Abbas tells Israel: 'Don't waste the chance for peace'

[FernBell]

Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas on Wednesday called on Israel to resume peace negotiations and insisted on a full Israeli pullout from the West Bank, Gaza Strip and East Jerusalem. The appeal came as the so-called Quartet of Middle East peace mediators met in Cairo to discuss a common response to the much-awaited formation of a Palestinian unity government.

Israel, meanwhile, promised a punishing response to the death of an Israeli woman by a Palestinian rocket attack on the Israeli town of Sderot.

In a prerecorded speech broadcast on Palestinian television, Abbas told Israel: "Don't waste the chance of peace."

He said a solution depends on Israel "recognizing our national rights, withdrawal from our lands and our Jerusalem, implementation of the international resolutions and finding a just solution and agreeing upon to the issue of refugees.

"This is a moment of truth," Abbas said. "Peace in this region will not be established without the full Israeli withdrawal from the Arab and Palestinian lands occupied in 1967."



http://www.dailystar.com.lb/article.asp?edition_id=10&categ_id=2&article_id=76939

[Boston Critic]

1. Stop firing missiles, Abbas, then talk about peace

What a hypocrite. And no doubt there will be fools who will be taken in by it.

Meanwhile Hamas confirms that they will continue to oppose recognizing Israel's very existence.

[Chulanowa]

4. No less hypocritical

Than vowing to visit revenge upon people who visited revenge upon you for your revenge upon them in retaliation for hteir revenge upon you... While demanding that they be the first to stop the cycle.

[Boston Critic]

8. Ah the old tit-for-tat fallacy

Beats thinking about the actual history of the region, I guess.

[bemildred]

7. Mr Abbas does not fire the rockets.

Nor does he have any control over those that do fire the rockets.

[Boston Critic]

9. If he has no control....

... then why bother to negotiate with him?

In fact while the latest terrorist missile from the Palestinians was from Hamas, the PLO (of which Abbas is leader besides being head of state) has its own armed terrorist wings.

The Palestinian authorities have done *nothing* to disarm or or otherwise rein in their militant factions, and thus are responsible for their attacks.

Google "Altalena incident" if you want to see how the new born Israeli state dealt with those who wanted to maintain independent militias.

[bemildred]

13. Indeed, why bother?

Do you really think he is in a position to do much besides talk?

[Violet_Crumble]

18. Abbas isn't firing missiles...

It'd help to get facts straight...

[Boston Critic]

53. What has Abbas done...

... to STOP the Palestinian terrorists? He can't control his own PLO factions and certainly has not demonstrated any willingness to confront Hamas.

You're right. It does help to get the facts straight.

[Violet_Crumble]

56. He hasn't fired missiles...

So why claim that he has?

[Boston Critic]

67. Don't dodge the issue

What has he done -- as required by previously signed agreements -- to disarm the terrorists and end the attacks?

[Violet_Crumble]

72. The issue is that you claimed he fired missiles...

He didn't and why would you claim he did?

[Boston Critic]

101. Again, quit dodging

What has he done -- what has he EVER done as *required* by previously signed agreements -- to disarm the terrorists and rein them in?

If the answer is nothing, which of course it is, then he is as responsible for the current attacks as if he fired them off himself.

Why don't you believe Palestinians leaders are responsible for their actions or inaction?

[Violet_Crumble]

103. I'm not the one doing the dodging...

I posted in this thread correcting yr false claim that Abbas fired missiles. I asked why anyone would make such a ridiculous claim. I don't recall discussing anything else, though if I'm wrong on that please correct me...

So, why did you claim that Abbas fired missiles? Are you prone to that sort of inaccuracy in yr posts?

[Boston Critic]

151. Asked and answered....

... and still you dodge.

Abbas is the leader of the PA. He is BOUND by past agreements to disarm and rein in the terrorists. He has done *nothing* to do so.

Why do you keep avoiding the facts?

[Violet_Crumble]

167. The FACT is that Abbas didn't fire missiles...

How do you expect anything you say to be taken seriously when you can't even get this simple fact right? Take a second to explore the 'logic' you used to try to blame him for firing missiles: He didn't stop them, therefore he fired them. I take it you also apply this astounding 'logic' to placing blame for the invasion of Iraq eg the Democrats didn't stop Bush, therefore they started the war?

[Boston Critic]

174. And still you dodge...

Abbas wants to be taken seriously as a leader who can "negotiate" with Israel but he can't even live up to the agreements the PA has already made. He's done *nothing* to control the terrorists on his side, including the PLO's own al-Aqsa Martyrs' Brigade. Why should Israel imagine he can deliver on anything else?

For those who are clueless about the various Palestinian terrorist gangs, the al-Aqsa group is part of the same orgaization that Abbas is part of.

[Violet_Crumble]

175. No, I'm pointing out you made a false claim in yr earlier post...

And yr choosing to ignore it and the question I asked you in the post yr now replying to. For those who are clueless about the I/P conflict, Abbas did NOT fire missiles at Israel....

Now, will you please answer the question I asked you in my previous post? thanks...

[Name removed]

177. Deleted message

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

[Violet_Crumble]

181. I don't. I merely corrected yr incorrect claim about Abbas...

Still haven't answered the question I asked you, I see.

How on earth is correcting yr false claim that Abbas fired missiles at Israel attacking Israel for 'defending itself'? Yr going to have to explain that one coz it's a pretty bizarre thing to say...

[Boston Critic]

183. Spin, spin, spin

You just can't address the issue that Abbas has refused to take ANY action to halt Palestinian terrorism.

All you want to do is give him a pass and pretend he is a peacemaking moderate.

[Violet_Crumble]

185. So stop spinning and answer the question you were asked...

And admit that you were wrong when you falsely claimed that Abbas fired missiles....

[Boston Critic]

188. Again, what has he done...

... to stop it? What has he done to disarm the terrorists? What has he done to end the attacks? If the answer is "Nothing" -- and of course it is -- then he shares responsibility.

The real issue is why you think he's a credible negotiating partner for peace. Of what value are his empty promises?

[Violet_Crumble]

192. I didn't spot you answering the question you were asked...

So I take it that you do think the Democrats share blame for the war in Iraq?

[Boston Critic]

198. Why do keep dodging?

Democrats who supported the war and haven't recanted -- like Joe Lieberman -- most certainly share responsibility.

Why would you think otherwise?

And why do you feel Abbas shouldn't have any responsibility for REFUSING to do anything about terrorism when the PA signed agreements to the contrary?

[Violet_Crumble]

207. What exactly am I supposed to be dodging?

No, you claim that Abbas is responsible because he didn't stop the missile attacks. Yet you change yr tune and say that only Democrats who supported the war are responsible, not those who just didn't stop the war...

Where has Abbas stated that he refuses to do anything about terrorism?

[Boston Critic]

215. Where has Abbas DONE anything to stop terrorism?

He's the head of state. He's bound by past agreements to disarm the terrorists and take action against them.

He has said he will not because he doesn't want a civil war.

I can see we're at the end of another subthread. You defend Abbas's inaction but have no knowledge of his obligations or his refusal to live up to them.

[barb162]

252. Abbas has done nothing to stop the terrorism

And I think his "civil war" excuse is just that, a sorry excuse. In his leadership, he basically supports it because he has taken no action to stop it. If camera crews for media can find the terrorist (missile makers) houses and missile launching sites, so can Abbas and the thousands of Palestinian police.

[msmcghee]

202. Excuse my intrusion as a third party, but . .

. . this sub-thread illustrates a repeating problem that occurs in your posts VC.

Your opponent made an assertion that Abbas was firing rockets into Israel. You interpreted it in a way that he was saying that Abbas himself was ordering the rocket attacks. OK, first tries at making an assertion can be ambiguous.

So, he came back and clarified his assertion as being more specifically that Abbas is effectively responsible because he failed to exert any control over his agents - who were actually firing the rockets.

For the next several posts you repeat ad nauseum that he's wrong because Abbas didn't really fire the rockets - and he repeatedly re-clarifies his assertion for you that that's not exactly what he meant.

VC - that's not real debate. What you do is misinterpret someone's statement in the worst possible way - and then even when they correct you, you insist on battling that discredited straw man - in lieu of actually refuting your opponent's real point.

That's why threads you engage in often get way too long. They are filled with silly repetitions of your already well-discredited straw men. Just like your absurd assertion yesterday that I was calling all Palestinians - monsters - after I repeatedly showed you that was not what I meant.

We correct you but once you find your straw man you just can't let them go - as they are invulnerable - while your opponents' actual points may not be.

The use of strawmen in a debate is disingenuous, especially after they are exposed. A little intellectual honesty in the debate would go a long way toward helping you make your points. Just a suggestion.

[Violet_Crumble]

206. No-one asked you to butt in,,,

The other poster claimed that Abbas was firing rockets into israel, which Abbas wasn't. What is so fucking difficult to comprehend about that?

Instead of indulging in more shrill attacks on me here, why don't you try and answer the many questions you've neglected to answer in this thread? Prove to all of us here that yr capable of having civilised discussion without accusing other posters of POVs they don't hold and without labelling the vast majority of Palestinian civilians as monsters....

[msmcghee]

210. Shrill attacks?

I don't often get three commas in the title of posts addressed to me. However, I am quite relaxed and enjoying the discussion for the most part.

You should wipe the spittle off your CRT now, take a breath and think carefully about what I just said about straw men.

Cheers

[Violet_Crumble]

212. Yep, shrill attacks...

Y'know, crap about wiping spittle off CRT's, etc...

So, will you be needing links to all those questions and points in this thread that you've neglected to respond to? :)

[msmcghee]

214. I'm willing to address your arguments at any time . .

. . that you are willing to set them out in a serious way - as I have said before and as I have tried to do before with you.

The problem is that it soon becomes impossible to keep your argument separate from your straw men and after a while of that I give up. Also, your posts tend to be full of insulting statements - you embed your points in insults.

Soon, I find myself replying in kind and I always regret that. But, that's how discusssions with you always end up. Whenever you are prepared to make a reasonable statement regarding I/P and defend it without invective and hidden insults - I'm ready to engage you

But, you really have to be serious. If you get caught saying something that you can't support and that doesn't hold up - you've got to be willing to admit it.

I've never seen you do that here - depite that you have never successfully defended most of your assertions here.

[Violet_Crumble]

220. My arguments are set out seriously...

The reality is that you apparently are incapable and unwilling to engage in serious discussion or to pay others the courtesy of answering questions, despite the fact that you demand replies and answers to everything you say and ask, regardless of how abusive yr comments are. My insulting statements? You mean like me pointing out to you that the average palestinian just like the average Israeli wants to live in peace? learn to cope with feeling insulted then, coz I will never descend to the level where I consider the average palestinian to be a monster. btw, when it comes to personal insults, yr posts are full of them, and have been from the very first instance you replied to one of my posts. That's why yr posts tend to have a high deletion rate...



If you get caught saying something that you can't support and that doesn't hold up - you've got to be willing to admit it.

Talking to yrself, I see. You made a claim yesterday you couldn't support and which was totally wrong, and despite being given more than once example of yr claim being wrong, you chose instead to suddenly revise yr claim and turn it into something different and then ignore any posts after that point...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=124x154720#154909

[msmcghee]

233. OK - Let's stop criticising each others' style . .

. . and go for some substance. Let's start a fresh subthread.

Better yet, start a Part II of this thread and then a fresh subthread under any subtopic. Pick your best shot. Either your most positive point that I disagree with (all of them would qualify I'm sure) or one of my assertions that you most strongly disagree with.

I'd prefer something really basic to the I/P dispute relating to issues of right and wrong. However you want to word it.

No insults. Just good ebating. Go for it.

[Violet_Crumble]

234. I'd be all for that, but with a slight change of topic to start with...

I've got to go and do some stuff round the house this afternoon so I won't have time till later tonight or tomorrow night, but I think before we get to debating the conflict itself, I'd prefer to have a discussion where both of us spell out what our POV is and the other respects that as the other persons POV. I think both of us have been guilty of yelling past each other and I'd much prefer what you suggested...

[msmcghee]

235. Cool.

It's just that we have to start threads with a news item. But whenever you are ready.

[msmcghee]

250. Politely noting that . . .

. . the time has past and I'm still waiting for you to start this discussion. Or, if you want me to start with some kind of statement - let me know what you have in mind.

[Violet_Crumble]

253. After seeing some of yr very recent posts in this forum...

I've reconsidered and can't see the point in it...

[msmcghee]

254. Ask me if I'm surprised.

Whenever pelsar or I get one of you to agree to back up your slanderous accusation against Israel with actual facts - you always have some excuse.

It's too late, or you have other things to do - or in this case you suddenly have decided that the tone of my posts upsets your delicate sensitivities.

Well, I understand. But don't feel bad when I remind you in the future when you make your usual unfounded accusations that you were given the chance to prove the foundation for your outrageous lies and slanderous views - but you decided you had "better things to do".

How pathetic.

[Violet_Crumble]

255. Well, seeing I pegged yr attitude accurately, you shouldn't be surprised..

Just curious, but why aren't you able to talk for yrself? Are you surgically attached to pelsar or something?

I thought I'd agreed to lay out my POV for you, so where on earth are you getting nonsense about 'prove the foundation for your (snipped part of post that violates the forum rules). And it's that abusive attitude from you, as well as yr unwillingness to answer any questions from me about yr POV that helped me make up my mind that it'd be a mugs game to expect civil and rational behaviour from you that you aren't capable of showing...

[Violet_Crumble]

213. oopsie...

[NOLADEM]

2. Israel knows how to achieve peace...they don't want peace, they want land

Israel is provoking the Palestinians to justify Israel's continued land grab and occupation. They are molding world opinion that the occupation is an essential security measure, all the while BUILDING SETTLEMENTS in these occupied territories that were presumably occupied as buffers because they are filled with terrorists.

Israel doesn't want peace. They want continued attacks from Palestinian freedom fighters to justify their continued theft of Palestine from its people.

Only when the theft is complete will you see an earnest Israel participating in peace talks.

People can talk all they want about peace talks, but nothing will happen without Israel taking all they want, or a moderate US administration pulling purse strings to force moderation. Everything else is window dressing.

[sweetheart]

3. The theft will never be complete

Its part of national character after so many decades of low dealing to thieve land, Olmert is so Botha.

[treestar]

5. Right, and they will still be claiming they have "no one to negotiate with."

[Boston Critic]

11. Why negotiate with Abbas?

Who does he speak for? Can he end the terrorist attacks? Why hasn't he already done so? If he can't, there's nothing to negotiate.

[PCIntern]

6. as the Israeli's continued and unabating invasions

of Egypt and Jordan prove.

Great argument there...

:sarcasm:

[Boston Critic]

10. Land grab

You mean like when they gave Sinai back to Egypt?

You mean like when they completely withdrew from Gaza?

You mean like when they completely withdrew from Lebanon?

You mean like when they offered to trade part of pre-1967 Israel in exchange for those parts of the West Bank they want to keep?

People who accuse Israel of "provoking" attacks on themselves for whatever reason are little better than people who claim a rape victim shouldn't have dressed that way or walked in that neighborhood or been at that club. Blaming the victim is good sign that the person doing so doesn't have a clue.

[Violet_Crumble]

59. I think they mean...

...like when Israel continues to build settlements in the West Bank and claim they have some right to keep territory that isn't part of Israel...

[Boston Critic]

68. According to whom?

Let the Palestinians and Israels negotiate the final borders. Israel has been ready to do this for YEARS. Why won't the Palestinians?

[Violet_Crumble]

79. International law...

The West Bank is NOT part of Israel and never has been. Where do you get the idea that it is?

btw, Israel has not been ready for years to negotiate the final borders with the Palestinians. Care to fill me in on the desire to negotiate with the Palestinians during the Golda Meir years? That'll make a good place to start :)

[Boston Critic]

104. There is no sovereign nation called "Palestine"...

... and there never has been. It is much Israel's as it is anyone else's, since it is territory whose sovereignty has been up in the air since it was seized and occupied by Jordan in 1948.

After the '67 war Israel was prepared to negotiate after having taken the Sinai, Gaza, West Bank, the Golan Heights and having liberated East Jerusalem. The Arab League replied with the three Nos: No peace, no recognition, no negotiation. At the time most of the local Arabs did not consider themselves "Palestinians" and certainly would have been startled at the notion that THEY ought to negotiate with Israel, as would the rest of the world.

So the pretense that there was an international recognized Palestinian entity at the time that could have negotiated with Israel but *Israel* refused is just more of your sleight of hand.

I think I find the intellectual dishonesty of purported liberal anti-Zionists to be the saddest thing of all.

[Violet_Crumble]

107. And there was never a sovereign nation called 'East Timor'

And guess what? No-one but extremists and those who thought Indonesia had a right to steal what territory it liked claimed that the lack of sovereignty meant that Indonesia had a right to territory it had invaded. but feel free to explain to me why everyone's wrong and Indonesia did indeed hold a legitimate claim on East Timor. The Indonesian govt was unsuccessful in persuading people of that. And when it comes to any supposed claims of Israel on the West Bank, the same applies. International law clearly states that the acquisition of territory by war is not acceptable. There are no special little clauses that give Israel an exemption on this matter. It applies to Israel just as it applies to any other country....

btw, could you point out where I ever made the claim that there was a sovereign state called Palestine at any time? I haven't and find yr claim that I have to be rather strange, especially as I'm very aware that sovereignty has zero to do with what was being discussed...

I think I find the intellectual dishonesty of some so-called 'supporters' of Israel to be very sad as well, but them's the breaks. Me, I'm what is described as a Zionist, though those who define Zionism as 'Cannot EVER EVER criticise Israel for anything it ever does' would likely try to argue that one :)

[breakaleg]

16. Truer words were never spoken.

And here we sit watching in frustration, trying to find a way to end this thing that won't end until Israel is done.

The proof is in those new, expanded settlements.

[nicoll]

12. UN Human Rights Charter Article 13

The Palestinian leader is right Israel should withdraw from the Gaza Strip, West Bank, Eastern Jerusalem, Golan Heights and Chebba Farms and then peace might have a chance of lasting. International Law had to be followed in all of the above sections of land. I have been researching into the UN rules and regulations. In 1947 the land 26,990sq km was partitioned to form two states one for Palestinian and one for Jews (Israel and Palestine) with them sharing Jerusalem. Seems pretty simple enough, but when you look at the way the land was partitioned it is obvious it was not going to work from the start. The Palestinian land was divided into three parts with the three meeting at two points. When you go to 1967 the Palestinian land is divided into two separate parts with no chance of free movement between the two sections. This in my opinion violates the UN's own charter on human rights in article 13 which states that “Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each state” in both partition plans. Even if there was peace now how could you have a viable Palestinian state if free movement between the two was not possible.

[sabbat hunter]

14. international city

jerusalem was SUPPOSED to be an international city. but the UN abrogated that duty by not defending it in 1949 when jordan invaded.

Can jerusalem be shared, probably, but the old city must remain as it is, under israeli control with the various religions controlling their respective sites. It is the only way to insure that all can maintain access to their sites.

[pelsar]

15. research...

you might want to research why Jordan, Syrian, Egypt, Iraq, Lebanon invaded israel in 48 and what their plans were upon their victory....it would shed some light on the subject..(hint....the palestenian "state" was not part of the plan)....

and then continue the research to 1967...and compare intentions of those same states in 1967 (hint: again, the palestenian state was not part of the plan....)

and then continue up until 2006 and research why the palestenians are shooting kassams at israel even though israel left gaza over a year ago.....
______

i think the UN charter probably talks about living in security without the threat of invasion or attacks from neighboring states....

[Violet_Crumble]

19. Question for pelsar...

I'd appreciate an honest answer on this one, pelsar. Do you support the idea of an independent and viable Palestinian state made up of all of the West Bank, Gaza and East Jerusalem? it's just from reading yr posts in this forum, the impression is coming across that you don't support it at all...

[Englander]

23. That's a good question, Vi.

I'll take this opportunity to say I support the creation of an independent, & viable, Palestinian
state made up the West Bank, Gaza & East Jerusalem.

[pelsar]

24. yes...

.....i support that ideal in principle

my problem is the realistic application of such an ideal.....that is what your reading in my posts.

(i voted for meretz in the last elections.....)

________________________________________
for instance: lets say the palestenains get their state on all pre 67 land...given their political situation and hamas takes over with irans and hizballa (party of gods) military and financial support......care to describe that war?....hi powered weapons within cities...ever see chechniyas capital? Gazas 19 dead wouldnt even be a single hours death toll.....

[nicoll]

26. okay

.....i support that ideal in principle

my problem is the realistic application of such an ideal.....that is what your reading in my posts.

So in principle you support the ideal of the need for the establishment of a economically viable and politically stable Palestinian state along side Israel. That means we are half way there. First you need to define what is required to enable peace to have a chance of working then make it happen.

Do you think it would work with all of the land allocated to the Palestinian authority in 1967. This is approx equates to (5860 + 360sq km of land)?

[pelsar]

27. the problem is not economic

Do you think it would work with all of the land allocated to the Palestinian authority in 1967. This is approx equates to (5860 + 360sq km of land)?

When israel was established there were the same arguments, that it wasnt large enough or there werent enough resources to be viable....or for that matter, look at singapore.

A state being viable or not is not necessary based on how large it is (zimbabwa is an excellent example of a failed state with incredible resources squandered away by mismanagement).

The Palestinian economy based on agriculture has a ready made market in israel, employment for it citizens in israel as well. This would serve as its base as it worked out the "kinks" of its state.....such was the case preintifada I.

the problem is political..starting with their own internal politics. Extremists have to be brought in to the fold, and that is done via violence. The Palestinians have a major problem in that many of their groups are supported both financially and ideologically by outside states...all of those are threats to their own govt in the short term as well as the long term.

[nicoll]

29. No the problem is being split in to two parts trying to form one state

Do you think it would work with all of the land allocated to the Palestinian authority in 1967. This is approx equates to (5860 + 360sq km of land)?

Personally I do not think it can work when they are separated (West Bank & Gaza Strip). Do you think Israel would work as a viable state if the positions were swapped and 1,000,000 of its citizens were squeezed into 360sq km of land and separated from the main body of the country by Palestine. They would only have 42 km of coast line, no airport, sea port or free movement of its citizens throughout the interior of Israel. It would not work and for the same reasons a viable Palestinian state needs to be one whole section of land and not dissected into two parts by Israel.

Yes there are political problems and extremists on the Palestinian side, but if the country was whole with no separate parts then it would have a better chance of working.

[pelsar]

30. the problem is far beyond the mere physical parts....

gaza and the westbank have two very different cultures...one is egypt based one is jordan based (laws, etc), merging those two cultures will be difficult at best.

the world is full of examples of countries with physical/geographic problems that if the people have the will, they can overcome them.

....land locked countries exist...see europe for examples, airports can be built as can seaports....free movement exists when countries are at peace, see europe, singapore is a classic example of a crowded place with no resources making it, luxemborg in europe, Turkey has 1/2 cyprus, England has a "colony" in the Falklands.....

the physical aspect of the viability has never been brought up seriously by either the palestenians nor the israelis.....its a given and not considered a problem by any of the "players" (except for those who see Israels mere existance as the problem)

[nicoll]

32. don't they want a Palestinian state then

I don't see Israel existence as a problem at all. Yes you do have countries that are separated in the world, but it is different in the Middle East between Israel and the Palestinian refugees. I want to see Israel being around in 100 years time. My point was in its present state if the positions were swapped then it would not work for the Israeli's either. So you are saying that the two do not want to form one country (Palestinian refugees). The reason I believe it never comes up is because the Palestinian probably think they have no chance of getting it and the Israeli just would not want to happen in the first place. Some times you have to be outside of the goldfish bowl to see the solution to the problem.

[pelsar]

37. a single country?

not in the next 1000 years...if even that. The cultures are completly different, the historys, the intrepetation of the histories etc......the whole idea of israel is place where jews dont have to live in constant fear of antisemtism that seems to crop up every so often....a single country with the palestenians from the westbank and gaza negates that.

your theory is simply wrong:
Palestinian probably think they have no chance of getting it and the Israeli just would not want to happen

the Palestenains believe very much that one day they'll get their state...one way or another...and most of israel accepts that....though only in "one of those ways".

a split palestine is not the problem....

[nicoll]

99. It is part of the problem

How can you say that it is no problem to have a split Palestine. It is not like I am saying that Israel does not have the right to exist. Just that the two should be both whole within the 26,990sq km of land. What is wrong with that. You say that the West bank & Gaza Strip are too different to be joined. If this was offered to them they would jump at the chance to have a unified Palestinian state and increase the amount of land in a new Palestine by 5000sq km of land.

Maybe I look at it in utopian perspective. I want Israel and Palestine to have an equal amount of the land, coast line, Jerusalem of the 26,990sq km of land. This might not be achievable but it surely the fairest split possible.

[Boston Critic]

55. The US clearly isn't viable...

... after all, Alaska isn't contiguous and Hawaii is out in the Pacific.

So countries where all the territory isn't together have to fail.

*sarcasm off*

[nicoll]

105. Right back from the start

.. after all, Alaska isn't contiguous and Hawaii is out in the Pacific.

So countries where all the territory isn't together have to fail.

There are so many different threads it was hard to find one of yours. You seem to be missing the whole point.
We agreed that there would be no debate on who was right or wrong in the Arab Jewish conflict. I thought that meant that it was agreed also that both were equal to the land. Otherwise you go down the same slippery path of who is more equal to it. It doesn't matter that you can find other parts of the globe that are not continuous (Alaska and Hawaii). The point I was trying to make was that if one (Israel) is whole then the other (Palestine) as the right to be whole as well. Otherwise you saying that Israel has more right to the land than the Palestinians. I want it to be split down the middle where both sides are equal in land, coast line, Jerusalem and both whole. It seems like I am saying that it is the end of the world when all I am saying is an even 50-50 split of the 26,990sq km of land.

People say that it doesn't matter has the arabs will still continue to fight until Israel has been destroyed. But has a 50-50 split of the 26,990sq km of land that was partitoned in 1947 with both sides being whole been offered as a possible solution to the conflict in the last 40 years. This should have been the split right from the begining - down the middle and equal.

[Violet_Crumble]

38. No, that's not what I'm reading in yr posts...

The reason why I doubt very much that you support the idea in principle is because you strongly oppose the idea of the Green Line being used as a defacto border and I have never once seen you show the slightest shred of support for East Jerusalem becoming the Palestinian capital, amongst many other things. There is a vast difference between yr views and those of people I've seen who do support the idea in principle but recognise there will of course be problems turning it into reality....

[pelsar]

65. start with jerusalem....

i cant recall ever mentioning it...ever....

The principle remains...it however wont be practical since the green lines been built over....what will probably happen is a land swap (one that doesnt include israeli arab villages and cities as they're against the the idea of joining the Palestinian state.

I really dont know who others are..but as far as I'm concerned anybody who actually cares about the Palestinian society and peace in general would recognize that the Palestinian society is a made up of well armed militias, fed by other states governed by a fanatic religious group which has said over and over that recognizing israel is "out of the question"....and is simply not prepared to construct anything but a failed violent state at this point.

for an example of what to expect: take a look at gaza....only the most naive would want to export that to the westbank and watch kassams fall on Tel Aviv, Hadera, Netanya, Afula and other cities within range and the IDF response.

sometimes one doesnt get good and bad choices, sometimes there is only bad and worse

the iranians got rid of the shah...and got something worse, religious fanaticism and religious police
zimbabwe got rid of white rule.....and now have a ruined country that cant even feed itself with people going hungry

for the palestenians?.....their life has been getting worse and worse since intifada I...and in gaza since israel left its even gotten worser still.....
________

perhaps because a failed Palestinian state may very well cost the lives of not just me, but my family and friends and thousands of others,....so i'm not so naive about it, reality does that to some of us.

[Violet_Crumble]

85. Do you support East Jerusalem being the Palestinian capital?

You've not mentioned it, so I'd like a yes or no answer to this one....

[pelsar]

91. honesty...

i dont give a "shit"....i'm not into holy rocks...i would be more concerned with having the garbage picked up on time, low taxes, music festivals and lots of tourism to watch the "funny dressed people " walk by.

if the palestenians want to have E. jerusalem as their capital and bring in work to the unemployed, its fine by me...the only sticky part is that many of the E Jersualem residents dont want to live in Palestine. During Oslo, there was a "run" on Israeli citizenship applications from the E. Jerusalem residents, so perhaps it should be up to them....

[Violet_Crumble]

93. More honesty...

Like you I don't give a shit about religion and my reason for supporting East Jerusalem being the capital of the Palestinian state has zero to do with religion...

How do you know that many East Jerusalem residents don't want to live in Palestine? Israel hasn't given them citizenship even though it has annexed East Jerusalem. Isn't it likely that a 'run' on applying for Israeli citizenship was based on the knowledge that the land their homes were standing on had been annexed and there was little they could do about it?

[pelsar]

97. it was an article....

a while back..e jerusalem residents have the choices of citizenships.....and it really isnt a surprise for them to prefer israeli, they get better health care, insurence, pension etc than the PA is promising. And lets face it, israeli rule is far more stable and secure, even with its discrimination, etc

Nationalism is nice, but security always wins

some surveys here:
http://www.mada-research.org/sru/press_release/survey_landPop.shtml

[Violet_Crumble]

102. Quick question...

What's the Triangle region that the press release is referring to?

Sorry but I have to disagree that East Jerusalem residents have the choice of citizenships. They don't have the choice to obtain Israeli citizenship as Israel has rejected many of the applications for citizenship that have been made in the past...

[pelsar]

111. Triangle region..

its in the Galilee...north/east israel- east of Hadera....there is a concentration of arab villages/cities. The largest city/village is Umm al-Fahm, (spelling may vary, its where the the israeli arabs protested and the israeli police killed 13 )

Your right in that not all E.Jerusalem citizens have the choice, for various reasons, no doubt some arbitrary, some security and other dubious reasons, but in principle. the choice exists.

[Violet_Crumble]

115. Thanks...

I hope the in principle becomes the reality at some point and that people do indeed get a choice, if that's what they want...

[pelsar]

249. dont know if you'll see this but...

I dont think i explained the main part of what drives my opinion:

There is a vast difference between yr views and those of people I've seen who do support the idea in principle but recognise there will of course be problems turning it into reality

a failed palestenian state, one that cannot control its "loose cannons" (jihadnikim of various colors) means a far more bitter/cruel war in the westbank and to a lesser extent gaza than what is taking place right now.

Its personal...if there is a war, i'll be one of those lobbing mortors into courtyards (and missing while i adjust the aim), i'll be the one trying to decide, do i throw a grenade in the window? do i go in shooting? or do i walk in and "look around"?....in 3 years my son will be in the army, i dont want him to be making those kind of decisions either.

That vast difference i suspect is because a "failed palestenain state" for them is discussion forums, letter writing, forgetting about it, saying now that they've got the west bank, its their problem....for me, its the opposite and far worse then being killed is returning fire and later realizing that the gunman left and a dead family is what he left behind....we'll be living with that and many others for years to come. My anger wont be directed so much at the palestenians but those who helped them to get their state before they were ready to handle it....not all societies at all times can handle the responsability of statehood....failed states exist.

[nicoll]

17. 50 - 50 split of the 26,990sq km of land

The whole purpose of the Land partitioning of the 26,990sq km of land was to create two viable states (Israel and Palestine). That still has to be achieved today for there to be any chance of peace in the Middle East. Israel is no victim in this. The objectives of the Jewish people was to colonize has much of Palestinian land has possible and to create the state of Israel in the Middle East what ever the cost. Yes the Palestinians have committed terrorist acts against Israel and until recently I was in full support of Israel. One thing changed all of that and that was finding out the details of the Deir Yassin massacre of Palestinians by Jewish soldiers on April the 9th 1948. Men, women and children were taken out and lined up against a wall and shot from Palestinian villages inside the section partitioned for a Palestinian state. The whole purpose of this was to create a mass panic in other Palestinian villages and get them to flee in terror - it worked. This was in my opinion a war crime and came before global terrorism. What has happened to those villages now? well they have probably be bulldozed and absorbed into the state of Israel - well done boys, nice one!! That is why I believe both sides are as bad as each other and an equal sharing of land has to occur.

December 1947

Israel approx 51% of the 26,990sq km partitioned for a Jewish state.

Palestinian land approx 49% of the 26,990sq km partitioned for a Palestinian state.

The problem from this right from the start was that the Palestinian area was divided into three parts only meeting at two points. The land should have been divided 50 - 50 and into two whole sections of land. Even if both sides were not killing each other it would have been hard to create two states from such a partitioning land.

1967
Israel approx 77% of originally partitioned land.

Palestinian land approx 23% of originally partitioned land.

This was partitioned even worse than in 1947. The only winners were Israel. The Palestinian land was divided in two with no chance of free movement between them and therefore any chance of having a viable Palestinian state was greatly inhibited by the partitioning. The mistakes made in 1947 should have been learned and an equal partition of land should have occurred with both half's being whole with no separate parts.

Present day

Israel approx 77% of originally partitioned land.
Plus approx 59% of West bank - 59/100 *5860 = 3457.4sq km of land.
This gives Israel 20,770 + 3457.4 = 24,227.4sq km of land under Israeli control.
Meaning that Israel controls approx 90% of the originaly partitioned land.

Palestinian land is now approx only 10% of the originally partitioned land.

This is just how the numbers add. You can not have a viable Palestinian state mae up of only 10% of the original 26,990sq km of partioned land. It just won't work. I want to see an equal split of the 26,990sq km of land with both sides being whole. What is wrong with that. I am not saying that Israel does not have the right to exist, just that the Palestinians have lived on that part of the Middel East for over a thousand years and so must be entitled to have a state of their own that is viable out of the 26,990sq km of land. Has this seems to be amission imposible I have devised some simple rules for dividing the land up equally between the two. Please add to to them if you can think of any more becasue I am still working on it.

• All international laws in to relation to the rights of individual states have to be followed.

One of the most important of these is the right of free movement of its citizens and trade to move freely within a state. Both states have to be whole with no separate parts.

• Large population movements are allowed as long as realistic time scales are used.

No individual compensation will be awarded to people being displaced by the formation of both new states. Grants will be awarded to both states to accommodate the displacement of people. Neither state has to be Jew or Arab only. The option will be given to either Israeli citizens or Palestinian refugees to remain where they are. In the case of Israeli citizens choosing to remain where they are when the land they live on becomes part of a newly formed Palestinian state then they would have to give up their Israeli citizenship and become Palestinian citizens instead (no joint citizenship allowed). They will be allowed to vote in Palestine, buy property, move freely throughout the country etc. In the case of Palestinian refugees remaining where they are when the land they live on becomes part of a newly formed Jewish state then they would have to become Israeli citizens. They would have the same rights as Jewish Israeli citizens. In both newly formed states all citizens within each state will have equal status. In truth given this option most Israeli citizens and Palestinian refugees finding themselves either in a newly formed Israel or Palestine will probably wish to move to their own country. This would remove a large problem created by displacement. When people realise that there was no stopping the formation of the two new states out of the 26,990sq km of land a large proportion would move of their own free will. The result of this may be two states that are predominantly made up of Jew or Palestinian only, but at least the option would have been given for mixing of the two. Yes there are aprox 1,000,000 Arabs residing in Israel at present, but they are not given full and equal rights within the country and so it is no comparison to equal status of Jew and Palestinian in either of the newly formed Palestine or Israel. The aprox 1,000,000 Arabs residing in Israel and their status has to be addressed as well. With the old part of Jerusalem a complete handover by Israel to the Palestinian authority has to occur. All residents have to vacate that area before hand over giving the Palestinian authority complete control over that section of the city. This might seem harsh that all current residents have to vacate the area before handover, but it is required for there to be any chance of the whole thing working.

[Boston Critic]

20. Can we get the facts straight please?

There are certain buzzwords the anti-Zionist lobby loves to throw out to confuse and obfuscate. "Deir Yassin." "USS Liberty." "Apartheid." "Jenin." All are used either in contravention of the facts, or slanted so as to distort the historical reality.

For a more ballanced view of what actually happened at Deir Yassin go to:

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/myths/mf14.html#f

For example:

Surprisingly, after the “massacre,” the Irgun escorted a representative of the Red Cross through the town and held a press conference. The New York Times' subsequent description of the battle was essentially the same as Begin's. The Times said more than 200 Arabs were killed, 40 captured and 70 women and children were released. No hint of a massacre appeared in the report.

“Paradoxically, the Jews say about 250 out of 400 village inhabitants , while Arab survivors say only 110 of 1,000.” A study by Bir Zeit University, based on discussions with each family from the village, arrived at a figure of 107 Arab civilians dead and 12 wounded, in addition to 13 "fighters," evidence that the number of dead was smaller than claimed and that the village did have troops based there. Other Arab sources have subsequently suggested the number may have been even lower.

In fact, the attackers left open an escape corridor from the village and more than 200 residents left unharmed.


The site is annotated with sources to back up all its claims.


Also:

The Palestinians knew, despite their rhetoric to the contrary, the Jews were not trying to annihilate them; otherwise, they would not have been allowed to evacuate Tiberias, Haifa or any of the other towns captured by the Jews. Moreover, the Palestinians could find sanctuary in nearby states. The Jews, however, had no place to run had they wanted to. They were willing to fight to the death for their country. It came to that for many, because the Arabs were interested in annihilating the Jews, as Secretary-General of the Arab League Azzam Pasha made clear in an interview with the BBC on the eve of the war (May 15, 1948): “The Arabs intend to conduct a war of extermination and momentous massacre which will be spoken of like the Mongolian massacres and the Crusades.”

References to Deir Yassin have remained a staple of anti-Israel propaganda for decades because the incident was unique.

[nicoll]

21. okay I stand corrected on that

One of the things that I have found hard with this is conflicting facts. The facts that I obtained were taken from a booklet produced by an organization called "Jews For Justice - the origins of the Palestine Israel conflict".
I find when you go down the path of who is right and wrong you can loose your way to finding a possible peaceful solution to the conflict.

Do you agree that to have peace you have to have an economically viable and politically stable Palestinian state along side Israel?

How would you go about achieving this?

[pelsar]

25. economically viability....

thats actually a secondary issue....once politically stable and its inhabitants working, money will flow in, not just from intl sources but from israeli investors etc. Money will not be the problem. Whether or not the palestenain state can afford its own airline, shipping line etc in the short term may be seen as not being "econmically viable", but that is hardly the problem. It maybe that its armed forces may have to forgo expensive tanks as well, but that will not stop the palestenian economy, mainly an agricultural one from feeding its own people.

Political stability is what they need....how to get there is the real problem, in the meantime hamas and fatah are fighting it out in gaza in a variety of ways (fatah won some recent political victories-they held the funeral for the 19 dead and not hamas)

[Boston Critic]

57. There's the rub...

If the Palestinians truly wanted peace, they could have it tomorrow. Israelis would love to have a nearby Arab state where they could shop, whose residents would come -- peacefully -- into Israel to seek employment, and where they could engage in economic trade and cooperation.

The problem is the Palestinians lack a political leadership willing to take them into the future. They supported Arafat's kleptocracy and now they support Hamas's rejectionism and terrorism. When a Sadat or a Mandela arises among the Palestinians and is ready to make peace, Israel will be ready to negotiate and be prepared to make some sacrifices.

Unfortunately, the political leadership has to come from within. Israel can't give it to them, and all the concessions in world won't make it happen.

[Violet_Crumble]

100. I wouldn't be so quick to believe what was posted...

Jewish Virtual Library isn't exactly a balanced source for historical stuff. I had some experience in how uninterested they are in actual facts a few years back. When looking into historical events to do with this conflict it's probably best to turn off the computer and head for a good library. Avoid anything that uses terms like 'anti-Zionists', 'Zionist-lovers' etc coz that's a sure sign that what yr reading won't be the slightest bit balanced and more than likely will be full of unverifiable nonsense and omitted facts. When it comes to Deir Yassin in particular, any claims that no massacre happened should be discarded as garbage just as surely as claims that this was ordered from the upper echelons of the Israeli leadership at the time. What is known for a fact is that it was a massacre of innocent civilians and that it didn't stand alone at the time as there were also massacres of Jews in some kibbutzes....

[Boston Critic]

106. Feel free to refute the facts

They back up their statements with detailed references.

And anti-Zionist is a correct, if overly politically correct, term to refer to those who excuse Palestinian terrorism while laying the blame for all problems on Israel.

[Violet_Crumble]

109. If there were facts to refute I would...

I don't waste my time with mindless propaganda no matter what side it comes from. You do, but that's yr perogative. Just don't expect to be taken seriously, okay?

Isn't anti-Zionist that overly used insult aimed at anyone who dares to utter the slightest criticism of Israeli policy?

[Name removed]

152. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

168. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

176. Deleted message

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

[Violet_Crumble]

179. There's nothing empty about knowing citations don't make things true...

You claimed that because something has citations it's *fact*. While folk like Holocaust deniers would rush to agree with you as that claim gives their citation ridden 'work' legitimacy, citations do not automatically infuse something with credibility at all. And just as you've done, Holocaust deniers demand that people prove their claims and citations wrong, knowing full well that very few people have the resources or time to dig into the obscure material they've cited to see if it says what they claim it does or if it even is something credible. Besides, if you'd paid attention, you would have noticed I urged caution to another poster who I thought may have taken for granted that what you were producing was hard, cold fact. Do you have some sort of problem with people daring to question yr world-view or wanting to be cautious before swallowing it?

Is there some reason why you resort to streams of insults rather than trying to civilly discuss issues? Here's a fact - I am interseted in peace for all sides and there's no pretense there at all...

Unbiased observer? Is that what you think you are???

[Boston Critic]

182. Calling your bluff

Please show any of the citations are false.

People exposing Holocaust deniers for the liars they are can do this. Now you pretend to the same moral standard but make an entirely unsupported claim.

It's put up or shut up time.

[Violet_Crumble]

184. Please try reading the post you replied to...

If you'd read it, you wouldn't be sitting there demanding I prove citations are false, because you would have understood what I was saying in my post about citations...

You would also know if you had some basic knowledge of the workings of Holocaust deniers that the people who can expose them are acadcemics who have the time and resources to wade through obscure material that is used as sources. But I already told you that in my previous post and you totally ignored it...

[Boston Critic]

189. I accept your concession

You made a claim that the citations were false or not be trusted, and cannot post a single thing that was in error or incorrect.

Perhaps ignoring your posts, as you claim I already do, would be a wise decision.

[Violet_Crumble]

193. If you can't get what I say straight, then it'd be best to put me on ignore...

Where did I made a claim that the citations were false? I did nothing of the sort. I addressed yr ridiculous claim that just because something has citations it must be fact by pointing out that's not the case at all. I urged caution to another poster after an experience of mine with the Jewish Virtual Library, and you've gotten outraged that anyone dare be cautious or careful when examining information. I urge that sort of caution no matter what the source is and think it's sad that you don't feel the need to be cautious...

[Boston Critic]

199. It's okay -- I accepted your concession

that you can't back up your claims. No need to berate yourself for it any further.

[Violet_Crumble]

205. Again, you claim I've said something I haven't said...

I can and do back up claims I make. What I don't do is get into stupid games where you make false claims about what I say and then demand I back them up....

[Boston Critic]

216. It's over, you lost, get used to it

You claimed a site was unreliable and that their sources proved nothing about the facts. You were invited to support this empty claim. You could not do so.

End of discussion.

[Violet_Crumble]

221. This isn't a game where people win or lose...

You yet again accused me of saying something I hadn't, then do some bizarre 'I won! I won!' thing. Oh-kay, glad that's the end of the discussion for you coz from where I was sitting you ignoring everything that gets said to you isn't any sort of discussion...

[Boston Critic]

225. You can run but you can't hide

Don't attack sources if you can't back up your claims.

[Violet_Crumble]

226. How many tired out pointless cliches do you have under yr belt?

Just curious...

[Boston Critic]

228. How many false accusations...

...against Israel do you have? So long as you make them, expect to find one or more people slapping down your posts for the propaganda they are.

[Violet_Crumble]

231. Probably far less than yr false claims and accusations...

It must be so distressing for you to encounter people who are willing to criticise Israel and hold it to the same standard as any other state...

[Boston Critic]

236. To the contrary

I'm bored with hypocrites who hold Israel to standards they don't hold anyone -- particularly the Palestinians -- to.

[barb162]

251. You sure have a lot of them in this thread yourself

[Englander]

22. Deir Yassin = massacre.

Again, I hope all these links & info are informative, like the previous info on Irgun, &tc.

Deir Yassin massacre, 55 years on
By Yair Ettinger

Dozens of Jews and Arabs yesterday marched around the fence surrounding Jerusalem's Kfar Shaul psychiatric hospital, the site of the Deir Yassin massacre, to commemorate its 55th anniversary.

On April 9, 1948, the Lehi and Etzel attacked the village of Deir Yassin as part of the Nahshon Operation, killing an unknown number of residents, including women and children. Yesterday's ceremony included the reading of 93 names of victims.

Residents of the nearby Jerusalem religious neighborhood of Har Nof watched the ceremony, cursing at participants.

Among those attending the ceremony was Abdel Aziz Barakat, 81, who lost 17 members of his family in the massacre and told participants about Arab and Israeli coexistence in Jerusalem until 1939.

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=282499&contrassID=2&subContrassID=1&sbSubContrassID=0&listSrc=Y

_____________________


Survival of the fittest
By Ari Shavit

>snip

According to your findings, how many acts of Israeli massacre were perpetrated in 1948?

"Twenty-four. In some cases four or five people were executed, in others the numbers were 70, 80, 100. There was also a great deal of arbitrary killing. Two old men are spotted walking in a field - they are shot. A woman is found in an abandoned village - she is shot. There are cases such as the village of Dawayima , in which a column entered the village with all guns blazing and killed anything that moved.

"The worst cases were Saliha (70-80 killed), Deir Yassin (100-110), Lod (250), Dawayima (hundreds) and perhaps Abu Shusha (70). There is no unequivocal proof of a large-scale massacre at Tantura, but war crimes were perpetrated there. At Jaffa there was a massacre about which nothing had been known until now. The same at Arab al Muwassi, in the north. About half of the acts of massacre were part of Operation Hiram : at Safsaf, Saliha, Jish, Eilaboun, Arab al Muwasi, Deir al Asad, Majdal Krum, Sasa. In Operation Hiram there was a unusually high concentration of executions of people against a wall or next to a well in an orderly fashion.

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=380986

___________________


Remember the pain, heal the wounds

Anne Karpf
Guardian

Tuesday March 26, 2002

Given the current carnage in the Middle East, it may seem arbitrary - perverse, even - to alight on one bloody episode from 54 years ago. But the events that took place in the Palestinian village of Deir Yassin in April 1948 are so symbolic that they might almost serve as the DNA of the Arab-Israeli conflict. And the decision to memorialise them in England, Scotland, and elsewhere around the world on April 7 is highly charged and, to some, downright inflammatory.

The bare facts are beyond dispute. Early in the morning of April 9 1948, commandos of the Irgun (headed by Menachem Begin) and Lehi guerrilla groups, with the help of a small elite unit from the main Jewish defence organisation, the Haganah, led an attack on the Arab village of Deir Yassin, west of Jerusalem. Some 100 Palestinians (mainly old men, women and children) were killed.

Defenders of the massacre say that it was an attempt to break the siege of west Jerusalem, and that Deir Yassin was no sleepy hamlet but a heavily armed Arab military post. Others point out that, at the time, Deir Yassin was designated a peaceful village, had contracted a non-aggression pact with the neighbouring Jewish settlement of Givat Shaul, and that its awesome arsenal amounted to some old Turkish rifles and two machine-guns.

Jewish leaders rushed to condemn the attack. The prime minister, David Ben Gurion, sent an apology to King Abdullah of Jordan, while the Jewish theologian and philosopher Martin Buber called it "a black stain on the honour of the Jewish nation" and "a warning to our people that no practical military needs may ever justify such acts of murder".

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Archive/Article/0,4273,4381818,00.html

[nicoll]

28. Do not want to know who ir right or wrong - just want peace!!

What I have said to the man from Boston is that I have decided not to go down the path of who is right or wrong in the conflict, but to only look for a possible peaceful solution to the conflict.

In my opinion the only way that you will be able to get a true and lasting peace if you have a economically viable and politically stable Palestinian state along side Israel in the Middle East. How would you go about achieving that Mr Englander. Remember it has to be economically and politically viable as well as self sufficient after it has had time to be established properly.

Some of the basics you need for this:

An international port that is able to move trade freely through the interior of the state.

An international airport.

Some control over parts of Jerusalem.

Free movement of its civilians throughout the interior of the state.

Emergency services.

A working education system.

The list goes on and on.......

Things we take for granted in the west but are the essentials for a state to function.

[msmcghee]

31. Thank you for your common sense.

As I think you now understand, each side has way more than enough hatred toward the other based on past affronts and tragedies that they could easily keep killing each other for the next several centuries. What happened in the past is just excuses for more killing. What is important is what happens now and in the future.

While pelsar talks about political stability - and I agree 100% - he says that the first step is achieving that political stability - and the rest will fall into place.

I would suggest an even simpler first step. Arab / Muslims stop killing Israelis. That is the hole card that the militias have and so far have been unwilling to let go.

For 60 years now, whenever peace gets dangerously close, they play that card.

It is my opinion that their motives have little to do with a state for Palestinians and everything to do with their own power, wealth and prestige.

But, my estimation of their motives is not important. The only thing that is important in terms of peace is that they stop killing Israelis. If they do that the rest will fall into place. It's hard to believe in an area of the world that has been torn apart by ruthless killing of civilians for 60 years, peace could be achieved by one simple act. But there it is.

And it's hard for me to understand why those who claim to be liberals would not be for such a simple and obvious solution. Instead, they cheer when Israel meets some setback in their attempts to stop the killing of Israeli civilians. Instead of calling for an end to the killing they go to great lengths to apologize for and justify it.

The one truth that has prevailed since the start of the state of Israel - is that if the jihadists laid down their weapons today, from that moment forward there would be no more war. There would be no more dead babies or grandmothers or school kids on either side. No more.

If Israel laid down her weapons today - there would soon be no Israel.

Who here is for the jihadists laying down their weapons?

[nicoll]

33. Okay

[nicoll]

34. okay

I agree that the militants should lay down all their weapons and do not think Israel should lay down hers. With Israel having weapons are more about defense rather than attack. Maybe I got it all wrong I have always seen the solution to the conflict being the fact that the West Bank and Gaza Strip are separated. My possible solution to is below or at least the bare bone of it.

The Golan heights gives Israel security against Syria and Lebanon. The Golan Heights was annexed by Israel in the early eighties, but this was never recognized by the international community and Syria in particular. Israel needs to keep the Golan Heights and not only that but have Syria to accept it as part of Israel. This is so important for Israeli security because maybe then Syria might stop funding Hezbolhah in Lebanon. How could Israel get the Syrians to do this? It is all about give and take.

If Israel was to give land to the Palestinians to allow the formation of a Palestinian state from the unification of the West Bank and Gaza Strip then it could obtain security with Syria and Lebanon. A unified and newly formed Palestine would have a better chance of being politically stable and economically viable.

West Bank (5860) + Gaza Strip (360) + unification land (5000) giving a total of just over 10,000sq km of land.

This would still leave Israel with 20770 + 1250 (Golan Heights) - 5000 = 17,020sq km of land

Security and a peaceful solution to the conflict are more important than the size of Israel.

Every day the Palestinian people have no state they are like a sponge to extremists.

[msmcghee]

35. As this post is similar to one in an adjacent thread . .

. . I will repeat my response to that one:

You have overlooked one simple fact.

Those who make the decisions in the PT have stated that their mission in life is the destruction of Israel and all the Jews who live there.

They have never once stated that if some accommodation to land issues were resolved they could see their way to peaceful coexistence with Israel.

Why don't you believe them?

************************

I don't mean this post to be sarcastic in any way. And I appreciate your honest intentions in searching for a route to peace.

The problem IMO is that the world's most skilled politicians and diplomats have been searching for the same thing for 60 years. Every time they believe that there must be some on the Palestinian side who would finally be tired of killing and war and would want to reach some accord. And every time an agreement of some kind seems in reach - those who actually make the decisions in the PT reject it and start killing Israelis again (or fail to stop killing them).

Of course, that is their stated intentions. I think one major obstacle here is that westerners just can't believe that a people would prefer war and the death of their children to some negotiated peace - if it were at all possible to achieve it.

Unfortunately, they are wrong. That reality must be faced directly IMO.

[Violet_Crumble]

39. Where are you getting these 'facts' from?

Those who make the decisions in the PT have stated that their mission in life is the destruction of Israel and all the Jews who live there.

They have never once stated that if some accommodation to land issues were resolved they could see their way to peaceful coexistence with Israel.

Why don't you believe them?

I don't believe them because the statement that you claim they made (being the PA and Palestinian leadership over the years) and that they have never once stated any sort of wish for peaceful coexistence is complete rubbish. While that sort of nonsense would appeal to those of an extreme bent who love their world in Black & White, good guy vs bad guy simplicity, the fact is that such statements are completely incorrect and anyone who'd done the slightest bit of studying of the history of the conflict would be aware of that. Would you like me to start giving you examples that prove yr statements wrong, or won't facts make a difference in this instance?

I think one major obstacle here is that westerners just can't believe that a people would prefer war and the death of their children to some negotiated peace - if it were at all possible to achieve it.

Such a broad and sweeping negative stereotype of the Palestinian people. If someone were to make such a comment about Israelis or Jews, would you find it acceptable? I suggest you get to know some real, average Palestinians before you try making such comments in future as that comment is a bigoted one....

[msmcghee]

40. Hi Violent . .

OK, here's your big chance to show me how wrong I am.

1) Show me one statement by Hamas or Fatah that says that if Israel would just negotiate certain border / land arrangements in good faith with them that they'd drop their demand that the state of Israel be destroyed - or anything like that.

2) Real average Palestinians elected Hamas to power. Even if they didn't know what they were doing - very unlikely according to international election watchers - Hamas is now calling the shots, in their name.

My assertions were based on my never seeing any such statements. You can prove me wrong by providing some of those. I must wonder why you did not do that in your reply - instead of just calling my assertions "rubbish". So, go ahead, show me where any group of real average Palestinians are now asking Hamas to negotiate and stop the senseless killing of Israeli civilians.

Actually, I just did hear a Palestinian woman on NPR say that Hamas should not fire any more rockets into Israel in her name. So there must be some. But it seems she was interviewed because such statments are so rare.

Show me any evidence that any significant number of real average Palestinians prefer some negotiated peace to war and the death of their children - that their rockets are causing.

[Violet_Crumble]

41. Hi MrMagoo...

1) Aren't you aware that the PLO recognised Israel's right to exist back in 1993? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel-Palestine_Liberation_Organization_letters_of_recognition That was such a big one that I find it hard to believe anyone who claims to have even the most basic knowledge of the I/P conflict wouldn't be aware of it...

2) Let me get this straight. You consider it acceptable for bigoted comments to be made about the Palestinian people based on the fact that Hamas were elected. Are you aware of the reasons why average Palestinians voted for them? Raining death and destruction on Israel wasn't the reason?. Coruption within the PA and internal issues were the reasons why they were so successful...

So you can understand I hope why I pointed out quite correctly that yr comments were rubbish and untrue, and that the comments made about the Palestinian people are bigoted. I notice that you didn't answer my question about whether you'd find such comments acceptable if aimed at another group of people...

[msmcghee]

43. Heh . .

So you're going back to a political statement by the PA in 1993? Let's see, that's 13 years ago. How about something remotely in the context of the current government of the PT - like maybe something they've said in the last year since Israel left Gaza and Hamas was elected to power on a platform of the destruction of Israel.

I have seen several statement by Hamas during this period to never recognize the legitimacy of the state of Israel. But I must have missed the Kumbaya memos you are referring to. Just a link will do.

I'm not following your crap about my "bigoted statements". Either explain coherently what the hell you're talking about - or get back to answering my challenge for you to prove me wrong - which I note that you completely did not do in your last post.

But, nice diversions, as usual.

[Violet_Crumble]

44. I gave you an example to prove you were wrong...

So now you try and move the goalposts. And once yr given more you'll just move the goalposts yet again. You were wrong and abysmally so. It seems yr not aware that agreements signed in 1993 are just as binding and valid now as they were back then. Or is what Israel signed back then past it's use-by date as well? Also, are you honestly trying to claim that you have never seen Abbas make statements in which he obviously recognises the existance of Israel, opposes violence, and wants a negotiated settlement??

fwiw, I'll give this one last try. There was an article written by the current Palestinian PM posted a few months back in which he expressed the desire for a negotiated settlement and an end to the violence. I'll have to go back through the archives to locate it*, and I'm sure the goalposts will yet again be moved, so after this one I'll safely assume that there's a deep emotional investment being made in ignoring facts when they don't suit you and leave it at that...

How is it that you can't see that making negative sweeping statements about the Palestinian population isn't bigoted? I've asked you whether you'd find sweeping negative statements about Israelis or Jews based on a 'well, I've never seen it!' head in the sand routine would be acceptable to you, and you've failed to answer me. Average Palestinians are just like average Israelis - they want to live their lives in peace. Neither group of people are monsters who want to destroy other people and I have zero time for anyone who holds such a view of Israelis or Palestinians as extremism has never been something I've been fond of...

* on edit - as promised, here's a link to the thread. As usual, Ha'aretz doesn't archive their old articles but a copy of it is readily available by googling...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=124x132779

[Violet_Crumble]

48. Silence on the other one I gave you?

I guess it takes some time to come up with even flimsy excuses and shuffling of goalposts :)

[Violet_Crumble]

169. Kick n/t

[msmcghee]

49. You say . .

"Neither group of people are monsters who want to destroy other people and I have zero time for anyone who holds such a view of Israelis or Palestinians as extremism has never been something I've been fond of..."

I beg to differ.

I have posted links before to videos of Palestinian teachers showing off five-year-old girls telling their class how much they look forward to killing Jews when they grow up. We have all seen the videos of the street demonstrations glorifying successful rocket attacks on Israeli civilians. We've all see the posters of the "martyrs" who managed to kill some innocent Israelis with their suicide belts - placed in the public square and publicly acclaimed for their deeds. We've seen the videos of the Hisb'allah terrorists escaping in Red Crescent ambulances. We've seen and exposed the outrageous claims that Israel kills Palestinian civilians "wantonly" and we've debunked the elaborate lies that Israel fires missiles through the roofs of Red Crescent ambulance.

Yes, IMO people who do those things are monsters - as are those who defend them.

[Violet_Crumble]

50. Okay, so you think the Palestinian people are monsters...

Can I ask what yr purpose is at DU and indeed in this forum? I think those who'd portray an entire people as monsters based on mindless crap they see on the internet are more the monsters. People can see what they like on the internet, but only complete idiots think that seeing what they like and ignoring everything else makes a case for their hatred of an entire people. Anti-semites fill up the internet with videos and articles supposedly supporting their claims that Jews are murderous pricks etc and there's no difference between what they do and those who do the same aimed at Arabs/Palestinians...

I feel very sorry for you, mrmagoo, and I hope someday in the future yr attitude changes substantially. As it is I refuse to engage with the sort of hatred that it takes to believe that the Palestinian people are monsters, as such a view is outright bigotry and shouldn't be tolerated anymore than anti-semitism is tolerated...

[breakaleg]

51. You seem to be lumping the views of extremist Palestinians in with

the entire population. Do the extremist settlers speak for all Israelis? If not, then you have no basis to assume the same is true for all Palestinians. It defies logic.

[Boston Critic]

61. Extremist Palestinians?

Excuse me, the correct phrase you're avoiding is "their elected leaders."

[breakaleg]

71. read the post I was responding to and see exactly who he is referring

to before you accuse me of something.

[msmcghee]

78. My words were . .

"I have posted links before to videos of Palestinian teachers showing off five-year-old girls telling their class how much they look forward to killing Jews when they grow up. We have all seen the videos of the street demonstrations glorifying successful rocket attacks on Israeli civilians. We've all see the posters of the "martyrs" who managed to kill some innocent Israelis with their suicide belts - placed in the public square and publicly acclaimed for their deeds. We've seen the videos of the Hisb'allah terrorists escaping in Red Crescent ambulances. We've seen and exposed the outrageous claims that Israel kills Palestinian civilians "wantonly" and we've debunked the elaborate lies that Israel fires missiles through the roofs of Red Crescent ambulance.

Yes, IMO people who do those things are monsters - as are those who defend them."

Nowhere did I say "all Palestinians". Although I didn't specify so, Palestinian leadership is certainly included in my description insofar as they condone and encourage such behavior.

[Violet_Crumble]

83. Here's yr exact words...

Me: "Neither group of people are monsters who want to destroy other people and I have zero time for anyone who holds such a view of Israelis or Palestinians as extremism has never been something I've been fond of..."

Yr reply: 'I beg to differ.'

Again, I can supply the link if you deny having said it...

[breakaleg]

84. You have to look at your entire post...

violet said 'neither group are monsters' and you said 'I beg to differ'. That certainly sounds like you are grouping them all in with those extremist opinions, and classifying them ALL as monsters.

[msmcghee]

88. Read the following two paragraphs . .

. . where I described my position in detail.

Word games . . . all of this crap. People are dying. You should be ashamed. I am disgusted.

[breakaleg]

90. You just called Palestinians monsters and I have something to be ashamed of?

[Name removed]

95. Deleted message

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

[Violet_Crumble]

92. Maybe you could clarify yr position now?

You've made several comments in this thread where there have been negative generalisations aimed at the Palestinian population. I take it that you now refute those comments? I can provide you with a list of them if it'll make it easier for you...

Picking up people on bigoted comments isn't word games. It's pointing out something that's disgusting no matter what group of people it's aimed at...

[Boston Critic]

60. Here's a big clue

Hamas has EXPLICITLY repudiated all past agreements and says they will never recognize Israel.

(And the PLO's never amended their charter. They played some games to make a statement that the West wanted, but refused to actually remove the offending language calling for Israel's construction. So even the nonsense YOU cite is worthless.)

[Violet_Crumble]

Here's a bigger hint...

Try reading the question I was asked. Then try to explain to me why you think whatever it is you think yr saying has anything at all to do with what I was originally asked and what I was responding to. Here's a hint - it has zero to do with it at all...

Also, no-one in their right mind actually believes that the letters of agreement are negated by the PLO Charter...

[Boston Critic]

69. nice dodge

Apparently there's a feeling among some people that Arabs are basically children, and therefore we have to cut them slack while Israel has to be held to the strictest standards of any nation on the planet.

Hamas rejects ALL past agreemetns. The PLO did NOT amend their charter calling for the destruction of Israel. Yet you pretend that the Palestinians are suing for peace and Israel is the obstacle. I'm merely pointing out the disconnect with reality.

[Violet_Crumble]

75. No dodge at all....just reality...

I'll repeat it again for you. Go back and READ the question I was asked and you'll find I proved them wrong with more than one example...

I know Hamas has rejected all past agreements. So did Netanyahu, so what's the difference between them? I also know the PLO Charter wasn't amended. But unlike you, I'm not pretending that the letters of recognition never happened and that they held a shitload more power than any Charter...

[Boston Critic]

108. Still dodging

You believe what you want to believe. The "letters" held little power whatsoever, and certainly did NOT trump the PLO Charter.

And Netanyahhu -- whom I do not support -- never rejected already concluded and signed agreements. So your attempt to find moral equivalency between and Hamas leaders falls flat.

Plain undisputed fact: Hamas has said over and over that they will NEVER make peace with Israel and they will NEVER recognize Israel. At most they will agree to a "hudna." Those who think that means "truce" or "ceasefire" are deluding themselves.

[Violet_Crumble]

112. Change the record...

I tend to believe facts. The facts are that the letters of recognition did indeed trump any Charter. How on earth is disagreeing with yr strange view that what you don't like to see doesn't hold any power is 'dodging'?

Netanyahu did indeed reject agreements. And believe me, anyone who can't see the similarities between him and Hamas leaders really is living in fantasy land. Both are extremists who have a lot of blood on their hands....

[Name removed]

153. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

180. Deleted message

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

[Boston Critic]

238. These are lies

The letters did NOT trump the PLO charter. That was Arafat's spin to the west, that the gullible bought. Of course side agreements don't trump the governing document of an organzation, any more than Bush's "signing statements" overrule the US Constitution.

And you can not name ANY agreement that Netanyahu unilaterally declared Israel would not be bound by. So claiming that this rightwing politician -- at his worst -- did anything even remotely like Hamas is another lie.

[Violet_Crumble]

42. Would you be interested in doing more reading on the subject?

If you are genuinelly interested, I can put together a list of books that would hopefully allow you to see beyond that nasty stereotype of average Palestinians that you currently have. One of them is a wonderful book of interviews with both israeli and palestinian children about how the conflict is affecting them and what they want from the future, and reading that sort of thing may assist in casting Palestinians in a more human light. Let me know...

[Violet_Crumble]

45. Obviously not...

Oh, well. It was worth a try...

[msmcghee]

46. I did have a post ready to go . .

. . and we had a power failure. It's back now so I'll rewrite it. I pointed out that I have read several books on the subject and continue to do so.

I also pointed out that if you were so knowledgeable on the subject that you should have no trouble making a coherent case for your pov in your own words - which apparently you can not do. The book-list response is quite the pathetic cop-out.

Instead you fill your posts with thinly veiled ad hominems - like suggesting that my statements are bigoted - since you know that calling me a bigot would be frowned on.

I would suggest that continuously refusing to engage the substance of posts that you disagree with is rather telling. It seems to me that you're just here to do verbal combat. And, like most on the pro-jihadist side, have no real interest in any honest discussion of the underlying issues. That's because when any of you do engage on that level, your reasoning is shown to be quite empty.

For example, no matter how the question is worded or how many times it is asked, none of you can suggest what Israel should do to stop the Kassams - that won't endanger the lives of Palestinian civilians. Just as none of you can explain why trying to stop the Kassams makes Israel the aggressor in the current conflict - an assertion your side makes continuously.

I'd suggest, that if you fancy yourself such a brilliant proponent for your anti-Israeli side of the discussion - you start with that one simple question that pelsar has been asking you for months. Or the following one that I have been trying to get one of you to answer honestly for a couple of weeks now - to no avail.

BTW - Asking for a statement less than 13 years old is not moving the goalposts - it's asking for you to play on the same field.

Also, don't expect me to answer to another post that is just more BS. Deal with the issues straight up or don't waste my time.

BTWBTW - I just noticed the post above addressed to "Violent". I apologize for getting your name wrong. It was a typo and the time limit has passed for editing it.

[Violet_Crumble]

47. I'm not suggesting yr comment was a bigoted one...

I'm stating that it was a bigoted comment. I'm not stating that yr a bigot as I know stating that is against the rules while commenting on a particular statement isn't. I've asked you several times now about whether you'd find similar negative stereotypes of israelis or jews to be bigoted and you've refused to answer that question...

To be blunt, the substance of yr posts in this thread are nothing more than insisting that people agree with yr incorrect, negative stereotypes of the entire Palestinian population. I'm opposed to that sort of attitude when it comes to Israelis and refuse to accept it when it's aimed at the Palestinian people either...

Also, knock off the crap about being on the 'pro-jihadist side' and 'anti-Israel'. This may come as a massive shock, but it is possible to be critical of Israels actions in the Occupied Territories while being supportive of Israels continued existance and being opposed to any religiously fuelled jihadist crap. It'd help if you stuck to facts rather than trying to aim weak insults on my stance (one which you appear to know zero about)...


I'll repeat this for you and I hope you do take the time to slow down and try to comprehend it. Painting Palestinian civilians or Israeli civilians as monsters based on a clear unwillingness to look at facts (and it was proven a hard, cold fact that yr statement about Palestinians was incorrect) is a totally unacceptable attitude to have. That sort of attitude is one of hatred, ignorance and bigotry and unfortunately it is one that far too many Americans seem to cling to like a holy grail. This conflict isn't about taking 'sides' and it's not one of Good Guys vs Bad Guys where the Good Guys do no wrong and the Bad Guys do nothing right. It's not a comic strip - it's real life. Both sides in this conflict have their share of blood on their hands and neither takes the mantle of Good Guys who are blameless. Those who believe otherwise are imo of an extremist bent and their judgement and ability to emphasise with other human beings has been damaged. They are every bit an enemy to a peaceful resolution to this conflict as either party to this conflict currently is. How can Israelis and Palestinians be expected to learn to live with each other when extremists in the US don't want them to?

btw, I'm not sure why you've dragged up that nonsense about pelsar, but would it be possible to get even that straight if you feel the need to do the diversionary change of subject to my discussions with another DUer? Pelsar hasn't continually asked me the same question at all. I answered a question he asked late last year, he wasn't happy with what my answer was and I found out it was twisted into something I hadn't said and spread over a multitude of other boards (not by pelsar but by some pathetic jerks who used to post here). But seeing as how you've ignored the question you've been asked, do you really think you should be even venturing into the Q&A area? ;)

[msmcghee]

52. Look, I could care less . .

. . about how cleverly you can insult me without breaking the rules. I'm interested in substance. People are dying and I don't want to treat this as some rhetorical game of fisticuffs.

Like I said, if you want to talk about something relevant . . go ahead and do it. Maybe there is actually something useful hidden in your BS and insults.

If so pull it out of there and restate it and I'll address it.

Otherwise, I'm done.

[Violet_Crumble]

54. I'm not insulting you...

I'm stating very clearly that I believe yr comment (and statements made since then about the Palestinian people) are bigoted. Based on what you've said, I wish you were done, because the comments made and the justifications for them have been disgusting, but based on past experience you'll resurface and conveniently ignore the questions you've been asked...

Yes, people ARE dying. The problem is that yr posts are more interested in blaming innocent Palestinians (aka Monsters) for their own deaths while also blaming them for the deaths of Israelis. Blaming victims in this conflict (and both Israeli and Palestinian civilians are the victims) is every bit as disgusting as labelling the Palestinian population as monsters. While you don't appear to think that bigotry is something that needs discussing and addressing if it's aimed at palestinians rather than Israelis, I strongly disagree. I have provided you with several examples now of willingness from Palestinian leadership over the years to negotiate a peaceful settlement, yet you refuse to acknowledge that yr claim was incorrect....

[msmcghee]

63. I have no interest in whether you think my . .

. . opinion of Palestinians who glorify murder is bigoted. I'm not interested in blaming one side or the other for what happened in the past. These are all issues that you brought up that seem to have the same thrust - "Israelis are RW warmongers, Palestinians are poor people who only want to be left in peace" and "Aren't I a brilliant and witty spokesman for the Palestinian cause".

My interest is in exploring ways to stop the killing. I've offered some suggestions. Talk about those seriously or offer some serious suggestions of your own.

All the rest is just ugly games you are playing with the lives of others.

[Violet_Crumble]

70. I thought you were done...

At least isn't that what you said last post? Yr opinion was that of average Palestinians. You made that abundantly clear. I am interested though in why you think it's not a bigoted statement, while judging average Israelis based on the behaviour of their extremists would be viewed by you as bigoted. Care to explain the difference?


What I am interested in is finding out why you've opted to ignore the link I posted to the article by the Palestinian PM where he expressed a desire for a negotiated settlement of the conflict. Do these things just cease to exist if ignored strenuously enough?

These are all issues that you brought up that seem to have the same thrust - "Israelis are RW warmongers, Palestinians are poor people who only want to be left in peace"

Wrong again, but no surprises there. Instead of inventing things that I never said, how about focusing on what I actually said which was that BOTH Palestinian and Israeli civilians want to be left in peace? I have never claimed Israeli civilians are RW warmongers and I'd appreciate it if you stuck to what I said for a change...

[msmcghee]

74. Like I said, "All the rest is just ugly games you are playing with the lives of others." nt

[Violet_Crumble]

76. Saying yr comment is bigoted isn't doing that at all n/t

[Boston Critic]

64. That's nonsense

There is no evidence whatsoever of any Palestinian leadership ready to negotiate a peaceful solution.

Arafat walked away from the negotiations (as Bill Clinton has pointed out), and Hamas is now REPUDIATING all past agreements and explicitly says they will NEVER recognize Israel.

Some people prefer to repeat anti-Israel propaganda instead of engaging with the actual facts. I urge you not to be one of them.

[Violet_Crumble]

77. No, it's not...

No evidence? What about the Taba talks? What about the letters of recognition? What were they? Figments of everybody's imaginations?

btw, do you share the view of the poster I was replying to that the Palestinian population are monsters?

[msmcghee]

80. For the record . . these are my words . .

"I have posted links before to videos of Palestinian teachers showing off five-year-old girls telling their class how much they look forward to killing Jews when they grow up. We have all seen the videos of the street demonstrations glorifying successful rocket attacks on Israeli civilians. We've all see the posters of the "martyrs" who managed to kill some innocent Israelis with their suicide belts - placed in the public square and publicly acclaimed for their deeds. We've seen the videos of the Hisb'allah terrorists escaping in Red Crescent ambulances. We've seen and exposed the outrageous claims that Israel kills Palestinian civilians "wantonly" and we've debunked the elaborate lies that Israel fires missiles through the roofs of Red Crescent ambulance.

Yes, IMO people who do those things are monsters - as are those who defend them."

Nowhere did I say "all Palestinians". Although I didn't specify so, Palestinian leadership is certainly included in my description insofar as they condone and encourage such behavior.

[Violet_Crumble]

82. Here's where you called the Palestinian population monsters...

Me: "Neither group of people are monsters who want to destroy other people and I have zero time for anyone who holds such a view of Israelis or Palestinians as extremism has never been something I've been fond of..."

You: 'I beg to differ.'

Will you be needing a link to refresh yr memory?

[msmcghee]

86. That's all you've got?

You forgot the following two paragraphs where I clarified my statement in detail. Purposely taking quotes out of context to change their meaning is hardly serious discussion - more grandstanding and disguising your empty rhetoric.

So, you really have no interest in discussing how the killing (on both sides) can be stopped?

[Violet_Crumble]

89. That's all that's needed...

You disagreed with my comment when I said that neither group of people were monsters and made no attempt at all to clarify that you were talking about a small group of people within that population. You cemented yr statement about Palestinians being monsters by trying to trot out stories about Palestinian kiddies being taught to hate Jews, so please don't try to pretend now that you weren't making a broad and negative stereotype aimed at the entire population...

Any chance you'll be answering ANY of the questions you've been asked?

[msmcghee]

94. Word games . . all of it.

Tell me how what I think about what qualifies someone as a monster has anything to do with stopping the killing. This is all your word games that mean nothing. And people are dying. I am trying to find a solution . . and you are worried about playing word games so you might be able to accuse me of being bigoted.

Who gives a fuck about that crap? Your word games with people's lives is what's really disgusting.

[Violet_Crumble]

96. How is what you said 'word games'?

When someone labels an entire group of people (in this case the Palestinian people) as monsters there's a huge problem. Trying to dismiss it as playing word-games just doesn't cut it. You'd never dismiss similar comments about Israelis or Jews as being 'word games' so why do that when it comes to what was said about the Palestinian people? The comment you made was indeed a bigoted one and it's very sad and disillusioning that you can't see it...

Yes, yes. We all know that people are dying. I don't recall anyone being under the misapprehension that this was a bloodless conflict, so I'm not sure what the purpose is in repeating it like a mantra. Finding a solution that brings an end to the bloodshed is not going to happen by aiming intense hatred at one group or the other. Nor is it going to be brought about by turning either Israeli or Palestinian civilians into monsters or acting as though they want no more than to kill each other. Once you start showing a willingness to constructively discuss possible solutions that don't involve hatred or negative stereotypes of either population, then you'll find there'll be more to agree on than disagree on...

on edit: I've given you an opportunity to refute the comments you made in this thread about Palestinian civilians. Here's the link as you seem to have not spotted that post http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=124&topic_id=154720&mesg_id=154957

[msmcghee]

98. How pathetic. nt

[Violet_Crumble]

118. I'm glad you now agree that it was pathetic...

Maybe at some point you will be willing and able to hold a discussion on the conflict without any introduction of concepts which involve the dehumanisation of either Israeli or Palestinian civilians. I look forward to that day...

[msmcghee]

87. self delete / dupe

[Name removed]

113. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

154. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

171. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

178. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

191. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

200. Deleted message

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

[Violet_Crumble]

208. I can't force you to read them either unfortunately...

Exactly what leads you to the conclusion that I support terrorism? Can you point out my EXACT words that lead to that conclusion?

[Name removed]

217. Deleted message

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

[Violet_Crumble]

224. Yet again: I do NOT support missile attacks on Israeli civilians...

I have never supported them and never will. What is so fucking difficult for you to understand about this? I also think a lot of Israeli attacks are retaliatory. I take it you think that means I support those as well. How fucking stupid is that?

I'm telling you what my POV is, yet you want to ignore it. Can I ask what yr purpose is in this forum as it doesn't seem to be to engage in any sort of constructive discussion on the conflict...

[msmcghee]

36. Addendum to above:

I would agree with you if there were any sign at all that such an approach would work. I guess you could say that if a strong government emerged in Gaza who had the military ability to keep the militants from attacking Israel that there might be some chance. And I see that as similar to pelsar's statements re: a stable PT government.

Unfortunately, I can't see how such a governemnt could exist where Saudi shieks and Iranian mullahs are sending millions of dollars and weapons into Gaza for the purpose of killing Israelis and rejecting any peace proposals short of the death of Isreal as a state.

Many here at DU see this simplistically as the Palestinians against Israel. It is actually Arab / Persian Islam against the existence of the state of Israel.

The PT are the convenient playground for oil-rich Muslims who are financing the destruction of Israel using the Palestinians as their poor and battered proxies. They sit safely on the sidelines sending weapons and dollars into Palestine to achieve their ideological and geopolitical goals - which if successful will grant them and their Islamic sect great prestige and influence, and by that, wealth. This is a struggle particularly suited to the cultural mentality of the region. There's intrigue, double and triple agencies, lots of cash flowing through undisclosed channels, payoffs on the side to lubricate things (baksheesh), vendettas, power and death being wielded by those who are safely hidden from view, fanatical followers who are poor and live in hopeless conditions who do all the dieing - its a ME thing.

Those are the underlying forces at work there. The number of hectares in Israel or in an imaginary Palestine state are convenient distractions IMO - concepts that well-meaning westerners can grasp and discuss and think that they are helping address a real problem.

Eliminate those and others will pop-up soon enough.

[Boston Critic]

58. That's it in a nutshell

Anyone who wants to truly understand what's happening in the Middle East must grasp this:

"The one truth that has prevailed since the start of the state of Israel - is that if the jihadists laid down their weapons today, from that moment forward there would be no more war. There would be no more dead babies or grandmothers or school kids on either side. No more.

"If Israel laid down her weapons today - there would soon be no Israel."

And if they can't, or if they deny it, then they truly do not understand what is going on there.

[Violet_Crumble]

62. No, it's not...

That's more simplistic garbage aimed at turning a complex conflict into easy sound-bytes. Is there some reason why both parties shouldn't be expected to lay down their arms and live at peace with each other?

[Boston Critic]

66. Israel is *defending* itself

If you can convince the Hamas terrorists to stop their attacks, Israel will *gratefully* withdraw its troops from Gaza.

But the false moral equivalency is something that cannot be accepted as part of honest debate.

[breakaleg]

116. Is there an alternate dictionary that Israel's supporters use that I'm unaware of?

Because their definition of "defense" is mind boggling. Attacking a people outside your own countries borders is an act of aggression, not defense.

[msmcghee]

117. Heh, heh . . just like 99.9 of US actions in WWII. nt

[breakaleg]

119. So because the US did it, it makes it ok for Israel to do it as well?

Let's take Iraq. The US claims that was an act of defense. Are we buying it? Did they UN buy it? Nope.

Just because Bush calls it that, doesn't make it so.

And neither is what Israel did in Gaza defense.

[msmcghee]

121. It's really a simple concept.

When someone attacks you, like Pearl Harbor, or like the 31 Kassams fired into Southern Israel a few days after Israel left Gaza, or like the several hundred missiles fired into Northern Israel when the IDF tried to rescue their soldiers, or like when Hisb'allah crossed the blue line into Israel, killing several IDF and kidnapping two others - those were acts of aggression.

When a nation attacks with the intent of stopping an ongoing aggression, like current Israeli operations into Gaza - or like when the allies landed in Normandy - while in the narrow sense, such acts are aggressive, the overall nature of the act in the conflict is defensive - to stop the ongoing aggression of the enemy.

It is a very simple concept that even children on the playground can grasp - you don't attack others to take from them what you want. You negotiate with them so that each side acts voluntarily or you go to a higher authority if you still think you have been wronged. You do not attack others.

But, these simple facts seem beyond the mental capacity of several posters here in the I/P forum.

Actually, that's not true. There's no-one here who can't understand such a simple concept. What is true is that several posters here refuse to apply that concept to the I/P conflict. That's because of the cognitive dissonance that results when they try to depict the Israelis as the aggressors and the PA or Hisb'allah as the defenders. Such as characterization does not fit with any of the available data for either the current PT situation or the recent conflict in Lebanon.

In short, it would show them how utterly wrong they are. Such admissions are painful. So they come up with such totally absurd statements like the one below, "Newsflash: the US wasn't defending itself during most of WWII...". where they must horribly twist the meaning of words to fit their own warped view of reality.

BTW - Some here will no doubt try to play word games with this. I would note that the original poster referred to defense vs. an act of aggression in the larger sense - not in the sense of the separate confrontations that occur within the original act or the defenders subsequent acts to respond to stop the aggression. In the narrowest sense those could be thought of as either offensive or defensive - as could each shot fired in a fire fight depending on the circumstances. A discussion of such minutae is irrelevant to the current topic.

The topic is germane to the larger question of who is at fault in these conflicts. That is germane - not in a sense of assigning blame - but in the sense of realizing who should lay down their arms in the conflict. In international law those defending from an aggressive attack - are justified in their defensive actions against the enemy until they do so.

Please don't degrade this to more word games. Deal with the actual concepts if you are serious.

[breakaleg]

123. Well,

When the US attacked Japan, it was an act of retaliation, not defense.

If the incursions into Gaza are meant to defend Israel, why aren't they working? The Kassams haven't stopped, Israeli's are no safer. How is that defense? And at what point does Israel realize it's using a failed policy? And since this policy is failing, are we to believe Israel still feels it's defense? I think if they were honest with themselves, they would admit it's about punishment and retaliation.

And since they can't stop the Kassams and they continue to kill and inflict pain and damage on the Palestinians, then all they really are acheiving is breeding more hatred, which will lead to more Kassams.

Their actions would have us believe that they are stupid. They aren't stupid. They just aren't being honest about their motives. Yet some still stick to the party line that it's defense. Even when it isn't.

[msmcghee]

125. Whether you think Israel's actions are working or . .

. . has nothing to do with it. Israel was attacked. They have the right under international law to do anything within reason to stop further attacks from occuring.

In most cases, when some asshole makes the the decision to attack their neighbor and kill their citizens, simply stopping their planes or artillery or rockets that supported the intial attack - is not enough. There will be other planes and other guns and other rockets waiting to be brought into the conflict - otherwise they would not have attacked.

That's why it may be necessary to attack the enemy's infrastructure and even civilian population to induce them to stop. Basically, they have foolishly decided to risk their assets including their state itself and the lives of their people when they attack another nation with deadly intent.

The history of war has shown that until they lose enough of those assets they are unlikely to withdraw. A case can be made that Israel is risking the lives of far too many of its citizens by not simply leveling northern Gaza. So far they have taken the high road. They have placed the IDF at risk in ground operations to arrest the rocket brigades.

If those operations prove unsuccessful then I'm afraid that much worse is in store for the Palestinians of Northern Gaza.

[breakaleg]

127. "anything within reason" is why we are having this discussion.

Israel seems to think that killing civilians while they sleep, either through direct intent or wanton negligence, is within reason. And the world does not.

From what I have seen from the Palestinians, the threat of complete annihilation won't work on them. Israel likely knows this as well. So perhaps they should try something novel, like negotiating and giving back their land.

[Violet_Crumble]

129. Yes, 'within reason' were the two words that stood out...

'Within reason' is defined by international law and that's what sets the bounds of what is considered to be within reason when it comes to any countries actions taken to defend itself. There has never been any dispute on my part that Israel has the right to defend itself. My criticism has always been that Israel goes way over the limit and kills and maims civilians in what it claims are measures aimed at protecting its own civilians from being killed and maimed. And it's that criticism of Israel's heavyhanded retaliation that kills innocent civilians where I find myself at loggerheads with quite a few American 'supporters' of Israel. For their part, they seem to believe that 'anything within reason' is defined by them, not by international law, and that it is quite acceptable for 'anything within reason' to include retaliation against civilians...

[msmcghee]

132. Hmmm.

I'd say that when the PA attacks Israel with rockets - that probably could be classified at least partly as retaliation - but I think it would more correctly be described as terrorism. We all know it is not incidental. It is done on purpose.

When Israel kills civilians in Gaza, especially after reading what pelsar and eyl have to say, and reading the news accounts, then I'd say it is either incidental (which I believe it has been so for) or it's attrition (which may be neccessary at some point, I hope not).

However, I'm sure Israel doesn't give a damn what some international body half full of Arab states throwing around their oil money and the other half sucking up to those spigots - thinks about it all.

[Violet_Crumble]

136. And that has zero to do with what I said in my post...

Of course when militants launch attacks on Israel with rockets it's retaliation. Are you trying to claim that retaliation is acceptable to you if it's not defined by you as terrorism?

As israel has killed so many civilians in Gaza not to mention the West Bank and lebanon and have claimed most times it's an accident, for me to believe that it's accidental means that I'd have to believe that Israel is the most incompetent military force in the world to be having so many accidents...

Attrition or retaliation is not justifiable and that is what Israel has been doing...

If Israel doesn't give a shit about the international community or international law, then maybe Israel should remove itself from that community you claim it has no respect for. I do think Israel does give a shit and would like to participate fully and I support its endevours to do so....

[msmcghee]

130. Well, OK. Let's look at that.

First, all those who die in a war are ultimately the fault of the nation who initiates the conflict by attacking the other. Within that context, there are nuances that can be considered.

I'd day that killing innocent civilians while they sleep from "wanton negligence" whatever the hell that is - probably falls under the category of "bad shit happens in war" when those civilians are of the initial attacking party i.e. the aggressor. When they are citizens of the defending state they are war crimes - according to international law.

Killing innocent civilians while they sleep (or while they are awake for that matter) may or may not be within reason. It can never be within reason for the attacking nation. I'd say that generally, a defending nation, if circumstances allow, should direct their initial defensive operations as narrowly as possible so as to minimize civilian casualties.

I'd say that is obviously what Israel has done here - gradually increasing the pressure and violence to find that minimum level of warfare necessary to stop the rockets.

However, at some point after trying other alternatives (assuming they have that option) when the defending nation assesses their risks and realizes that nothing but all-out destruction will stop the aggressor, then that's what they have to do - if they can. That's what international law allows - as it's the defending nation who's lives are put at grave risk by the attacking nation. So, it's their call, not yours - or any international body for that matter. People and nations have the right to defend themselves from attack. Period.

My wartime advice for the initating party would be to put down your weapons and submit yourself to the proper war crimes tribunal.

You say, "From what I have seen from the Palestinians, the threat of complete annihilation won't work on them."

Perhaps you are right - and the reality of complete annihilation or something close to it, and not just the threat, will be necessary. How sad and how stupid if that is the case. Unfortunately, those who attack others to get what they want are seldom known for their good judgment. I'd say the same is true for those who defend them.

[Violet_Crumble]

131. International law does not allow that at all...

However, at some point after trying other alternatives (assuming they have that option) when the defending nation assesses their risks and realizes that nothing but all-out destruction will stop the aggressor, then that's what they have to do. That's what international law allows ..

Can you point me to the bit of international law that allows for all-out destruction, including that of civilians? I have very grave doubts any such bit of law exists...

On edit: I also think the titles aggressor or defender can be handed out to either Israel or the Palestinians in this conflict. Both of them are aggressors in some regards and defenders in others...

[msmcghee]

133. If I recall it was Germany's general officers that stood trial . .

. . and hung at Nuremburg. That's because Germany's attacks against civilian populations were not defensive - they were the aggressors. They intitated the conflict and made all the subsequent death and destruction necessary. Same with the Japanese general officers and leaders who were hung.

American and British officers did not even face trial. Again, that's because the deaths imposed on German and Japanese civilian populations were defensive in nature. Their purpose was attritive - to stop the aggression.

You might claim that American and British officers should have stood trial too - and did not only because we won the war. If you did say that I'd say you have a very warped sense of morality. It is a simple moral concept that anyone with the most basic respect for human life can understand.

Those who start wars are bad people. Those who defend themselve and their nations against the bad people - are good people. That we are even having such an absurd discussion on a liberal forum sickens me.

You said, "On edit: I also think the titles aggressor or defender can be handed out to either Israel or the Palestinians in this conflict. Both of them are aggressors in some regards and defenders in others..."

Yes, of course you think that. That's why you are so utterly wrong - both practically and morally.

[Violet_Crumble]

134. So there is no bit of international law that says that at all...

Using the Nuremburg trials to argue who was and wasn't aggressors (and in the case of WWII there were no blurred lines the way there is with this conflict where both parties fall into both roles) isn't pointing out what bit of international law states that one party can react with the destruction of another party including the destruction of its civilians. Bringing up the Nuremburg trials merely shows that the winners make the rules. For the record I will say the only reason US and British officials didn't stand trial was because they were the winners. If the Nazis had won of course there would have been Allied officials on trial for war crimes. Where's a warped sense of morality in pointing that blatantly obvious thing out?

Those who start wars are bad people. Those who defend themselve and their nations against the bad people - are good people. That we are even having such an absurd discussion on a liberal forum sickens me.

And in the case of the I/P conflict, there's good and bad on both sides. What sickens you exactly about me saying that?

[msmcghee]

150. Yeah, that's what I thought you'd say.

You say, "And in the case of the I/P conflict, there's good and bad on both sides. What sickens you exactly about me saying that?"

What I said was, "Those who start wars are bad people. Those who defend themselves and their nations against the bad people - are good people. That we are even having such an absurd discussion on a liberal forum sickens me."

If you want my responses don't play word games. This is not a game for me.

Charter of the United Nations:

Chapter 1, Article 2, para 3: All Members shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security, and justice, are not endangered.

Chapter 1, Article 2 para 4: All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.

I note that Palestine is neither a state nor a member. I include these first two to show that the world holds the principle of non-violence in international relations in high regard. Also, that since the UN has fully engaged the I/P conflict that all parties to that conflict that command military forces or militias are generally obligated to adhere to the basic principles of the Charter - regardless of their current status as a state or member. Especially since statehood for Palestine is a goal for all parties in terms of a long range solution.

Chapter 7, Article 33 para 1: The parties to any dispute, the continuance of which is likely to endanger the maintenance of international peace and security, shall, first of all, seek a solution by negotiation, enquiry, mediation, conciliation, arbitration, judicial settlement, resort to regional agencies or arrangements, or other peaceful means of their own choice.

This (above) seems to make no exception for non-members.

Chapter 7, Article 51, para Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security. Measures taken by Members in the exercise of this right of self-defence shall be immediately reported to the Security Council and shall not in any way affect the authority and responsibility of the Security Council under the present Charter to take at any time such action as it deems necessary in order to maintain or restore international peace and security.


Name one time since the birth of the state of Israel when Israel clearly attacked its neighbors with the intent to take something that it wanted. It never happened. All of Israel's actions have been defensive in nature - responding to attacks from its neighbors - or is some cases the imminent threat of attack.

Name me one time when Israel's neighbors clearly attacked Israel when the overall nature of the conflict was to defend against Israel's aggression. It has never happened. Every attack against Israel has been offensive - primarily terrorism.

Of course, each separate attack on Israel and each defensive attack by Israel has been characterized by the Israel's as the opposite of what it was. Still, the vast majority, like the present rocket attacks on S. Israel or the Hisb'allah attacks on N. Israel - are clear cut and obvious. For a few others, the facts are disputed.

In those disputed cases it is necessary to look at patterns of conduct and at stated intentions - as well as comparing past actions against those stated intentions.

I don't even think Israel's enemies dispute that the vast majority of conflicts have been initiated by them against Israel - and the vast majority of actions by Israel have been defensive against those attacks. This is a well established pattern.

That pattern fits perfectly with the stated intentions of the parties. Hisb'allah, Hamas, Islamic Jihad, etc. refuse to even recognize the state of Israel and repeatedly pledge the destruction of the current state of Israel and the expulsion and/or murder of its citizens.

Israel has never stated such an intention and has repeatedly called for negotiations and peaceful solutions to differences since 1948.

- - - - - - -

I have nothing against Arabs or Palestinians. I have something against those who attack others and are the cause of unnecessary death and destruction in the world. There is no question who is the aggressor and who is the defender in the PT and Israel. It's not even close.

[Violet_Crumble]

173. Well, seeing as there was no bit of international law, it was a safe guess...

Are you now trying to do a creative interpretation of the UN Charter to support yr false claim that international law allows for destruction of countries and its populations? I really hope that's not what yr doing because the UN Charter states nothing of the sort...


You say, "And in the case of the I/P conflict, there's good and bad on both sides. What sickens you exactly about me saying that?"

What I said was, "Those who start wars are bad people. Those who defend themselves and their nations against the bad people - are good people. That we are even having such an absurd discussion on a liberal forum sickens me."

If you want my responses don't play word games. This is not a game for me.

Let's run through this again as there's nothing word gamish about it. You trot out a simplistic Black & White those who start wars are bad guys, those who defend are good guys while repeatedly posting that Israel never is the aggessor and never does anything wrong. I told you there was good and bad on both sides in this conflict and that the labels aggressor and defender apply to both depending on the time and situation. And now yr turning round and trying to tell me that's now what you were saying at all? Kind of like you you didn't label the majority of Palestinian civilians as monsters, right? ;) And it gets even worse coz you continue on yr way in this latest post repeating yr nonsense about how Israel = Good Guys and Palestinians = Bad Guys. Is there any possibility that you can approach discussing this conflict in anything but simplistic comic-book terms?

And Israel has NOT repeatedly called for negotiations since 1948. I asked someone else to give me some examples of Israel's willingness to negotiate during the Golda Meir years and they chose to ignore it rather than admit that Israel did not wish to negotiate...

I have nothing against Arabs or Palestinians.

I don't know or particularly want to know about yr opinion of Arabs, but yr own words in this thread about the majority of palestinian civilians remind me of anti-semites who loudly proclaim they have nothing against Jews...

[Boston Critic]

157. The moral equivalency argument IS sickening

Israel can be criticized. It makes mistakes. Israelis criticize their government all the time.

But the notion that acts of terrorism by Hamas are on the same standing as Israelis defending themselves from those attacks is disgusting.

No, the two sides do NOT stand on equal footing. There is nothing -- NOTHING -- that Israel has done that compares in any way to suicide bombings, targeting civilians, deliberately hiding among civilians to increase casualties, and all the other tactics that are part and parcel of the Palestinian "cause."

When, during the Oslo era Arafat turned off the violence, Israelis showed they were ready to live in peace with the Palestinians. Meanwhile when Israel withdraws from Gaza altogether, what do the Palestinians do? They loot the greenhouses left behind for them to build their economy, they attack each *other*, and they use Gaza to launch new attacks on Israel.

To say there's no difference between these two sides is to be so consumed with a bias against Israel as to be disconnected from reality.

[Violet_Crumble]

166. That's nice but I wasn't using that argument...

I'm not even sure why you replied to my post seeing as how you didn't seem to be addressing the actual post...

I will address yr 'Israel can be criticised' line, though. If that's the case, why are yr posts so angry and hostile when anyone in this forum dares to criticise Israel? And why have you not once criticised Israel for anything in yr posts here?

[Boston Critic]

186. Spin, spin, spin

You continue to dodge and refuse to be pinned down. You're pretending there's no difference between the two sides, when there clearly are. You're pretending Israel defending itself is the same as Palestinian terrorists deliberately targeting civilians. It is not.

You refuse to recognize that the problem is Palestinian intransigence in refusing to end the attacks, and in putting Hamas into power which rejects Israel's very right to exist, but pretend that somehow it's all Israel's fault.

Why should I play your game? It is an ugly one.

[Violet_Crumble]

187. Could you try addressing the posts yr replying to?

It's not a whole lot to ask. Could you also knock off the abusive attitude? It'd be appreciated...

[Boston Critic]

190. Can you deal with the facts...

...instead of making empty claims you can't back up?

It would be especially appreciated.

[Violet_Crumble]

195. I'd like you to address my posts if yr replying to them...

Is there something that's too difficult to understand about this?
Once you bother to address what I say or have the decency to answer questions yr asked, then we might be able to move forward. Until then yr just wasting time and imo making a bit of a fool of yrself...

[breakaleg]

143. Well,

you start off by saying that the nation that starts the conflict is responsible for the deaths of their people. It's not that cut and dried in this instance. You likely believe Palestinians are responsible for the current round of fighting. But I disagree, given that there is no current state of Palestine and Israel is the occupier and the Palestinians are still fighting for that cause. There's enough blame to go around to both sides.

And we are back to this issue of defense. I don't for a minute buy the theory that Israel is acting in its own defense in Gaza. They are out to punish, instill fear, retalliate, make a point, any number of things, but defense is not among them.

And to suggest that it may be necessary for Israel to continue along this path of violence, that history has proven isn't working, until even more dire consequences ensue, is necessary, is absurd. That implies Israel has no choice but to expand on a failing policy until there is no one left to fight them.

I don't think there is anything else for us to debate.

[msmcghee]

147. Did you really consider that a debate? You have seldom . .

. . said anything in this forum that I think would rise to that level. You are making silly absurd assertions and occasionally I correct you if I have a few minutes. Like now.

You said: You likely believe Palestinians are responsible for the current round of fighting. But I disagree, given that there is no current state of Palestine and Israel is the occupier and the Palestinians are still fighting for that cause.

No current state of Palestine? So, that means that if a bunch of folks with guns want to attack some people and kill them - that's cool if they aren't part of some state. Oooh Kay.

Israel is the occupier? Israel left Gaza as I recall a year ago. There are back now only temporarily to stop the ongoing attacks - the rocket fire into Israel. They have assumed none of the legally mandated roles of an occupier and have denied that is their status. Even then, if Palestine is not a state, as you say, then what are they occupying? They have just as much right to be there as Hamas as far as I can see. Maybe Hamas are the occupiers.

Palestinians are still fighting for that cause? What cause? Against your imaginary occupation that doesn't exist?

It's too bad your side doesn't have someone who can actually put a sequence of thoughts together to make a coherent point - and is willing to debate those points.

[breakaleg]

148. The occupation is imaginary? Can I have whatever you are smoking?

[Boston Critic]

159. There's an "occupation?"

What sovereign state are you claiming is under occupation?

[Violet_Crumble]

170. You obviously missed my post about East Timor....

Territory doesn't have to be sovereign territory to be under occupation. East Timor wasn't a sovereign state when it was occupied by Indonesia....

[breakaleg]

149. in post #34,your words " imaginary Palestine state". So make up your mind

You seem to change it to suit your argument.

[Name removed]

158. Deleted message

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

[breakaleg]

164. I'm not denying anything.

I am very much aware that missiles are being launched from Gaza into Israel. And I'm also aware that over 99% of the time, they cause NO DEATHS. Whereas the IDF has killed how many hundreds in the last 4 months alone?

So, to say Israel is defending itself against rockets that hit dirt, by killing hundreds, is laughable. It's the definition of overkill. Blanket killing of mass amounts of civilians for no reason, since the rockets haven't stopped or even slowed down.

The IDF is either completely inept or is intent on inflicting all of this harm on civilians. Are you prepared to say they are inept? Didn't think so.

[Boston Critic]

156. Why do Israel's critics feel they have to lie?

The Palestinians *target* civilians. They send suicide bombers in to supermarkets and onto buses and into discos because they are trying to kill as many people as possible. They back their bombs with nails so that those who aren't killed in the blast will be horribly maimed and wounded. Missiles from Gaza are falling everyday onto *civilian* homes and schools in northern Israel. On all of this you are silent.

Israel counterattacks and *one* operation goes horribly wrong and civilians are killed. What do Israelis do? Do they cheer? Do they dance in the streets and pass sweets out to children? Do they say the people responsible are "martyrs" and "heroes?" No, they do not. They admit something went wrong. They investigate to see why it happened and if it can be avoided in the future. It is not treated as a victory for Israel.

The contrast is striking unless one is so consumed with hatred for Israel that any lie is okay so long as it serves the propaganda purpose.

[Violet_Crumble]

120. Newsflash: the US wasn't defending itself during most of WWII...

Most US actions during WWII were aimed at stopping the spread of the Axis powers and rolling back their gains. There was never any real likelihood that the US was under threat of invasion. The US, unlike Israel, was not illegally occupying territory that belonged to another people.

[msmcghee]

122. Your posts are becoming more absurd and . .

. . deluded by the moment. This thread is emerging from the ugly to the entertaining. This last one made my day. :thumbsup:

[Violet_Crumble]

124. Care to try logic rather than insults?

Apart from the fact that yr either incapable or unwilling to answer any questions put to you or to make any attempt to clarify some of the disgusting comments you've made in this thread, it is a well known fact that the US was never in danger of being invaded during WWII and that actions taken by the US military were for the most part not done because there was a need felt to protect the US (after all, the US was the sleeping giant who had the added advantage of not having its enemies sitting on its doorstep), but because there was a knowledge that without the US involving itself in the war Britain (which was in grave danger of being invaded) would have fallen to the Nazis and there would have been no opposition to the Nazis left at all in Europe. While the US certainly had every right to enter the war to defend itself after Pearl Harbour, there was never any real fear that the US itself would come under attack, and Pearl Harbour was what was needed to persuade Congress that the US should enter the war. So, what in that are you finding deluded and absurd? Feel free to point it out if you can do so in a coherent manner...

Also, what was absurd and deluded about pointing out that unlike Israel currently, the US were not fighting in WWII due to their occupation of territory that didn't belong to them?

[msmcghee]

126. It just keeps getting better. nt

[Violet_Crumble]

128. Well, if you think a refusal to answer questions or address points is a benchmark...

..then yes, it's just getting better and better every reply I see...

On a serious note, if yr intent on evading any real discussion and ignoring questions yr asked and sticking to those views you hold of the Palestinian population I might indulge in the ignore feature so I no longer have to put up with yr less than stellar and overly abusive posts...

[Name removed]

160. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

155. Deleted message

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

[Boston Critic]

73. Yes, actually, it is

And, alas, you've proven my point.

[Violet_Crumble]

81. It's a silly sound-byte...

I take it that you don't share my view that both sides should lay down their arms and live in peace side by side?

[Boston Critic]

110. I don't share your false view...

that the two sides are morally equivalent. If the Palestinian terrorists will stop firing their missles, kidnapping people, sending in suicide bombers, etc., Israel will be happy to live in peace.

But the notion that a nation *defending* itself against such thuggery is no different than the thugs themselves is absurd and abhorrent.

[Violet_Crumble]

114. Expecting both to lay down arms and live in peace is a 'false view'??

Give me strength. Look, I'm really sorry that yr opinions are such that you are incapable of laying the slightest bit of criticism on Israel or expecting that it play its part in bringing a peaceful resolution to the conflict...

Killing innocent civilians is not a nation defending itself. Those who believe it is are the ones who are absurd and abhorrent...

[Name removed]

135. Deleted message

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

[Violet_Crumble]

137. A good start would be...

..not firing rockets into civilian homes when civilians are asleep in them. Or are you saying that the killing of civilians by Israel is justified in some way?

[hossman]

138. If civilians

are killed while Israel is pursuing terrorists hiding among them then it is the terrorists who are responsible for those deaths.

[Violet_Crumble]

139. Try again...

If Israel kills civilians then it is Israel who is responsible for those deaths. And if Palestinian terrorists kill Israeli civilians, then it is the Palestinian terrorists, not Israel who is responsible for those deaths....

I take it that you do think it's justifiable for Israel to kill innocent civilians? That's pretty disgusting...

[hossman]

140. So you are saying

that if someone shoots at my wife and child while standing behind their wife and child I can't shoot back?

How pathetic.

[Violet_Crumble]

141. No, what I'm saying is what I said in the post yr replying to....

Instead of trotting out nonsensical gun-lobby RW sillyscenarios in order to justify the unjustifiable, try addressing what I'm saying to you. Israel recently killed a bunch of innocent civilians who had no-one hiding behind them at all. That is not acceptable at all and anyone who has a shred of decency should find it easy to admit there's nothing acceptable about it rather than trying to justify why it was okay to do it...

[hossman]

142. gun-lobby RW sillyscenarios?

LOL. Stop hyperventilating.

Palestinians who kill or attempt to kill Israelis and then hide amongst their friends and family are exactly the situation I described.

The unjustifiable is those who try to defend terrorists who put their family in danger to score propganda point

[Violet_Crumble]

144. Let me spell this out very slowly for you...

There's nothing of a hyperventilating nature in pointing out that yr ridiculous scenario is one held with fondness by RW gun lobby freaks...

Those families killed by Israel last week were NOT being hid behind by anyone. There is NO justification for their deaths and it's disgusting that you appear to believe their deaths were justifiable...

It'd help if you knew how to spell *propaganda* properly, btw. And no-one here tries to defend terrorists, so knock it off and keep to facts...

[Name removed]

145. Deleted message

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

[Violet_Crumble]

146. Spelling it out even slower...

I hate having to repeat myself, but as this bit doesn't seem to be sinking in, I've got no choice: Those families killed by Israel last week were being hid behind by anyone. There is NO justification for their deaths and it's disgusting that you appear to believe their deaths were justifiable...


Why are you insisting on trying to justify the deaths of innocent civilians?

btw, you'd do well to acquaint yrself with the forum rules before posting again :)

[Name removed]

163. Deleted message

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

[Boston Critic]

162. No, you try again...

If Palestinian terrorists use their neighbors as shields, then THEY are responsible for the innocent lives lost when Israel is forced to defend itself.

Why do you treat the Palestinians as idiot children who aren't responsible for their actions?

[Violet_Crumble]

165. Logic and common sense are saying yr wrong...

This isn't a very difficult concept. Let's run it by you again. Those who carry out or order actions that result in the deaths of civilians, whether those deaths are intentional or happen knowing that the result of the action will be civilian deaths, are the ones responsible for those deaths. Actions that result in the deaths of innocent civilians are not defensive actions, especially when those actions are like the deaths last week. In the case of the deaths of Palestinian civilians from Israeli attacks, it is Israel that is responsible for those deaths and no-one else. Those who argue otherwise are just as wrong as those who argue that Israel is responsible for the deaths of Israeli civilians killed by Palestinian groups...

That isn't treating Palestinians as idiot children which I in no way think they are - it's pointing out the bleeding obvious....

[Boston Critic]

194. Let me spell out for YOU

Once again:

When the Palestinians murder Israeli civilians they celebrate because it was their INTENT to kill them. The missiles from Gaza are sent to civilian sites. The suicide bombers go to pizzerias, discos, supermarkets, and cafeterias. It is what they WANT to do.

When the Israelis kill Palestinian civilians it is because something went wrong. It is their INTENT to *avoid* such casualties. In Jenin they fought street by street and building by building. In Lebanon (not Palestinian but related) they sent warnings of impending attacks. The goal is to minimize civilian casualties as much as possible.

Israel HAS accepted responsibility for the innocent lives in the recent bombing. They admitted something went wrong. The contrast with the Palestinians you defend -- you claim their missile attacks on civilians are "retaliatory" which is yet another unsupported lie -- is striking.

You are, indeed, treating the Palestinians like idiot children, not responsible for their actions.

It is indeed obvious, and you have to be willfully blind to avoid seeing it.

[Violet_Crumble]

196. That's some mighty incorrect spelling yr using....

Instead of repeating the same thing over and over after having it explained to you already why yr wrong, why not come up with something new? So instead of repeating myself (which you seem intent on ignoring every time you reply), please go back and read the post you replied to...

No, I'm not treating the Palestinians like children. Doesn't matter how many times you hit that particular macro on yr keyboard - repeating it multiple times doesn't make it true...

[Boston Critic]

201. Are you interested in a discussion?

Because all you're making are personal replies.

Still waiting for you to admit that it is Palestinian terrorism -- and not Israel self-defense -- which is the real stumbling block to peace in the Middle East.

[Name removed]

197. Deleted message

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

[Boston Critic]

203. Are you denying...

that you claimed Palestinian missiles from Gaza attacking Israeli civilians were merely "retaliatory?"

Look at message 136 in this thread.

If you're now retracting that statement that would be a great start.

[Violet_Crumble]

209. Of course the missile attacks are retaliatory...that is NOT supporting terrorism...

How on earth do you come to the conclusion that stating that rocket attacks are retaliatory is a support of terrorism??

[Name removed]

218. Deleted message

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

[Violet_Crumble]

223. I have never supported terrorism so knock that shit off...

I do not support terrorist attacks and never have. As I've already pointed out, believing that something is retaliatory does not equate to supporting that action. I'm not at all sure why you think it does mean that...

[Name removed]

227. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

230. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

161. Deleted message

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

[Violet_Crumble]

172. And where have I ever claimed otherwise?

Thanks for admitting that the Palestinians are not "defending themselves" when they deliberately target innocent people to kill.

As I've never claimed that attacks on Israeli civilians are merely self-defence, and feel very strongly on the point that attacks on civilians are not self-defence regardless of which side does it, you would have known this about my views if you'd bothered to ask or to read the archives a bit...

Listen, it's pretty lame to accuse me of being friends with those palestinians who'd murder innocent civilians, so please refrain from doing that as it achieves nothing but showing that you have little to no interest in finding out what other peoples POV actually are....

[Boston Critic]

204. But yet you did

"As I've never claimed that attacks on Israeli civilians are merely self-defence, and feel very strongly on the point that attacks on civilians are not self-defence regardless of which side does it, you would have known this about my views if you'd bothered to ask or to read the archives a bit..."


One may merely read post 136 in this very thread where you blithely refer to missile attacks from Gaza -- directed at civilians, unprovoked -- as "retaliatory."

That's game, set, and match for those keeping score.

For those aware of the real life attacks, it's nothing less than appalling.

[Violet_Crumble]

211. There's a difference between 'retaliatory' and 'self-defence'

Do you know what it is or do I need to drag out Mr. Dictionary to assist? Clearly the rocket attacks as much else in this conflict is retaliatory. That doesn't mean that those attacks are merely self-defence and I have never claimed that, despite yr weak attempts to make out I have...

[Name removed]

219. Deleted message

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

[Violet_Crumble]

222. They most definately are retaliatory...

And, no, I don't approve of Israeli civilians being killed. Pointing out that something is done in retaliation does not mean approval of the thing being done. I'm not sure what yr not understanding in this, nor why you seem intent on labelling me as a terrorist supporter...

[Name removed]

229. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

232. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

237. Deleted message

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

[nicoll]

239. MESSAGE TO ALL PARTICIPANTS OF THIS THREAD

The thread entitled "Abbas tells Israel: 'Don't waste the chance for peace'" has had approx 250 replies to it. From looking at practically all the threads posted on the Israel Palestine forum they all go the same way. You have people who are more in support of Israel and ones more in support of the Palestinian refugees and one side blames the other for the bloodshed. If possible I would like you to read below some new ways of looking at the conflict.

1) You have to remove blame on who is right or wrong in the conflict. Accept that atrocities have been committed by both sides and just say they are equally to blame.

2) Both have an equal right to share the land that was originally partitioned. This is why in December 1947 it was an almost equal split 51% Israel and 49% Palestinian land with Jerusalem being shared. What was done wrong was it was not 50 - 50 and the two should have been whole with no separate parts.

To me this is it in a nutshell. When you remove blame and accept that both have an equal right to share the partitioned land then the only outcome a 50 - 50 split. But at least it is fair. People will probably come back to me and say it is a pipe dream and won't happen. Or people will come back to me and say that I am wrong and that it is the Israeli's or the Palestinians who are more to blame or have a greater right to the land. Please refrain from this as there is always a good counter argument. When you have one side having more of the originally partitioned land it can not be called fair. To me it was the international community that made a mess of the whole situation and therefore should be the ones to sort it out.

[pelsar]

240. scotty....

"beam her up...."

[nicoll]

241. Better response please.

Fine then just take the piss. But it just seems to me that people are biased in favor on one side and that shapes their perception of the conflict. I would of thought a better response would have been to show why the statements that I made on blame and greater right to land were wrong.

[msmcghee]

243. Nicoll, the reason your suggestion is unrealistic . .

. . is obvious to anyone who actually does some reading about the history of the conflict.

Prior to partition, the Arab states in the region, Egypt, Trans-Jordan, Syria, the Arab leadership in Jerusalem, etc. - flatly stated that they had no interest in any kind of Partition. They stated that if the Jews were given any legitimate statehood in the region that they would set about killing all the Jews and pushing the rest into the sea.

Immediately after the Partition vote in the UN those nations begin amassing a huge army to carry out their threats. They attacked Israel and almost succeeded in their threats to wipe Israel off the face of the earth - and have tried similar attacks repeatedly since then.

They never once said they would like to discuss a more equitable division of the proposed boundaries. Any such boundaries were out of the question for them.

Today, sixty years later, they say exactly the same things. Their political missions of statement declare the exact same words - that they will not stop until the last Jew is dead or gone from the ME. Perhaps you think this is a negotiating tactic despite a sixty year history of them using guns, explosives and suicide bombers to prove that they mean exactly what they say - literally.

In addition, while there are ethnic and cultural differences between the Arab inhabitants of the wider region, the vast majority of Arabs in that region share both a language and a religion in common with many millions of other Arabs stretching unbroken for thousands of miles in all directions leading away from Palestine.

The Jews in Israel have a European, multi-ethnic culture and are isolated in a small enclave where the geographic features for defense from the surrounding bat-shit-crazy neighbors on all sides but one, are crucially more important to Israel than finding some mathematically pleasing formula - that Israel's enemies scoff at, in any case.

So for those reasons, anyone suggestion that Israel should give them just one more percent, and that then the Arabs' sense of justice would finally be satisfied and all would live in peace forever-after, is just displaying their lack of seriousness - or worse. Do some reading and get back.

[nicoll]

246. you are just going down the path of blame

You say that it was the Arabs fault for the conflict because they could not accept the right of Israel existing in the Middle East and did not agree with the partition plan. Fine, to me that just means that you are a supporter of Israel. If I was to find someone who was in support of a Palestinian state I am sure they could come back with a good counter argument to yours. How does that help in finding a peaceful solution to the conflict. Maybe a 50 - 50 split will not bring peace now, but it has to better than a 90 - 10 split with no chance of peace. This is the problem with blaming one side in the conflict.

Could you agree that it is the fairest way of splitting the land though and that at present the split is un equal.

[Lithos]

245. The responses have given you your answer

There is no rational answer to the disagreements which are for the most part emotionally based and often include issues not directly related to the I/P situation. A lot of it is tied up in the idea of victimization and identity which causes a lot of introspective isolation. Until such time as an emotional bridge exists where people are able to see a positive commonality, or at the very least empathize with each other, the situation will remain.

Lithos

[breakaleg]

242. Nicoll...

I think what you are suggesting is very fair to both sides and it's unfortunate it wasn't done that way from the beginning.

But it will never happen. If Palestinians were to gain control of the West Bank and Gaza it would give them substantially less that what you suggest and they can't even get Israel to get out of that without Israel vowing to maintain many of their strategic settlements. To expect they would under any circumstances give more than that, is a pipe dream.

[nicoll]

244. okay

I know it won't probably happen. But, knowing that it is the fairest way for the land to be split tears through anyones argument for any other form of split. When checking the percentages of the 26,990sq km of land that was originally partitioned it works out to be 90% in Jewish control and 10% in Palestinian control. This is when you take into account Israel controls 59% of the West Bank at present. It doesn't matter who is firing the rockets or who started the whole conflict because the land split at the moment is just so more important. Has soon as someone accepts that a 50-50 split is the faired outcome for both sides it means that any blame they allocate or who they say is more entitled is no longer relevant. I just want people to admit that it is the fairest way of dividing the land and do not care if it can never be implemented. It is important that people accept that blame only leads to more violence and revenge and that disputes over who has more right to the land leads to violence as well. If I could convince just the participants of the original thread to agree with this then I would be happy.

[Violet_Crumble]

247. I agree with what you said...

Playing the one-sided blame game doesn't achieve anything but give internet warriors the self-righteous warm fuzzys. When it comes to this conflict, for those who want to play a more balanced blame game, there's plenty of blame to be shared around a multitude of parties. None are blameless and all play a role in things being what they are currently...

I have my doubts that Israel and the Palestinians are able or willing to sort out the situation so that it leads to a resolution that's fair for both parties, which is why I support the international community stepping in and sorting it out sooner rather than later...

[nicoll]

248. some question for you violet crumble

Playing the one-sided blame game doesn't achieve anything but give internet warriors the self-righteous warm fuzzys. When it comes to this conflict, for those who want to play a more balanced blame game, there's plenty of blame to be shared around a multitude of parties. None are blameless and all play a role in things being what they are currently...

I have my doubts that Israel and the Palestinians are able or willing to sort out the situation so that it leads to a resolution that's fair for both parties, which is why I support the international community stepping in and sorting it out sooner rather than later...

At last someone who does not want to play the blame game concerning the conflict. I agree with you that no parties are innocent in the conflict and that the Palestinians and Israel are unable or not willing to sort the situation out. The problem with the international community trying to sort the problem out is for them to get an equal and fair split of land between the two. I really do believe that even though a 50 - 50 split of the originally partitioned land will not happen it is the fairest and therefore the most likely land distribution to bring about peace.

A couple questions:

1) When was the last attack by the Palestinians on Israel that came from the West Bank.

2) Where are Mr Habas offices located (West Bank or Gaza Strip).

3) Do you think that if the international community do step they should address the Palestinian refugees residing in Lebanon and see if they can be relocated to the West Bank. The capacity is there if the 59% of the West Bank is returned to Palestinian authority control. What is the total number of Palestinian refugees residing in Lebanon at present?

At present from information the nation master off the internet:

The Palestinian population in the West Bank is 2,386,000 and in the Gaza Strip is 1,376,000.

This gives a population per sq km in the Gaza strip of:
1376000 / 360 = 3822 people per sq km of land.

But in the West Bank Israel controls 59% of the land:
This gives a population per sq km in the west Bank of
59 / 100 * 5860sq km = 3457.4 sq km
Leaving 5860 - 3457.4 = 2402.6sq km
2,386,000 / 2402.6 = 993 people per sq km of land

If the 59% of the West Bank was fully returned to Palestinian control then would equate to 2386000 / 5860 = 407 people per sq km of land.

4) What is the largest Palestinian town in the West Bank and which city acts as the capitol at present?