Don't worry, there won't be peace

[Violet_Crumble]

It's not possible for the strongest kid and the weakest kid in the neighborhood to conduct talks on reconciliation and friendship when the talks are based on arm wrestling.
By Alon Liel

About two weeks before the Israel Navy's confrontation with the Gaza-bound Turkish flotilla, a radio interviewer asked me how the matter would be dealt with. "The more force we need to use, the greater our loss will be," I replied.

I feel the same on the eve of the talks with Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas. The more force we exert in the negotiations in Washington, the greater our failure will be. It's supposed to be good that direct talks are beginning. The problem is that they will not result in peace. It's not because we don't need peace. Without peace with the Palestinians, we're just about hopeless. But it won't come.

Achieving peace requires an entirely different approach by the Israeli leadership. The Israeli government headed by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman can't shake the sense that it is going to fight over peace with Abbas - a war over territory in the West Bank, a war over Jerusalem, a war over the Palestinian refugees. If we don't entirely change this approach by making a complete political and diplomatic U-turn, the talks will fail.

If the intent is to begin a struggle with the Palestinians in the presence of the Americans and the world, it will be a waste of everyone's time. In such a case it's clear to everyone that we will "win." Who is Abbas compared to us? Where are his fighter jets? Where are his submarines? Where is his Dimona nuclear facility? Where is his elite special operations force? Where are his connections in the U.S. Congress? And if he really gets us mad, we can always stop transferring him funds altogether.

It's not possible for the strongest kid and the weakest kid in the neighborhood to conduct talks on reconciliation and friendship when the talks are based on arm wrestling. It's absolutely clear who will win. But there will be no peace or reconciliation after the strong one beats the weak. It's like the case of the Turkish flotilla. The so-called victor in the tussle is the main loser.

http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/opinion/don-t-worry-there-won-t-be-peace-1.310772

[polly7]

1. IMO, peace is the very last thing Israel wants.

They would have no need for their welfare military, all those nukes, the continuing, expanding apartheid wall, the settlements stealing land on a daily basis, the illegal blockades, the largest open-air prison in the world, the (shrinking) sympathy of the world, the vetos by their benefactors on the Security Council against condemning the many, many violations by the UN, and on and on. Israel needs land, water and oil. Peace would also severely hamper their attempts to expand their control of these resources. Peaceful Israeli's themselves know all this and are speaking out. Thank goodness the rest of the world is waking up. Victimhood is fine if it's not used as a ruse for decades to commit atrocities that any other country in the world would be hated for. My opinion.

[proteus_lives]

2. "Victimhood"

You should be asking the Palestinians about the professional version of that.

[Tripmann]

3. Which ones, the malnouruished kids or the dead women lying under rubble courtesy of the IDF?

Hang your head.

[proteus_lives]

4. Which ones? Those whose deaths were caused by Hamas?

Hang your head.

[ConsAreLiars]

5. The murdering and terrorizing of the indigenous population began far before

the formation of Hamas and the PLO. Surely you know that. In your measuring, the massacres of Palestinians, when weighed against the scaring of cowardly Israelis, counts for nothing. How sick is that?

Tell me of any other situation where scaring a few justifies murdering 1400. Well, of course, there is Iraq and Afghanistan, where the monsters you side with did even worse.

[proteus_lives]

6. Huh?

"Well, of course, there is Iraq and Afghanistan, where the monsters you side with did even worse."

Where did you get that I supported the conflicts in Iraq or Afghanistan? Check your hammys, you might hurt yourself with those leaps.

"The murdering and terrorizing of the indigenous population began far before the formation of Hamas and the PLO."

Yep, Israel has be under siege since day one.

[polly7]

10. Israel wasn't a country since day one.

I think you meant to say .......... Palestine.

[proteus_lives]

12. No, I meant Israel.

Palestine doesn't exist. And you're probably talking about the British mandate.

[polly7]

13. LOL Palestine did exist.

Gee, there's maps and everything. From decades ago. You must have missed them in your tunnel-vision for all things Israel. Too funny (in a sad way).

http://www.google.ca/images?q=maps+palestine&um=1&ie=UTF-8&source=univ&ei=LAt8TMLTHsWAnQfQ4-icCw&sa=X&oi=image_result_group&ct=title&resnum=4&ved=0CDkQsAQwAw&biw=1280&bih=840

Just a few examples.

http://www.whatsaiththescripture.com/The.Holy.Bible/maps/palestine_phy_map_1900.(add jpg after 1900, the map messed up the page width)

http://www.americanintifada.com/maps.htm Check out the huge 1946 map, the detail is amazing.




http://www.google.ca/imgres?imgurl=&imgrefurl=http://www.aaper.org/site/c.quIXL8MPJpE/b.3813067/k.F1F/Maps_Detailing_Colonization_of_Palestine.htm&usg=__9l9jZCz3YtQYbef4P4sTqTUXEsE=&h=320&w=480&sz=61&hl=en&start=318&zoom=1&tbnid=s4W5p8-gGGvc6M:&tbnh=140&tbnw=210&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dmaps%2Bpalestine%26um%3D1%26hl%3Den%26sa%3DX%26biw%3D1280%26bih%3D840%26tbs%3Disch:10,8337&um=1&itbs=1&iact=hc&vpx=691&vpy=287&dur=1795&hovh=183&hovw=275&tx=134&ty=116&ei=Kw58TMCZCYKCsQPbpYWDBw&oei=0w18TNWEKcO_nAeo3JH4AQ&esq=9&page=12&ndsp=26&ved=1t:429,r:23,s:318&biw=1280&bih=840

[hack89]

14. It never existed as a independent country or political entity

it is a region of the ME.

[Violet_Crumble]

15. But Palestine does exist. just like East Timor did even though it wasn't an independent country n/t

[hack89]

24. East Timor was an independent country that was invaded

and occupied by Indonesia. It had a distinct political and cultural identity. There has never been a Palestinian state - it is even harder to argue that it had a distinct political identity until the UN partition. Where is the list of Palestinian national heroes extending back into history?

[azurnoir]

17. So where do Palestinians come from ?

the region of Palestine?

[hack89]

23. Pretty much

look at the history of the region - there has never been an Arab majority country that can thought of as the Palestinian nation. It is in fact a region that at best was a province of the Ottoman empire or part and parcel to various European colonial empires. It never had consistent boundaries or a recognized political center. Until the 20th century the word Palestine was not even consistently used to identify the region nor was there consensus as to the geographic scope of Palestine. There is no unique cultural or ethnic identifiers that significantly delineate Palestinians from any of their Arab neighbors - which is what you would expect in a region where boundaries were constantly shifting.

So yes, Palestinians are a people that come from the region of Palestine. The idea of a Palestinian state is a modern construct resulting from the UN partition of the British mandate.

[azurnoir]

25. ah yes that the ticket no Palestinian state no Palestinian people

just an undefined mass of Ayrabs-gottcha does the same go for the Syrians, Jordanians, Lebanese, Iraqi's, Saudi's or is that you feel that way as it somehow justifies something else?

[hack89]

29. No - I support a Palestinian state

I was just questioning the supposition that there has always been a Palestine or that a Palestinian nation is a historical imperative. If history had been different and there had never been Jewish immigration to the area and no subsequent partition, there would have never been a independent Palestine - the land and the people would have been absorbed by the neighboring Arab countries with no complaint. After, all, it is not like there is a long history of Palestinian nationalism. And it is hard to imagine the traditional Arab powers accepting a new competitor. Jordan had no qualms about holding on to the West Bank for 19 years and Egypt certainly viewed Gaza and the Sinai as theirs - in neither case did we see either country talking about giving the land to the Palestinians.

I just think that the events of the last 60 years have given the Palestinians a legitimate argument for a country of their own. I just see no practical way to make it happen without further violence. I am the first to admit I have no real solution.

[proteus_lives]

16. Ottoman, British.

When did Palestine exist as an independent country?

[polly7]

20. ...

[proteus_lives]

21. ....

Is that a year?

What calendar is that from?

[Ken Burch]

28. No part of Ireland existed as an independent country prior to 1922

Does that mean Britain would have had a legitimate right to go on oppressing the Irish(or using the Famine and other events to force them to leave)for the rest of eternity?

It goes without saying that the Palestinian people always identified as a people and a nation.

Israel has nothing to lose by admitting this and admitting that those people have an equally deep connection to the lands in question.

"Parity of esteem" is a crucial part of the solution.

The "No such thing as a Palestinian" meme has got to be sent to the rhetorical boneyard. Golda Meir knew it was a lie when she said it, and it's STILL a lie.

And it's a lie that never served any good purpose through its perpetuation.

[hack89]

30. Why does it go without saying?

Ireland has a long history of a distinct culture and nationalistic yearnings. Show me the same for Palestine. Show me a history of Palestinian nationalism that extends back centuries. Show me their attempts to create an independent nation. Show me their Wolfe Tone, their Michael Collins.

Here is a long list of Irish rebellions that demonstrate a centuries long fight for independence. Show me a similar list for the Palestinians.

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

[proteus_lives]

31. "No such thing as a Palestinian"

When did I say that?

There has never been a Palestine, there's a difference.

[Ken Burch]

32. The name "Palestine" has been used since Biblical times.

And you insult every Palestinian when you insist that there's no such thing as "Palestine".

Israel and its supporters gain nothing by pretending there was never a Palestine...and they do damage, since this claim is also tied to the claim that Palestinian Arabs have no real connection to the land of Palestine.

Palestinians and Palestine deserve parity of esteem. Just give it to them already. It's childish to keep denying them that.

[proteus_lives]

33. The name "Israel" has been around since Biblical times.

And people insult every Israeli when they insist that Israel is illegitimate.

The Palestinians and their supporters have nothing to gain from pretending that Israel is going to go away.

Israelis and Israel deserve peace. Both sides need to saddle up to the table already. It's childish to keep electing governments sworn to destroy/never recognize Israel.

BTW, there has never been an independent nation of Palestine, that's what I was talking about it.

[Ken Burch]

34. And there was never really an independent "ancient Israel"

The place was a Roman colony. That's why Bar Kochba was having to LEAD a revolt.

(I'm pretty damn sure Bar Kochba would not be down with the IDF and what it does, btw).

[proteus_lives]

35. Since he risked and sacrificed all for Israel and Jewish freedom, I doubt it.

He might not have been for settlements but he would been all for Israel defending it's existence and security.

"And there was never really an independent "ancient Israel"

That's debatable but Palestine refers to a region and not a country.

[Ken Burch]

37. It's pointless for you to keep insisting on repeating that

Even if such a country called Palestine hadn't formally existed before(as was the case with Israel)that wouldn't mean the Palestinians had no right ot self-determination.

And Bar Kochba would not accept that "self-defense" and "survival" should be code phrases for "no one has any right to question anything the IDF does".

If Israel is to get out of this ugly current situation, it will be leftists and dissenters within the Jewish community and out of it that will help it get out. The "Israel right or wrong" crowd and their "no choice" meme are not doing Israel any favors.

[proteus_lives]

38. Not pointless if it's true.

"no one has any right to question anything the IDF does". "that wouldn't mean the Palestinians had no right ot self-determination."

No one is saying that, you're just hearing what you want to hear.

"it will be leftists and dissenters within the Jewish community and out of it that will help it get out."

That's fine by me as long as it doesn't require Israel cutting it's own throat for peace.

"The "Israel right or wrong" crowd and their "no choice" meme are not doing Israel any favors."

And the "Everything is the fault of Israel" crowd isn't doing the Palestinians any favors.

[Shaktimaan]

42. You know I see that map a lot.

My personal take on the whole, "did palestine exist thing" is that it's a stupid discussion. It really doesn't matter at this point... it adds nothing to the current debate about what to do to obtain peace.

There may not have been a cohesive Palestinian national identity 60 years ago, but the people certainly existed, and they obviously had a deep connection to the land. However they were not just Arab or Muslim, obviously, but a pretty cosmopolitan mix of people. At the time there were a variety of political movements within the Arab world competing for support, from the pan-Arab movement to regional tin-pot dictators trying to manipulate their various political situations to their best advantage. The fact of the matter is that there wasn't any cohesive Palestinian national movement, which is what would have been required for them to really claim a state for themselves, barring serious international support for their cause, which clearly did not exist.

As is the case with many nationalities, they did not define themselves specifically until there was a real cause to. Namely, until Zionism and Israel, there was no unifying element for these specific people. This fact doesn't in any way diminish the significance of their identity. It is as legitimate as any. But when you look at this historically, it is not as though the early Zionists were streaming into an established state like England. Back in 1905, "Palestine" as a unified national identity just did not exist yet.

As for your map, there are huge problems with it that are pretty representative of how a lot of this history gets twisted for political effect. Briefly...

Map 1: Jewish land only represents land OWNED by Jews. All of the rest is automatically designated as Arab land, even though most of it wasn't expressly owned by Arabs. (It was state owned land, NOT "Arab land.") Actually, since all of the Jews there lived in Palestine, some for thousands of years, why are they even considered separate from other Palestinians in this map? Why are all of the Bedouins, Arabs, Druze and so on considered "Palestinian" while the Jews are something separate?

In addition, at this point in time Jews had been restricted from buying property as an appeasement to the Arab Palestinians. Is it really fair to disallow Jews from buying land only to use the fact that they didn't own land as an argument against their interests?

Map 2: This map is accurate. Note that it is the plan that the Arabs rejected and the Israelis accepted. Following the rejection the Palestinian Arabs began a civil war against the Yishuv.

Map 3: Note that "Jewish land" has become "Israeli land." This disguises the fact that 20% of Israelis are Palestinians. So these maps are switching metrics mid-argument, which is a huge red flag that they're being less than honest. Now the green portion is still labeled as Palestinian land, even though all of that area was then being occupied by Egypt and Jordan. Jordan actually claimed that land as its own and gave the people there Jordanian citizenship. So why is it that Palestinian Israelis are just seen as "Israeli" yet Palestinian Jordanians are universally labeled as "Palestinian?"

Map 4: My favorite. Looking at this map it would seem that Israel has taken more and more Palestinian land. And in a sense they have. But they've also given the Palestinians autonomy over parts of these areas, where they are administering with their own elected government for the first time in history. But for some reason this map paints Israeli occupied land white, like it's part of Israel, while Jordanian occupied land in Map 3 had stayed green! Had these maps remained consistent, Map 3 would have shown NO land as green at all. I mean, either occupied land counts as Palestinian or it doesn't. You can't just be switching back and forth depending on what suits your argument.

This is especially dishonest since Israel isn't claiming annexation rights over most of the land in question. It's just occupying it. However Jordan HAD claimed all of that land as its own, going so far as to give its residents citizenship. So the difference between white and green on these maps is totally arbitrary. It's meaningless with regards to history.

[inademv]

45. What a fucking joke

Map 1: Because the Jews considered themselves as separate. Division and administration of those territories was claimed as religious providence by members of Muslim and Jewish faith respectively.

Map 3: Jewish land became Israeli land following the 1949 treaty which was followed itself by permanent definition of borders.

Map 4: Oh how generous of the fascists to give people autonomy within their own territory. Map 4 shows the encroachment of Israel into Palestinian territory and the blatant disregard of the borders established in 1949.

[Shaktimaan]

46. You are not absorbing my arguments.

Beyond the fact that your history is incorrect you are missing the key part of my critique... that the series of maps changes its metrics constantly depending on whatever suits its argument. For example, it classifies land occupied by Jordan as "Palestinian" in one map only to then classify land occupied by Israel as "Israel/occupied." In another map it determines who owns what land using two completely different definitions, ie: land owned by Jews is "Jewish land." Land owned by anyone else, (and all unowned land), is considered "Palestinian land." It is not an honest map.

Division and administration of those territories was claimed as religious providence by members of Muslim and Jewish faith respectively.

This has no basis in history. The conflict is almost purely political and most early Zionists were completely secular.

Jewish land became Israeli land following the 1949 treaty which was followed itself by permanent definition of borders.

The 1949 cease-fire (there was no treaty) expressly stated that there was to be no permanent definition of borders based on the cease-fire lines. No treaty since then has established otherwise aside from the Jordanian, Egyptian and Lebanese borders.

Oh how generous of the fascists to give people autonomy within their own territory. Map 4 shows the encroachment of Israel into Palestinian territory and the blatant disregard of the borders established in 1949.

Without Israel occupying the OPT in '67 there would be no autonomy for Palestinians at all. No Palestinian state or territory has yet to be officially established. Prior to 1988 Jordan still claimed the west bank as its own; all the Palestinians living there were Jordanian citizens. Legally both the WB and Gaza are still considered "unclaimed territory" until a permanent peace agreement is signed between the acting parties.

What Israel did was not "generous." It was acting in its own best interests in the hopes of fostering a peace agreement. But it is more than any of the Arab states had ever done. Only by ignoring the fact that Jordan and Egypt denied the Palestinians any form of sovereignty can this map make it seem like Israel was not enabling Palestinian autonomy for the first time.

Map 4 shows the encroachment of Israel into Palestinian territory and the blatant disregard of the borders established in 1949.

There were no borders established in 1949. Palestine has never yet existed as a state.

The fact is that there's plenty of legitimate criticism to be made against Israel, especially with regards to the settlements. Making up false narratives and disseminating untrue propaganda does nothing to further the discussion in any meaningful way. It's a complex conflict. Learn the facts... no one's hands are clean. Sacrificing the truth in pursuit of a larger political agenda is a losing proposition. Understand the basics of the history before labeling an entire nation "fascist" next time.

edit: You clearly disdain the Israeli occupation of the WB and Gaza which began back in 1967. I have a question. Imagine it is 1967 again and Israel has just won the six day war. Considering the reality of the situation, what action would you recommend they take instead?

[oberliner]

47. How would you answer your own question?

The one in the edit - I'd be curious.

[Shaktimaan]

48. what are you, kidding?

They had no options, really. Occupy it. That was the best of very few shitty options.

What I WOULD have done differently is I would have absolutely totally forbade any settlement building. No settlements, that was just stupid. Sure, I see how at the time it didn't seem like a big deal. A couple families wanted to go back to Hebron, whatever, who cares... hindsight is 20/20. What a stupid fucking mistake.

Occupy. No settlements.

Not like you need to be a wizard to figure that shit out. I'm just always curious to hear what people who are so critical of the occupation itself would have suggested though. Not this guy who I responded to... he's clearly a no-nothing idiot. But other people. I'm always curious because there were really very few practical options for the Israelis at the time. It isn't like there was any movement to establish a Palestinian state in the West Bank back then. It's not like the Palestinians had any kind of real political structure or ideology that extended beyond "taking back Israel for the Palestinians."

People act like Israel was fascist for not just handing it over to the Palestinians as soon as the 67 war was over, as though such a thing were even a feasible option. No one loves the occupation, least of all the Israelis who have to patrol it. It was merely the best of several bad options. No one ever has a workable solution to the issue. It's always easier to criticize (40+ years of occupation is BAAAADDDD!) than it is to offer a reasonable alternative, even in retrospect.

Why, what would you have done?

[shaayecanaan]

49. It doesnt work that way...

From the master:-

"It is difficult to keep a newly annexed dominion, because people easily change their masters in the hope of improving their living conditions. This hope makes them take up arms against their rulers, but they are soon disappointed when experience shows that they have changed for the worse. This is caused by the inevitable damages inflicted on the local population by the soldiers of the occupation army and by the harshness of the occupation itself.

The occupation creates enemies. It is therefore important not to provoke the population. Do not change old traditions. Change nothing in their laws and their taxes.

When a state acquires a territory with strange laws and customs and where a different language is spoken, there are great difficulties to overcome in order to keep it. The best way would be for the head-of-state to go and take up residence there. To inhabit the newly annexed territory would secure it in a unique way: being on site, disorders can be witnessed firsthand and remedied immediately, the land is not robbed and plundered by local administrators then the leader is there to watch them closely, and finally the new citizens can get justice that much faster by appealing directly to the head of the state in person.

The other way is to plant colonies on the new territory, to implant settlements on all strategic points. It is either necessary to do this or to maintain a large occupation force. These colonies will cost much less to implant and very little to maintain. The only ones that are hurt are those who will get their houses and their lands taken to give to the colonists. The dispossessed (expropriated) are too few to be much trouble. The majority of the population does not suffer as it would if an occupation army would remain. That way, it can be easily pacified, but will still fear the possibility of dispossession."

“Men should be either treated generously or destroyed, because they take revenge for slight injuries - for heavy ones they cannot"

-Machiavelli

It is essential to any hostile occupation enterprise that there be settlements. To not have settlements is in effect to concede the advantage of territory to any local rebel militia, since wherever the rebels go they will always have the sympathy of the local population, like fish swimming in a sea.

[oberliner]

50. Was that meant to be tongue-in-cheek?

The Machiavelli, I mean.

[shaayecanaan]

51. Im not sure what you mean (nt)

[Shaktimaan]

52. I fail to see the connection to the territories.

The occupation couldn't possibly create more enemies than already existed. The Palestinians already considered themselves the enemies of the Jews. There was never any chance that they would accept a permanent occupation, nor would one be desirable by Israel. (As we can see with the benefit of hindsight.)

The settlements in the OPT weren't strategically designed to offset the need for a large occupation force. Clearly the settlements' existence REQUIRED a far larger occupation force than would otherwise have been needed. Look at Hebron... Thousands of soldiers patrolling all the time just so a few hundred Jewish fanatics can live there.

Besides, the West Bank is not a huge area like your quote is describing. It's pretty small. And almost all of the settlements are right near the border too, not strategically sprinkled throughout the territory. What is the advantage?

It is essential to any hostile occupation enterprise that there be settlements. To not have settlements is in effect to concede the advantage of territory to any local rebel militia, since wherever the rebels go they will always have the sympathy of the local population, like fish swimming in a sea.

I fail to see your point. How do the settlements prevent this in a way that the military can't better do on its own? Where were Jordan's settlements? Where were Egypt's?

[Name removed]

8. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[polly7]

11. I would love to, but Palestinian victims I hear about are locked up

in Gaza, or have been bulldozed over with their homes, or are digging through the garbage heaps trying to find something to sell to feed their families, or are behind barbed wire watching the groves they planted being wiped out, or are shot for venturing, unknowingly, a few feet past the safe zone while fishing, or expectant mothers who've died waiting to cross checkpoints, or little children seeing their parents bombed on a beach, etc, etc, etc. Those victims I don't think I'd get close enough to ask anything of. Actually, no one seems allowed anywhere near enough to ask them much of anything, do you think the news coming out of Palestine is filtered by any chance? :sarcasm: :rofl:

[proteus_lives]

18. "do you think the news coming out of Palestine is filtered by any chance?"

Why yes, Hamas and the world media spin it pretty well.

They have already made you forget the whole "Hamas is sworn to destroy Israel and won't stop attacking them" thing.

[polly7]

19. Ah don't bull* me. I've read as much as you have and even forced

myself to look at the pictures. Not sure who you're trying to convince, but your condescending crapola about what Hamas is trying to make me 'forget' is laughable. I don't condone violence of any kind, condoning and understanding though are two different things. Any nation of people who have been occupied by a gov't determined to ethnically cleanse land they've stolen will not react in the peaceful, throw em flowers way you seem to believe they should. I wonder what would give their defense of their lives, land, livlihood, childrens' futures, legitimacy in your eyes? Uniforms? A welfare army like Israel's? Do you think Israel would be so brave occupying and committing these atrocities in a country with a real military - trained, organized, prepared to fight them off? Somehow, I doubt it. Having allies on the Security Council who have great interest in Israel being a partner and catalyst in eventually controlling Arab resources all over the ME certainly has helped them avoid what the UN has condemned nearly one hundred times. Conversely, having members with no vested interest in the middle east would be a big step towards stopping the daily atrocities, the illegal wall expansion, the settlements, the bulldozing, the imprisonment of millions, the suffering of children who see death and loss as a daily event.

Your excuses are laughable.

[proteus_lives]

22. "Your excuses are laughable."

Looking in a mirror?

"nation of people who have been occupied by a gov't determined to ethnically cleanse land they've stolen will not react in the peaceful, throw em flowers way you seem to believe they should."

What stolen land? The land Israel occupied after multiple nations declared war on them? Or the land where daily terror attacks were a fact of life? You drop the mask with that comment.

"Do you think Israel would be so brave occupying and committing these atrocities in a country with a real military - trained, organized, prepared to fight them off? Somehow, I doubt it."

A typical canard, you choose not mention '48, '67 or '73.

"Having allies on the Security Council who have great interest in Israel being a partner and catalyst in eventually controlling Arab resources all over the ME certainly has helped them avoid what the UN has condemned nearly one hundred times."

Oh yes, because the UN is completely unbiased when it comes to Israel. Well, perhaps to someone who hates Israel as much as you do thinks they're unbiased.

Typical tripe. After the standard "I condemn violence on both sides" comments, you spew forth how everything is the fault of Israel.

[Name removed]

26. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

27. Deleted message

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

[Violet_Crumble]

7. I always find it amusing when I see people insist that the extremist RW Israeli govt wants peace...

I guess people could call it peace with a slightly straight face if they also believed that the Bush administration wanted peace in Iraq and Afghanistan. I find it highly unlikely given the way successive Israeli govts have used fear as a tool to both scare their own population and to dominate the Palestinian people while they continue to take over the West Bank that none but the most visionary LW Israeli govt would ever seriously contemplate a peace that is fair for both Israelis and Palestinians. Especially when they have a willing and frothing at the mouth fanbase in the US, where the current hatred of Muslims and to a lesser extent Arabs from a large and loud and mainly conservative portion of the US population provides them with all the support and funding that they need....

[polly7]

9. I do too, amusing, and completely ignorant of the facts.

But then maybe it's us who are confused .......... 'the Arabs' caused the Holocaust, they should pay!!! The Arabs lived, cultivated and tended land that 'God intended for another, he just forgot to tell them'. The Palestinians have no right to defend their homeland ........ heck, we wouldn't lift a finger if we were invaded here on the other side of the pond, after all, maybe some Holy Being decided in a book yet to be found ..... or even written yet ...... this land we're on was already reserved. (Which actually, it was ....... for the Native North Americans we murdered, penned onto reserves ......... sorry, got off on a tangent there.) Maybe it's us who are the amusing ones for believing Palestinians, as every other human on earth, deserve life, liberty, and the freedom to wake up each morning without fear of being bulldozed by peaceful IDF who see any child 'looking' around 12 as a legitimate 'target'........ for death. All those Israeli leaders vowing to rid Palestine of its Arab population ......... they must be the honourable ones, chosen specially to commit ethnic cleansing. It's no wonder there are so many Israeli's ashamed of what their right wing, conniving govt's have done to these people for decades, and wish to continue doing so. The word 'peace' to Israeli leaders is a joke. They trot it out once in a while whenever the latest atrocity gets a bit of bad press.

[Shaktimaan]

43. Actually, I do think you might be confused.

You're writing a lot of non-attributed quotes here... the Arabs' caused the Holocaust, they should pay!!!... The Arabs lived, cultivated and tended land that 'God intended for another, he just forgot to tell them'... etc.

I'm not sure where you're getting the idea that this kind of reasoning is the basis for the conflict, but I can assure you that there are very much two sides to this argument. And some of the stuff you are saying are things I have never heard of before, (such as this: All those Israeli leaders vowing to rid Palestine of its Arab population.) and I've read quite a bit about this conflict, from both perspectives.

Israelis have overwhelmingly supported peace efforts. And in fact Israel has achieved longstanding treaties with some of its bitterest enemies, so we know that there is a real desire to sacrafice for peace, that the word is not used as a veneer as you suggest. Yet in the last election the Israelis overwhelmingly voted to install Bibi as PM. This sea change did not come from nowhere. Nor does it represent an unchanging animosity towards the Palestinians.

This conflict is complex. Whenever I hear someone say that everything is the fault of one party I tend to disregard their opinion as uninformed. As people learn about this conflict they undoubtedly have their opinions shaped to some partisan degree. But the stuff I see you writing here seems to be deeply biased and not at all representative of what I understand to be the general state of affairs at all... and I've been there several times, and know many Israelis and Palestinians quite well.

[Shaktimaan]

53. I find it so amazing...

All those Israeli leaders vowing to rid Palestine of its Arab population ......... they must be the honourable ones, chosen specially to commit ethnic cleansing.

You know that Israel is the ONLY nation in that whole area that HASN'T totally cleansed the opposing ethnicity from its land, right? Yet they are the only one you're calling out. For HYPOTHETICAL FUTURE cleansing, no less!

Maybe it's us who are the amusing ones for believing Palestinians, as every other human on earth, deserve life, liberty, and the freedom to wake up each morning without fear of being bulldozed by peaceful IDF who see any child 'looking' around 12 as a legitimate 'target'........ for death.

You're right though. They do. But that's not the point. The point is how to make that happen. Any ideas? Israelis deserve those same things, don't they? Families in Sderot deserve to live without rockets raining down on them, right? So... what to do? How would you go about ensuring neither side gets blown up?

The Palestinians have no right to defend their homeland

Defend it from what? In Gaza Israel left. Now there's more rockets on Sderot. So... what to do?

[aranthus]

36. One colossal false assumption.

Contrary to Liel's hope, these talks are not about reconciliation and friendship. They are about ending the war. Reconciliation and friendship, if they ever come, will happen much later. The Israelis are not going to negotiate peace as if they lost the war, or as if they are more in the wrong than the Palestinians, nor should they. That being said, if Israel attempts to bully Abbas into a one sided agreement, it will achieve little other than giving him an excuse to call off talks for a long time, or get him killed.

[azurnoir]

39. IMO Israel already has the means by which to end the talk

all it has to do is restart construction in the settlements as of 9/26 and voila the talks take one of 2 directions either Abbas calls them off and the Palestinians will be of course to "blame" for the failure and our US legislators will be fighting for a place in line to blame Abbas or the Palestinians will continue the talks while Israel creates "facts on the ground" in which case the talks could on for a while either way it is a win/win for Israel

[aranthus]

40. I think that you are mistaken

as to what would happen if Israel restarted construction in the middle of the talks. I don't think that Obama would be shy about blaming the Israelis in that situation, especially if Abbas could show that he came to make a deal. I don't think Abbas would even show for these talks unless he had reason to believe that they would go somewhere. If he really wanted to commit suicide, there are easier and less painful ways of doing so than to fly all the way to Washington for nothing.

[azurnoir]

41. I said nothing about Obama I said our legislators meaning Senate and Congress n/t

[aranthus]

44. I realize that.

My point is that the most important voice of the American government on foreign policy is the President. I don't think that he would let Netanyahu get away with sabotaging the talks. If he did. If he let others control the story and screw Abbas, then he might as well not bother having the US involved in the process anymore. In part because there wouldn't be a process, and there probably wouldn't be an Abbas.