Meanwhile in the Middle East: "Arab Spring can turn into radical Islamist Winter"

[Ajidica]

If you want to use that analogy: it's like if the US government declared "all right, blacks have the same rights as whites", and then did nothing to make sure this is enforced in practice. So, KKK would still murder blacks, individual white Americans would go unpunished for crimes against blacks, and so on and so forth. But the US government would wash its hands over it and pretend that it had done its part and what happens next isn't its problem. If that was the case, everyone would see it as a bunch of hypocrites.

Just to make sure we are on the same page:
You are complaining that the PA cannot deal with Hamas, despite the IDF (which is exponentialy stronger and more effective then what the PA can muster) being unable to deal with Hamas?

The PA/PLO claims to represent the whole Palestinian nation, ergo it must take responsibility for actions of the whole nation. It can't just have it both ways - renounce terrorism, but then let the terrorists do their business and even criticize Israel for fighting them.

They may claim that, but it isn't the PA's fault if Hamas doesn't see it that way. As a completely separate entity from Hamas, why can't the PA (in its role as a provisional government) criticize Israeli actions like any other nation?

(Now, I recognize the PA has done some progress in suppressing terrorism in recent years, but its job is far from complete. What I'd like to see for example is a deal between PA and Israel to jointly destroy Hamás. Israel would spearhead the attack, and then let the PA paramilitary forces to mop up and establish its rule in the Gaza Strip.)

Why in the name of all that is holy would Abbas want to get involved in the hellhole that is Gaza? Hamas isn't launching missiles at the PA and Hamas is a distinct and separate entity from the PA in geographic, political, religious, national, and every other sense.

Since when are Palestinians a race and when have I suggested their behaviour as a group is biologically determined? I kindly suggest you take your r-word slur and stuff it.

I wasn't the one who effectively said that all Palestinians are radical and violent.

 

[asbestos]

No, I think you don't understand the concept of ethnic cleasing. Not all relocations are "ethnic cleansing", that's an absurd notion.

No, really. The UN definition of ethnic cleansing calls it the forced removal of an ethnicity from a particular area. i.e. ethnic homogenization via the use of force. This is in large part how settlement activity is conducted. It's good to review these things before jumping in with your own definition.

And by and large, the relocations are over. Israel is not evicting Palestinians in large scale now.

Yeah it's more sporadic since 1948 so that makes it alright.
It's amazing to me how conservatives can support private property in the abstract sense, but epically fail to apply it to this situation.

The removal of virtually all settlements?
The cession of 94% of the West Bank and 100% of Gaza Strip?
Autonomy in East Jerusalem?
Cession of a highway (to be built by Israel) connecting Gaza and West Bank?

All of that is "zero"? I take it that the only concession you'd accept would be all jews agreeing to be sunk in the Mediterranean, like Hamas wants.

You should probably read my post again:

It's true that from a pro-Israeli perspective, Israel made tremendous concessions during the talks. But from the perspective of international law, Israel made concessions on things they had no right to claim in the first place.

You don't have the right to concede what you don't own.

Complete and utter BS. There is no "international law" mandating Israel to return to the 67 borders, nor granting all palestinians the "right of return".

Return in particular will never happen.

Respectively, Security Council Resolution 242 and UN Gen. Assembly Resolution 194.

There is a reason why Bill Clinton and pretty much every analyst personally blame Arafat for the failure of the negotiations.

The Palestinians and their Arab allies were repeatedly defeated in wars against Israel, who they refused to accept. As a defeated people, they don't get have things exactly their way.

Barak offered a viable Palestinian state. He offered to remove tens of thousands of colonists and build infra-structure to help Palestine. The Palestinians were offered autonomy over East Jerusalem, which Israel considers indivisible.

Israel made concessions and so must them. They were offered tremendously generous terms, unparalleled in the history of defeated peoples.

11 years after the Camp David Summit, do you think they would be better or worse if they had taken the deal? Only a complete idiot would deny that they would be much better.

Arafat (an Egyptian...) brought only pain and suffering to his people when he insisted on the one thing Israel cannot negotiate: the total right of return of all palestinians to Israeli territory. That would mean the death of the Israeli nation and everybody knows that. So by insisting on it they are actually denying any possibility of getting their state.

This is the fact. They were defeated in several wars and offered a viable state, economic aid and peace. They (or rather their leaders) chose to remain stateless and keep fighting. 11 years later, are they any better?

It's been documented that the Israeli proposal at Camp David would have cut the West Bank into seperate Bantustans, and kept it apart from East Jerusalem, which is the center of Palestinian social life. The Israelis also didn't offer "97%" of the West Bank as people erroneously claim, but roughly 88% without territorial compensation.

This, and more nuanced reasons than your simplistic presentation for the failure of the Camp David summit, are documented by Ron Pundak, who is an Israeli scholar and the director of the Shimon Peres Center for Peace.

 

[kochman]

You do have the right to the land when you win it in wars... that's how it goes.

Apparently you are in the crowd that thinks Israel is 100% in the wrong, the specific targeting of women/children by Palestinian terrorists is ok because Israel is wrong, etc, etc, etc.

It's kind of hard to debate when one side won't make any compromises... you know what I mean?

 

[Tee Kay]

It looks like someone didn't get the memo:

The wrongdoings of one should not be an excuse for another. This is a favourite excuse of the Zionist camp and it's quite annoying to hear comments like "why don't you condemn Pallies' suicide bombings" or "so when Israel defends itself you attack it but you are fine with a second Holocaust", when no one is actually condoning Palestinian terrorist acts. When you condemn an Israeli act you are not required to condemn a Palestinian act in the next sentence. And there's a difference between "supporting" something and "explaining" why something happens. I can understand Israeli security problems and why it does the things it does but that doesn't make them justified; same goes for Palestinian militancy.

You should address his points and explain why he's mistaken instead of whining about his imaginary refusal to compromise. Or admit you're wrong. Or get out of the thread.

 

[civ2]

asbestos is in the crowd of those who won't HEED.
Well, as long as I'm in the crown of those who don't NEED, it's fine by me.
You can't destroy the truth, even you deny it all your life.

 

[asbestos]

You do have the right to the land when you win it in wars... that's how it goes.

Yeah, yeah, keep in mind this is a two way street. And it happens to be as much an argument against the existence of Israel. A sustained course of militarism is bound to isolate Israel diplomatically and drag it headlong into disaster after disaster. A peaceful accommodation, OTOH, will open up investment opportunities, new alliances and trade.

So tell me, which one of us is the real supporter of Israel?

Apparently you are in the crowd that thinks Israel is 100% in the wrong, the specific targeting of women/children by Palestinian terrorists is ok because Israel is wrong, etc, etc, etc.

No, you're putting words in my mouth. What I said was that the Pallies have as much right to target Israel as other people under occupation. I never made the case that those rights are absolute or should absolutely extend to the targeting of civilians; only that Palestinian crimes are grayer because they occur in the context of, and in response to, an occupation, and that, for consistency's sake, a host of other resistance movements would have to be condemned as well.

It's kind of hard to debate when Israel won't make any compromises... you know what I mean?

Fixed that for you.

 

[Ajidica]

To be perfectly fair, PA negotiators have shot themselves in the foot a couple times by dismissing pretty good Israeli proposals in favor of an all or nothing situation.

 

[Formaldehyde]

That isn't "perfectly fair" at all. It has nothing to do with "all or nothing". In 2000, it was Israel's refusal to discuss right of return. Both sides are obviously to blame.

 

[Ajidica]

Right of return isn't going to happen, at least in the way the PA sees it or in the desired scale.
The PA was given a pretty good agreement in 2000 and due to various reasons, rejected it.
The PA insistance on full-scale right of return in 2000 was just as detrimental to peace then as the Israeli settlements are now.

 

[Formaldehyde]

It is quite reasonable. After all, doesn't Israel claim to be a secular state where all are treated equally? Why shouldn't Palestinians be allowed to live where they always have if it is their desire to do so?

 

[Verbose]

You do have the right to the land when you win it in wars... that's how it goes.

Yes, right of conquest...

And here's the rub: Israel hasn't claimed it. Ain't gonna. Is in fact deathly afraid of the effects of outright annexation.

If Israel just annexes the whole bally lot into Israel, then we know what we're dealing with.

Problem:
Israel refuses to do precisely this . (De jure... De facto it really does seem a leeetle different.)

Year after year after year Israel maintains this situation of these... (well, at times this territory and people has not been "occupied" by Israel, by Israel's count, since that would carry responsibilities; it's just "administrated", apparently through semantic magic) in a legal and political limbo.

Sure, better Palestinian attitudes and negotiationg chops would help, but even without it, Israel has always had the opportunity of just cutting through the crap, unilaterally "solving" the situation by annexation - in part or in full - and it just doesn't. That would require Israel bluntly stating what it is going to take and where it will run its borders. And it just hasn't. We still don't know.

I wouldn't mind it happening really. It would clarify things tons.

So somehow, you didn't quite make an argument here...

 

[Verbose]

Right of return isn't going to happen, at least in the way the PA sees it or in the desired scale.
The PA was given a pretty good agreement in 2000 and due to various reasons, rejected it.
The PA insistance on full-scale right of return in 2000 was just as detrimental to peace then as the Israeli settlements are now.

Abyssmal Israeli timing and a complete failure of Palestinian leadership, by Arafat. Zero advance preparation of the Palestinian public of what a deal like that would actually mean, making it political suicide for the Fatah leadership. And the Israelis still somehow managed to miss this rather important detail, apparently never really considering the internal politics of the other side. Curious. So, rotten timing for something that could otherwise have worked. It would at least have requiered some kind of process other than apparently "one-time offer, take it or leave it, now".

 

[Traitorfish]

You do have the right to the land when you win it in wars... that's how it goes.

And monarchs were divinely appointed by God, sure.

 

[kochman]

Yeah, yeah, keep in mind this is a two way street. And it happens to be as much an argument against the existence of Israel.

Precisely, if the Arabs had been successful in conquering Israel, they would have whiped Israel off the map, permanently.

 

[asbestos]

Precisely, if the Arabs had been successful in conquering Israel, they would have whiped Israel off the map, permanently.

If this is some dog-eat-dog commentary about how the world works or should work, then I disagree. I don't think anyone with this view can give any kind of credible moral objection to Palestinian reprisals. OTOH, someone who doesn't support what Israel is doing can turn around and give a principled objection to actions that threaten the annihilation of Israel.

 

[kochman]

If this is some dog-eat-dog commentary about how the world works or should work, then I disagree. I don't think anyone with this view can give any kind of credible moral objection to Palestinian reprisals. OTOH, someone who doesn't support what Israel is doing can turn around and give a principled objection to actions that threaten the annihilation of Israel.

How many Muslim head's of state do you need to hear say it before you believe it?

 

[asbestos]

How many Muslim head's of state do you need to hear say it before you believe it?

The initiative attempts to end the Arab–Israeli conflict, which means normalizing relations between the entire Arab region and Israel

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

The PLO recognizes the right of the State of Israel to exist in peace and security.

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

Our efforts are not aimed at isolating Israel or de-legitimizing it;

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B7zWz4mTCyg&t=13m39s

 

[kochman]

Ummm... I am aware that the PA is not for the dismantling of Israel...
The Palestinians, by themselves, have about a 0% chance of conquering Israel anyway, or they would take a much harder line, I promise you.

What about the leaders of the Muslim world, which is what I said originally... the neighbors of Israel? And the extended neighbors?

 

[asbestos]

Ummm... I am aware that the PA is not for the dismantling of Israel...
The Palestinians, by themselves, have about a 0% chance of conquering Israel anyway, or they would take a much harder line, I promise you.

What about the leaders of the Muslim world, which is what I said originally... the neighbors of Israel? And the extended neighbors?

If you mean the Arab League, then please refer to the first link I posted.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab_Peace_Initiative

The initiative attempts to end the Arab–Israeli conflict, which means normalizing relations between the entire Arab region and Israel

Turkey's had a very close relationship with Israel except for the recent little drama. Trade is still booming between them, and all Turkey apparently wants is an apology.

Iran would probably stay hostile, but then they don't have a history of launching offensive wars let alone wars that might lead to nuclear exchanges, and their attempts have so far been more or less limited to supporting Hamas and Hezbollah. Whatever the case, should Iran or its proxies try something, it's better to have the rest of the neighborhood on your side.

I doubt if the rest of the Muslim world gives a toss what happens.

 

[Verbose]

I doubt if the rest of the Muslim world gives a toss what happens.

I think it fair to say they do, actually, to the extent that they want the situation settled, and they want it done at least with what they might consider a semblance of justice. Can't skimp too much on the last bit.