=en&ei=sWQBS7XJNIOolAeV3aCGCw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CAsQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=%22Palestinians%20do%20not%20exist%22%20meir&f=false
In point of fact,
in context it is obvious that what she said happened to be
true at the time it was said (variously attributed to 1966 or 1968) - Palestinian nationalism was mostly a
creation of the 1967 war; prior to that, there never had been a notion of an independent Palestinian state, other than the UN partition plan (notably *rejected* by all Arab participants, including Palestinians). "Palestinians" as a nationalism is a more modern creation, almost entirely in reaction to Israel.
Actual knowledge of historical context sheds a rather different light on the matter. Meir isn't denying the literal existance of Palestinians as if they were un-persons, she is stating the historical fact - that Palestinian nationalism was, at the time, wholly artificial.
Also, I'm not inclined to believe in the accuracy of various nasty stuff claimed to have been said by Israeli leaders without source or citation, since anti-Israel folks have a nasty habit of either distorting what was said or simply making stuff up to suit themselves.
Reply #2: here's the source of Begin's "two legged beasts" quote:
QuoteInvestigation--Example 2: Internet hate sites, as well as Fisk, attribute this derogation of Palestnians as "two-legged beasts" to former Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin. The source generally given is:
Menachem Begin, as quoted in Amnon Kapeliouk, "Begin and the Beasts,"New Statesman, June 25, 1982
Indeed, the radical French-Israeli journalist, Amnon Kapeliouk, did attribute such a quote to Begin in his New Statesman article criticizing Israel's invasion of Lebanon. The author posited:
For this reason the government has gone to extraordinary lengths to dehumanise the Palestinians. Begin described them in a speech in the Knesset as "beasts walking on two legs".
However, further investigation by CAMERA reveals that the actual speech upon which Kapeliouk based his quote, as well as news reports at the time demonstrate that the journalist distorted the quote, giving it a completely different tone and meaning. Begin was talking, not about "the Palestinians" but about terrorists who target children within Israel.
On June 8, 1982, Begin addressed the Knesset in response to a no-confidence motion over Israel's invasion of Lebanon. He talked about defending the children of Israel, and according to a June 9, 1982 AP report, "his voice quaver[ed] with anger and sadness." According to the minutes of the session, Begin stated:
The children of Israel will happily go to school and joyfully return home, just like the children in Washington, in Moscow, and in Peking, in Paris and in Rome, in Oslo, in Stockholm and in Copenhagen. The fate of... Jewish children has been different from all the children of the world throughout the generations. No more. We will defend our children. If the hand of any two-footed animal is raised against them, that hand will be cut off, and our children will grow up in joy in the homes of their parents.
Kapeliouk neither recanted nor apologized for his deception.
Summary: Distortion by an Israeli critic of a Begin speech discussing terrorism and terrorists.
http://www.camera.org/index.asp?x_context=22&x_article=775
Note: cite also disposes of "grasshoppers" quote.
See what I mean?
Quote from: Malthus on November 16, 2009, 10:05:41 AM
That's exactly not what I mean - those are obviously cherry-picked quotes strung together by a (hostile) third party.
I mean the actual context of the quote.
I know you meant that. I just tried to make you angry. I couldn't find the speech of Golda Meir.
Why did you ask for the context, if you had it already?
Quote from: Jos Theelen on November 16, 2009, 10:27:35 AM
Quote from: Malthus on November 16, 2009, 10:05:41 AM
That's exactly not what I mean - those are obviously cherry-picked quotes strung together by a (hostile) third party.
I mean the actual context of the quote.
I know you meant that. I just tried to make you angry. I couldn't find the speech of Golda Meir.
Why did you ask for the context, if you had it already?
I didn't. I looked it up after you posted, using Google.
I thought to save myself the time, since you quoted it I assumed you were quoting it from somewhere.
Quote from: Queequeg on November 08, 2009, 02:53:41 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 08, 2009, 02:49:11 PM
It was a diplomatic defeat for Obama. But I doubt the American public was sufficiently invested in a settlement freeze for it to qualify as a defeat for America.
To be honest, I think that it most clearly is in our national interest to freeze settlement growth, and eventually roll it back. :unsure:
I think it's in Israel's national interest to freeze settlement growth.
Does anyone here honestly think that creating an independent Palestinian state will stop the bloodshed in the middle east? Neither side wants the other on it's holy places, and neither side tolerates the other side being there, so this living side-by-side in rainbow dreamland is not going to prevent the bloodshed.
I can't even think of a solution for such people. Let them get on with it.
Quote from: Palisadoes on November 16, 2009, 10:50:08 AM
Does anyone here honestly think that creating an independent Palestinian state will stop the bloodshed in the middle east? Neither side wants the other on it's holy places, and neither side tolerates the other side being there, so this living side-by-side in rainbow dreamland is not going to prevent the bloodshed.
I can't even think of a solution for such people. Let them get on with it.
The idea is not a utopia of unicorns and care bears shitting rainbows together, but a semblence of normalicy. The Israelis fought several vicious wars with the Egyptians - and now, they still hate each other, but have agreed at least for now that fighting isn't worth it.
There are plenty of places like this - Greeks and Turks, Indians and Pakistanis, Russians and, well, everyone ... ;)
I think that this is a very important issue. In polling in Arab countries Israel and Palestine is considered the most important issue for around 40% and top 3 for everyone but 2%. Will it automatically cause regional peace? Of course not but I think it's a necessary precondition to a more peaceable and democratic Middle East.
Quote from: Sheilbh on November 16, 2009, 11:07:33 AM
I think that this is a very important issue. In polling in Arab countries Israel and Palestine is considered the most important issue for around 40% and top 3 for everyone but 2%. Will it automatically cause regional peace? Of course not but I think it's a necessary precondition to a more peaceable and democratic Middle East.
I think it may be the other way around.
The problem is that Israel is a terribly useful distraction for every ME autocrat - think of what Orwell would have said about this. The "conflict" may never totally be removed
until the ME gets more democratic, as the flames of conflict are kept fanned by ME politicos desperate to distract the mob from their own lamentable leadership.
Quote from: Malthus on November 16, 2009, 11:15:10 AM
The problem is that Israel is a terribly useful distraction for every ME autocrat - think of what Orwell would have said about this. The "conflict" may never totally be removed until the ME gets more democratic, as the flames of conflict are kept fanned by ME politicos desperate to distract the mob from their own lamentable leadership.
I disagree. I think your first part is right but that as long as this distraction exists (and let's not forget that peace would be worthwhile of itself for Israel, the West and, God knows, Palestinians) then the execrable situation in much of the Middle East will never get the attention it deserves because that anger can so easily be directed at Israel rather than the kleptocracies running affairs.
Quote from: Sheilbh on November 16, 2009, 11:17:57 AM
Quote from: Malthus on November 16, 2009, 11:15:10 AM
The problem is that Israel is a terribly useful distraction for every ME autocrat - think of what Orwell would have said about this. The "conflict" may never totally be removed until the ME gets more democratic, as the flames of conflict are kept fanned by ME politicos desperate to distract the mob from their own lamentable leadership.
I disagree. I think your first part is right but that as long as this distraction exists (and let's not forget that peace would be worthwhile of itself for Israel, the West and, God knows, Palestinians) then the execrable situation in much of the Middle East will never get the attention it deserves because that anger can so easily be directed at Israel rather than the kleptocracies running affairs.
Of course peace would be worthwhile - I'm not questioning that.
What I am questioning is that any "resolution" to the Israeli-Palestinian business would ever be so clear cut and unequivocal that there would be no resulting "injustices" handy for use in whipping up the mob's hatred.
Just to name one - "Right of Return". The Israelis would never agree to it and there are at least some Palestinians who will never give it up.
In short, no matter what happens, if someone wants to be angry (or make others angry) over the situation - they can; and as long as it remains politically useful - they will.
Quote from: Sheilbh on November 16, 2009, 11:07:33 AM
I think that this is a very important issue. In polling in Arab countries Israel and Palestine is considered the most important issue for around 40% and top 3 for everyone but 2%. Will it automatically cause regional peace? Of course not but I think it's a necessary precondition to a more peaceable and democratic Middle East.
Of course it is an important issue. But there seem to be more people interested in it not being solved than are and therefore it will continue indefinitely it seems.
Quote from: Sheilbh on November 16, 2009, 10:46:54 AM
I think it's in Israel's national interest to freeze settlement growth.
Is it? Haven't recent events confirmed rather dramatically that freezing or rolling back settlements is, in fact, rather disastrous for Israel's national interests?
If you want to make a case that national interests dictate a certain policy shouldn't you have evidence and results to point to? That is the problem we are having in trying to get the Israelis to dance to our tune...we have nothing to offer them and they have no reason to comply.
I think, though, that if you have a Palestinian state with some level of democracy living in relative peace with Israel would remove a lot of the problems. I'm sure some people could be made very angry by the right to return but I don't think most people's anger is so abstract and I think it's difficult to whip up a mob with something so abstract. It's simple images that makes the anger bulldozers and airstrikes; the shrieking Palestinian mother and the crushed house. I think the actual issues or outlines of a peace would generally be of secondary concern, if that.
Quote from: Sheilbh on November 16, 2009, 11:27:10 AM
I think, though, that if you have a Palestinian state with some level of democracy living in relative peace with Israel would remove a lot of the problems.
Of course it would, that is the Holy Grail and the goal of American policy in the area since 1947. Unfortunately it is looking about as realistic as finding the Holy Grail these days. That is like saying having a billion dollars would remove alot of my financial problems.
QuoteI'm sure some people could be made very angry by the right to return but I don't think most people's anger is so abstract and I think it's difficult to whip up a mob with something so abstract. It's simple images that makes the anger bulldozers and airstrikes; the shrieking Palestinian mother and the crushed house.
Those images are very damaging but unfortunately the anger and fury at Israel did not abate one iota when Israel pulled back. It makes it very hard for those of us who support a Palestinian State.
Quote from: Valmy on November 16, 2009, 11:26:20 AM
Is it? Haven't recent events confirmed rather dramatically that freezing or rolling back settlements is, in fact, rather disastrous for Israel's national interests?
I don't think settlement growth is sustainable from the perspective that the Israeli state has to protect them and provide services to them. I think it's bad for any state to be held hostage by an often extremist but vocal minority. Settlements give to much power to a minority and cost too much for my taste.
Plus I think the circumstances of the Gaza withdrawal were uniquely difficult. Arafat died, just beforehand, leaving the Palestinan government in a state of chaos, then there were elections, the wrong side won - especially in Gaza - and Fatah which was never very strong in Gaza suffered from the lack of a strong charismatic leader. The Sharon was incapicitated and I think Olmert was a great politician but I think a criminally negligent statesman. Gaza's been difficult but what's interesting is that I don't think anyone would suggest that settlements would be an answer to it. Plus I really think Gaza's secondary overall.
I don't think settlement expansion is worth it for Israel and I think the costs and negatives of continued expansion considerably outweigh the potential costs of freezing (and I don't know if one can dramatically stop) expansion.
Quote from: Sheilbh on November 16, 2009, 11:27:10 AM
I think, though, that if you have a Palestinian state with some level of democracy living in relative peace with Israel would remove a lot of the problems. I'm sure some people could be made very angry by the right to return but I don't think most people's anger is so abstract and I think it's difficult to whip up a mob with something so abstract. It's simple images that makes the anger bulldozers and airstrikes; the shrieking Palestinian mother and the crushed house. I think the actual issues or outlines of a peace would generally be of secondary concern, if that.
All it takes is some disaffected group launching rockets at Israel. Then, you'll have the airstrikes, the shrieking moms (in the case of the Lebanon War, apparently the *same* shrieking mom), etc.
Quote from: Malthus on November 16, 2009, 11:33:59 AM
All it takes is some disaffected group launching rockets at Israel. Then, you'll have the airstrikes, the shrieking moms (in the case of the Lebanon War, apparently the *same* shrieking mom), etc.
Not necessarily. I believe that should be the responsibility of any Palestinian state that makes peace with Israel - and from some stuff I've read recently the US, EU and Israel all believe that the Palestinian effort against terrorism in the West Bank is better than it's every been. If that state isn't able or willing to restrain their extremists and cannot be trusted to retaliate then there's no practical basis for a sustainable peace; but I'd say the same of Israel. If the Israeli government is unable or unwilling to fulfill it's agreements - such as freezing settlements - then it's very difficult for there to be a real peace.
Quote from: Sheilbh on November 16, 2009, 11:33:18 AM
I don't think settlement expansion is worth it for Israel and I think the costs and negatives of continued expansion considerably outweigh the potential costs of freezing (and I don't know if one can dramatically stop) expansion.
I am certainly not in favor of settlement but those Israelis who are in favor of them are gaining more and more of a sympathetic ear right now from their compatriots. A case could be made by an Israeli nationalist that the settlements enable the Israelis to keep the Palestinians divided, weak, and under surveillance. It also holds the eventual means of pushing the Palestinians out of area altogether which is obviously an idea that appeals to alot of Israeli right wingers. The only way to defeat the settlers and their allies is to offer an alternative and thus far we have failed to do so. Right now the choice seems to be either sit passively by or attack via settlements.
Quote from: Sheilbh on November 16, 2009, 11:38:51 AM
If the Israeli government is unable or unwilling to fulfill it's agreements - such as freezing settlements - then it's very difficult for there to be a real peace.
Well the question is if freezing settlements or pulling back would bring about real peace. That is the case to be made. Right now there is zero evidence to support that case unfortunately. Hence my frustration.
Palestinians. Let's neuter them from orbit. It's the only way to be sure.
Quote from: Sheilbh on November 16, 2009, 11:33:18 AM
I don't think settlement growth is sustainable from the perspective that the Israeli state has to protect them and provide services to them.
But does that really matter? Protecting the settlements doesn't make a difference, since Israel is already an armed camp surrounded by enemies. And don't they already supply services to the Palestinian territories as well? They seem to control electrical supply to Gaza, at least.
Quote from: Sheilbh on November 16, 2009, 11:38:51 AM
If the Israeli government is unable or unwilling to fulfill it's agreements - such as freezing settlements - then it's very difficult for there to be a real peace.
True, but recall that not so long ago, when the Israeli government was both able and willing to fulfill its agreements, it was still very difficult for there to be real peace.
Quote from: Sheilbh on November 16, 2009, 11:27:10 AM
It's simple images that makes the anger bulldozers and airstrikes; the shrieking Palestinian mother and the crushed house. I think the actual issues or outlines of a peace would generally be of secondary concern, if that.
Indeed - especially when those images are manufactured.
Quote from: Jos Theelen on November 16, 2009, 05:55:42 AM
Nonsense. Golda Meir said in 1969, that the Palestinians didn't exist. Compare that with the situation 10 years ago.
???
I thought we were talking about concessions leading to a decrease in violence. What does Meir's comment have to do with that?
Palestinians are that which something greater can be thought.
Palestinians often lack understanding.
To have understanding is greater than existing without understanding.
Therefore, Palestinians may exist.
Quote from: Valmy on November 16, 2009, 12:16:35 PM
Well the question is if freezing settlements or pulling back would bring about real peace.
Whether it brought about real peace or not, wouldn't freezing settlements be the right thing to do?
Quote from: citizen k on November 16, 2009, 07:06:22 PM
Quote from: Valmy on November 16, 2009, 12:16:35 PM
Well the question is if freezing settlements or pulling back would bring about real peace.
Whether it brought about real peace or not, wouldn't freezing settlements be the right thing to do?
What makes you say that? Settling is morally ambiguous.
Quote from: citizen k on November 16, 2009, 07:06:22 PM
Whether it brought about real peace or not, wouldn't freezing settlements be the right thing to do?
If you start with the premise that seizing real estate is wrong, then freezing settlements is a half measure at best. They should be giving the land back. (I don't know how much of the land was seized, how much was bought, and how much was confiscated for particpating in attacks.)
Quote from: Palisadoes on November 16, 2009, 10:50:08 AM
Does anyone here honestly think that creating an independent Palestinian state will stop the bloodshed in the middle east? Neither side wants the other on it's holy places, and neither side tolerates the other side being there, so this living side-by-side in rainbow dreamland is not going to prevent the bloodshed.
I can't even think of a solution for such people. Let them get on with it.
Actually the Israelis have been quite willing to let the Palestinians control the temple mount, indeed they do so today. The problem is that that isn't enough, the palestinians demand that the Israelis deny that the temple mount was ever an israeli holy site - i.e. deny their heritage and their legitimacy - and this is a precondition to any peace talks.
In short, the Palestinians have a pre-negotiating position that make peace talks entirely impossible, not that that would stop our resident jew-haters from blaming the israelis.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 16, 2009, 05:45:14 PM
Quote from: Jos Theelen on November 16, 2009, 05:55:42 AM
Nonsense. Golda Meir said in 1969, that the Palestinians didn't exist. Compare that with the situation 10 years ago.
???
I thought we were talking about concessions leading to a decrease in violence. What does Meir's comment have to do with that?
She's a :Joos no further explanation needed.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 16, 2009, 05:45:14 PM
Quote from: Jos Theelen on November 16, 2009, 05:55:42 AM
Nonsense. Golda Meir said in 1969, that the Palestinians didn't exist. Compare that with the situation 10 years ago.
???
I thought we were talking about concessions leading to a decrease in violence. What does Meir's comment have to do with that?
No, we were talking about concessions improving the situation. And clearly the situation is better now for the Israeli, compared to 1969. And I also think the situation is better for the Palestinians, compared to 1969.
You stated that the situation 10 years ago was worse than the situation 40 years ago.
Quote from: Malthus on November 16, 2009, 10:34:54 AM
I didn't. I looked it up after you posted, using Google.
I thought to save myself the time, since you quoted it I assumed you were quoting it from somewhere.
OK. I am not so much interested in context, but more in intentions.
What was the intention of Golda Meir, when she said that? To promote a Palestinian state?
And maybe you can also explain what the intention is of the Israelian government to expand the settlements? The only intention I see is to grab more and more land. To expand the occupation.
Quote from: Valmy on November 16, 2009, 12:16:35 PM
Well the question is if freezing settlements or pulling back would bring about real peace. That is the case to be made. Right now there is zero evidence to support that case unfortunately. Hence my frustration.
You seem to always be dealing with Gaza, but the situation is entirely different from Gaza.
Israel has committed numerous times to stopping settlement growth - both to the Palestinians and the US - now they say that they actual meant to stop growth that wasn't organic. We're not asking for them to do something new, we're asking for them to follow through on what's been agreed.
I don't believe settlements do not have majority support in Israel but the several hundred thousand settlers are a very loud and influential lobby, given Israel's system a strong enough minority can hold things up in a big way. But no-one's pushing for unilateral disengagement here, a la Gaza. We want them to stop building so that negotiations can move forward. Chances are some settlements will have to be dismantled but others will, effectively, become a part of Israel.
As I say the Palestinian Authority are believed to have made the most progress against militants in the West Bank, they've been cooperating with Israel far more and their security forces have got better. The EU, US and Israel agree that the Palestinians have never really achieved this much on security and that they genuinely are making progress. So that's different from Gaza. But, I also think it's unfortunate that for many years during Arafat's time we say that we want the Palestinians to crack down on militants to start taking security more seriously and that's the obstacle to peace; we say much the same thing in the early years of Abu Mazen. When there is genuine process we can't reciprocate with even a freeze on settlement expansion. I think that's a mistake.
QuoteTrue, but recall that not so long ago, when the Israeli government was both able and willing to fulfill its agreements, it was still very difficult for there to be real peace.
Absolutely. But then, for the most part, the Palestinian authority wasn't able or willing.
QuoteIndeed - especially when those images are manufactured.
Some are, some aren't.
Quote from: Sheilbh on November 17, 2009, 06:45:27 AM
QuoteIndeed - especially when those images are manufactured.
Some are, some aren't.
And the fact that so much of the West either doesn't seem to care whether they are completely bullshit or not, or is even actively involved in creating the bullshit, makes it rather hard to take their faux outrage over Israel very seriously.
Who has any credibility anymore?
Quote from: citizen k on November 16, 2009, 07:06:22 PM
Quote from: Valmy on November 16, 2009, 12:16:35 PM
Well the question is if freezing settlements or pulling back would bring about real peace.
Whether it brought about real peace or not, wouldn't freezing settlements be the right thing to do?
Point missed. In order to freeze settlements we need to demonstrate it is in Israel's interests to do so. There is a powerful, active, and outspoken group of people in Israel working for settlements. Opposing them requires reasons because it takes significant energy and political capital to hold them back.
Quote from: Sheilbh on November 17, 2009, 06:45:27 AM
I don't believe settlements do not have majority support in Israel but the several hundred thousand settlers are a very loud and influential lobby, given Israel's system a strong enough minority can hold things up in a big way. But no-one's pushing for unilateral disengagement here, a la Gaza. We want them to stop building so that negotiations can move forward. Chances are some settlements will have to be dismantled but others will, effectively, become a part of Israel.
I know all of this. The difference is the settlement lobby is sure of itself and has momentum on its side. Those in favor of negotiation have nothing but defeats and embarrasments on their track record and are demoralized. Right now right wing parties, religious ones even, are in the ascendancy as they never have been before in Israel.
QuoteYou seem to always be dealing with Gaza, but the situation is entirely different from Gaza.
I am dealing with Gaza because Gaza is the key to the entire situation. The situation is not diferent from Gaza the situation IS Gaza. It is absolutely insane and ludicrous in the extreme to suggest that somehow the Palestinians can be given authority in Gaza and have that fail miserably and then turn around and somehow labor under the delusion that Israel would then be willing to do the same again in an area that is far more important to their security and interests like the West Bank.
You claim there is genuine progress going on in the West Bank...well it is alot easier to have progress when the Israelis are right there. Would that continue if the Israelis were to leave or would we see a repeat of Gaza?
Quote from: Jos Theelen on November 16, 2009, 10:27:35 AM
I know you meant that. I just tried to make you angry. I couldn't find the speech of Golda Meir.
Why did you ask for the context, if you had it already?
I guess what is telling about your quote is that you apparently actually thought that it is an example of something "in context." That is such a serious misunderstanding of the concept that you should be worried.
Quote from: grumbler on November 17, 2009, 10:26:02 AM
Quote from: Jos Theelen on November 16, 2009, 10:27:35 AM
I know you meant that. I just tried to make you angry. I couldn't find the speech of Golda Meir.
Why did you ask for the context, if you had it already?
I guess what is telling about your quote is that you apparently actually thought that it is an example of something "in context." That is such a serious misunderstanding of the concept that you should be worried.
About what?
Quote from: Jos Theelen on November 17, 2009, 10:30:16 AM
Quote from: grumbler on November 17, 2009, 10:26:02 AM
Quote from: Jos Theelen on November 16, 2009, 10:27:35 AM
I know you meant that. I just tried to make you angry. I couldn't find the speech of Golda Meir.
Why did you ask for the context, if you had it already?
I guess what is telling about your quote is that you apparently actually thought that it is an example of something "in context." That is such a serious misunderstanding of the concept that you should be worried.
About what?
That you don't know is ever more worrisome.
Quote from: Valmy on November 17, 2009, 09:21:16 AM
Point missed. In order to freeze settlements we need to demonstrate it is in Israel's interests to do so. There is a powerful, active, and outspoken group of people in Israel working for settlements. Opposing them requires reasons because it takes significant energy and political capital to hold them back.
I think that you are right, to the extent that the pro-settlement movement will never acknowledge that a compromise peace is in Israel's best interests. There is the stick, though, of refusing to acknowledge a de facto illegal change of borders, and cutting off development aid to Israel in response.
I think, in fact, that the US should insist that Israel abide unilaterally by the borders establish by the Taba "Agreement." Certainly there would be plenty of Israelis who would welcome such pressure, and it would allow the expansion of some settlements while requiring the abandonment of others.
An even better move would be a "rolling occupation" of the west bank by the Israelis: occupy an area, build modern housing there, then "give it up" and occupy some other land, leaving the fully-furnished modern housing, schools, etc to be occupied by Palestinians. Once enough Palestinians occupy such communities, they will be a powerful force for peace, because then they will have something to lose. Keep it up long enough, and the Palestinians as a whole will be invested in a peace process, lest war ruin their shiny new communities. They will need to be at peace to get the spare parts and whatnot to maintain these houses, appliances, etc.
Sure, it will be fantastically expensive, but probably no more so in the long run than not doing it. It would eb a great stimulus to the various economies providing the building materials, appliances, and whatnot, to boot.
Quote from: Berkut on November 17, 2009, 09:13:36 AM
And the fact that so much of the West either doesn't seem to care whether they are completely bullshit or not, or is even actively involved in creating the bullshit, makes it rather hard to take their faux outrage over Israel very seriously.
But surely that's because media ethics are less important than the fact that regardless of some faked images there is genuine suffering by the people in the region.
What do you mean by staged though?
QuoteI am dealing with Gaza because Gaza is the key to the entire situation. The situation is not diferent from Gaza the situation IS Gaza. It is absolutely insane and ludicrous in the extreme to suggest that somehow the Palestinians can be given authority in Gaza and have that fail miserably and then turn around and somehow labor under the delusion that Israel would then be willing to do the same again in an area that is far more important to their security and interests like the West Bank.
Gaza's a side-issue. The key issues of settlements, borders of territory, the status of Jerusalem, refugees and water are all in the West Bank. The Palestinian Authority is already in charge there - though there's still an Israeli presence, of course. At this point the PA have no possibility of re-asserting control over Gaza (how would they?), though everything I've read suggests that if the Gazans got to vote now then Fatah would win by a landslide. In the short-term I think that the Hamas statelet is as much a feature of the region as the Hezbollah controlled Southern Lebanon. In both cases I think we ultimately have to build up the legitimate forces that we can deal with so that they can take on Hezbollah and Hamas, though I've no idea how any PA that's strong in the West Bank would be able to deal with Gaza short of invasion which would be impossible because they'll never have the military to do it.
QuoteYou claim there is genuine progress going on in the West Bank...well it is alot easier to have progress when the Israelis are right there. Would that continue if the Israelis were to leave or would we see a repeat of Gaza?
There is progress by Palestinian security forces and the Palestinian Authority in the West Bank.
Would there be a repeat of Gaza? I don't think it's likely. At that time the Palestinians were in chaos over the death of Arafat and the election, Gaza has always been Hamas's stronghold and Fatah lost, Abu Mazen had little to no power in Gaza, Ariel Sharon was incapicitated shortly afterwards and Ehud Olmert was a huge disappointment. I think the West Bank is a different situation. The Palestinian Security Forces seem to be emerging with some weight, they've had an amount (though not nearly enough) of economic and development aid and Fatah seem to be in control. I still think that the biggest problems in Gaza were the death of Arafat and the end of Sharon's career - I think had Sharon been in charge the situation would be very different. We know about the Gaza disengagement but the Israelis also dismantled settlements in a part of the Northern West Bank. So far nothing like Gaza has happened there.
But I'm not saying the Israelis should withdraw. I'm saying they should stop expanding and that illegal settlements should be dismantled, which is rather different. I think the settlements will have to be negotiated about because while some in West Bank should be demolished there needs to be some sort of territory swap to acknowledge that some of them are permanent fixtures and '67 borders are no longer feasible.
I also think the motivation is different. Sharon wanted to withdraw because it was basically a running, bloody sore - which is what it remains. I think Israel should now stop expanding for two reasons. Firstly because they have repeatedly said they would - though they say there's always been an understanding that 'organic' growth would be allowed. Secondly I think because their negotiating partner has begun to deliver on their repeated promises (to develop their security forces and use them to help guarantee Israeli security) which, I think, puts the onus on Israel to begin to fulfill their repeated promises and stop an expansion of settlements prior to a wider negotiation.
I don't think anyone would suggest that unilateral dismantlement of the settlements in the West Bank would be a good idea. One of the things peace has to deliver is a Palestinian state. Now if that's to happen then when they start behaving like a partner - as they have over the last year or two - then you have to treat them like a partner. Unilateral withdrawal is a tacit acknowledgement that the Palestinians can't be dealt with as I think was the case for much of Arafat's reign.
Other than that I agree with grumbler.
QuotePoint missed. In order to freeze settlements we need to demonstrate it is in Israel's interests to do so. There is a powerful, active, and outspoken group of people in Israel working for settlements. Opposing them requires reasons because it takes significant energy and political capital to hold them back.
My understanding is that most Israelis want a settlement freeze but that the settlers are a powerful minority and I think Israel's electoral system seems to benefit well-organised minorities.
Quote from: grumbler on November 17, 2009, 10:45:07 AM
I think, in fact, that the US should insist that Israel abide unilaterally by the borders establish by the Taba "Agreement."
That would guarantee that the Israelis would never put a serious peace proposal on the table ever again.
The US apparently can't even stick to a simple settlement freeze demand, in any event.
Quote from: Sheilbh on November 17, 2009, 12:45:20 PM
Gaza's a side-issue. The key issues of settlements, borders of territory, the status of Jerusalem, refugees and water are all in the West Bank.
Precisely. Therefore we are far likelier to be able to build a Palestinian State there where Israel will have less at stake. That is my point. Screwing up in Gaza and then turning around and demanding Israel then make serious concessions on far more serious issues is simply lunacy at best. We have nothing substantial to offer them except the possibility of another Gaza where it would be disastrous for them.
QuoteWould there be a repeat of Gaza? I don't think it's likely.
Not exactly like Gaza but something comparable? Oh I do. I think it is almost a certainty. You seem to have far more confidence in the Palestinaians than I do.
Quote from: Sheilbh on November 17, 2009, 12:45:20 PM
My understanding is that most Israelis want a settlement freeze but that the settlers are a powerful minority and I think Israel's electoral system seems to benefit well-organised minorities.
Your understanding is precisely what I just said.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on November 17, 2009, 01:03:39 PM
That would guarantee that the Israelis would never put a serious peace proposal on the table ever again.
The US apparently can't even stick to a simple settlement freeze demand, in any event.
We have no plan and have no idea how to proceed except we have a vague desire to have the Arabs like us without pissing off the Israelis. Ergo our policy is to fight hard for a settlement freeze without the will to really get it done.
The plain political fact is that you have a hardline government in place in Israel, a radical terror organization controlling Gaza and a pseudo-government in the West Bank headed by a lame duck with a few weeks left on his dubiously extended term of office and whose approval rating is just barely treading in the double digits. There is no way anything of use is going to get down in terms of reaching a settlement as long as this holds. It is all nice that Obama wants to do something and is willing to put some pressure on both sides, but it is just a waste of time and effort other than to be able to say that at least he tried.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on November 17, 2009, 01:03:39 PM
That would guarantee that the Israelis would never put a serious peace proposal on the table ever again.
Again? that would imply there had been a previous one.
QuoteThe US apparently can't even stick to a simple settlement freeze demand, in any event.
True, but true because a simplistic settlement freeze isn't very realistic. Does that mean non-completion of partil structures? No starts? No starts other than ones already approved?
I think US demands for a "settlement freeze" have been rhetorical, made to sound good while knowing they wouldn't be accepted by Israel and therefor without cost.
Quote from: grumbler on November 17, 2009, 03:27:33 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on November 17, 2009, 01:03:39 PM
That would guarantee that the Israelis would never put a serious peace proposal on the table ever again.
Again? that would imply there had been a previous one.
Isn't that exactly wht the Taba proposal was?
If you now say that the the Israelis will be strictly held to the boundaries of the most aggressive negotiation positions they ever take, they will simply cease taking negotiation positions.
QuoteDoes that mean non-completion of partil structures? No starts? No starts other than ones already approved?
However you want it. No reason a policy can't be specified appropriately.
Quote from: Jos Theelen on November 17, 2009, 05:04:57 AM
No, we were talking about concessions improving the situation. And clearly the situation is better now for the Israeli, compared to 1969. And I also think the situation is better for the Palestinians, compared to 1969.
You stated that the situation 10 years ago was worse than the situation 40 years ago.
Yes I did. The wave of suicide bombings *followed* the concessions of Oslo. The rocket attacks and kidnappings *followed* the concession of Gaza.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 17, 2009, 04:50:45 PM
Yes I did. The wave of suicide bombings *followed* the concessions of Oslo. The rocket attacks and kidnappings *followed* the concession of Gaza.
Yep. Strange but true.
Quote from: Valmy on November 17, 2009, 04:54:11 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 17, 2009, 04:50:45 PM
Yes I did. The wave of suicide bombings *followed* the concessions of Oslo. The rocket attacks and kidnappings *followed* the concession of Gaza.
Yep. Strange but true.
Not that strange. Give'm an inch and they'll take a mile.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 17, 2009, 04:50:45 PM
Quote from: Jos Theelen on November 17, 2009, 05:04:57 AM
No, we were talking about concessions improving the situation. And clearly the situation is better now for the Israeli, compared to 1969. And I also think the situation is better for the Palestinians, compared to 1969.
You stated that the situation 10 years ago was worse than the situation 40 years ago.
Yes I did. The wave of suicide bombings *followed* the concessions of Oslo. The rocket attacks and kidnappings *followed* the concession of Gaza.
Not to mention the PLO making a deal after they were kicked out of the Gulf States.
Quote from: Valmy on November 17, 2009, 04:54:11 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 17, 2009, 04:50:45 PM
Yes I did. The wave of suicide bombings *followed* the concessions of Oslo. The rocket attacks and kidnappings *followed* the concession of Gaza.
Yep. Strange but true.
Not strange at all - whenever it looks like a peaceful solution could be conceivable, the people with a vested interest in disorder and mayhem step in. Hamas is probably the biggest fan of the current Israeli government out there - they have no interest in rocking the boat too much now.