They've been castigated by Egypt, Jordan ,Iraq and Saudi Arabia.

Their own leaders are hopeless and gaza under Hamas has become he'll on earth.

No wonder the Arab-Israelis don't want any part of their brethren .

You got to feel for them.

When given a choice to move to whatever Palestinian state arises, most DON'T want to leave Israel.

You have to feel for those Palestinians in gaza and the West Bank. They really are getting the short end.

Nt

American Blacks not wanting to move to Africa, so not wanting anything to do with their African brothers, so they must have supported SA apartheid and European colonialism too?

There is " NO apartheid happening " here either shira


http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3812366,00.html

http://desertpeace.wordpress.com/2010/03/09/new-yorkers-against-israeli-apartheid/



Yes, There is Apartheid in Israel

by SHULAMIT ALONI

Jewish self-righteousness is taken for granted among ourselves to such an extent that we fail to see what’s right in front of our eyes. It’s simply inconceivable that the ultimate victims, the Jews, can carry out evil deeds. Nevertheless, the state of Israel practises its own, quite violent, form of Apartheid with the native Palestinian population.

The US Jewish Establishment’s onslaught on former President Jimmy Carter is based on him daring to tell the truth which is known to all: through its army, the government of Israel practises a brutal form of Apartheid in the territory it occupies. Its army has turned every Palestinian village and town into a fenced-in, or blocked-in, detention camp. All this is done in order to keep an eye on the population’s movements and to make its life difficult. Israel even imposes a total curfew whenever the settlers, who have illegally usurped the Palestinians’ land, celebrate their holidays or conduct their parades.

If that were not enough, the generals commanding the region frequently issue further orders, regulations, instructions and rules (let us not forget: they are the lords of the land). By now they have requisitioned further lands for the purpose of constructing "Jewish only" roads. Wonderful roads, wide roads, well-paved roads, brightly lit at night–all that on stolen land. When a Palestinian drives on such a road, his vehicle is confiscated and he is sent on his way.

more @

http://www.counterpunch.org/2007/01/08/yes-there-is-apartheid-in-israel/

SHULAMIT ALONI shira ,
another of us derned post-zionists ....who helped create Meretz ...a party that you say you would vote for if you could vote in our elections ...

They're anti-Israel, they don't care about Palestinians (certainly not the ones mentioned in the OP - in Egypt) and they will never admit to obvious apartheid vs. Palestinians in Egypt, Lebanon, or elsewhere.

======

As for no apartheid in Israel (but only in the territories), maybe you should tell your anti-zionist leftwing BDS friends who advocate alongside their fascist rightwing anti-Israel allies. They think all Israel is apartheid. But they're your friends. Rightwingers you say you're against....

you should step up one from Arutz 7

to :
http://www.masada2000.org/shit-list.html

there shit list is no differant than yours shira

The link you gave has Richard Dreyfus on the page. I had to see what that was about. Apparently, he's for the Geneva Initiative and that's enough to put him on the shit list.

I support Geneva.

Whether Geneva, Olmert's offer, the Clinton Initiatives, or Uri Avnery's plan.

I learned long ago that my political opponents here are anti-Israel rather than pro-peace. You want Israel gone, own it. Don't beat around the bush...

======

I also know you could never support Meretz. They're too zionist for your tastes...

The one that Ehud Olmert confirms was made to him in 2008.

The fact that Mahmoud Abbas made an offer has now been confirmed by, amongst many others:-

Ehud Olmert, in his memoirs:-

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/28/world/middleeast/28mideast.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

Yossi Beilin, justice minister under Ehud Olmert:-

http://www.timesofisrael.com/talks-with-pa-snagged-on-settlement-not-refugees-former-official-says/

Stephen Hadley, National Security Advisor to George W Bush

“Our reading was that there was a deal to be done on (the refugee issue)”

http://www.timesofisrael.com/abbas-was-willing-to-compromise-on-right-of-return/

But that doesnt matter to you. You've lied for so long that you can't face the truth any more.

Did we ever discuss any of them?

BTW, you're projecting again with the accusations of lying. It's your M.O.

additionally, WINEP (essentially the academic wing of AIPAC), produced a policy paper acknowledging the mid-2008 Palestinian offer (see link below).

I acknowledge that there was no response to Olmert's offer, largely because he was out of office pretty shortly after that and Netanyahu made it clear that he did not consider himself bound or committed to Olmert's concessions. However, the Palestinian offer was made BEFORE Olmert's offer in September 2008.

The Palestinians have subsequently presented the same offer to Netanyahu on a further two occasions.

http://www.washingtoninstitute.org/uploads/Documents/pubs/PolicyFocus116.pdf

ANNAPOLIS (2008)

Livni–Abu Ala negotiations, spring–summer 2008:

• Israeli map: 92.7% PT, 7.3% IT, no land swaps. Livni argued that discussion of swaps should be
reserved for a later stage.
• Palestinian map: 98.1% PT, 1.9% IT, equal land swaps.
Olmert–Abbas negotiations, culminating September 16, 2008:
• Israeli proposal: 93.5% PT, 6.5% IT, 5.8% land swaps, and 0.7% “compensation,” Olmert’s term for a
potential West Bank-Gaza corridor under nonsovereign Palestinian control.
• Palestinians: no response.

NETANYAHU–ABBAS (2009–present)

Netanyahu–Abbas discussions, 2009–present:
• No agreement on terms of reference for territorial negotiations.
• Palestinian baseline: 1967 lines with land swaps. During indirect, U.S.-facilitated “proximity talks” in
late 2010, they presented a document and a map offering 98.1% PT, 1.9% IT equal land swaps.
• Israeli response: rejection on the basis that Israel will not engage in detailed territorial negotiations or
present its map without assurances on core security requirements.
White House baseline formula, May 2011:
• On May 19, President Obama stipulated a baseline of “the 1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps.”
• Israel initially objected, but Netanyahu appeared willing to reconsider if the baseline was clarified
with excerpts from Obama’s May 22 speech: namely, that the parties will negotiate a final border
differing from the 1967 lines, taking into account demographic realities on the ground and both sides’
security needs. Additionally, Netanyahu demanded a preliminary commitment that any agreement
reached would include recognition of Israel as the nation-state of the Jewish people.
Quartet-led efforts , September 2011–present:
• November 2011: Palestinians presented essentially the same document and map of 2010 offering
98.1% PT, 1.9% IT equal land swaps.
• Israeli response: Will present territorial positions only after Palestinians revert to direct negotiations
without preconditions.

Abbas should go public with it if he has a real plan. The Israeli plans are well known. No one knows for sure what the PA specifically offered - set in stone. You certainly don't. In fact, when asked the PA denied everything. What does that tell you?

Also, if the sides were so close it would have been an election issue. Livni would have ran on that.

========

Assuming those articles you cited are legit, it sounds like Abbas was being reasonable. Seems like all that's needed is a little more negotiation and bridging the gaps.

There comes a time when scepticism becomes rank denialism.

Olmert's positions were not set in stone either. He officially said 5000 refugees would be permitted to return, and then indicated that he would be amenable to 10 000 over ten years. Abu Alaa said 150 000 over ten years, however it seems that at some stage the Palestinians said that they would accept 60 000.

While there was never a complete meeting of minds on the refugee issue, Olmert himself said that an agreement was within range, and the United States considered that there was a deal to be made as far as the refugees were concerned.

Olmert didn't publish his map, he didnt even let Abbas have a copy. The leaked copies that we have today are from the napkin map that Abbas managed to scratch out on a piece of note paper.

As it now stands, the Abbas map (which Abbas continues to put forth to Netanyahu) was published, together with the Olmert map, by the NY Times here:-

...when asked about what he was willing to concede to the Israelis?

as for why he denies it, there is probably a bit of that on both sides:-

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/25/world/middleeast/25mideast.html

It is different for Olmert because he is no longer in power. I imagine if he was still prime minister of Israel he would be a bit cagier about the concessions that he was prepared to make.

That site was banned here in the old days.

then just google Shulamit Aloni on apartheid then oberliner
and take your pick

and remember that she and her son are both post-zionists
just as I and my son are

From 2009:

"We are a nefarious people. What we are doing in the West Bank is worse than all the pogroms done to the Jews."

The former prominent politician added, "We are a nefarious people. What we are doing in the West Bank is worse than all the pogroms done to the Jews." But she qualified her statement by saying she was "not referring to the Nazis, but the Cossacks".

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3812366,00.html

but I'm 'sure' you realized that

But thanks for the extra info!

Here's more about the Cossacks:

Tens of thousands of Jews were massacred by Cossacks in Ukraine during the Khmelnytsky Uprising of 1648–1657 and thousands more during the Koliyivshchyna in 1768–1769.

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

once again it's not as bad as so it's ???????? thanks I could not have asked for more, and understand your reply was fully expected when I made the comment you're replying to
so apparently you can not support Meretz or at least feel the need to delegitimize it's founder

as I do not feel I need to

If you cannot come to agree with them, you cannot agree with anyone in Israel.

but don't let that stop you

You could never agree with any Israelis, not even the most far left-wing post-zionists.

So what is it? Why are they too rightwing for you?

and then repeatedly make accusation upon accusation all of which mean absolutely nothing

The post-Zionists are about as leftwing as it gets in Israel. They aren't for BDS and full RoR like you are.

What do you make of your own views when you realize you could never reach an agreement with Israel's most leftwing activists?

in my first reply to you, but apparently you need more so here it is

I really have no feelings towards Meretz one way or the other I do not support or not support them, the key word here to describe my feelings would be indifference, now let's see what 'thread you can spin from that, hopefully it will be more sturdy than what I've seen so far

She said Israel's actions in the West Bank were worse than all the pogroms by the Cossacks against the Jews. I don't agree with that. Do you?

I think she is a very interesting character who has fought valiantly for the cause of human rights in Israel. Hopefully now she is totally legitimized.

Though I don't vote in Israel, I do agree with Meretz on most of their positions, so, in that sense, I definitely support them.

but thanks so despite your pointing out the 'obvious' flaw in her comment (doesn't that make it somehow antisemitic? there are some here who would say that I'm sure if they weren't busily attempting to create something out of nothing) you still support her of course

Unlike some other posters on this board, you are unfailingly polite and respectful - and I do appreciate that.

I think her comment is ridiculous - I am asking if you agree. Do you?

I don't support her - she is out of politics and has been for many, many years.

I respect the work she has done, and I support the current platform of Meretz for the most part.

It implies that such history can be objectively measured, judged, and placed on a scale. But how else do you communicate a comparison between the two?

I'm not sure about other language, but English has something of a binary thing going; it's heavily reliant on antonyms and synonyms to communicate. It's very yes-or-no, with "maybe" filled by lack of certainty and plenty of non-English words; "nuance" and "degree" both originate in English from French. Remember Kerry getting grilled for his "nuance" being "too French"? Yeah, that level of sewer politics would have been laughed off by everyone, save for the hesitancy with which English addresses nuance and uncertainty. it's why you see poeple here going "yes or no? Just say yes or no!"

The speaker wants to convey that the ethnic cleansing of Palestine was very bad. It does draw certain parallels to the pogroms of Jews by the cossacks - it could just as easily be compared to any number of others as well, but the dialogue on I/P tends to stick with comparing Jews and Arabs. But the language only allows three degrees: "not as bad, as bad as, worse." If you go with "not as bad" then it carries the implication of the ethnic cleansing at hand being "downgraded," is less important, and not worth much concern. If you say "worse," then you downgrade the purges against Jews in the same way. If you say "as bad as," that just leads to arguments over how bad it really was that must end up with someone getting it worse than the other; this derails the entire damn point.

Of course, you can't pretend all these purges and genocides and attacks exist in total vacuums apart from one another either, can you? That just makes them look somehow "natural," like unavoidable paroxysms of hate and violence that "just happen sometimes."

So Oberliner, why can't you figure out how to criticize sources like... Well...

NGO Monitor
UN Watch
PalWatch
Aruzt Sheva
Pajamas media
Little Green Footballs
Augean stables
Elder of Ziyon
The Algemeiner
Gatestone Institute...

And so many other obviously racist, far-right rags you and your fellow "Liberal Zionists" suckle on like pigs at a tit? Why can you never muster the energy to come at these wildly biased, provocative sources as you do similar sources like counterpunch or rense?

Is it because you support these sources and their rhetoric? Is it because you're a total ignoramus about them, even after all your years of posting here - hear no evil, see no evil? Or is it just that you are craven and intellectually dishonest?

So how about post-zionists who are not for full RoR or BDS, but are for 2 states?

Slightly better, the same, or worse than the white Afrikaners from 25 years ago?

Your point?

That's why I asked you about post-zionists....to see if you view them the same way.

Your question: "Do you view post-Zionists the same way as you view Liberal Zionists?"
My answer: "No, because I believe post-Zionists actually exist."

So they suck in your view, right?

And it's odd - isn't that the exact same definition you use for zionists? One's inclined you can't tell your ass from your head.

They're not for a Jewish state.

But they're for 2 states, limited RoR.

Are they rightwingers who suck in your view?

You just said they're against Right of Return (it's cute how you're unable to actually spell it out)

Now they're for a limited right of return?

And again, isn't "two states, no right of return" exactly how you describe yourself?

Which end is up, Shira?

Electronic Initfada outside of that the field is wide open for ProIsrael folks

This was long long before you joined us.

From 2009:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=6004154&mesg_id=6004618

Ah, the good old days.

Note: Even more recently folks have made mention of this site being banned:

http://sync.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2397451

Seems like standards were quite variable back then.

But thanks for avoiding hte meat of the question, Oberliner. Craven, then?

I can tell you from experience, posts that cited Counterpunch as a source were usually nixed for that reason, but I guess the ban was under the more general I/P guidelines about sources.

I look at Meretz as the party of liberal zionists like Amos Oz and AB Yehoshua. I thought post-zionists like Gideon Levy and friends cannot stand liberal zionists politically.

In fact, they are sometimes attacked for being too Zionist.

......yet you say you would vote for us if you lived here

maybe a good start would be to live here as long as Shulamit Aloni , Uri Avnery, Gideon Levy and I have done .

We dont have a problem with liberal zionists like Amos Oz and AB Yehoshua shira , we have a problem with our religious right wing and our right wing in general .

There is an alternative to Meretz ... and thats Hadash

http://www.haaretz.com/weekend/week-s-end/the-ideological-optimism-of-left-wing-parties-hadash-and-meretz.premium-1.494800

You who would vote Meretz if you could
after actualy living here
give it a week or two .....
might be voting for Dov Khenin.... and that IMHO would not be a bad decision , thought about it myself last elections .

Love Oz and Yehoshua.

The post-zionists, not so much...

Maybe it's a bigger tent than I realized.

loved Rabin more
hate those responsible for his assassination
they are the ones responsible for my rejection of Zionism .

I have no problem with Left wingers shira , I've been one all of my life
when are you going to realize that this is our country and not yours ?

Of course its a bigger tent than you realized , who the hell did you think we vote for ?
There are two Left wing parties left ... or Meretz or Hadash .
Shelly Yachimovich already stated before the elections that Avoda under her leadership should be described as a Centralist party .
You can deny us post-zionists as much as you like American but we vote and you dont and until the day comes that we have our own party ... we will continue to either vote Meretz or Hadash .

Admittedly, I'm ignorant about Israeli politics.

Frankly, I don't see much difference between Labor and Meretz except for maybe Labor being more about talk, not so much action. Meretz seems to be more about action, not just talk. Seems Israeli politics was easier to understand when there was one side for 2 states and the other against it. Those for were leftwing while those against were the right wingers, but now just about everyone seems to be for 2 states, even the more conservative parties.

Do you believe Livni and Olmert were/are serious about 2 states?

...who will never come to agree with your leftwing Israeli views?

For example, they're all for full RoR and BDS. When you can't even agree with the so-called International Left, who can you agree with?

You make up shit.
"they're all for full RoR", whatever that means.
RoR is *fact* under international law, shira, regardless of your denial, and one difference between you and "leftists" is that "leftists" recognize that fact whereas you deny it. Whereas "leftists" see RoR as a necessary component of any peace negotiation, right-wing extremists like you would not allow it on the table.
"leftists" assert the fact of RoR under international law because the Palestinian diaspora is caused by the Nakba. From what you've written to I/P, I doubt you even believe the Nakba happened. You're a denier.

BDS is needed because people who think like you, Netanyahu, Lieberman, Bennett, rule in Israel today, and people who think like you will not, of their own accord, seek peace. And you betcha BDS works. It certainly has you worried! It even worked, for a time, when the world's Jewish population mounted a BDS type campaign against Germany. At any rate, that effort wasn't to laugh at - if only because the cause was just. As the Palestinian cause is just.

OK, let the spittle fly!

Your deluded views of RoR and BDS mimic that of the Fascists and far Islamist Right. They see it the same way you do and that's a fact.

As you've been told before, there is no such thing as a RoR that is International Law. Nice pipe dream for far Right Fascists and friends though.

perhaps wanting as you quite freely use sources such as Pajamas Media, Secondwind Productions, Itamar Marcus, Richard Landes and more to back up your stances and opinions

Just curious.

something that most are not used to, as most news at least in major Western outlets is presented from a rather ProIsrael POV

There is by no means one Palestinian POV.

Both Ha'aretz and JPost present news from an Israeli POV but they are very different perspectives.

My question is where would you put Ma'an in terms of this continuum.

it is quite difficult to pigeon hole them IMO

Or do you think it is a narrower band?

Shira was right. You see yourself as representative of a large international left wing contingent who view ROR as a right and an inevitable part of any legit peace plan.

That does place you on the other side of a critical issue than almost all of the left wing Israeli peacenik camp who oppose such measures.

You can't agree with shira even when she's merely accurately pointing out your views, can you?

or don't they care what happens to their Arab brothers and sisters

They didn't have any more after that...afaik.

http://english.ahram.org.eg/NewsContent/1/64/70622/Egypt/Politics-/Palestinian-refugees-from-Syria-struggle-for-recog.aspx