As Fatah, Hamas meet, Netanyahu vows not to cede more land

[azurnoir]

As rival Palestinian factions Fatah and Hamas met in Cairo to discuss reconciliation on Wednesday, Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu said he would not cede any more land to the Palestinians.

Earlier this month, Netanyahu indicated that he believed Hamas could overthrow the Fatah-run Palestinian Authority in the West Bank.
...................................

He continued: "We know that any territory we evacuate will be seized by Hamas and Iran, and we will not let that happen."

Hamas and Fatah officials said the Cairo talks would focus on ways to implement previous reconciliation accords reached between the two movements, first and foremost the formation of a Palestinian unity government and holding long overdue presidential and parliamentary elections in the West Bank and Gaza Strip.

http://www.jpost.com/MiddleEast/Article.aspx?id=298974

[bemildred]

1. He's been ceding land? nt

[azurnoir]

2. heh, maybe they meant seed ?

[Jefferson23]

3. For crying out loud, he had to add Iran too. No one would accuse Bibi of ceding land, who

does he think he's fooling.

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

4. I'm surprised that Bibi didn't include the U.N. along with Hamas and Iran.

Cede land? Dear Bibi, Israel's invader/settlers are sitting on stolen land. It's not yours to cede or not cede. It's theirs to take back legally.

The land that has been thefted doesn't belong to Israel.


I'm posting this once again so the apologists can ignore it.

[shira]

7. Both Olmert and Bibi tried ceding land but they were rejected....

...by the PA, rightists, leftists, etc. See my post below to Scootaloo. You'll find evidence of that in news articles.

What's interesting is that Israel's "rightwing" population voted Olmert and Kadima into power on the basis of their plan to withdraw from Gaza and 90% of the W.Bank.

Seems you guys live for the occupation more than Israelis and their government.

Odd that.

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

8. I pity those who believe such lies when they are so easy to refute.

Last edited Thu Jan 10, 2013, 08:47 PM - Edit history (1)

Here's some articles that show that Bibi the thief had no intention of Oslo or anything else.

http://www.redress.cc/palestine/jcook20100724
Netanyahu: I deceived US to destroy Oslo accords

http://www.israeli-occupation.org/2010-07-19/netanyahu-at-that-moment-i-actually-stopped-the-oslo-accord/
Netanyahu: “At that moment I actually stopped the Oslo accord”

http://www.thenational.ae/news/world/middle-east/netanyahu-admits-on-video-he-deceived-us-to-destroy-oslo-accord
Netanyahu admits on video he deceived US to destroy Oslo accord

[shira]

9. Olmert's re-alignment (convergence) plan

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Realignment_plan

The realignment plan (Hebrew: תוכנית ההתכנסות (originally dubbed the "convergence plan&quot was a plan by Israel to unilaterally disengage from most of the West Bank and annex the rest, incorporating most Israeli settlements into Israel. The plan was formulated and introduced to the Israeli public by former Prime Minister Ehud Olmert in a number of media interviews during the election campaign for the 17th Knesset in early 2006. Olmert outlined a plan for unilateral disengagement from most of the West Bank, similar to Israel's 2005 disengagement from the Gaza Strip, and stated that he would implement the plan within four years.

According to the plan, Israeli settlements in 90% of the West Bank would be evacuated and dismantled. The area of evacuation would largely correspond to the area east of the route of the West Bank barrier that was begun under Olmert's predecessor, Ariel Sharon, or a similar route with national consent and international legitimization.

Bibi's government offers to disengage from 60% of West Bank. Abbas refuses...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=124x311362

Too bad when facts get in the way.

The Palestinians and their anti-Israel friends need the occupation to continue more than Israel does.

What would they do without it?

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

10. The Israelis (sp) are never going to give back land they take, but the big thing you leave out

Last edited Sat Jan 12, 2013, 12:22 PM - Edit history (1)

is that the land (West Bank) doesn't belong to Israel.

The bigger thing that you try and hide with this bs is that BiBi and Olmert would know outright that it would be rejected by just about anybody.

"Sure, we'll give you some of your land back that we have taken from you. 60% a very reasonable offer."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Realignment_plan
The realignment plan (Hebrew: תוכנית ההתכנסות (originally dubbed the "convergence plan&quot was a plan by Israel to unilaterally disengage from the most of the West Bank and annex the rest, incorporating most Israeli settlements into Israel.


"Now that we have violated your land, your people, for 60 years just be thankful that we are leaving you tied up by the side of the road: beaten and bloodied with a 60% offer."

Even Israel's own citizens hated the plan.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel%27s_unilateral_disengagement_plan

Public reaction
On June 9, 2005, a poll on Israeli Channel 2 showed that public support for the plan had fallen below 50 percent for the first time.[16] On August 10, 2005, in response to calls from Jewish religious leaders, including former Chief Rabbis Avraham Shapira, Ovadia Yosef, and Mordechai Eliyahu, between 70,000 (police estimate) and 250,000 (organizers' estimate) Jews gathered for a rally centered at the Western Wall in prayer to ask that the planned disengagement be cancelled. The crowds that showed up for the rally overwhelmed the Western Wall's capacity and extended as far as the rest of the Old City and surrounding Jerusalem neighborhoods. The prayer rally was the largest of its kind for over 15 years, since the opposition to the Madrid Conference of 1991.

...but wait there's more.

The unilateral disengagement plan has been criticized from various viewpoints. In Israel, it has been criticized by the settlers themselves, supported by the Israeli right, who saw Ariel Sharon's action as a betrayal of his previous policies of support of settlement. Conversely, the disengagement has been criticized by parts of the Israeli left, who viewed it as nothing more than a mode of stalling negotiations and increasing Israeli presence in the West Bank.[citation needed] The disengagement also did not address wider issues of occupation. Israel retained control over Gaza’s borders, airspace, coastline, infrastructure, power, import-exports, etc.



The butt end joke of linking to your own post entitled "Abbas rejects 60% of WB" must really be lost on you.

It seems that Israel is in this endgame downward spiral where they offer the Palestinians less and less of the lands that once belonged to them: a of sick joke.


Nobody would accept this offer. It was designed for failure.

What will be the offer next time? 20%?


On edit, after reading the replies to you I have to consider that you lost that thread anyway. Violet_Crumble and azurnoir seem to be able to fathom what you yourself have a hard time with even scratching the surface of.

Chulanowa sums it up nicely here.

Chulanowa
63. I have difficulty believing that you buy into your own statements, Shira

The West Bank simply isn't Israel's to negotiate with. This "deal" amounts to "let us keep 40% of your land for an indeterminate amount of time with stipulations, and in return you get absolutely nothing that wasn't yours anyway"

It's the same flaw as that "land for peace" scam - "We'll give you what's yours anyway if you stop trying to keep us from stealing more of it"

I wouldn't call it "nefarious" - But it's certainly not a reasonable deal by any stretch.

[shira]

13. They've offered. Your crew, as well as the PA, declined.

Olmert even offered a peace deal that included land swaps, so that the Palestinians would have 100% of the land area pre-'67. No more occupation. No more settlements.

Your crew, as well as the PA, declined.

Face it, you all prefer the occupation - and the settlements.

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

28. "Face it, you all prefer the occupation - and the settlements."

I believe that you are being disingenuous.

[shira]

34. When the choice is between Israel withdrawing from every last inch....

...of June 1967 land and allowing for RoR vs. the continuation of occupation and settlements, your choice is clear.

You prefer the latter.

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

36. I prefer peace and the rule of law versus colonial occupation,

land theft, apartheid and apologists hand wringing.

[shira]

41. Peace isn't happening via 1-state with full RoR....

And if you're for rule of law, you also have to respect International Law that recognized the land from the river to the sea (Gaza and the WB included) as part of the Jewish homeland back in 1920. Nothing has taken away that right, by law. Certainly not a ceasefire line, recognized as such by the Arab world and International Law back in 1948.

Hence, the reason the land is disputed & compromise is required.

And FTR, I don't take seriously the anti-zionist claim of apartheid. If you guys cared about that, you'd have certainly advocated much earlier for Palestinians suffering apartheid throughout the mideast for the past 6 decades in Arab regimes.

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

43. You do not want peace. That is clear.

The UN mandate of Palestine, the formation of Israel post WWII, and all international law and UN resolutions are what are applicable in the present world regarding Israel and Palestine.

I know that it must really burn a hole in some people's backside when they have to see the light on that.

You have now argued yourself into a corner where you show how you are not remotely interested in peace. Peace to you is some BS from 1920 which never materialized that supposedly gives Israel carte blanche to do what it will, when it will with regard to the Palestinian people.

And now you will hold up this BS and let the stink fill the I/P forum once again. I believe both Violet Crumble and azurnoir smacked that perverse ideal of yours back in your face several times, but you seemingly love to bring it out again and again.

Your continued insistence, as well as many others, on Israel taking what does not belong to it are truly one of the major roadblocks to peace.

You accuse Hamas of being monsters, but after this little jewel of BS that both Gaza and the West Bank are Israels puts you in good company with them. You deserve each other.

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

48. You profess nothing of substance, my friend.

"You're for 1-state via RoR and endless wars, seas of bloodshed."

No, actually ROR should be confined to the Palestinian territories. I wrote that here in answer to you. You couldn't have missed it.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1134&pid=27907

"One. Abbas was wrong to say such a thing in context to the suffering going on in Syria.

Two. Israel has absolutely no business withholding the right of return of Palestinian refugees, fleeing open conflict or otherwise, from entering Palestine."


I never wrote Israel. I wrote Palestine.

Now, I have to say that you are either not reading my posts, ignoring the substance all together or being completely disingenuous in your motives for missing what I have written. That is amateurish, my friend.

" You've bought into the Hamas and PLO Palestinian narrative and fight their cause on behalf of them. "

I have never advocated for a 1 state solution or bloodshed. I'm not sure why you have fantasies of me getting back at anybody really. I am not on the side of Hamas or the PLO, but I am on the Palestinian people's side, the UN's side and the side of human rights.

"Again, ask yourself when Palestine was ever a sovereign nation...so on and so forth..."

Again, Israel's borders have been draw, they exist, and all Israelis need to learn to live inside them and not encroach into other peoples lands and cause problems there. It is time for Palestine to be recognized as a sovereign nation and for those that possess colonial dreams to give them up for reality.

"I know and you know you have nothing but ad hominems."

You are accusing me, rather unjustly...to say the least, of writing nasty things about Zionists, and you have the audacity to call my writings ad hominems?

"Does it irk you to no end seeing Zionists/Israelis finally standing up for their rights after thousands of years?"

Israel already is a country so they already have rights, human rights. So I'm not sure why you believe that I would be irked by a coutry that was established before I was even born.

Does it irk you to no end seeing Palestinians, the UN and others standing up for Palestinian rights after decades of abuse?

"You're proving to be no different than the hypocrites who'd rather see Palestinians die in Syria rather than give up their alleged right to overrun Israel."

I have never written anything so heinous as to wish or see anybody die, ever. You should be ashamed of yourself for accusing me of something that I have never done.

[Violet_Crumble]

51. I wish you'd stop repeating that same false claim even though you've been corrected on it before...

International law did NOT recognise Gaza and the West Bank as being part of Israel. The Balfour Declaration is NOT international law. Besides, you've regularly dismissed international law when it suits you in many posts in this forum, so even if international law back in the 1920's had said that the West Bank and Gaza belonged to Israel, it's a convoluted and bizarre logic that could then move forward to the latter half of the 21st century and dismiss actual international law that states the inadmissability of acquisition of territory in war (preamble of Resolution 242) as being 'anti-Israel'.

Sorry, but compromise by both parties is required, not just the Palestinians. And the West Bank and Gaza are no more disputed than East Timor was when Indonesia occupied it...

Also, saying that Israel carries out apartheid style practises in the West Bank is not anti-Zionist. There's plenty of Zionists who think there is. Apartheid is not a term that's there for you to find acceptable only if Arabs do it. The definition of 'apartheid' doesn't change based on the ethnicity of who's carrying it out...

[oberliner]

52. I wish you'd stop ignoring posts that challenge your misinformation

It makes your whole schtick seem pretty weak.

[ellisonz]

32. Israelies?

Clearly, you support an enduring and equitable peace plan!

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

35. Sorry, spelling police.

Corrected.

[Mosby]

54. You linked to an Antisemitic website

Julie “Sabbath Goy” Burchill: Zionist serpent in our midst

By Gilad Atzmon

On Jewish loyalty

By Gilad Atzmon

Israel and Jewish identity and power

By Gilad Atzmon

Israel's Salafi foot soldiers in the wake of anti-Islam film

By Nureddin Sabir

http://www.redress.cc/zionism

Care to comment about why your linking up DU to hate sites?

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

56. I linked to what Bibi Netanyahu was quoted as saying and I

provided 3 links to it.

Do you care to discuss that, or do you intend to try and turn the discussion away from his comments?

[Scootaloo]

5. So just to set it straight...

Netanyahu is vowing to not give up more of what doesn't belong to him anyway, which nobody in the world ever thought he was going to do in the first place, and it's someone else's fault.

The voice of Israeli progressivism is going to speak with this election, and this is the guy we're getting out of it.

[shira]

6. It can't be given up. Olmert tried back in 2006, but the PA and powers that be....

....were against the Convergence Plan, which would have had Israel evacuating 90% of the West Bank. FTR, the one-state, anti-Israel Leftists were against it.

About 2 years ago, Bibi and his government were proposing giving away about 60% of W.Bank land and the PA along with their Right and Left winged cheerleaders were against that one too.

Seems Israel's harshest critics cannot live without Israel's occupation.

They need it more than Israel.

Ironic, isn't it?

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

11. What is it that the land grabbers just don't understand?

It's not their land to take. Not 40%. Not 10%. Not 5%.

Keep on spinning it any way you like.

Now if Israel were to walk out of the West Bank entirely (security zone and all) then that would be a start.


I know that will displease some; especially since it doesn't mesh with their dreams of land theft.

[shira]

15. You'd have been against the Gaza withdrawal in 2005, right?

Better that a full occupation there continue to this day?

100% of Gaza was withdrawn from. In addition, offers of 60%, 90% and 100% (Olmert's 2008 peace deal) were offered. Some land-grabbers and thieves, huh?

You're against all that as you prefer the occupation and settlements.

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

27. So why is it that Israel wants to take what does not belong to them?

Why do the believe that they can set all kinds of preconditions or percentages that they know will be rejected?

When 100% of the West Bank, and part of the old city, has been offered, without conditions, by Israel then perhaps that will a deal worth looking at.

[shira]

30. It's just as much part of the Jewish homeland as it is the Palestinians'.

Since when did Palestinians have exclusive rights to the W.Bank?

Jews had been there (in and around their cultural and historical capital, Jerusalem) thousands of years prior to the period of 19 years in which Jordan illegally annexed the land and tossed out all its Jews. On that basis, Jews have no rights whatsoever to Jerusalem?

Seriously?

============

And if you believe Israel will ever give up every last inch of pre-67 land, extracting hundreds of thousands of Jews in the process - for a paper peace and more war and bloodshed that will follow - then you're delusional.

============

Really now - do you guys have any plans for I/P that will not result in more war and bloodshed? Seems you've adopted Hamas and Arafat's plans for the area. What's the difference between those warmongers and folks like yourself?

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

31. Some may see your words are spoken as that of a patriot, but

we also what patriotism is the last refuge of.


It doesn't matter one iota how long ago or where the Jews lived in and around Jerusalem thousands of years ago, and I know that point must drive some patriots crazy. These aren't ancient times, my friend, but modern ones. It is time for you to get over the past.

It is time for all the people of the Levant to get over their past: Muslim, Jew, Christian.

Jordan obviously pains you from your thoughts here and previous post ( http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1134&pid=27818 )...enough so that instead of focusing on refugees you focus on perceived enemies, but this is not about Jordan; although I understand that some may wish to distract from the topic being Palestine.

It is also not about ancient times no matter how some want to live in them while others suffer.

This is now. You do understand that this is not ancient times, my friend?


What I find surprising is that you point out that "Jordan illegally annexed the land and tossed out all its Jews", an egregious moment in history no doubt, but prior to this you boldly suggest that Palestinians have no exclusivity to the West Bank; implying Israeli annexation in an matter of fact or right. Don't you find these two positions rather hypocritical? "It is wrong for those guys, but alright for ours." Perhaps an appointment with the ophthalmologist to remove the plank from your own eye is in order.

Seriously.

I do not believe that Israel will "ever give up every last inch of pre-67 land, extracting hundreds of thousands of Jews in the process" without heavy crippling sanctions; since they seem intent on ignoring nearly every UN resolution that they don't like or doesn't work in their favor. What is delusional on the part of patriots is that they assume they can mercilessly rule over a group of people, take their lands, destroy their livelihood, destroy their future, place illegal colonies/outposts at their whim: all the while thumbing their nose at the UN and their allies.

In the end it will not be up to Israel or in its best interests to continue down the path of a colonial aggressor while claiming to be a victim at the same time.

"do you guys have any plans for I/P that will not result in more war and bloodshed?"

Strange that you would ask that when illegal Israeli colonist patriots and their IDF protectors bring war to Palestinian land whenever they destroy an olive grove not belonging to them, run Palestinians off their land/homes, beat, maim, shoot and kill in the name of a Greater Israel.

My dear misguided friend, I am not a war monger and never have been. I am a humanist, and have been for a very long time. I do not appreciate accusations that I am a war monger or that I have sided or have adopted anything Hamas.

I side with the peacemakers.

Conversely, by your intimation that Israel can claim rights to the West Bank are you a follower of Naftali Bennett, leader of the Jewish Home party? I'm just curious.

For a nation unto itself for millennium, that has been through so much suffering, one might expect that Israel would not want to visit suffering onto another group of people. Who are the Pharaoh's now, and who are slaves?

[shira]

33. You say you're a humanist. So what do you have to say about Abbas' statement....

Last edited Sat Jan 12, 2013, 11:14 AM - Edit history (1)

...that it's better for 10's of thousands of Palestinian refugees to die in Syria rather than give up their RoR?

What does that tell you about the Palestinian cause that you support?

Not in your name?

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

37. Abbas is apparently as much of an idiot as Netanyahu and the righties in Israel.

They deserve each other.

What it tells me about the Palestinian cause is what it tells me of any cause that has seen continued struggle. The hawks usually kill off the doves.

Che, Fidel, Ho Chi Minh are a few examples where a struggle and its leaders, faced with worse oppression from the other side, become more fanatical. Perhaps instead of waiting for a Castro to come to power within Palestine Israel would be better suited in leaving the West Bank and acting less like an occupying colonial power.

I am a humanist, my friend. The cause that I support is the eradication of Israeli apartheid, the freedom of the Palestinian people, the ability for them to go about their lives without either the IDF, colonial/settler/invaders, Hamas, or some other assholes making their lives ever more crappy on an ever shrinking portion of land.

I have never claimed to support Hamas or any Right Wing faction. I'm not sure why you continue to believe that I do.
I support the Palestinian people's right to live without being placed under the yoke of slavery.

So I am a Humanist.


You write, "Not in your name?"

Does, "Never again." Mean anything to you, or does it only mean never again to your people, but fu@k everyone elses?

[shira]

38. I can't tell the difference b/w you guys & the extreme hardcore Right....

You say you're for human rights, justice, etc.. but the cause you advocate for wants total victory via all-out war, Jews either obliterated or ethnically cleansed, a theocracy replacing a western democracy so long as Hamas is in charge & not the Jews.

This is clearly what Hamas and the PLO want. As well as every anti-Israel organization out there (BDS, ISM, FreeGaza, PSC) who won't dare criticize them for it. That's the cause.

What makes you different from all of them? They say they want peace, human rights, and justice too, but every now and then they rip the mask off and expose themselves for who they truly are. That's what fringe extremists do b/c they're not all that bright. They drop bombs every now and then showing they'd gladly sacrifice 10's of thousands of Palestinians for "the cause". And like a dog that licks its balls, they have no shame. They then say they're working for peace and human rights. Why should I believe you're any different?

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

39. I was clear, my misguided friend. The cause that I advocate for is peace.

I'm not sure how you can take that any other way.

For you to accuse me of wanting the Israelis "either obliterated or ethnically cleansed" or "a theocracy replacing a western democracy so long as Hamas is in charge" is wholly without merit, substance or truth in any way and is cut from the whole cloth of deceit.

What makes you different from all of them? How do I answer that?

Since I don't support violence, murder, apartheid, land theft, rockets, tanks or military killing civilians in any way I am different from all of them: them being both Hamas and the IDF.

I have never advocated for any of what you so callously and irresponsibly claim.

Shame on you for the accusation.

[shira]

40. It's just that all your talking points about non-compromise WRT borders....

...and refugees, the colonial, racist, apartheid, ethnic cleansing nonsense; all of that comes from organizations like the PLO and their extreme pseudo-progressive, anti-Israel warmongering cheerleaders.

I expect a true peace advocate to demand refugee rights NOW (individual not collective). Refugees should choose NOW what they wish to do with their lives and not be used another 60+ years as political pawns by the Arab world and their cheerleaders.

I expect you to advocate for compromise and 2 states with Palestinian recognition of Israel as the Jewish nation.

I expect you to denounce all those who Dr. Qanta Ahmed denounces, and that includes all those whose anti-Israel, warmongering talking points you utilize.

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

42. Where to begin...

Those talking points that you mislabel are truths. I am not the first to use the term apartheid when it comes to Israel, but I find it so amusing that whenever one does they are automatically accused of being anti-Semites.

Again, you seemingly label me a one of "extreme pseudo-progressive, anti-Israel warmongering cheerleaders."

Do I understand this correctly? Yes or no?

You see, you never really come out and say who these phantoms are. Why is that?

If one were ever to expect a true peace then they would realize that Israel has to leave, as all colonizers realize soon or later, and that the lands pilfered by it are not part of their nation: not recognized under international law.

International law, and UN resolutions seem to be two things that Israel has a hard time with.

I'm not sure how you could seriously expect the Palestinian people (it is not up to me to compromise for them) to compromise with Israel when the latter has made a Swiss cheese out of their lands.

I'm not sure why you believe that I should denounce "all those who Dr. Qanta Ahmed denounces" when I have never applauded their actions. I also do not applaud Israel's actions. Should I denounce them with the same fervor?

I have said that I am a humanist, and since you don't seem to be reading what I write I will repost it.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1134&pid=27950

I'm sure you will ignore it latter.

What will I be labeled as then?

[shira]

45. You're invoking apartheid again. Let's just focus on that one, okay?

Seems you like accusing the Zionists of being apartheidists, as well as murderers, thieves, ethnic cleansers, etc. It's fun, isn't it?

As a humanist, why not advocate against apartheid when it's been practiced against Palestinians since 1948 in all Arab states surrounding Israel? Do you deny that apartheid?

I promise to answer your questions WRT apartheid once you answer me.

Otherwise, we're done.

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

46. "Seems you like accusing the Zionists of being apartheidists"

There are many that are calling Israel's actions in Palestinian lands as acts of apartheid and that the practice should stop.
I am not the only one.

I actually spelled it out so I'm not sure how you are intentionally missing it. Curious.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/113427738#post42

"...as well as murderers, thieves, ethnic cleansers, etc."

I believe that you used the term "ethnic cleansers" here ( http://www.democraticunderground.com/113427738#post40 ). I'm not sure why you are attributing it to me. Perhaps you are confused about this?


Now, getting back to the second part of your quote, you are just completely falsifying what I wrote.
Do you have an issue with reading comprehension, or are there other motives at play?

I was very clear so I am not sure, again, if there are other motives for why you seem to be missing the obvious black and white text of my post.

Here is the link and a snip of my reply.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1134&pid=27950

"Since I don't support violence, murder, apartheid, land theft, rockets, tanks or military killing civilians in any way I am different from all of them: them being both Hamas and the IDF."


So I guess that the motive that you have to put words in my mouth, inaccuracies that I did not write, and unfounded hatred of Zionists is stemming from some other drive that you may have that remains to be cleared up.

Apartheid is just one part of the overall picture of a country that, for all common sense, is trying to hurt itself in the long term with reference to history.

If you are done with me then at the very least please, in the future, try not to place words into the dialog that I did not write or intimate hatreds for others that I do not have.

[shira]

47. So no comment on apartheid vs. Palestinians throughout the mideast....

Figures. Just denial...

We're done.

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

49. Have a nice evening, my friend.

I hope your dreams are peaceful, and not troubled by phantoms you create while awake.

[delrem]

50. Perhaps an explanation?

You say:
"I believe that you [shira] used the term "ethnic cleansers" here ( http://www.democraticunderground.com/113427738#post40 ). I'm not sure why you are attributing it to me. Perhaps you are confused about this?"

Perhaps shira is just casting a very wide net to cover everyone who might disagree with her, and her impetus for casting it comes after her recent discussions with me. (tho' I can't believe that this topic hasn't come up before, and in fact cyclically.)

In my discussions with shira I've claimed that Israel's denial of RoR for Palestinian war refugees is, in fact, by definition an act of ethnic cleansing. Regardless of whether those war refugees might have left "willingly", out of fear for their lives, or at the direct point of a bayonet. Those niceties don't matter. In those discussions shira has claimed that Palestinian war refugees have no rights whatsoever in international law and I've responded by claiming that the 4th Geneva Convention applies, and that for example BADIL
http://www.badil.org/en/al-majdal/item/851-protection-of-palestinian-refugees-in-states-signatories-to-the-1951-refugee-convention-and-the-1954-stateless-convention
presents a case in international law. BADIL's case is likely the tip of the iceberg.
shira declined to respond to these citations of a fairly wide body of law. Perhaps it would be inconvenient.

To be clear, in no way was I saying or implying that any specific person is guilty of some crime. International humanitarian law outlines the duty/responsibility that *states* have w.r.t. "protected persons" (civilians) in times of civil/international war - so any criminality would belong to a *state* or someone who *represents a state* in decision making matters. What I said (or tried to say) was that a state which refuses RoR to war refugees is committing a war crime, and if that refusal follows a racial/ethnic profile then it constitutes, by definition, "ethnic cleansing". So, IMO, someone who *supports* such policy is *wrong*, and should educate themselves.

[Violet_Crumble]

53. That could prove awkward if the refugees chose to return to their family homes in Israel...

'Refugees should choose NOW what they wish to do with their lives and not be used another 60+ years as political pawns by the Arab world and their cheerleaders.'

I guess maybe include a disclaimer along the lines of 'as long as that choice isn't to return to their families homes in Israel'.

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

55. The takeaway from this entire dialog, and others from Saturday

is that Israel can lay claim to anything within the West Bank or Gaza if it chooses, that the Palestinians aren't a people, that the Palestinians have less-to-no-rights for the very same thing that Israelis seemingly can enjoy; which is settlement back to their lands of ancestry.

This may come as a surprise, but I believe that in order to created order and peace in the future that all Palestinians need to settle in a Palestinian homeland, free from colonialist settlers of any other country...or security zones/buffers imposed by other nations, and give up claims as outwardly bound Israelis will have to on ancestral property.

[Scootaloo]

12. "The Powers that be" included a majority of Israelis and the Israeli government...

The United States government, the European Union, and just about absolutely everyone else with any degree of interest in it. Again, I implore you; keep the fuck up.

Why? Well, you see that 90% there, that you just mentioned? That still leaves 10%, doesn't it? Who decides which 90%, and which 10%? Well, it would have been a unilatereral decision by Israel, wouldn't it? And on the part of the Israelis, well, they didn't want to give up anything more than 0%, so they didn't like the idea, either.

And you think a 60/40 split is going to work better?

So tell me. Did you just learn about the "Convergence Plan" and so are trying to use it in every argument, like a kid with a new toy? Or are you just scraping the bottom of the barrel?

[shira]

14. 60%, 90%, 100%. Doesn't matter. You prefer occupation/settlements.

Why not just admit it?

Bibi offered 60% just a few years ago. Olmert offered 90% in 2006. Olmert then offered 100% via land swaps in 2008. All rejected by you and yours.

What would you do w/o the occupation and settlements?

[Scootaloo]

16. Shira, I'm starting to get concerned...

It's a pretty bad flu season this year from what I understand, and from your last couple responses I've seen, you seem to be feverish and incoherent. Did you get vaccinated?

You should take care of yourself.

[shira]

17. You're wrong. Maybe you should quit making shit up....

...about Israel being incapable of withdrawing, ceding, or handing over land to the Palestinians.

That you're against every offer Israel has made goes to show you prefer occupation, settlements, and conflict over Palestinian self-determination and peace.

[Scootaloo]

19. Did you just tell someone to stop making shit up? That's rich.

Especially since I've never claimed that Israel is incapable of withdrawing, as you are claiming I have. I believe Israel is totally capable. Which is why I keep insisting that they do so. An insistence you pointedly despise, I might add.

I do not think Israel is willing to do so. As evidence, I present... Olmert's convergence plan.

You press that this was a great idea, a grand idea. So, what happened to it? Where did Ehud Olmert's grand plan to reduce Israeli presence in the west bank by 90% over four years go off to? It obviously didn't happen as here we are, nearly seven years later and nothing of the sort has manifested (quite the opposite, in fact.)

Soooo... Where the fuck did this plan go? Olmert took office, obviously... did he set about enacting his plan?

Well, in May 2006, IDF Chief of Staff Lieutenant General Dan Halutz told Ynet,

"There is no convergence program as a program I know. There could be one that I don't know of. There certainly has been no order to the army to prepare a concrete and specific plan. We heard like the rest of the Israeli people the declaration of the prime minister regarding political ideas, and when a plan is received – we'll prepare for it.

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3246284,00.html

You'd think the IDF would be the first to know, right? Well, okay, May is a little early, and it's a four-year plan, right? So let's look a little further afield. Again with Ynet, an opinion piece published February 2007...

It was clear to many that the so-called Convergence Plan was no longer relevant and a different approach was needed. The people of Israel turned their eyes to Prime Minister Olmert looking for answers, looking for leadership, and most of all looking for direction. On Rosh Hashana eve in the Prime Minister’s annual New Year interview, Olmert shared his vision with us when he said “a prime minister does not have to wake up every morning with an agenda.” Not exactly the post war vision his citizens were looking for.

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3363110,00.html

Woah, woah there. So-called? No longer relevant? It's a four-year plan, how are we already talking about its passing away less than a year afterwards? What the fuck happened? Maybe we should go back to 2006, poke around a little more?

If we go allll the way back to March 2006, we find this gem from Avigdor Lieberman who, at the time, most of us thought might be the craziest man in Israel (Oh lord, if only!)

"Olmert's plan not only strengthens Hamas in the Palestinian Authority. It also proves to Sheikh Ra'ad Salah [head of the Islamic Movement Northern Branch] and extremist elements among Israeli Arabs that not only pressure from outside, but also pressure from within will in the end guarantee them effective autonomy in the first stage, a state of all its citizens in the next, and ultimately, the end of the State of Israel," he said.

http://www.haaretz.com/news/elections/lieberman-olmert-plan-strengthens-hamas-1.183287

Not exactly a ringing endorsement, right? Well, Olmert wasn't taking that lying down! Two days later, he responded with this;

Acting Prime Minister Ehud Olmert said Wednesday night that if the chairman of the right-wing Yisrael Beiteinu party does not adopt his political plan, which is likely to include the unilateral evacuation of many West Bank settlements, the party cannot join the coalition.

Olmert told Channel 10 that any party that wants to join the coalition must agree to the "convergence plan" he described to Haaretz two weeks ago. "This is not an election gimmick. I am going with this, and I don't plan to hide it or evade it," he said. "Whoever doesn't support it cannot be a partner in a coalition I establish."

http://www.haaretz.com/news/olmert-coalition-partners-must-back-unilateral-withdrawals-1.183445

Starting in April, the Olmert government began talking with Lieberman and Yisrael Beiteinu about conditions for joining hte coalition;

MK Avigdor Lieberman emerged from a 50-minute meeting with Acting Prime Minister Ehud Olmert to estimate the chances of Yisrael Beiteinu joining the coalition at 50-50. At the meeting, which focused mainly on diplomatic issues, Lieberman reiterated his unqualified opposition to the convergence plan. "No convergence and no withdrawal," he told Haaretz. "I am not prepared to give anything, but rather to exchange and receive something in return. However we are not a party of 'not one bit' and there is room for dialogue," he said.

http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/news/lieberman-to-olmert-dialogue-not-another-withdrawal-1.184556

Skip forward a few months (seven, to be precise)

During the lengthy meeting, which was arranged at the prime minister's request, Olmert and Lieberman agreed to work together to create a constitution and make structural changes to the system of government. No agreement was reached on Yisrael Beiteinu's entry into the ruling coalition, although both parties have expressed their willingness for such a move. The agreement reached Friday is viewed as the first confidence-building measure between Kadima and Yisrael Beiteinu.

http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/news/pm-s-circle-lieberman-is-desirable-partner-1.200793

Oh, Yisrael Beiteinu joined the coalition government headed by Ehud Olmert. Awesome, Olmert's tough stance and dedication to his plan must have sold Lieberman on accepting the convergence plan!

Yisrael Beiteinu’s Five Conditions for Joining the Coalition
Lieberman set a total of five conditions for joining Prime Minister Ehud Olmert’s rapidly weakening Kadima-led coalition:
1) Changing the form of the government to direct elections and writing a constitution;
2) Establishing a state commission of inquiry to look into the alleged mismanagement of the recent war with Hizbullah terrorists in southern Lebanon;
3) Officially ending Olmert’s “convergence” (unilateral withdrawal) plan;
4) Revoking the orders to destroy illegal outposts; and
5) Passing a law that would allow civil marriage.

http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/113197#.UPASOHdR2Ac

...Or not.

So what happened to the Olmert plan... is that Olmert himself scuttled it. For an alliance with a right-wing nationalist party. He sold it out, Shira. And there was no outcry from the people of Israel, because 70% of them opposed it anyway

The polls, conducted by Shvakim Panorama under the supervision of American strategist Arthur Finkelstein, also revealed that some 65-70 percent of those who backed last summer’s Gaza disengagement object to the West Bank withdrawal plan.

In addition, the survey showed that 70 percent of Israelis who backed the Gaza pullout would have been against it today.

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3266344,00.html

I feel Israel is perfectly capable of withdrawal. But they clearly just don't want to.

I now await your assertions that Ynet, Haaretz, and Arutz Sheva are all antisemitic rags that should not be trusted, right? 'Cause I know it's more likely than you admitting a mea culpa and ceasing your fucking nonsense.

[shira]

20. The point is YOU and your crew are against 60%, 90%, & 100% evacuation....

You should be thrilled Israel offered to end the occupation in most or almost all the W.Bank.

But you're not.

It's because you prefer the occupation and settlements.

=======

What's rich is that I'm fairly certain every pro-Israel Zionist at IP would be for each of those moves so long as security wasn't an issue. You and your lot are all against.

So come on now, who really is for continued occupation among the 2 sides here?

[Scootaloo]

21. I'm curious where you get the idea we'd be against a 100% withdraw...

A 40% occupation is still occupation, as is a 10% occupation, and they're both still on 100% stolen land. That's the problem.

Who is for continued occupation? As I just showed you, Ehud Olmert, the Israeli government, and the people of Israel. Do keep the fuck up.

[shira]

22. Olmert's offer with land swaps was 100%.

That's probably the best deal the Palestinians are going to get. It would have ended occupation and settlements. I'd guess you were against that, just as you were against Israel's 2005 withdrawal from Gaza (since it didn't include the W.Bank).

I can't understand why folks like yourself would be against withdrawals that end more and more of the occupation; greater than 99% of all lands acquired in 1967.

[Scootaloo]

23. That was a separate plan, from 2008

It was also a secret plan that nobody knew about until after it had already failed. Apparently it failed because giving Abbas the map was conditional on him not using it as a starting position in future negotiations... which he refused to sign onto.

I could speculate on why Abbas didn't sign onto it, but it's a moot point. It was under the dirt by the time any of us heard of it.

[shaayecanaan]

24. No it wasn't

Olmert's map annexed 8.8% of the 1967 territories in exchange for a 5.5% swap.

[shira]

25. Abbas: Olmert offered PA land equaling 100% of West Bank

Abbas said that the proposed swap would have given the Palestinians land that would equal 100 percent of the West Bank. He added that there are no Israeli settlements or Israeli Arab residents in the land surrounding Gaza that was offered to the Palestinians, according to the report.

http://www.haaretz.com/news/abbas-olmert-offered-pa-land-equaling-100-of-west-bank-1.1747

[shaayecanaan]

26. Well, Olmert never released an official version of the napkin map...

but the best impressions of it have the Israelis offering 5.5% in exchange for 8.8%, including the Old City and Jerusalem suburbs. Most of the swapped land are barren patches of the Judean desert.

[shaayecanaan]

18. back in saner times

Our friend professed on this very forum to believe that Ariel should be returned to the Palestinians. She even supported the Geneva plan.

But if you want to shield a donkey's arse from the rain, you need to go where the donkey goes. And so it is with today's Israeli leaders that have gone from being right of centre, to right wing, to now being neo-fascist far right wing, with our hasbarado friends walking behind them, holding their coat tails and singing hosanna to the highest.

War is peace, slavery is freedom, Netanyahu really is a good liberal at heart and Israel is a shining exemplar of democracy for all to witness. Delirium hasbaradum, you might call it.

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

29. hasbarado?