Israel, the strong horse amidst the clash of Arab civilizations

[Lemon law]

Perhaps teh biggest distortions here is the IHV statement of "The international community backed the so-called peace process, only for the Palestinians to back out on their promises."

Promises,what promises? Its true that the international community backed a land for peace deal, and in return Arifat and various Fatah representatives had to commit Fatah and the Palestinian people to recognize Israel's right to exist as an initial negotiating price. But beyond that, Israel did not offer a fair deal, refused to recognize the Palestinian right to return, and in the end no deal resulted. So what promises were broken? Maybe you blame the Palestinians for not taking a unfair deal and other blame Israel for offering too little, and we can debate until we are blue in the face, to answer another woulda coulda things that did not happen in world history.

But there is perhaps fairer ways to divide things, and that is to let one party put everything on the table, make some fair division of everything, and then let the other party decide which piece they want, and let the other party then take the piece the other party did not choose. And in terms of the disputed whole, I would say all of 1948 Israel plus the disputed land illegally gained in the 1967&73 wars, minus what Israel has given back in the Sinai desert.

After all, there are three disputing parties, Arab Countries with armies with heavy guns tanks and planes, Israel Jews with heavy gun tanks and planes, and the original Arab and Palestinian inhabitants of the former British mandates who never had any heavy guns, tanks or planes.

To hell with the surrounding Arab Countries who unfairly attacked first, they should get nothing, but when the original Palestinian inhabitants of the former British mandate who owned 2/3 of the property, who fled with their fellow Jewish neighbors to the same places to escape being ground zero in an battle of armies, and when the dust settled, the Israeli Jew was welcomed back and the Palestinian had his land confiscated and was tossed into a concentration camp. Granted some Palestinians joined the Arab armies, but not even close to a majority. It was a mere collective punishment solely by religion discrimination which was illegal under UN charter. And here we are 62 years later, and in the whole slow shuffle, Israel has made off with everything and the Palestinians have basically nothing. Yet Israel some how claims they are the aggrieved party?

But in terms of the original thread thesis, that Israel as a strong horse in the mid-east somehow promotes mid-east peace and stability, I think the real only recent 62 history proves that is absolutely false conclusion. And in a more distant and unknowable future,
even you, IHV, have implied the weight of Arab oil money will win in the end.

Unlike you, I believe a fair peace is possible and the holy land of Israel can be shared with Muslims, Christians, and Jews. The problem is, the present Israeli government is not taking any steps to get real at exactly the time the rest of the international community demands a real peace process begins, and now blames present Israeli policy for being totally counterproductive.

The failed Annapolis peace process failure is being, quite rightly so, on Israel's refusal to get real.

 

[ElFenix]

Wherever Iran is implied. Not in the book itself but in the article. It's sloppy to not mention the distinction, because it is easily assumed by those who aren't away of the distinction, since Iran is currently envisaged as the dominant, existential threat to Israel.

If you want to argue that Iran is currently dominated by an "Arab mentality", even if they are not Arab, then that is fine. But you will need to argue this point, and explain how it can be that Arabs hate democracy, yet the Green revolution seemed to be all about the desire for a more moderate, more open, less hard-line, government.

i think that the point of the article (and its use of the book) is not that iran is arab or even dominated by an arab mentality, but that the shi'a arabs in their millennia-old clash (which is the arab clash of civilizations being referred to) with sunni arabs now have a strong backer in shi'a iran that they had been lacking. and that the sunni arabs may be able to make common cause with israel or at least have israel balance out the irani strength.

 

[woolfe9999]

To hell with the surrounding Arab Countries who unfairly attacked first, they should get nothing, but when the original Palestinian inhabitants of the former British mandate who owned 2/3 of the property, who fled with their fellow Jewish neighbors to the same places to escape being ground zero in an battle of armies, and when the dust settled, the Israeli Jew was welcomed back and the Palestinian had his land confiscated and was tossed into a concentration camp.

More with the concentration camp analogy. I'm on record, again, in telling you that this is a poor analogy, is morally offensive, and trivializes the Holocaust. And furthermore, you and IHV are peas of a pod. You are both the worst sort of stereotypical talking heads, spouting the same pre-packaged talking points over and over again, and pretty much sucking all the air out of the proverbial room whenever this topic is discussed. Honestly I hardly ever even look into the Israel/Palestine threads on P&N because of you two, and this is a topic I used to discuss at considerable length on other boards.

Am I the only one hear who has had enough of tweedle dee and tweedle dumb?

- wolf

 

[Lemon law]

The entire Woolfe999 point is made into sheer bullshit by, "is morally offensive, and trivializes the Holocaust."

Unlike any crazies, I fully recognize the Holocaust and all its unfair horrors, but the inherent delusion is that somehow, because innocent Palestinians had nothing to do with the original holocaust, Israelis are still entitled to visit the same Hitler like tactic on powerless Palestinians. Because Woolfe, that is the crazy aunt in the attic you can't deny in any discussion on any board.

Until you recognize that replacing one injustice by another, is the wrong song, we can, as a world, never advance to a just settlement and a lasting peace.

 

[woolfe9999]

The entire Woolfe999 point is made into sheer bullshit by, "is morally offensive, and trivializes the Holocaust."

Unlike any crazies, I fully recognize the Holocaust and all its unfair horrors, but the inherent delusion is that somehow, because innocent Palestinians had nothing to do with the original holocaust, Israelis are still entitled to visit the same Hitler like tactic on powerless Palestinians. Because Woolfe, that is the crazy aunt in the attic you can't deny in any discussion on any board.

Until you recognize that replacing one injustice by another, is the wrong song, we can, as a world, never advance to a just settlement and a lasting peace.

Two wrongs don't make a right. But saying that two things are the same, which are not the same, is just plain wrong.

No, I actually don't think you know much of anything about the Holocaust other than what you might have learned in high school and seen in a movie or two. If you seriously understood the conditions of Nazi concentration camps, you wouldn't be comparing present day Gaza with Auschwitz, or even Dachau. I reject the categorical and simple minded notion that ever moral wrong is exactly equivalent to every other, and I reject poorly constructed factual analogies like this one. False and overstated analogies are not earnest commentary. They are tools of the political huckster's trade.

And make no mistake, when people use this particular comparison, it is very intentional. If the perpetrators of this were not Jews, but someone else, you wouldn't be using the analogy. The analogy says this - you, Jews, are just as bad as your Nazi persecutors. This is a very direct and provacative form of Jew baiting is what it is.

Sorry, unless you can make point by point factual comparisons between the conditions of Palestinians in what you have called "concentration camps" with the conditions of Jews and others held in real Nazi concentration camps, then your "analogy" is exactly what it appears to be - a cheap attempt to make your case through Jew baiting.

- wolf

 

[Lemon law]

Wolf, I can merely dwell on the set of Israeli set of injustices post the fall of Hitler, and perhaps post so many to valid megabtyes of data that it would amount to a denial of service attack on this forum, and I am perfectly willing to concede that you could do the same for subsequent Arab and Palestinian data regarding Israel.

Bottom line, we have too many past wrongs and too few rights for that process to lead anywhere.

But other bottom line, its Israel that is now on the wrong side of world consensus. As the USA, perhaps the last die hard Israeli defender, has decided Netanyuhu and his ilk is bat shit crazy and not worth propping up.

That does not mean the USA may or may not support future Israeli governments, or may or may not support future Arab or Palestinian positions, but it does mean that Netanyuhu can't rely on a US blank check anymore as they keep formulating new outrages.

Anyone can free to regard that policy change as a US or Obama betrayal of Israel, as for me, I regard it as a needed first step in a quest for a just mid-east peace.

 

[Noobtastic]

Perhaps teh biggest distortions here is the IHV statement of "The international community backed the so-called peace process, only for the Palestinians to back out on their promises."

Promises,what promises? Its true that the international community backed a land for peace deal, and in return Arifat and various Fatah representatives had to commit Fatah and the Palestinian people to recognize Israel's right to exist as an initial negotiating price. But beyond that, Israel did not offer a fair deal, refused to recognize the Palestinian right to return, and in the end no deal resulted. So what promises were broken? Maybe you blame the Palestinians for not taking a unfair deal and other blame Israel for offering too little, and we can debate until we are blue in the face, to answer another woulda coulda things that did not happen in world history.

Promises, what promises? I already mentioned the promises. They are stipuluated explicitly in the Oslo Accord. I even provided a quote from BILL CLINTON himself who conceded it was the Palestinians, and not the Israelis who rejected peace.

So feel free to READ my post and actually respond to it.

We had this SAME conversation about the peace process. NO ONE intelligence DISPUTES the FACT that it was the PALESTINIANS who sabotaged the peace deal. Even a few members within Fatah defected to Israel when Arafat hunted them down for condemning his actions with the peace process.

Same deal when the Palestinian's under Arafat fled Jordan after the leadership tried to oust the hashemite rulers. That's right - Palestinian terrorists fled to Israel and were protected by the Israeli government! Since 1991 over 10,000 Palestinians have been provided citizenship or temporary residency in Israel for their cooperation with the Mossad and Shin Bet. These Palestinians supported a negotiated peace with Israel and risked their lives for peace.

Unlike you, who sits thousands of miles away from the war and parrots bullshit Pallywood propaganda.

great book about a son of a Hamas leader who worked with the Shin Bet. He converted to Christianity and moved to California.

http://www.amazon.com/Son-Hamas-Grip.../dp/1414333072

The peace process has always been predicated on a NEGOTIATED peace.


1947 UN partition

Zionists accept the partition that would give them 20% of the original Palestine Mandate that was promised to them under the Remo resolution.

Arabs rejected the partition, promising to destroy the infantile Jewish state and run the Zionists into the sea.

Arabs lost, and over 500,000 Arabs fled Palestine during the war.

1948

Israel agreed to allow 100,000 displaced refugees return in exchange for peace with the Arabs. Arab states demand reparations must be a pre-condition before negotiations. begin, and refuse to provide a counter-offer.

1948-1955

Israel continue to request negotiations with the Arab states only requesting their status as a sovereign nation be recognized.

Arab states reject the requests, and Egypt and Jordan subsequently occupy Gaza Strip, WB, and East Jerusalem (destroying Jewish holy sites and evicting 10,000 occupants). Arab states crushed all Palestinian nationalism, and Nasser supported groups like Fatah to wage terror war against Israel. A war never predicated on re-claiming stolen land or establishing a Palestinian state.

1967

Arabs suffer a humiliating defeat after baiting Israel into a war. As part of UN242, Israel agrees to return land captured - with the exception of Jerusalem - as part of a negotiated peace. I.e, in exchange for land, Arabs end their belligerence and violence.

Arabs rejected the UN resolution, and promise: "No peace, no recognition, no negotiations."

1979

Israel agrees to a negotiated peace with Israel. Israel destroys all 25 settlements in the Sinai and military installations. The Palestinians were offered autonomy as well, that would inevitably lead to statehood.

Palestinians rejected statehood and REFUSED to negotiate. Why Lemon Law???

1993

Israel and Palestinians sign the Oslo Accords with the goal of establishing an independent Palestinian state within five years.

Israel agreed to gradually withdraw from the Gaza Strip and the West Bank, destroying settlements in exchange for peace.

By 1995 Israel withdraw from over 80% of Gaza and 50% of the West Bank. More than 60 Israeli settlements/out posts were destroyed and the Israeli military on Gaza moved their military posts to the border towns (between Sderot and the closest refugee camp.)

Cairo Agreements granted further power to the Palestinian Authority, allowing Palestinians to work in Israel, use settlement roads and work in the settlements, and qualify for Israeli citizenship.

Palestinian police, trained by the IDF, replaced the border police and West Bank military outposts.

Civil Authority was transferred to the Palestinian government.

More info:

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Peace/gazajer.html

In exchange for these concessions (demanded by the US and international community), Arafat promised to control the violence, end incitement, end support for internationally-recognized terror groups (PLFP, AQMB, Hamas, etc..), prohibit illegal weapons sales, stop weapons smuggling, and end the theft of UN food and aid.

Violence didn't stop. In fact, Arafat used his new power in the WB and Gaza to continue his war against Israel. Over 150 Israelis died and more than 900 Palestinians between 1993-1998. The conflict began during an economic boom, and Palestinians had gained more rights during this time than in their entire history.

2000

Israel agrees to all concessions demanded under the Clinton Parameters, promising to disengage from Gaza 100% (they did anyways), 97% from the West Bank, Arab neighborhoods in Jersualem would become part of the capital, Palestinians would gain control over their religious holy sites. The agreement ALSO granted Palestinians the RIGHT OF RETURN (you DUBIOUSLY claim Israel rejected this) to those who were displaced 60 years ago, and those who want to reunite with their families who are citizens of Israel. Palestinians would also receive 30 billion in compensation, and several billion each year from the EU and USA in exchange for a peaceful cooperation.

Arafat REJECTED the OFFER. He did not provide a counter-offer. He did not dispute or complain about any of Israel's concessions. He just left the table. He also killed fellow Palestinian officials who disagreed with his hard-line stance.

Israel continues to fulfill its obligations under the Oslo Accords in regards to water agreements, civil authority, and partial settlement construction.

Israel still disengaged from Gaza completely, which was OBJECTED by the Palestinians who refused to cooperate. EU spent 150 million buying out the settlements and handing it over to the Palestinians. This was expected to generate over 20,000 jobs in Gaza.

Palestinians destroyed most of the settlements, and the ones that remained were converted into training camps for Hamas terrorists.

Statements made by those involved:

Saeb Erekat

First [the Israelis] said we would [only have the right to] run our own schools and hospitals. Then they consented to give us 66% [of the occupied territories]. At Camp David they offered 90% [actually 97%] and [recently] they offered 100%. So why should we hurry, after all the injustice we have suffered?”

I am not a great man. I am a failure, and you have made me one...[responding to Arafat's rejection at Camp David

I have never met an Arab leader who trusts Arafat or has anything good to say about him in private. Almost all Arab leaders have stories about how he has misled or betrayed them.

Bush's road map was roughly similar to the Clinton parameters, accept it stipulated Israel could not forcibly remove Arafat from Fatah and the elections promised under Oslo would not happen (Arafat would have lost if elections occurred).

No one can say Israel always wanted peace with the Arabs, because for awhile it didn't think peace was possibly with countries that were committed to its destruction. But it clear the Arabs will never make peace with Israel, and true moderates who support normalized relations with Israel and don't rely on the "WE HAVE SUFFERED INJUSTICES BLAH BLAH BLAH" are forced into hiding and aren't given a voice.

There are Palestinians who want peace, but there can never be peace as long as anyone who remotely supports a peaceful co-existence with Israel can be branded a traitor and killed as a "collaborator."

Even Gazan journalists who met with Israeli journalists in Tel Aviv were branded traitors by the leftists in the WB, and called for the execution for cooperation with the "Zionist entity."

How can Israel negotiate with these people Lemon Law? The Palestinians cannot honor promises even if they wanted to. Eventually there will be no land left for the Palestinians, what will happen then?

you think Israel will be able to deliver another deal similar to Camp David? No, it can't.

Palestinians will never have state under the present leadership, and this isn't Israel's fault.

 

[Lemon law]

Again IHV comes up with the same tired Rhetoric with, "How can Israel negotiate with these people Lemon Law? The Palestinians cannot honor promises even if they wanted to. Eventually there will be no land left for the Palestinians, what will happen then?"

Bitch all you want about Arifat, he is now dead and gone, maybe just another leader who has done little to elevate for the Palestinian people. But question, should we hate the Palestinian people because of their leaders? And now we have Abbas in the West Bank who is not attacking Israel. Did it get Abbas anywhere at Annapolis, when the Israelis were busily still settling in the West Bank. As for Palestinian broken promises, what broken promises? Arifat agreed to recognize Israel's right to exist and negotiate, but he said nyet in the end because because Israel refused to recognize the right to return. If Clinton thought he brokered a remotely resembling fair settlement, he was simply mistaken.

But in terms of soon there will be no land left for Palestinians, that has been a deliberate Israeli policy dating back to the days and Begin and Sharon and clearly articulated by a desire to settle Jews on disputed land thus making it politically impossible for Israel to give them up.

But still I will agree there is too much poor and extremist Arab leadership, but what you are not recognizing is that the leadership of Israel is bat shit crazy extremists also. So what we have is the moderates being driven out of the political process on all sides, so why should we be surprised when we get want it all pigs as the leadership of all sides.

And then IHV asks, "you think Israel will be able to deliver another deal similar to Camp David? No, it can't." Which is exactly why I think its going to take binding third party arbitration to solve the mess, because waiting for we want it all pigs to compromise is not going to happen. But if Israel thinks they will win the battle of the pigs, the short answer is that they can't. They may be winning now, but having is not holding.

And there are only two ways forward for Israel, either a separate viable Palestinian State partly financed by Israel in return for the right to return, or Israel will have to assimilate the Palestinian people with full voting rights and also compensate them for the right to return.

Those are the basic choices IHV, pick one or the other because there are no other peaceful alternatives, other than binding third party arbitration more likely to assimilate Palestinians into Israel with full voting rights and compensation.

But the violent alternative is to wait for terrorists to acquire chemical, biological, or nuclear weapons and the means to deliver them into the heart of Israel, and then we may finally have a mid-east peace. Because the whole land will be so toxic, no one can live there.

 

[Noobtastic]

Lemon Law, you claimed Israel rejected the right of return (NOT true) and didn't offer a fair peace deal.

I proved you wrong.

Please respond to my post explicitly instead of taking quotes out of context.

Again IHV comes up with the same tired Rhetoric with, "How can Israel negotiate with these people Lemon Law? The Palestinians cannot honor promises even if they wanted to. Eventually there will be no land left for the Palestinians, what will happen then?"

It's true. 10, 20, 30 years? 8% of the West Bank's population are Jewish. IF we include East Jerusalem, it's 17%.

In 20 years, it will be 25% of the population.

The Palestinians are never going to receive another deal similar to the one offered in 2000. They won't. Not under Likud. Not under Labor.

The Israeli people won't support it.

So you might say "Israel better make peace or something's gonna happen" but the reality is Israel isn't going to tolerate another 6 decades of aggression.

The Palestinians want a Jew-free West Bank and that simply isn't going to happen, especially when the settlements play such a pivotal role in the Palestinian economy.

 

[nick1985]

IHV I feel sorry for you debating Lemon Law. Why are you wasting your time?

 

[Lemon law]

In terms of the IHV contention of, "Lemon Law, you claimed Israel rejected the right of return (NOT true) and didn't offer a fair peace deal.

I proved you wrong."

Short answer, you have proved nothing.

As Sherlock sez, the game is still afoot.

I am not going to get into any pissing contests with idiots, but I am somewhat confident, Netanyuhu is the fool who just screwed the Israeli pooch.

We can debate about probable future events until we are blue in the face. But in the end, time will tell.

So far Netanyuhu is not budging and neither is Obama, so we await the next move.