The Disenfranchised Peace Movement in Israel

[kylebisme]

Max Blumenthal, in a followup to his hotly debated previous video, attended a peace rally in Tel Aviv to get opinions on the speech from that side of Israeli society. Here is the result, and a short excerpt:

"You see how few we are," said a demonstrator holding a sign reading "Obama, Yes-U-Can." "This is about all the Israelis who really oppose the Occupation -- it's very small. Most of the Israelis don't care about the Occupation and what goes on in the Occupied Territories and about the suffering of the Palestinians. I think it must come from the -- the pressure must come from the outside... From here, there's not enough."

While I am familiar with the Israeli peace camp from following this conflict closely, considering how little voice they get in our media, I am guessing this is first time many here have been given a chance to see them. In particular, the white haired man in the video is Uri Avnery, who regularly writes articles of invaluable insight in to the nature of the conlifct. His comment "the real interests of the United States and Israel are identical; we need peace" sums up the situation perfectly in my opinion. I hope we in the US will stand up to stop to our government using our tax dollars to subsidize the entitlement culture of the bigots in Blumenthal's previous video, and instead start supporting those Israelis who are working for peace. For the sake of Israeli along with the rest of us, I am at a loss to understand; why should we be doing anything else?

 

[CPA]

BS, Isrealis care, it's that they don't hold the same opinion as this fringe group.

 

[kylebisme]

Originally posted by: CPA
BS, Isrealis care, it's that they don't hold the same opinion as this fringe group.

From what I've seen, your argument looks like BS. I don't suppose you care to present anything to substantiate it?

 

[Lemon law]

Until the Palestinians get a much fairer deal, Israel will know no peace. Either the outside pressure of the world community will end the Israeli apartheid regime peacefully or some stateless terrorists will end it violently when they acquire chemical and biological weapons and the means to deliver them from all points around the compass.

 

[TruePaige]

More sympathizers for organizations like Hamas and the PLO.

 

[BarrySotero]

Palestinians were offered their own state in 2000 (including part of Jerusalem ). Pally negotiators were set to agree and Arafat said "no" because he had to agree the main issues would be considered "settled". Something he didn't want because he would have lost his power and his ultimate goal (no Israel). Palestinians have been their own worst enemy and will continue as such. Palestinians will continue to seek destruction of Israel which won't happen. Obama/Iran are forcing a ME war and Israel will be there when dust settles.

 

[TruePaige]

Originally posted by: BarrySotero
Palestinians were offered their own state in 2000 (including part of Jerusalem ). Pally negotiators were set to agree and Arafat said "no" because he had to agree the main issues would be considered "settled". Something he didn't want because he would have lost his power and his ultimate goal (no Israel). Palestinians have been their own worst enemy and will continue as such. Palestinians will continue to seek destruction of Israel which won't happen. Obama/Iran are forcing a ME war and Israel will be there when dust settles.

It's true, and America will fight to protect it's greatest ally in the middle east if push comes to shove.

 

[kylebisme]

Originally posted by: TruePaige
More sympathizers for organizations like Hamas and the PLO.

Nah, they support just two-state solution on the basis of international law. If you want to find some actual Hamas supporters, I recommend you take a look into the history of your own camp.

Originally posted by: BarrySotero
Palestinians were offered their own state in 2000 (including part of Jerusalem ). Pally negotiators were set to agree and Arafat said "no" because he had to agree the main issues would be considered "settled".

This is a common misconception, I'll defer to Zbigniew Brzezinski to clue you in.

 

[theeedude]

That's why a solution needs to be imposed on both Israel and Palestinians. Let's face it, they both would like to have the other's land if left to their own devices.

 

[fallout man]

Originally posted by: BarrySotero
Palestinians were offered their own state in 2000 (including part of Jerusalem ). Pally negotiators were set to agree and Arafat said "no" because he had to agree the main issues would be considered "settled". Something he didn't want because he would have lost his power and his ultimate goal (no Israel). Palestinians have been their own worst enemy and will continue as such. Palestinians will continue to seek destruction of Israel which won't happen. Obama/Iran are forcing a ME war and Israel will be there when dust settles.

Cool story bro.

 

[Lemon law]

Arafat declined the peace deal in 2000 because he would not give up the right to return, and until Israel addresses that ugly subject, they will know no peace. The Israeli problem is and remains, honestly confronting the right to return would award the bulk of Israel to the Palestinians.

As it is, Israel must give up Jerusalem and all the land captured in the 1967 war unless they can cut some internationally recognized diplomatic deal. The Israeli delusion is that they can somehow retain it all, a island of six million in a surrounding sea of 275 million Arabs whose weight in numbers will sooner or later prevail. And instead of doing anything to defuse Arab hatreds, Israel keeps building up the hatreds even higher.

Even during the crusades, Western interests were only able to hold onto Jerusalem for less than a 100 years each time, that is the Arab history, and they will patiently keep up the pressure.

 

[kylebisme]

Originally posted by: Lemon law
Arafat declined the peace deal in 2000 because he would not give up the right to return...

Compensation has to be arranged in exchange for the refugees relinquishing their right of return. However, even if it wasn't for Israel's refusal to address that issue, Barak's so-called "Generous Offer" wasn't workable, it wasn't even really a two-state solution as it would have effectively simply cemented the occupation in a somewhat reduced form.

Originally posted by: Lemon law
As it is, Israel must give up Jerusalem and all the land captured in the 1967 war...

Israel just has to give up East Jerusalem, West Jerusalem has been under their control since 1948 and would stay theirs under the two-state solution.

 

[Phokus]

I like that guy who said his opinions wouldn't change if he got drunk. I'm sorry, but i don't think i've ever seen anyone become a rightwing racist fuckwad after a few beers. Those racist asshats in that other video are probably racist sober too.

 

[fallout man]

Originally posted by: Lemon law
The Israeli problem is and remains, honestly confronting the right to return would award the bulk of Israel to the Palestinians.

The Israeli "problem" is, and remains, the inability to bite their lip and recognize the Palestinians as something more than untermenschen. Erez Israel is incompatible with such a preposterous accommodation.

 

[TruePaige]

Originally posted by: fallout man

Originally posted by: Lemon law
The Israeli problem is and remains, honestly confronting the right to return would award the bulk of Israel to the Palestinians.

The Israeli "problem" is, and remains, the inability to bite their lip and recognize the Palestinians as something more than untermenschen. Erez Israel is incompatible with such a preposterous accommodation.

There is zero chance that Israel thinks the Palestinians are sub-human, but they are not going to sit back and be murdered.

 

[fallout man]

Originally posted by: TruePaige

Originally posted by: fallout man

Originally posted by: Lemon law
The Israeli problem is and remains, honestly confronting the right to return would award the bulk of Israel to the Palestinians.

The Israeli "problem" is, and remains, the inability to bite their lip and recognize the Palestinians as something more than untermenschen. Erez Israel is incompatible with such a preposterous accommodation.

There is zero chance that Israel thinks the Palestinians are sub-human, but they are not going to sit back and be murdered.

you're absolutely correct.

 

[BarrySotero]

Originally posted by: kylebisme

Originally posted by: TruePaige
More sympathizers for organizations like Hamas and the PLO.

Nah, they support just two-state solution on the basis of international law. If you want to find some actual Hamas supporters, I recommend you take a look into the history of your own camp.

Originally posted by: BarrySotero
Palestinians were offered their own state in 2000 (including part of Jerusalem ). Pally negotiators were set to agree and Arafat said "no" because he had to agree the main issues would be considered "settled".

This is a common misconception, I'll defer to Zbigniew Brzezinski to clue you in.

It's exactly true and revealed by people in the room (which Brez was not)


http://www.weeklystandard.com/...0/000/001/168lewqp.asp

"Myths of the Intifada "

Yasser Arafat has propagated three myths about the deals he turned down. Now Dennis Ross has set the record straight.

PALESTINIAN and other apologists for Yasser Arafat have propagated three myths about his failure to reach peace with Israel. And only now--two years after Israeli-Palestinian peace talks collapsed because of Arafat's intransigence--is the truth becoming known. This is mostly thanks to Dennis Ross, the Middle East negotiator for both the first Bush administration and President Clinton. ..

In December 2000, Israeli and Palestinian negotiators were brought to Washington. And on December 23, President Clinton presented a new plan to them. The Palestinians would get 97 percent of the West Bank, Arab neighborhoods in East Jerusalem would become the capital of the new Palestinian state( with no cantons), refugees would be allowed to return to Palestine but not Israel, and a $30 billion fund would be established to compensate refugees. This was the final offer: The cantons were gone and a land link to Gaza was included.

Arafat " rejected every single one of the things he was supposed to give," Ross said. He rejected the idea Israelis would have sovereignty over the Western Wall in Jerusalem and other religious sites. He rejected the scheme for refugees and what Ross called "the basic ideas on security . . . So every single one of the ideas that was asked of him, he rejected." How can Ross be so sure of that? He was in the room with Clinton and Arafat when it happened.

 

[fallout man]

Originally posted by: BarrySotero

Originally posted by: kylebisme

Originally posted by: TruePaige
More sympathizers for organizations like Hamas and the PLO.

Nah, they support just two-state solution on the basis of international law. If you want to find some actual Hamas supporters, I recommend you take a look into the history of your own camp.

Originally posted by: BarrySotero
Palestinians were offered their own state in 2000 (including part of Jerusalem ). Pally negotiators were set to agree and Arafat said "no" because he had to agree the main issues would be considered "settled".

This is a common misconception, I'll defer to Zbigniew Brzezinski to clue you in.

It's exactly true and revealed by people in the room (which Brez was not)


http://www.weeklystandard.com/...0/000/001/168lewqp.asp

"Myths of the Intifada "

Yasser Arafat has propagated three myths about the deals he turned down. Now Dennis Ross has set the record straight.

PALESTINIAN and other apologists for Yasser Arafat have propagated three myths about his failure to reach peace with Israel. And only now--two years after Israeli-Palestinian peace talks collapsed because of Arafat's intransigence--is the truth becoming known. This is mostly thanks to Dennis Ross, the Middle East negotiator for both the first Bush administration and President Clinton. ..

In December 2000, Israeli and Palestinian negotiators were brought to Washington. And on December 23, President Clinton presented a new plan to them. The Palestinians would get 97 percent of the West Bank, Arab neighborhoods in East Jerusalem would become the capital of the new Palestinian state( with no cantons), refugees would be allowed to return to Palestine but not Israel, and a $30 billion fund would be established to compensate refugees. This was the final offer: The cantons were gone and a land link to Gaza was included.

Arafat " rejected every single one of the things he was supposed to give," Ross said. He rejected the idea Israelis would have sovereignty over the Western Wall in Jerusalem and other religious sites. He rejected the scheme for refugees and what Ross called "the basic ideas on security . . . So every single one of the ideas that was asked of him, he rejected." How can Ross be so sure of that? He was in the room with Clinton and Arafat when it happened.

Ah, Barak's great offer. Thanks for the lulz.

Edit: WWYBYWB?

 

[kylebisme]

Originally posted by: BarrySotero

Originally posted by: kylebisme

Originally posted by: BarrySotero
Palestinians were offered their own state in 2000 (including part of Jerusalem ). Pally negotiators were set to agree and Arafat said "no" because he had to agree the main issues would be considered "settled".

This is a common misconception, I'll defer to Zbigniew Brzezinski to clue you in.

It's exactly true and revealed by people in the room (which Brez was not)

...Dennis Ross...

Ah, Dennis "Jerusalem Must Not Be Divided" Ross. The same Dennis Ross who got $40,000 from AIPAC for speaking gigs in '08.

You sure know how to pick some unbiased sources there.

Seriously, were Brzezinski in the room instead of Ross, I wouldn't be surprised if Israel and Palestine were living side by side in by peace now.

 

[ZeGermans]

Originally posted by: BarrySotero
Palestinians were offered their own state in 2000 (including part of Jerusalem ). Pally negotiators were set to agree and Arafat said "no" because he had to agree the main issues would be considered "settled". Something he didn't want because he would have lost his power and his ultimate goal (no Israel). Palestinians have been their own worst enemy and will continue as such. Palestinians will continue to seek destruction of Israel which won't happen. Obama/Iran are forcing a ME war and Israel will be there when dust settles.

you're a god damn idiot

 

[miniMUNCH]

My best friend spent about a year in Israel, Palestine, and Lebannon...

The sad truth he found is that far, far too many Israeli's (a majority he'd dare to say) hate Palestinian's as much as Palestinians hate them... there is a severe amount of bigotry on both sides.

He framed it this way... It's the turn of the 20th century bible belt south all over again... instead of white folks it's Israeli's and instead of black folks it's Palestinians. Their is clear anger, malice, and distain on both sides but the Israeli's have clearly dominant upper hand.

Not cool at all.

 

[Phokus]

The Taba summit (also known as Taba Summit, Taba Talks, Taba Conference, Taba, or permanent status talks at Taba) were talks between Israel and the Palestinian Authority, held from January 21 to January 27, 2001 at Taba in the Sinai peninsula. They were peace talks aimed at reaching the "final status" negotiations to end the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and came closer to reaching a final settlement than any previous or subsequent peace talks. The talks were discontinued on January 27, 2001 as a result of the upcoming Israeli elections. The winner of those elections, Ariel Sharon, refused to resume the negotiations after his victory.

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

 

[JEDIYoda]

Originally posted by: BarrySotero
Palestinians were offered their own state in 2000 (including part of Jerusalem ). Pally negotiators were set to agree and Arafat said "no" because he had to agree the main issues would be considered "settled". Something he didn't want because he would have lost his power and his ultimate goal (no Israel). Palestinians have been their own worst enemy and will continue as such. Palestinians will continue to seek destruction of Israel which won't happen. Obama/Iran are forcing a ME war and Israel will be there when dust settles.

You are a complete idiot...did I say complete?? ok.....
Up un til you said-- Palestinians will continue to seek destruction of Israel which won't happen. Obama/Iran are forcing a ME war and Israel will be there when dust settles.

You were partially correct...but the above in bold type just goes to show how complete of an idiot you are!!

 

[kylebisme]

Originally posted by: Phokus

The Taba summit (also known as Taba Summit, Taba Talks, Taba Conference, Taba, or permanent status talks at Taba) were talks between Israel and the Palestinian Authority, held from January 21 to January 27, 2001 at Taba in the Sinai peninsula. They were peace talks aimed at reaching the "final status" negotiations to end the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and came closer to reaching a final settlement than any previous or subsequent peace talks. The talks were discontinued on January 27, 2001 as a result of the upcoming Israeli elections. The winner of those elections, Ariel Sharon, refused to resume the negotiations after his victory.

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

Thanks man, I meant to post that, but I apparently got distracted by the comedy of Barry citing Dennis Ross here.