Goldstone: Lieberman doesn't want Mideast peace process

[Violet_Crumble]

The author of a damning report on Israel's winter offensive against Hamas in Gaza, Richard Goldstone, has said that Foreign Minster Avigdor Lieberman does not want there to be an Israeli-Palestinian peace process.

Goldstone, a South African Jurist, made the claim in a conference call
on Sunday with 150 U.S. rabbis from left-leaning organizations. He was speaking in reference to an Israeli assertion that the report would harm peace talks.

"That just is a shallow, I believe, false allegation," he said. "What peace process are they talking about? There isn't one. The Israeli foreign minister doesn't want one at all."

Lieberman, a right-winger, has drawn fire for criticizing Israel's past efforts in seeking a peace agreement with the Palestinians.

Goldstone's report accused both Israel and Hamas of committing war crimes during the 3-week campaign, but mainly focused on alleged Israeli offenses. It set off an uproar in Israel, and Israeli officials have largely dismissed it as biased.




http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1122342.html

[saltpoint]

1. Well, for what it may be worth, and it may not be worth much, I'm FOR

peace. Call me a stick in the mud.

[LeftishBrit]

2. Lieberman is a nasty piece of work

The sooner he's out of office, the better!

[ProgressiveMuslim]

3. We'd all be so much better off if we dealt with the fact that policiticans that WE don't like (on

both sides) do in fact represent a significant portion of the society.

Lieberman may go out of office, but there are many Israelis who share his POV.

Let's deal with it rather than simply call them extremists.

[LeftishBrit]

5. Of course they represent a proportion of the people...

but nonetheless it's relevant who is in power and who is not.

While changing public opinion is very important, changing who is in power is also important - and usually easier and quicker to achieve in the short term.

Gordon Brown, despite my many reservations about him, is a better person to have in power than Maggie Thatcher - or IMO Tony Blair. Yet I don't think that the general proportions of right vs centre-left in the British population have changed that much between the times of Thatcher and Brown (and sadly the Tories are likely to win again next year!)

[ProgressiveMuslim]

6. I"m saying just the opposite. To deal with the reality at hand, and to recognize that any

agreement is going to have to address the people whose positions we don't like.

[pelsar]

23. funny isnt it....

we agree.....the hard facts are, those on the extremes in fact represent parts of our societies and not only can't be ignored but are essential for any form relationship within and without.

to me its obvious as it is to you........reality isn't always a part of the DU
_____

[ProgressiveMuslim]

28. IMO that's where the thinking of liberals is silly. The refusal to delve into the

issue deeper really drives me crazy. Once the label is applied "extremist!" "Right winger" all other thinking stops.

The whole conversation here is silly. So-and-so promotes hate. Doh. Of course there are factions on each side who truly do hate each other's guts. Let's quit accusing people of it, and talk about it.

The Oslo strategy of "let's move along as if the haters don't exist, and make enough good progress so that everyone will have to come along for the ride" clearly didn't work. How do we move toward ending this conflict given the reality on the ground?

[ProgressiveMuslim]

4. Which Israeli politician does? Livni? Olmert? Barak? Let's focus on actions rather than words.

It doesn't matter what any politicians says. It matters what they do!

And for god's sake, let's stop pretending that engaging in the foolish dance orchestrated by Washington has anything to do with peace!

[shira]

7. Goldstone has made it impossible for Begin, Sharon, and Rabin to make peace

If they were all alive today and eager to exchange land for peace, the majority of Israelis would be against it due to Goldstone making it too difficult and costly for the IDF to defend Israeli citizens.

It's not the gov't of Israel, it's the majority of Israelis who won't go for a land for peace deal at this point.

A deal that doesn't allow Israel to defend itself properly in the event rockets fly into Israel from the W.Bank will never be cut.

The UN passing Goldstone officially ends the peace process.

Not until Israel gets international guarantees of security (including the definition of a proportional response, 1 standard for both NATO and Israel, no double-standards) can any deal be consumated in the future.

It's over folks.

What a great win for Hamas, RW'ers, LW haters, etc.

Congrats Goldstone!

[Kurska]

8. Bravo, excatly the problem with the report n/t

[Violet_Crumble]

26. Why are you agreeing with an incoherent post?

Yr a lot better than that, Kurska. Hell, trying to blame Goldstone for Rabin and Sharon's failings, when Rabin's been long dead and Sharon's mind turned to mush long ago, as the poster did in the title of the post, is just another of those incredibly silly and hysterical attempts to blame a report critical of Israel for everything.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

9. No, Sharon and Begin made it impossible for Sharon, Begin and Rabin to make peace.

Goldstone did not create the problem, he merely drew attention to it, making a solution more likely.

The problem is that the Israeli government, and more than three quarters of the Israeli electorate, are actively anti-peace. There hasn't been any chance of Israel making peace voluntarily since Rabin was shot.

The only possible path that can lead to peace is for the international community to stop treating Israel as a partner for peace, and start treating it like apartheid south Africa - as a rogue state that needs to be forced to do the right thing against its will.

That was the case before Goldstone, and Goldstone has helped, not hindered, that.

The world needs to stop pretending that Israel can be part of the solution, and start acknowledging that it - and not the Palestinians - is the problem.

[oberliner]

10. Totally false statement

More than three-quarters of the Israeli electorate are not "actively anti-peace."

[Donald Ian Rankin]

12. I refer you to the results of the last election. I didn't pull "3/4" out of thin air.

More than 3/4 of the Israel electorate voted for parties whose leaders are actively supporting the continuation of the occupation.

[shira]

13. the Israeli electorate is anti-peace?

You believe that unless 3/4 of the Israeli electorate is willing to sacrifice the lives of their friends and family that they must be anti-peace? It's actually more like 9/10 of all Israelis who aren't "down with" slashing their wrists and necks in order for Palestinians to be 'free' under a Hamas warmongering theocracy.

So because most Israelis aren't suicidal, they're anti-peace?

[oberliner]

14. 32 percent voted for Kadima or Labor, Another 10 percent voted for UAL, Meretz, Hadash and Balad

Another 5 percent voted for various smaller parties.

In all cases, these party platforms specifically call for a peace agreement with the Palestinian.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

15. Kadima and the Labour leadership are both pro-occupation.

Even Netanyahu *claims* to be pro-peace.

However, claiming to be pro-peace while advocating continued occupation is a contradiction in terms, just as claiming to be pro-peace while advocating continued bombing of Sderot is.

Parts of the labour party appear still to be pro-peace, but they're becoming increasingly marginalised and squashed by Barak, who has never made any pretence of wanting to end the occupation.

What most Israelis mean when they "call for a peace agreement with the Palestinians" is that they are calling for the Palestinians to give in to Israel's demands - that's not calling for peace, that's calling for military victory. Less than a quarter of Israelis support an end to the occupation, and they, and only they, have any right to call themselves pro-peace.

[oberliner]

16. No they aren't

They are both on the record supporting a two-state solution resulting in the end of the occupation and the creation of a Palestinian state living side by side at peace with Israel.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

17. They're both on record supporting *reducing* the occupation.

Both of them want it to continue, just in a reduced form. Neither of them wants to end it completely.

[oberliner]

18. No they don't - they both want it to end completely

That does not mean they want to withdraw completely to the 1967 lines, but they want to reach a peace agreement that results in no further territory that is considered occupied by the Palestinian Authority or the international community at large.

Hamas, most likely, will still consider all of Israel to be occupied territory, but that is another matter entirely.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

19. "Ending the occupation" is not an ambiguous phrase.

It means withdrawing from the occupied territories.

Persuading the Palestinians to accept some of the occupation becoming permanent is not the same thing at all.

Either of those two things - Israel ending the occupation, or the Palestinians accepting it - would be sufficient for peace.
Without at least one of them happening, there is no possibility of peace.
Neither of them has any chance of happening.

Basically, the entire argument about the I/P issue boils down to the disagreement between those who believe that the occupation should continue, and hence that the way forward is to place pressure on the Palestinians to accept it, and those who - like me - believe it should end, and that the way forward is to put pressure on Israel to end it.

It's very tempting to view "some of the occupation should end, and some should continue" as a compromise position, but it's neither practical, just, nor a compromise - "Israel gets the land inside the Green Line, while the Palestinians get the land outside it" is already a compromise heavily weighted towards Israel.

[oberliner]

20. "Actively anti-peace" was the phrase you used

Please recall that this exchange stemmed from my dispute of your claim that 3/4th of the electorate is "actively anti-peace."

Your black and white presentation of the situation notwithstanding, there are a number of proposals out there, most notably the one outlined in the Geneva Accords, that have support from both Israelis and Palestinians that involve territorial exchanges between Israelis and Palestinians with respect to land that is now part the Occupied Territories as part of a permanent peace agreement.

Both Kadima and Labor support a negotiated settlement which results in an end to the occupation and the established of a Palestinian state living side by side at peace with Israel.

Voting for parties that support that platform does not make a person "actively-anti peace" by any means.

Your assertion that Israel's continued existence within the Green Line is "a compromise heavily weighted towards Israel" is as "actively anti-peace" as just about anything I've seen any RW Israeli or Palestinian suggest.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

21. Saying that you want something is not the same thing as supporting it.

Labour and Kadima - and Likud, for that matter - all say "we want a negotiated settlement". But all of them oppose the concessions that Israel would have to make for such a settlement to occur.

Unlike the Palestinians, Israel could have lasting peace at a click of its fingers, simply by withdrawing to its own borders. It's that - that peace is so near, so incredibly easily achievable, and it's so blindingly obvious what it will take to get there, and that there's nothing to be gained by waiting - that is the real tragedy of the Middle East. Essentially, that is the line: if you support taking that simple, obvious, vital step then you're pro-peace, if not, then you're anti-peace.

Most international issues are incredibly complicated but, unusually, this one is simple. There is one, and only one, possible solution.


As to the Green Line being a pro-Israel compromise: establishing Israel was already many steps further than was just in the pro-Israel, anti-Palestinian direction; Israel's expansion from the borders it was given by the UN to the Green line was still more steps. I don't for a moment pretend that requiring Israel to give back any of the land it ethnically cleansed in 47 is either practical or justifiable (60 years is just-about long enough for the statute of limitations to expire; almost all those responsible for the foundation of Israel are dead and it would not be fair to punish their descendants). So yes, I stick 100% by my statement that the Green Line is already a massive concession in the direction of Israel, and I deny that pointing that out is in any way anti-peace.


FWIW, my view of the I/P conflict isn't black and white, it's black (very black indeed)-and-grey (moderately dark grey). The Palestinians have also done a great many terrible and unjustifiable things, and there is a great deal to be said against them. But that is not in any way a defence of Israel's foundation, expansion or current behaviour, all of which are completely unjustifiable. But please do not let the extent to which I condemn Israel deceive you into thinking that I think that the Palestinians have not also committed a great many crimes.

[oberliner]

22. "Israel could have lasting peace at a click of its fingers"

I thoroughly dispute that statement. Considering the comments you made in your final paragraph, it is shocking to me that you actually believe that.

I also cannot understand how you can perceive your statement about Israel's continued existence within the 1967 borders as anything but belligerent and anti-peace.

In any case, I will stop badgering you about it and just accept that we aren't going to reach any kind of understanding in this particular exchange.

[shira]

11. wow....what a load of crap

The majority of Israelis want land-for-peace, but they're simply not going to sacrifice their security and risk hundreds of more suicide bombings, thousands of rockets, etc... without being able to properly defend against that shit.

You don't live there...you are under zero threat.

Try putting yourself in Israelis' shoes and ponder whether you'd "go all in" for any deal that makes it impossible for your country to properly defend the lives of your friends and family in the event history repeats itself (strong possibility that would happen) and a pullout from the W.Bank results in the same things that occured after pullouts from Gaza and South Lebanon.

It's disingenuous to say those people do not want peace.

They want to live....they're human beings too, not sacrificial pawns.

[pelsar]

24. you misread the elections in israel....

the last election was an "anti kassam" vote.

i shall explain: during rabins/sharon and post intifada II the israeli electorate was basically split 50/50 on the concept of land for peace. Sharon pushed the concept through with gaza:

for the israeli electorate, the kassams made it clear that the concept of: land for peace, israel must make the first dramatic step, its up to israel to do something first, etc etc etc (all pre gaza expressions) were simply not true.

gaza was a failure, not just for israel but for those who believed in civil rights as a right for all people.


the world, as you put it (not that most of the world gives a shit) should stop pretending that the problem is the settlements and that israel controls everything that happens in the conflict....and accept the fact the Palestinian leadership have a huge responsibility towards their own society

[Ken Burch]

25. Just getting out of Gaza was never a meaningful concession

And Sharon was making it sound very, very much as though, from where he sat, Gaza was ALL the Palestinians were going to get for a state.

He didn't treat the Palestinians as an equal entity in the Gaza pullout, and he insisted on presenting it as "what we're going to MAKE them settle for".

Just as he did with his arrogant stroll by the Dome, Sharon was stirring up anger. And he KNEW he was doing so.

Please stop acting as though the Gaza pullout was something Palestinians should have been greatful for. And please discard the ridiculous canard that the post-Gaza situation discredits land-for-peace and justifies everything the Israeli government has done since.

[pelsar]

27. another excuse? this one is impressive...

You really think so little of the Palestenians, that because of what sharon may have thought, that then influenced the PA/Hamas to shoot rockets daily across the border for years?.....

wow, the Palestinians are influence by Sharons thoughts (even when in a coma)

____

i have to admit, this sure takes the cake for excuses for the Palestinians use of the limited resources and not fixing up gaza....(so far...i'm sure there will be more coming)
_____

according to you, if the israelis leave the westbank and have "bad thoughts" or dont "sound" nice, then then Palestinians of the westbank can let loose a barrage of mortars on jerusalem. Scary thought isn't it....

Sharon "sounds" wrong, Palestinians terrorize israelis for years, long after sharon is in a coma

BOOOO!

_____
and just so i understand, your position is: the Palestinians were so traumatized by sharons thoughts and words, that they simply can't concentrate on making gaza into some kind of "club med".....and if they cant 'get gaza into a working society because of comatose person, then westbank looks impossible....

[ProgressiveMuslim]

29. Pelsar, your "we pulled out of Gaza" refrain is so dishonest. I wish you'd put it to rest.

[pelsar]

30. israel is not occupying gaza....period.

they have a self government.....they do whatever they want to do there...

egypt and israel control the borders to a certain degree (tunnels and smuggling from the sea exist).

the gazans have choices on how they want to live and where to put their limited resources.....its up to them. They can work on convincing egypt and the EU to open up the egyptian border if they so choose, i don't know if they are or not.

they can choose to not shoot rockets at israel and then the israeli borders are open for basic supplies (but it stupid to be dependant upon israel for anything)

__________________

i get it, the hardest part is to acknowledge that they now have responsibilities toward their own...and until that is accepted, nothing good will change for them....and gaza is a good place to start.

[ProgressiveMuslim]

31. "they do whatever they want?" C'mon Pelsar.

That level of dishonesty is beneath you.

[pelsar]

32. within the limitations...

i dont think i have to detail the borders with you.....the gazans are locked in..(with active tunnels that even bring in new cars....).

but all that doesn't mean they are helpless........nor does it mean that they have to sit an wait to be "saved" (maybe jesus will come by and visit).....what kind of attitude is that?
______

i dont understand your attitude...what are you/they waiting for? for some kind of saviour to save the gazans? They got a lot of work to do, rebuilding a complete society, maybe those nice UN people will teach them about civil rights, responsibility, consequences for ones actions....and all that other stuff


they've got options and choices...they are intelligent educated people (with a rather violent leadership.....)..stop acting as if they are helpless babies

[Ken Burch]

33. Stop treating them as if they're disobedient children and the whole thing is THEIR fault

You need to admit there's equality of blame for this war going on.