Israel Is Losing -- Richard Cohen

Israel Is Losing

By Richard Cohen
Tuesday, October 7, 2003; Page A25


I talked recently with an American who had just returned from more than 20 years in Israel. We did not talk for the record, so I will withhold his name and what he does for a living. But I will say he is somewhat well-known in Israel and that he loves it dearly but he has left, probably permanently, because he cannot take life there any longer. He is a nonstatistic -- a living victim of terrorism.

How many others there are like him I cannot say. He has the most valuable of all commodities in this world, an American passport, and with much regret and with questions about his courage, he used it to get out. His business had gone to hell, his life was always in danger and he simply could not take it any longer.

In the perpetual war against Israel, its enemies are winning. The economy is awful. Parents do not want their children to go out. The beach is presumed safe, but not a cafe or restaurant. A commute on a bus (I have done it) is gut-wrenching. You watch everyone. What does a suicide bomber look like? The last one, the one who blew up a Haifa restaurant, was a 29-year-old woman, a law school graduate. She killed Arab and Jew alike. Even safe places are no longer safe.

So I cannot blame Israel for striking back. It assassinates Hamas and Islamic Jihad leaders and militants. It razes the homes of suicide bombers. It has Yasser Arafat bottled up and may deport or kill him. It has bombed purported terrorist camps in Syria. But nothing Israel has done has brought it peace and security.

more..........

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A53169-2003Oct6.html

has said what needed to be said, and about time...

The Sharon Policies will destroy Israel

n/t

that is acceptable to both. To get to it their leaders must talk, but Sharon doesn't want to.

the only thing that seems acceptable to the Palestinians is Israel's destruction as a Jesih state. You know that is not going to happen, unless the Arabs go to war and destroy Israel. Terrorism will not work. So, as it is useless, it is simply murder. Terrorism negates any justice that may otherwise exist on the Palestinian side.

Israel is there to stay. So why do people go on talking about Palestinians wanting to destroy Israel? They might desire it but they know, everybody knows, it can't be done. This is only "back-and-forth" killing. Drag them to the negotiating table.

because that's what the Palestinians, themselves, keep saying. If they mean to live in peace with Israel, as a Jewish state, and mean to giveup forever the right of return, let them umambiguously state that.

Why should they forever give up the right to return? It is their RIGHT!

what the damn DISPUTE (aka WAR)is about. They will give it up because they got the shit beat out of them, or Israel will elimiante itself because of the same reason. One or the other has got to give up up their stated objectives, or they will kill each other forever. does this make any sense to you? (I'm not asking how you like it; I assume you don't like it anybetter than anybody else.)

you have to give and take. Palestinians should have the settlements
(Israel gives, Palestinians take), and gives up the right of return (Palestinians give, Israel takes), because, surely, Palestinians understand that several million of them going back to Israel proper will cause Israel to not be a Jewish state anymore, and, obviously, Israel can't accept that. If I were a Jew I would be strongly against it too.

In short, if they both want peace they both have to give and take.
If they were to agree that only elderly Palestinians can go back home, maybe because they want to die in their birthplace, that's different. It's so important that they get together and talk.

Why doesn't Israel's PM want to talk? I have this feeling that should Arafat be replaced, Israel's PM, if it's the same person, will still find reasons not to talk!

the current intifada is because the Palestinians wanted it ALL. They will not get it. They shouldn't get it.

But first, who you gonna call. Arafat has proven himself to be totally untrustworthy. Israel should not be expected to consider anything that he says. Now it is the Palestinians business who they want to govern them, I agree with that, but that does not obligate the Israelis to negotiate with someone they find unacceptable.

To negotiate, two parties have to be willing to compromise. So far, only Israel has shown that it will.

Yes we can see that. By building new illegal settlements, the wall on Palestinian territory creating bantustans and continuing the occupation. Ariel Sharon, "Man of peace" indeed..

as there is no agreement, well Israel does have possision of the country. If the Palestinians will not make peace, they should progressively lose territory permanently until they do.

It's called "negative incentive"

That's just for starters.

Next would come dimantling the illegal settlements.
But we all know that that won't happen.

the Palestinians still insist on the "right of return". Until they give that up, Israel will fight on.

Bring the troops home NOW! End the Occupation NOW!

Israel is building a security fence in the West Bank, while the Roadmap "peace process" continues. The fence was originally supposed to follow the green line 1948 border more or less and protect Israeli towns and villages from incursions by terrorists (click here for original proposed path). After the re-election of Ariel Sharon, the path of the fence change. Nobody knows how much it really changed, because no maps have been released. It is clear that the fence now "protects" some areas of the West bank that were once on the other side of the fence, cutting Palestinian villages off from their lands in some cases. A graver charge, that we cannot substantiate yet, is that the fence will completely enclose the Palestinian areas. Significantly, some new maps do not show the supposed "proposed" eastern parts of the fence, and the issue did not even arise in US - Israeli talks. In general, discussions about the fence have distracted attention from substantive issues as noted in MidEastWeb commentary.

A supposed map of the projected fence was originally published by Gush Shalom (right). That map did not differentiate between the planned areas of the fence and projections by Palestinian sources. See http://www.gush-shalom.org/thewall/ for the Gush Shalom article. The map is based on Palestinian sources. It iwas used by Gush Shalom and is being used by Electronic Intifada to support the claim that Israel intends to enclose the Palestinians in ghettos or Bantustans in the West Bank, surrounded by a wall.

The case of Qalqiliah is particularly problematic. This large Palestinian town will be cut off from the rest of the West bank in order to keep settlements such as Alfei Menahshe on the "Israeli" side of the wall (see map at lower right).

The detailed map below apparently was printed in the Israeli newspaper Yedioth Ahronoth on May 30, 2003. MidEastWeb has added labels in English to show the major Palestinian and Israel towns and settlements. This is the same article that the Electronic Intifada has published. They did not show this map, but rather the Gush Shalom Map at upper right.

From the map below it is clear that the talk about enclosed Palestinian areas is premature. Only the yellow line is actual fence under construction. The solid blue line is fence that is supposedly approved. The dotted blue line is the path of the fence as projected by Palestinian sources. It has not been published by the Israeli government and is not confirmed by any government source. The speculative dotted blue line encloses all of the southern area, and much of the northern area in the east. There is no way of knowing how much of it reflects real plans, though some of it clearly does not.

From: MedEastWeb

Sounds like he's sorry that the world won't allow genocide and that he approves of what we did to the Native Americans.

"For a people of the book, for a country created by history as well as by men, Israel acts as if nothing that went before has any bearing on what is happening now. But history admonishes Israel. The only places where a Western culture has successfully transplanted itself are those where great population pressure and genocidal methods were used to extirpate the indigenous peoples. This is what happened in the United States."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A53169-2003Oct6.html

My question is this: Will these evil people be leaving Israel to come here and spread even more of their hateful venom. How much more control of the US do they need?

don't remember who said it, but liked what he said: Bombing and killing Palestinians hasn't brought Israel peace. Terror/suicides hasn't brought Palestinians their homeland. Maybe there is a better way to deal with this crisis than violence.

fuck sharon..fuck arafat
I am so sick and tired of seeing people die for ..what ?..fuck all..a home..what we take for granted..lets start again..give Israelis ...I srael...give palestinians ..palestine..time to forgive..let children live..learn and love

Kind of hard to execute in practice.

dismantle the settlements

Now explain please why that is the first step?

You also seem to state that they should be eliminated without a reciprocal Palestinian first step.

I apologize if my assumption is wrong. Correct me if I am.

a. Because they are expensive and you are going broke.
b. To free up needed military resources for other purposes.
c. To remove some of the incentive for terrorist attacks.
d. To regain some measure of lost international support.
e. To politically undercut Hamas and their ilk.
f. To implement a more defensible border.
g. To increase internal political unity.
h. To defuse, somewhat, the Iraq crisis, thus helping out
your buddy the USA, and reducing the likelihood of a humiliating
and dangerous US retreat from the region.

In chess, one does not wait until one's opponent makes a stupid
move before taking the opportunity to make a good one. One takes
it when one can.

but this is not a chess game or any other sporting endeavor. We are talking about building credibility and faith between the parties. So the pragmatic approach will probably be more successful than an idealogical concept.

Thought so. :thumbsup:

That is eventually going to destroy a Jewish state, but what the heck, right? Can't "reward" the terrorists by following international humanitarian law can we? :eyes:

I would be careful of someone spiking your tea.

A geographically tailored barb. I love it. :D

As for the "interpretation", I'll wager all the money in my pockets, for all the money in your pockets, that it is an accurate representation of your views.

Of course, you've stated that "the settlements have to go", but I'm not taking that seriously. That is the standard boilerplate everybody adds.

bemildred laid out some specific proposals which make a great deal of sense. You responded with waffle. The only reasonable conclusion is that you don't want to discuss specifics.

So, either you:

1. Support removal of the settlements but do not wish to lay out any specific means to achieve that goal.

or, (more likely):

2. You do not support removal of the settlements.

If (2) is true, then de facto you support expansion of the settlements and expansion of settlement infrastructure in the occupied territories. This is because natural growth requires both.

As a mind reader you are an abject failure.

Stop it, you're making my head swell.

And he does support removal of the settlements and, in fact, said so, most vehemently, last July, before the recent escalation of violence. This is not just necessary, but one of the core provisions of the tattered ``road map.''

This is a direct quote from July:
``Settlements

They have to go. They have to go. They have to go. With one proviso. Those sights that are important to religious Jews must be made available to those who wish to worship there. Specifically 'Cave Machpelach' (I am sure the spelling is wrong) in Hebron and Rachel’s tomb in Bethlehem.''

Removal of "the settlements" is not in the Roadmap. Hence, it is not one of the "core provisions".

As I said, I'm ignoring any rhetoric if it does not come with specific recommendations. The quote you've given is rhetoric.

For example, I could quote this:

"We will need to give up some of the places to which our history is tied: Bethlehem, Shiloh, Beit El. As a Jew this troubles me greatly, but I have to decided to make every attempt to arrive at a solution"

This is Ariel Sharon on April 13th of this year. Obviously there is no reason to take that on face value. Same in this case.

"The settlements have to go" is lip-service unless it is backed up with something.

Here is a thought: why don't we just list a bunch of settlements (and their related infrastructure) and tick off which ones need to go? Now that'd be worth taking seriously.

I'll start:

Settlement: Ma'ale Adummim.

Infrastructure: Bypass roads in and around the Wadi An-Nar road.

Misc: Cancellation of Ma'ale's municipal boundaries and expansion into Abu Dis, Az-Za'im and Al-Azariya etc.

Your turn.

Parse away, parse away all you want.

"As for the "interpretation", I'll wager all the money in my pockets, for all the money in your pockets, that it is an accurate representation of your views."

I don't want nor need the money in your pocket but DU does. So you can send it there. As soon as the little star appears by your name the DU world will know you are a man of your words.

Until then your words are to borrow a phrase from yourself just "lip service" unless it is backed up with something.

Deal.

You lost the bet.

on the future of the settlements. I have no quarrel with you, as I agree that they have to go as well. The ``road map'' has no future unless this happens. The immediate cessation of the demolition of Palestinian homes is also a part of the ``road map.'' I am afraid it is in tatters and to parse words does either side no good. There need to be hard compromises and a sincere wish for peace. I have not seen that, on either side, for many weeks.

I am sure that your donation to DU will be very welcome.

on DU for several weeks. It cites both dismantlement of settlements and cessation of destruction of Palestinian homes as part of ``phase one'' of the ``road map.'' In turn, the Palestinian organations must commit to a cessation of all violence. How sad that even this initial phase has yet to be implemented.

``Israel is ordered to withdraw to the areas occupied on September 28, 2000 (the day before the Initfada began), re-state its “commitment” to a “viable, sovereign Palestinian state”, cease deportations, home demolitions (crucially, it is explicitly stated that home demolitions are forbidden either for punishment or for “facilitate(ing) Israeli construction”), and attacks on Palestinian institutions and infrastructure, facilitate travel for Palestinian officials, reopen the Palestinian Chamber of Commerce and “other closed Palestinian institutions in East Jerusalem” provided that they “operate…in accordance with prior agreements”, freeze all settlement activity (including so-called “natural growth”) and dismantle settlement outposts built since March, 2001.''

http://www.jewishvoiceforpeace.org/resources/newsletters/newsletter0505.htm

Great article! :toast:

It was originally posted back in May by a friend in this forum who is no longer here.

I'm active on the list of Just Peace UK (a mostly Jewish peace group), where it was forwarded.

I'm afraid I respectfully disagree.

For example:

"It cites both dismantlement of settlements"

Irrelevant. We are not talking about "dismantlement of settlements", we are talking about "dismantlement of the settlements".

The Roadmap does not cite dismantlement of the settlements. My point was correct. If you think this type of language isn't deliberate on the part of the "Quartet", I direct you to my analysis of the Roadmap (focusing on Israeli obligations), written on DU a day or so after publication.

"Israel is ordered to withdraw to the areas occupied on September 28, 2000 (the day before the Initfada began)"

Israel was not ordered to do this. The textual obligation you cite is connected to security considerations, hence irrelevant (see the third point in the relevant analysis). If this obligation was taken seriously, the relevant UN Security Council resolution (S/RES/1435) would be cited. It isn't, because the obligation is pure fraud.

"re-state its “commitment” to a 'viable, sovereign Palestinian state'"

Israel has not met this obligation, which is surprising. I figured Sharon would just lie about it. He won't even go that far.

"cease deportations, home demolitions (crucially, it is explicitly stated that home demolitions are forbidden either for punishment or for “facilitate(ing) Israeli construction”), and attacks on Palestinian institutions and infrastructure, facilitate travel for Palestinian officials, reopen the Palestinian Chamber of Commerce and 'other closed Palestinian institutions in East Jerusalem” provided that they “operate…in accordance with prior agreements'"

Most of these come from S/RES/1397, and they're not new items; rather long standing obligations which Israel has refused to meet for decades (in fact they date back to the early 70's). There is no reason to suppose that they'll meet them now, unless evidence to the contrary is produced.

My exact words on these specific obligations were: "like that has a prayer".

Subsequent events have reinforced that statement. Israel even demolished a bunch of homes the day of publication, just in case anybody didn't get the hint.

"freeze all settlement activity (including so-called “natural growth”) and dismantle settlement outposts built since March, 2001"

If you are familiar with the diplomatic language of this conflict, the above paragraph should set off immediate alarm bells. The Roadmap violates the 4th Geneva Convention by separating illegal settlements into two categories:

1. Outposts (implicitly "illegal")
2. Settlements (implicitly "legal")

There is not the slightest basis for that in international law. In fact, it is virtually word for word Israeli government policy (I can cite the relevant cabinet decisions if you like).

As for what I said about this at the time:

"Israel has to "freeze" settlement activity (including "natural growth"). A good thing, and presumably this is supposed to be immediate, but since this paragraph comes after the "security co-operation" nonsense, you can bet your life it will be made dependent on that ... Get ready to see Sharon brazenly issue some house tenders in some strategic location" ('The Roadmap', this author, May 1, 2003)

This has turned out to be correct:

Question: So your understanding, do you have a position on what freezing settlements means? What is it?

Boucher: We have a position that this matter is still under discussion with the Israelis.

Question: Well, does that mean that natural growth, which is what the Israelis have said, is it something that you're willing to accept under the terms of the road map, or the road map could encompass that?

Boucher: Road map doesn't say that.

Question: I know it doesn't.

Boucher: Road map says "freeze on settlement activity."

Question: Well, now you're the one who is making the rhetorical point. Either there is a freeze or it's not, right?

Boucher: I'll finish the sentence. Okay? The road map says "freeze on settlement activity." We're in discussions with the Israelis about how exactly that can be implemented. That's where these other questions arise.

Question: And is it possible that building 22 housing units at the settlement in Gaza would be compatible with a commitment to freeze settlement activity, as the road map says?

Boucher: We are in discussions with the Israelis about how to implement the question of settlement activity.

- state department briefing, July 31 2003.

Obviously "natural growth" or a halt on settlement activity is not being taken seriously. As was obvious at the time of the Roadmap.

As for the house tenders, there have been dozens published since I wrote that. The most brazen were in a strategic location - the Jordan Valley. In fact, not just tenders, incentives to move there were published in the Israeli newspapers Yediot Aharonot and Ma'ariv.

I'm afraid to say I don't think JVFP had their eyes open on this one.

Put simply, the 'Roadmap' was DOA, and all pretense to the contrary is illusion. The fact some rhetorically half-decent measures can be teased out of the text (I acknowledged all of them) is beside the point.

Your post is very important for another reason. We all know how resourceful the GOI can become when it comes to legalities of resolutions.

For instance:

From UNSC Resolution 242:

Withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict;

Notice the omission of the article the in front of territories? This has been used as a defense by proponents of Israel for Israel's blatant disregard for this requirement as put forth by UNSC Resolution 242. I understand how it is very important to word things when arriving at any sort of treaty whether a piece of dung like the Road Map or any other presented in the future.

Edit: fixed something

You're right of course, but I don't get involved in that sort of discussion regarding UN 242 with GOI worshippers.

You end up banging your head against a wall.

But if you're interested, and have it available, the best work I know on the topic (i.e. the lack of a definite article "the" in the text of 242) is Norman G. Finkelstein, Image and Reality of the Israel-Palestine Conflict, chpt 5 (pg 123 onwards).

If you don't have it, PM me and I'll send you the relevant paragraphs.

I totally agree about the "specificity" (to use a UN term) involved when drafting these resolutions, agreements etc BTW. I imagine there must have been at least 50 drafts of the Roadmap. That is just one more reason to read it carefully and take omissions and rhetorical backflipping very seriously ("waystation" and no mention of the "Green Line" come to mind).

I'm still reading (I've been really busy).

When Fink handed Dersh his balls on a plate, I raced out and got it.

to what you were trying to illustrate.

Semantics are a bitch aren't they?

LOL.....

:toast:

:toast:

Just back in from football, so I deserve a beer ;-)

:beer:

I agree with you that parsing of language here can lead to differing interpretations, such as ``settlements'' or ``the settlements,'' but this gets us nowhere. Just as with the previous Oslo accords, the language is probably deliberately vague. Each side is therefore not backed into a corner, but each side can interpret much as to suit their inclinations. The bottom line is that until there is a sincere wish by both parties to come to the table, willing to make compromises to achieve a lasting peace, the ``road map'' is going nowhere. The violence has only escalated as each side has to exact retribution for the act that preceded it. Until someone says ``enough!'' the ``road map'' is irrelevant. If only the U.S. or U.N. would step in and say, ``enough!'' but that's not going to happen.

They could just as easily be rewarded monetarily for moving elsewhere. Until that happens, there will still be illegal settlements. I happen to agree with you on the state of the road map and the deliberate language used. George Bush* could do a great deal in seeing that both sides honor even the vague stipulations that it makes, but he has failed to do so. He is too busy waging his wars and preparing for his upcoming election to bother with a minor annoyance like Middle East peace.:grr:

"They could just as easily be rewarded monetarily for moving elsewhere"

That is roughly step (2) with regards to establishing a sane plan to get rid of (or, more likely now, reduce the size of) the settlements. Step (1) is of course not paying any incentives. Step (3) would be bringing back within 1967-Israel those who only want compensation for their losses (cost of their housing unit, job relocation etc). It is my impression that many of those people do not want actual "rewards", just a fair price for what they have already.

Naturally, the United States and Israel are opposed to even allowing any talk of such a plan, never mind implementing it (I have my own thoughts the structure of such a plan, but that is another topic).

I'll bring up my favourite analogy here:

With regards to settlements, Israel is basically running towards the edge of a cliff. If it says to itself, "how do I stop going over this cliff?", the obvious answer is that first of all it has to stop running towards it. Running is continuing to build new settlements.

Now, even assuming Israel stops running (and by the way, the United States is the coach cheering alongside, passing the water), it is still going to be jogging, and finally walking towards the edge. Each step (even though new building would have been stopped) is a step forwards, because of natural growth.

The only way to actual stop that forward momentum is reducing natural growth and eventually turning around and walking away (i.e. dismantling settlements).

Now, Israel hasn't even figured out that runnning full tilt towards the edge is a bad idea yet, while the coach is a totally blind, incompetent fucking fool.

"George Bush* could do a great deal in seeing that both sides honor even the vague stipulations that it makes, but he has failed to do so"

I'd be surprised if he has even read it, or knows what it means if he has. :eyes:

It is quite clear that the state department doesn't have the first clue, and they're obviously smarter than the Chimp.

I wouldn't put much importance on individual actors in this system though. After all, the policy spectrum is quite narrow on this topic in the United States.

You are right however that even the vague obligations in the Roadmap could have been pressured into being upheld. Now, the fact that they weren't says to me that the Roadmap was designed to either fail or only work long enough for domestic and international PR advantage. Either way, DOA.

"He is too busy waging his wars(*) and preparing for his upcoming election(**) to bother with a minor annoyance like Middle East peace"

That is spookily accurate (I added the underline emphasis).

I direct you to the following article from Ma'ariv (roughly translated by myself, but it is clear enough. Ben Caspit is the main author, and it was front page news):

--------

BUSH WILL STOP MEDIATING

This article directly quotes Israeli internal documents to the effect that:

"Difficult internal/foreign affairs concerns mean that the Bush administration will concentrate on the Iraq problem to relieve the president from intensive involvement in other issues, including the Israeli-Palestinian conflict" (*)

...

"Israeli officials say that the focus will now shift to the continuing complications in Iraq and the falling popularity ratings of President Bush" (*, **)

...

"It is believed that the Roadmap plan will now go into a "deep freeze". The American aim is to maintain the current "relative silence" and status quo, until after the presidential elections in Nov 2004" (**)

--------

"Deep Freeze" is now my favourite phrase for I/P issues. :dunce:

(BTW, I do believe that Mr Caspit stole it from the Associated Press in the middle of Sept, but I could be wrong).

To conclude, essentially, you can forget any serious M/E diplomacy until after the elections in 2004 (unless of course, the whole thing blows up in the face of the US and Israel. Not likely in my view, but possible nevertheless).

Anything that happens between now and then is window dressing. Not that the Roadkill was much better of course.

p.s. you'll have to forgive me if the above doesn't make much sense - just in from the pub and I didn't proofread.

with the worsening situation in Iraq, foreign policy will most likely be focused in that regard, and as was said, national elections are too big a deal for anything else to be taking place.

I don't quite think that that point of "anything that happens between now in then is window dressing" has yet been reached. When the Democratic nominee is chosen, that will certainly mark that it has come. Bush isn't yet on the defense to so much of an extent, and he has no one to focus his offense on, so until he is and he does, I don't think we have yet reached "window-dressing" stage. Approached it, yes, but not quite there yet.

But the exact point really isn't important.

Not that I really expect US foreign policy in regard to Israel to change much regardless of the election...

I think if you read other posts I have made, you will find that I agree with you on all points. BTW, I did like your cliff analogy. As for the settlements, dismantling them is an important first step. If nothing else, it would show good faith on the part of Israel, or, more specifically, the Sharon government. However, I do not believe that anyone who orders "targeted killings" is negotiating in good faith for a lasting peace.

As for Mr. Bush*, as I understand it, the only reason that he finally became involved in the world's most serious conflict at all, after almost three years in office, was to satisfy a bargain he made with Tony Blair. In exchange for Blair's support in his Iraq war, he agreed to become involved in brokering peace in this region. If this is true, I think Mr. Blair made a very bad bargain. If it doesn't serve his interests, or those of his cronies, Bush* has a very short attention span. After all, this is the one area in the Middle East where there is no oil. As for his understanding of this complex and heated conflict, I have no doubt that you are right; Bush* hasn't a clue.
:dunce:

Israel does. ;-)

The strongest advocates for the settlements are dedicated to a cause of justice for Israel and Jews who wish to live in the area inhabited by Jews for centuries.

International Humanitarian Law in the West Bank and Gaza Strip
International humanitarian law prohibits the forcible transfer of segments of the population of a state to the territory of another state which it has occupied as a result of the resort to armed force. This principle, which is reflected in Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention, was drafted immediately following the Second World War. As International Red Cross' authoritative commentary to the Convention confirms, the principle was intended to protect the local population from displacement, including endangering its separate existence as a race, as occurred with respect to the forced population transfers in Czechoslovakia, Poland and Hungary before and during the war. This is clearly not the case with regard to the West Bank and Gaza.

The attempt to present Israeli settlements as a violation of this principle is clearly untenable. As Professor Eugene Rostow, former Under-Secretary of State for Political Affairs has written: "the Jewish right of settlement in the area is equivalent in every way to the right of the local population to live there" (AJIL, 1990, vol. 84, p.72).

The provisions of the Geneva Convention regarding forced population transfer to occupied sovereign territory cannot be viewed as prohibiting the voluntary return of individuals to the towns and villages from which they, or their ancestors, had been ousted. Nor does it prohibit the movement of individuals to land which was not under the legitimate sovereignty of any state and which is not subject to private ownership. In this regard, Israeli settlements have been established only after an exhaustive investigation process, under the supervision of the Supreme Court of Israel, designed to ensure that no communities are established on private Arab land.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=post&forum=124&topic_id=19120&mesg_id=19218

If it is forbidden by international law for Jews to live in the territories, that is a racist law.

It's utter bollocks.

Fortunately, I don't have to explain that position. My opinion is validated by the appropriate body: the high contracting parties to the Genva Conventions, whose most recent meeting was Dec 2001. Hence, the discussion on illegality of the settlements is over. Done and dusted. Israel can whine all it wants.

are frequently reviewed and overturned. Nothing is "done and dusted". No link was provided for your assertion either.

Yeah overturned to suit your case. God forbid that it would go for the other side, right?

If you have one.

He has publicly stated several times before, and very clearly too as I recall, that the settlements should be removed.

L-

Yr always so quick to get in there and defend the 'pro-Israelis', but the one time I've asked you to confirm that I wasn't lying about a poster making a particular comment on this forum, you were incredibly silent about it. Thanks a lot...

Violet...

The issue is not resolved, either way.
Mr. Priv did not say that Mr. Poppy did not say: "that the settlements should be removed." As I read it, he concedes that this is so.

tinnypriv (1000+ posts) Tue Oct-07-03 01:55 PM
Response to Reply #10

11. You mean continue building settlements and infrastructure in the OT?


Thought so.

to which i replied



GabysPoppy (1000+ posts) Tue Oct-07-03 02:25 PM
Response to Reply #11

13. Where did you come up with that interpretation?

and then he said

tinnypriv (1000+ posts) Tue Oct-07-03 03:09 PM
Response to Reply #13

16. LOL

Edited on Tue Oct-07-03 03:12 PM by tinnypriv

A geographically tailored barb. I love it.

As for the "interpretation", I'll wager all the money in my pockets, for all the money in your pockets, that it is an accurate representation of your views.


And to continue on, I said

I don't want nor need the money in your pocket but DU does. So you can send it there. As soon as the little star appears by your name the DU world will know you are a man of your words.

So Mr. TinyPriv does not owe me a red cent. He should send the money in his pocket to DU. The final proof to his integrity will be the sight of a gold star next to his name. When I see that star I will attest to his integrity. Until a star appears, no comment is needed.

Not that they are not readily available already.
Repeating selected bits doesn't really add anything.

For whatever reason, this seems to be more important to you than it does to me. So knock yourself out.

I'm not taking that seriously.

If GP starts naming some settlements to be gotten rid of, I'll alter my viewpoint in light of that development.

"the settlements should go" without further detail as used by pro-Israel folks is about on the same level of seriousness as "we reject all forms of violence" by some Pal Authority information minister.

I'll explain further:

"the settlements should go" as a literal statement is further left than even what the PA has agreed to. In principle they have agreed to have some Israeli settlements remain in the West Bank, namely those in large "blocs", with one-for-one land swaps as compensation.

So, an accurate representation of the view of the PA is that "some settlements should go", not that "the settlements should go" (supposedly GP's "very clearly stated" view).

Are you saying that GP is to the left of the Palestinian Authority?

...i.e. power, and very little faith.

Israel has the resources to make a truly positive first move. If they're concerned about looking weak, then there is no faith in the common humanity of the other side.

As the stronger and richer party Israel should initiate new negotiations. It would make them look wise and confident, not weak, and probably gain them more respect.

and dismantling settlements should be done simultaneously, supervised by outside forces.

Israel is a sovereign nation. Why would it allow outside forces in to try and disarm its citizens? Would any other nation tolerate this? What happens if the citizens resist?

Iraq is a sovereign nation. Outside forces (the US and it's coalition) have invaded Iraq and are currently disarming (at gunpoint) it's citizens. Iraq is being forced to tolerate this. When Iraqi citizens resist, they are called terrorists and are killed.

on a third world nation, but has failed to intervene in this horrific conflict even though Bush* counts Israel and Sharon as among his closest allies. His agreement to intervene in the I/P conflict was one of the conditions that the British government agreed to support and aid him in his actions in Iraq. He has let them down, as well.

Sure doesn't sound like one.

to be able to solve their problems left on their own.

No, no other nation would tolerate this. Iraq is an example! Syria is also a sovereign nation. An outside force just went in to attack it. Is that right?
You're going to say it's for self-defense, aren't you! Israel in your opinion can never do wrong, right, Muddle?

International Peacekeepers should be placed there.

The group that wants a nation decides to act like it deserves one and attacks the terrorists.

ATTACK!!!!

Attack!!!!

You only deserve your nation if you ATTACK!!!!


Did you get that from King?

I very much doubt a great and humane man like Martin Luther King would be accepting such mentality.

And the slaughter of innocent women and children?

even in retaliation.

Was king for going to bama and killing people (klan, cops)as a pre-emtive strike or revenge or for the security of his people? Of course not.

jeesh

B

We had to fight for our freedom from England in 1776. We had to fight for our personal freedom in the Civil War. We had to fight for worldwide freedom in WWII.

All were necessary. All were legitimate.

(What do you admire about the man because his pacifism can't be high on your list.)


The rest of your post is all a matter of opinion is it not.

ie: Canada handled its separation from England in another form. War was not 'necessary'.

Again, the "We"'s ? Who dat.

Bill

He supported armed struggle against South Africa and defended Mandela at a time when he was doing twenty years for "terrorism" (and he was indeed a "terrorist" of the sort that took it upon himself to confer to himself through force if need be the rights God had granted him). As a matter of fact Mandela just got a ten-year waiver off the bad boy state department list of global terrorists a few months ago.

I doubt he would find much use for bombing random Israeli's but I have zero doubt that if he could see the West Bank and Gaza today his sympathies wouldn't lie with a bunch of spoiled, rich, immigrants vs. indigent people.

try poor people who turned an empty dessert into a garden of Eden, a people who drained the marshes, who built cities. Then were inundated by Arabs looking for work.

LOL.

I guess the Palestinians really don't exist.

read Mark Twain, read the turkish census.

I just dont read racist propaganda pieces.

That statement you made keeps on making me want to both laugh and cry.

great point of view.

The pesky 'arabs' theory.

Vermin indeed

The place wasn't the arid, lunar landscape you seem to believe it was, and it was good old American Dollars that built those settlements. They weren't short on cash, they had their patrons in the US.

The Yemeni Jewish immigrants were dirt poor and many of them wound up living in caves or working for your imagined poor Jews but it wasn't because there was anything wrong with them or the Palestinians who shared their fate, they just didn't have a ton of money flowing in from family in the U.S.

"Why is this? You know that Zionism is nothing less than the dream and ideal of the Jewish people returning to live in their own land. The Jewish people, the Scriptures tell us, once enjoyed a flourishing Commonwealth in the Holy Land. From this they were expelled by the Roman tyrant, the same Romans who cruelly murdered Our Lord. Driven from their homeland, their nation in ashes, forced to wander the globe, the Jewish people time and again suffered the lash of whichever tyrant happened to rule over them.

"The Negro people, my friend, know what it is to suffer the torment of tyranny under rulers not of our choosing. Our brothers in Africa have begged, pleaded, requested--DEMANDED the recognition and realization of our inborn right to live in peace under our own sovereignty in our own country.

"How easy it should be, for anyone who holds dear this inalienable right of all mankind, to understand and support the right of the Jewish People to live in their ancient Land of Israel. All men of good will exult in the fulfillment of God's promise, that his People should return in joy to rebuild their plundered land. This is Zionism, nothing more, nothing less."

http://www.messiahnj.org/mlking.htm

Is that what you want? Is that what they want?

They allow the terrorists to make camp in their communities and, in so doing, invite retaliation from Israel.

To achieve a state, the Palestinian people must speak with one voice.

You must define your terms

"they" - everyone in one group, stereotyping?

"allow" - and the choice is?, "they" gave permission?

"invite" - come now

To achive a state do they "attack" or "speak with one voice"? which is it? Backing away are we?

The American public "allowed" Bush to steal the election. So I take it that was an "invitation" to violence in the US from others? Or is it that Americans needed to "attack" the present administration.

The point is you support violence as an option.

Hypocrisy?

yes

again, look in the corner

They is the Palestinians. They are one people, to achieve statehood, they need to have only one military taking action for them. They need to have the power of war AND peace, not just terror.

A couple points:

The Palestinian people allow terrorists to not just hang out in their communities, but to thrive. There is no attempt by the Palestinian authorities to stop their actions. In a similar situation, no nation on planet earth would allow their next door neighbor to harbor murdering monsters like Hamas. But most, including the U.S., would have punished the nation or entity harboring such animals vastly worse than Israel has done to the Palestinians.

Yes. to become a state they do need to shut down the terrorists. The U.S. couldn't allow another military group to suddenly be exercising foreign policy and attacking people. Neither can the Palestinians. And yes, even if that means civil war. In fact, I view such a possibility as inevitible if the Palestinians are ever to get a state. And they need to fight so they CAN speak with one voice.

I don't know what the hell you are talking about with * in this situation. Care to elaborate?

This is a war, so violence IS an option.

again, this is all a matter of opinion.

"We" are "all" one people.

I think King is down with me on that. Opinions may vary



Re: the rest

"I don't know what the hell you are talking about with * in this situation. Care to elaborate?" sure, its using an analogy to shed light for you on the chosen logic of violence and a double standard in judging the supposed action/inaction of entire populations.

ie:

"The Palestinian people allow terrorists to not just hang out in their communities, but to thrive."

The American people ('they') allow the president/republicans/neocons ('terrorists') not just steal the whitehouse ('hang out') but to thrive (create wars).

If you can't get this I can't help you. Based on your logic the bombing of the WTC and Pent was a justified violent response based on the inaction of the Amercan people to the theft of the WH (and the carnage that WH was poised to create/have already created (Bush 1/raygun)). According to the logic you present it was. I disagree.

The logic of violence will bite you in the ass.

King understood this. Hopefully, one day you will as well.

Violence begets violence

Bill

The Israelis should also speak with one voice, but not that of Sharon and his right wing extremist policy...

And it is the voice of self defense. Lacking a partner in peace, Israel turned to Sharon to fight a war.

I bet you know that the only way to peace is negotiations, but Sharon is stalling.

Negotiations need to start up once again, with everyone in good faith. That's the only way this can work. So far it's just been a contest to see who can retaliate more swiftly and with greater carnage.

Terrorists who blow up babies and swear to destroy Israel or the "leadership" that allows it?

They can leave the West Bank and Gaza, guard their own borders and quit whining as they act like a bunch of villians.

Do everything you say and get nothing for it. Not very compelling.

The maximalist Palestinian position is that all the Israeli's should apologize for killing and stealing their ancestors homes and business and move out.

If Israel gets away with peace out of a return of the '67 Palestine that they took by force in return for the '48 Palestine they took by force they should be grateful, not surly.

You had me laugh out loud.

The Arabs are the ones who foiled the partition. That was their first great mistake. It was also the UN's. Instead of having two groups living side-by-side, we have perpetual war.

War that the Arabs keep losing. Israel won't even give up all of the '67 territory, nor should it. Jerusalem was and is the capital of Israel. The rest of the border will be negotiated with the first peaceful leadership the Palestinians vote in.

Why would they support such a thing? Have you ever wondered about these things, or is it just a given that these creatures were beneath rationalism.

One way or another almost everything they took in '48 was another human beings property, I would think someone whose moniker suggests an allegiance to centrist American politics would find such flagrant violation of the right to private property the penultimate evil of government, but it seems to be just fine as long as it's not you.

But the UN divided up the area in question into zones of control and no one was dispossessed. That is, until the massive Arab armies showed up to protest. After that, when they got their asses kicked, the situation changed.

The Palestinians are mad at the wrong folks. They should blame the Arabs or even the UN (for not enforcing partition.) Or maybe they should blame their leadership for failing to resolve this problem after 55 years.

Even if you take at face value that the Zionist government of this new partition was interested in bi-nationalism (it wasn't), and even if you ignore the fact that ethnic cleansing began far before there was ever a member of a foreign Arab power to be seen, it still doesn't follow logically that this intervention conferred some new status to the act of taking these people's homes, business, and farms and moving Jews into them.

Recognizes the rights of nations to keep some territory they acquire for security. That is what Israel has done.

Why should people who fled during that time be allowed back in 55 years later when you don't want to acknowledge Israel's much older prior claim on the land? Why should Israel embrace allowing entrace to hundreds of thousands (millions by their claim) of Palestinians when many in that group already seek to destabilize Israel? What nation embraces signing its own death warrant?

Yes, there was ethnic cleansing in the area, but the Arabs were unable to wipe out all of the Jews. Now there are more of them.

As for bi-nationalism, considering how the Arab world reacted -- and the Israelis knew this would happen -- do you blame them for being suspicious?

The diaries of Ben-Gurion are open to peruse. He intended to use it as a staging ground to conquer parts of Lebanon, Trans-Jordan, Syria and Egypt.


The UN no way in hell recognizes conquest for "security" reasons. It recognizes that in conflicts between states there will be temporary occupation and outlines responsibilities.

Your appeal to Jewish mythology is just crazy and doesn't merit comment.

by "get nothing for it?" Israel does something, like dismantling settlements, and the Palestinians have to, by force if necessary, do something too, like stopping suicide bombing. Admit it, Muddle, you know very well that Israel's PM is stalling because he doesn't want to dismantle settlements!

of the Palestinians! Instead Israel wants to expell or kill him.
Does Israel really want peace? What kind of peace?

The leader who won't even stop his people from random butchery? The leader who won't OFFER peace. He only offers benefits to the Palestinians, not to Israel.

Israel wants a peace that takes into account ALL of the Palestinian terror factions. If Arafat or whoever can't guarantee that, then they need to go after those terrorists and shut them down.

until the Palestinians elect another one, and as far as I know he wants to "sit down at the table," but it is Sharon who doesn't want to. Peace is to be NEGOTIATED, not offered.
I suspect Israel doesn't want to negotiate because then it would have to compromise, you know, the win-win situation, and that would involve dismantling settlements, which Sharon, "the father of the settlements" doesn't really want to do. On the contrary, he actually wants more land, not less.

The choice of the people should not be demanded from outside forces. Are you so idealistic as to say that an elected officail of the Israeli govenment should be unseated by an outside force? Many here have stated that they think of Sharon as a criminal. To date, no such legal justification exists for that.

Call me when Israel becomes one.

BTW, Sharon was found responsible for Sabra and Shatilla by an Israeli court.

You continue to misrepresent the truth.

... resigned as defense minister?

Tell me the truth you know so well.

The Kahan Commission (named after the President of the Israeli Supreme Court) that investigated the massacre in 1983 concluded that “Minister of Defense Sharon bears personal responsibility” and should “draw the appropriate personal conclusions arising out of the defects revealed with regard to the manner in which he discharged the duties of his office.” The commission recommended that Prime Minister Menachem Begin remove Sharon from office if he did not resign. Sharon did resign as minister of defense, though he subsequently assumed other cabinet positions. Annexes of the commission report have not yet been made public, and it is not known if they contain additional information specific to Sharon´s involvement.

From: Human Rights News

See also:

For Israelis, the most interesting part of the book, called "From Israel to Damascus," concerns the massacres at the Sabra and Shatilla Palestinian refugee camps. It has long been Israel's claim that the IDF knew nothing of the Christian militia plan to move into the camps and clear them of Palestinian terrorists.

But in the detailed memoir, based on diaries he claims he wrote during the events, Hatem reports that then-defense minister Ariel Sharon met with Hubeika, then head of the Christian militias, on Sept. 15, 1982, the day after the assassination of Lebanese President Bashir Gemayel after paying a condolence call on the Gemayel family.

Hatem calls himself an admirer of Sharon - indeed, throughout the interview, his nostalgia for Menachem Begin's government comes through.

From: (c) copyright 1999 Haaretz. All Rights Reserved

The Kahan Commission concluded that Sharon bears indirect responsibility and should be removed from office. He was barred from running for PM for many years. This does not prove that he was responsible for the massacre.

"defects revealed with regard to the manner in which he discharged the duties of his office." I don't see here the word massacre or that he was in anyway responsible for a massacre.

Neither does his having met with Hubeika prove anything. It's all conjecture.

...indirect responsibility... This does not prove that he was responsible...

First, your statement is a contradiction.

Second, from the Kahan Commission itself:

Minister of Defense Sharon bears personal responsibility” and should “draw the appropriate personal conclusions arising out of the defects revealed with regard to the manner in which he discharged the duties of his office.” The commission recommended that Prime Minister Menachem Begin remove Sharon from office if he did not resign. Sharon did resign as minister of defense...

Sharon bears personal responsibility”

What do you need? Spin spin suga...spin spin suga....oh...I love the Sneaker Pimps..

Give up while your behind.

Belgium asserts right to try Sharon

Ariel Sharon, the Israeli prime minister, can be tried for genocide in Belgium once he has left office, the Belgian appeal court ruled last night.
The judgment opens the way for survivors of a 1982 massacre of Palestinian refugees in Beirut to press their case against the Likud leader when his retirement loses him his immunity from prosecution.

"International custom prevents heads of government being pursued by a foreign state," the court said

http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/Story/0,2763,894523,00.html

To Equinox:

In 1983, Sharon resigned as Defense Minister after a government commission found him indirectly responsible for the September 1982 massacre of Palestinians at the Sabra and Shatila refugee camps by Lebanese Christians.

http://www.us-israel.org/jsource/biography/sharon.html


Read the entire Kahan Commission report on this site. Selecting a single sentence out of context is not acceptable.

To Rhiannon: The Belgium law was changed and there is no trial of any of the cases brought against foreign leaders.

In April this year, the law was changed, and then in July it was modified further.

It now only applies if the victim or suspect is a Belgian citizen or long-term resident at the time of the alleged crime.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/low/europe/3135934.stm

Troting out this bogus court every time you see Sharon mentioned is no longer pertinent.

I had no idea the law had changed. In April, Gen. Tommy Franks was indicted for war crimes in Iraq, as well as those also mentioned. I think this change is unfortunate when it comes to U.S. culpability. As for Sharon, his policy of ``targeted killings'' is certainly not keeping his people safe. It has the opposite effect and more suicide bombings certainly follow. This is also most unfortunate, since the majority of those killed, on both sides, are innocent bystanders, sometimes children, just caught in the wrong place at the wrong time.;(

Your sympathy for the innocent deaths is appreciated.

and I think you know this. I certainly don't condone suicide bombers who target a crowded bus or restaurant any more than I condone the recent attacks in Gaza which have also killed innocents. The difference is that one is sanctioned by the government and one is not.

you're not getting off by trotting out that line....

Especially from US-Israel.org

You stated that he was not complicit. I showed you that he was. Now you want to argue? Even your own bogus report at the very least says indirectly responsible.

He's fucking responsible either way you cut it.

I guess next you want to argue about the article The and define it's omission or lack of presence in a sentence.

Give up Gimel....you're not fooling me or anyone else.

Edit: fixed something

You are quoting from the Israeli Kahan commission. This comes directly from Israel (in case you have any doubt). Read it in full, as I suggested:

The Commission determined that the massacre at Sabra and Shatilla was carried out by a Phalangist unit, acting on its own but its entry was known to Israel. No Israeli was directly responsible for the events which occurred in the camps. But the Commission asserted that Israel had indirect responsibility for the massacre since the I.D.F. held the area, Mr. Begin was found responsible for not exercising greater involvement and awareness in the matter of introducing the Phalangists into the camps. Mr. Sharon was found responsible for ignoring the danger of bloodshed and revenge when he approved the entry of the Phalangists into the camps as well as not taking appropriate measures to prevent bloodshed. Mr. Shamir erred by not taking action after being alerted by communications Minister Zippori. Chief of Staff Eitan did not give the appropriate orders to prevent the massacre. The Commission recommended that the Defense Minister resign, that the Director of Military Intelligence not continue in his post and other senior officers be removed. Full text follows:
http://www.us-israel.org/jsource/History/kahan.html

Mr. Sharon was found responsible for ignoring the danger of bloodshed and revenge when he approved the entry of the Phalangists into the camps as well as not taking appropriate measures to prevent bloodshed.

I don't know why you wish to continue....

:shrug:

Edit: From the quote you cited.

...as is often the case, hindsight is 20-20 vision. Thanks for your notice that "danger of bloodshed and revenge" was what he is held responsible for, not the massacre. He did not commit the massacre, as you have implied in your previous posts.

You said he was not found complicit....I showed you otherwise.

Do you enjoy masochism?

is not complicity. Complicity implies active cooperation, like Arafat and Hamas.

LOL...Sharon was responsible. He was complicit. No amount of spinning on your part will change that.

Arafat and Hamas are rivals. Active cooperation with Hamas on Arafat's part would likely mean death.

Nice try....

Carry on....

:eyes:

Edit: fixed something

now I know why Arafat is always flashing the "V" sign after every attack on Israeli citizens. :eyes:

Why don't you read something into that? :eyes:

We'll let the people who read this thread decide. They have two choices. Believe your spin...or believe the facts.

I have faith which one they will choose.

:hi:

from Catholic and Protestant homes are brought together for a summer in American homes to get to know each other as human beings, who are not very different, instead of enemies. As I understand it, there was, at one time, a similar program in this region. That's the only way to achieve a lasting peace, to keep the hatred from infecting yet another generation.

it's scheduled to be bulldozed.

:eyes:

and the horrific "collateral damage" and the resulting reprisals have pretty much put an end to the road map. Everytime it seems like things can't get much worse there, the invariably do.;(

Thanks to people like Sharon...

He's going ahead with more of the same. I also saw footage of the teeming squalor of Gaza and wondered how many of the "collateral damage" were children.;(

I just heard today that the majority of the victims of Israel's latest attacks were CIVILIANS! So much for fighting terrorism..

Most were civilians, which shows how much his government values these lives. It seems less like fighting terrorism, as seeking revenge.

Is for the Palestinians to turn their back on terror. No terrorists, no need to shut them down.

Why is that always so difficult?

Why do you ALWAYS have to justify Israel's crimes against civilians with your excuses?

It only adds fuel to the fire.

Ii's not easy dealing with being surrounded by terror groups that want Israel pushed into the sea. If Cohen thinks he can reign in the terrorists then by all means he should run for office or offer a real solution instead of the overused "blame Israel first".

Criticizing is ever somuch more fun than actually doing.