Senior security official confirms lull agreement with Hamas

We'll see.

:thumbsup:

It would be nice to have evidence that this is actually possible.

either there will be kassams and katushas or there wont be.....

its pretty straight forward

by assassinations attempts on Palestinian leaders and "incursions' by the Israelis. Then will come the katushas. And then the lies and spin about who acted first. That's been the pattern thus far.

for the Palestinians to do no violent resistance.

Try it for a week. No rockets. No bombings. No smuggling of weapons. No kidnappings.

If Israel does an incursion, an assassination attempt or drops some bombs, I will be the first in line condemning these actions.

Israel RESPONDS. People seem to think rockets on cities deserves no response, but I assure you, a rocket on an American city would result in the perpetrator being POUNDED. Israel shows amazing restraint.

result in a whole bunch of people who WEREN'T the perpetrator "being POUNDED?"

Wait... don't answer that.

Israel shows "amazing restraint", only if your idea of "amazing restraint" is 100 uninvolved civilians killed in "response," as you say, to each Israeli killed. That may not be restraint. But it is amazing, I'll agree with that part.

"The Palestinians" are not a national entity. If you are willing to give any Palestinian willing to violate a cease fire the veto over the entire peace process then you really must not want that process to happen.

I also don't think it's reasonable to include "weapons smuggling" as an act of resistance tantamount to a ceasefire violation. If you are then I think you also need to include any import or production of weaponry by Israel as well. Unless of course you are OK with a double standard? You're not OK with double standards are you?

""The Palestinians" are not a national entity."

BINGO! Therefore when Israel has a 'cease-fire' with the PA or even Hamas, but the IJ or some other group decides to act up, if Israel responds, then it is suddenly Israel who is charged with violating a cease-fire and not the Palestinians, because IJ and the others weren't party to the agreement. It is a nifty trick used to bash Israel and attack her from physical and political fronts, and the whole world just let's it pass by without a thought to the reality of the situation.

"Israel shows "amazing restraint", only if your idea of "amazing restraint" is 100 uninvolved civilians killed in "response," as you say, to each Israeli killed. That may not be restraint. But it is amazing, I'll agree with that part."

It would be amazing if it were true, but since it is not, well, it isn't even amazing in the way you think it is.

You expect all Palestinians to act in unison without deviation before you believe the Israeli state should act in return. Yet you are willing to deny the Palestinians the statehood necessary to to ever act in such unison. We all understand the reality that some elements of any resistance movement will resist peaceful settlement. If you are willing to give those elements - which no one at this time has the ability to eliminate - a veto, then you are guaranteed to have no peace process. One can only then assume that is what you want.

I expect the Palestinian leadership to act in unison if they are going to attempt a cease fire, and if another element within their ranks breaks it, I expect them to help Israel in responding. Why are you making shit up? Is the truth not good enough? I never said I was willing to deny Palestinians the right to statehood, as a matter of fact, if they were a unified entity, the leadership, then more people would see the violators, on more than one occasion, weren't the Israelis.

the actions of the U.S. and Israel in working covertly and overtly to deliberately sabotage the Hamas/Fatah power sharing arrangements? After all, that was a big step toward acting in unison, as you seem to require. Or do you want it both ways: Can't do business with parties x, y and z under any circumstances, but the Palestinians must "act in unity?"

First, your assumptions aren't based on anything of substance. Second, the tiresome use of propaganda by you is not conducive to making correct conclusions. Finally, you can have a cease-fire without being supportive of a terrorist organization having a seat at the table.

nor can they control what the other unruly children are doing either at the table, or fooling around, annoying people, under or by the table.

which you won't grant a seat at the table. You can only have a ceasefire with those with whom you are willing to speak. If you enter into a ceasefire with one faction but not another, it's somewhat absurd to then call off the ceasefire when the faction which is not a party to it continues to engage in hostilities. It's a logical necessity that one must make peace with the people one is actually fighting against. If the fight is with Hamas, or IJ, or whomever - then the ceasefire - and by extension the talks about ceasefire - must logically be with them as well. :eyes:

"You can't have cease fire with an organization to which you won't grant a seat at the table."

Seems to be happening now and has happened in the past. But where logic seems to escape you is that when one of those groups not in the cease-fire attack Israel and Israel responds, it is used as an excuse to say Israel broke the cease-fire. So, if group X is not a part of the cease-fire, and attacks group Z, then why can group Y decide any response to group X from group Z is a violation of the cease-fire between Y & Z?

is that Israel is going to have to do a deal with Hamas, not Abbas. If they won't talk to Hamas they don't want peace. Simple as that.

Good thing there are no killings, but it's time to confront the problem of settlement expansion. The U.S. has got to call on Israel to stop it immediately.

What is your view on the validity of settlements existing in certain areas, such as East Jerusalem and Hebron, that have historically been home to Jewish communities for thousands of years?

I ask because I'm interested in the larger question of implied ownership of de facto unclaimed land. For example, I often hear comments like the one you made above, "Yet the theft of land from the native Palestinians continues." All of historic Palestine is usually assumed to be "Palestinian land" in such cases, because the area was overwhelmingly of an Arab majority at the end of WWI. I'm curious as to how people determine what areas should automatically be considered "owned" by any particular national or ethnic group, and what the ramifications are for us now.

East Jerusalem is considered "Palestinian" by many, who also consider settlement building there illegal and immoral. But Jerusalem as a whole was overwhelmingly Jewish and the Jewish Quarter itself lies on the East side. The Jews were evicted after losing the area in 1948. Therefore many of the current Arab residents could have been considered "settlers" themselves at one point. Does it make sense to consider Jews moving into the Jewish Quarter of Jerusalem to be "illegal settlers?" Since the city has generally had a strong Jewish majority since the 19th century then should Palestinians even be able to claim sections of the city as "rightfully theirs?" If the answer is "yes" then should Jews similarly be able to claim historically Jewish sections of Hebron as their own?

Once we begin doing this with cities then why shouldn't it apply to the entire area? If Jews purchased a large swath of land in the early 1900's from an Arab owner and began a settlement there then should it still be considered "Palestinian land?" Does it matter if this land happens to be in the west bank now and the original settlers were expelled after the war in '48? If Jewish settlers returned in 1974 to that swath of land and began a new settlement there then would you consider them to be illegally stealing Palestinian land? What if the land was never owned by Jews or Palestinians but is unowned land. Should Palestinians have different rights to move in and settle the land than Jews might... should the legality of moving there determined by ethnicity?

The fact is, thousands upon thousands of Palestinians were forcibly removed, and continue to be forced out due to expansion onto land in dispute. And that obviously isn't right. I read one DU post a couple weeks ago from someone who's family lost everything because Israel forced them all out, and now in the very spot where his family once called their home, some million dollar homes owned by Israelis live. How can that possibly be considered ok by anyone with half a sense of human decency? (Does it justify suicide bombings and attacks on religious seminaries? I do not believe that it does, but that's another point for another day which still I thought should be mentioned in passing.)

So would it be ok for Palestinians, if they had the means, to come and say ok that's it all Israelis out now, and forcibly remove Israelis into refugee camps? Using the justification of historic or religious ties to the land?

Look any time you want to ask a question if it's ok for one side to be doing something or not, just ask that question of the other side too. Because if it's not ok for one side then it's not ok for the other, unless you admit to hypocrisy. (I realize some people are ok with that - not saying you are, but generally speaking, some are.)

There can be no validity to illegal settlement growth until a final resolution is established between both sides, be it a one-state solution or a two-state solution. Borders must be defined, and finally at that point, Israel will be morally and legally free to build within their own borders, just as Palestinians at that point would be free to build within their borders.

One can reasonably conclude that Israel at this point does not want a resolution because they know that along with the establishment of a clear border, the dream of claiming all of the "Judea" and "Samaria" will be dashed. The slow but steady takeover would come to an end, and that just cannot be allowed to happen. And that is, unfortunately, largely what this is all about.

"One can reasonably conclude that Israel at this point does not want a resolution because they know that along with the establishment of a clear border, the dream of claiming all of the "Judea" and "Samaria" will be dashed."

The majority of Israelis accepted that this kind of thing won't happen years ago. Did you miss the Disengagement from Gaza???

The only ones who still want this are the Feiglin group in the Likud (the rest of the Likud is trying to boot them out), and one or two small right wing parties, who would lose most of their political clout *IF THE TERRORISM STOPPED*.

then why does it continue

parlimentary system of government. The right wing religious zionist settler movement is essentially a swing vote that's been necessary to give concessions to in order to form a coalition government.

While settlements are expanding it is just as important, if not more so, to recognize that Israel has simultaneously redeployed troops and given up control over large areas of the west bank and all of gaza. If what you assert was true then why would Israel have helped develop the PA and given it jurisdiction over parts of the OPT? Why would Israel have left areas in the west bank or gaza at all?

Israel is interested in specific parts of the west bank where large settlement blocks already exist. These blocks make up a very small percentage of the west bank and would not affect the viability of a Palestinian state, especially since Israel has already conceded to swapping other land as a concession for keeping the developed settlement areas.

simple..israelis dont want more missiles on their cities.....the PA/Hamas, etc so far have shown that if they dont get 100% of what they want (and were not sure what that really is....) then they will continue to attack israel.

removing additional settlements as in gaza only serves to give them a better platform....or do you really believe that if israel would pullout of the westbank with whatever the agreement is, suddenly all the various groups would stop shooting?.....

:eyes:

"do you really believe that if israel would pullout of the westbank with whatever the agreement is, suddenly all the various groups would stop shooting?....."

Grabbing more and more land needs to end, no excuses.

for proof look at gaza

:eyes:

If a settlement expands on to land that isn't owned by anyone, is currently not a part of any state (de-facto unclaimed territory) and the expansion conforms to the active treaties agreed to by both sides then why would you classify it as "theft?"

You seem to have trouble understanding the difference between actively supporting something and opposing the hyperbole and propaganda that surrounds it. It is possible to be against a policy while also opposing inaccurate statements made about it. You seem less interested in the truth about this conflict than you are concerned with blindly supporting your previously arrived at conclusions.

You accused Israel of stealing land, and when I challenged you, your defense was not to argue your case but to accuse me of holding a viewpoint that would allow you to call me names. Basically, the truth can take a back seat to your beliefs, as long as someone agrees with you they can get away with making all sorts of accusations, as long as they criticize Israel. Yet if I ask you to back up your accusations it is enough to disregard me because of my supposed viewpoints. Truth becomes subjective and dependent on who is demanding it.

Even if I did support the settlements, it wouldn't make your statement any truer than if I was a Hamas supporter. I feel sad for you that you feel the need to resort to bringing up who I am or what I believe in an attempt at proving your statement as something other than propaganda.

at the end of any war? Not usually, not WW2, Korea, more recently the breakup of Yugoslavia, name a war, there are always those who will still want to fight, the difference is that they are dealt with and it takes time to do that rather than using the actions of a few as an excuse to restart the whole bloody mess

the cease fires of 67 and 73....but more to the point....how much time?.shall we be realistic?

if there actually is an agreement the IDF will have a better chance of sticking to it than any PA/Hamas/iJ group...so how many missiles should israel accept on its cities before having its "revenge".... Gaza being the prime example

and if were going to be realistic....if the central govt isnt strong enough..how are they going to enforce a cease fire amongst the various groups who are funded by outside sources...Gaza once again shows us one scenario

___

as far as i can tell from all your posts...your preference is that israel not shoot back...would this also be the case after a westbank negotiated agreement (and the continued attacks by various jihadnikim?)

Hizballas attack from lebanon being a good example....i dont recall your stance, but i'm guessing..israel shouldnt have responded with force...(am i right?)

And I stated that the reaction to the Israel's 2006 Lebanon campaign might not have been so negative if Israel had not over reacted and limited i's operation to the border area. You said Israel had done that for 5 of 6 years of on going Hezbollah attacks and has shown tolerance in not doing more, I said that for 5 of those 6 years Syria had been present in Lebanon which "might" have been a factor in Israel's tolerance. You disagreed

govts in the area all agreed to the UNs border...israel pulled back. A militia, a non govt group disagreed and kept attacking for 6 years.

and there was quite a bit of defense for hizballa..
____

so here we have the central govts all agree, a foreign fed militia happens to disagree with the agreements and keeps on attacking israel.....that scenario is quite easy to replicate on the westbank

in fact to a certain degree in gaza we see it with islamic Jihad shooting rockets and not hamas

_____

why wouldnt those scenarios be repeated if there is an agreement between israel and the PA?

and is resurveying the Shebaa Farms area, which is/was the claimed basis of Hezbollahs attacks

For decades members of the international diplomatic community have repeatedly requested that Syria and Lebanon take steps to determine the exact boundary between them in the Shebaa Farms region and elsewhere, including officially registering the demarcated border with the United Nations. However, recently President Bashar al-Assad of Syria has refused to do so until Israeli troops withdraw.<5>. On October 31, 2007, the definition of the physcial extent of the Shebaa Farms area by former UN cartographer Miklos Pinter was released by the UN <6>. This could be a prelude to an eventual negotiated determination of the political destination of that territory.<7>

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

http://www.spot-on.com/allbritton/UN-Report-on-Implementation-of-1701-Oct-31.pdf*
pages 11 and 12

but all of that is not the point is it....a non govt goup kept attacking israel because they didnt agree to the actions of the govts involved (did lebanon attack israel? syria?-it seems they infact perferred to settle any problem without violence)...Hizballas attackes were infact defended by many...

so when that is repeated in the westbank....islamic jihad, hamas (assuming they havent take over the westbank) start attacking israel after an agreement has be reached.....your reaction will be?

On the WB area why not let the PA take care of it? The same would go for Gaza in the event of a cease fire, see if Hamas can do it. As things stand it appears Israel only wishes to respond in one way, stomp back harder. Yes, boots came off the ground in Gaza but a blockade surrounding it was thrown up instead. Goods leaving Gaza were stalled for "security" purposes. Now if self policing these things doesn't work then Israel can defend it self but Israel must actually allow the the Palestinian government(s) to police themselves, also International observers would not hurt the situation either.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=124x204298

edited to add missed the first question when I read yr post the first time

100% of the people involved didnt agree 100% with the actions....therefor its perfectly alright to start attacking israel?

sounds like the response of spoiled child..if i dont get everything i want then i get to ruin it for everyone.....Hamas and the PA had the ability to police the borders in gaza, they simple chose not to....

i doubt you really mean israel can defend itself....that means missiles, incursions, etc where lots of civilians get killed......

the settlers leaving "scorched earth" behind where settlements had been was less than perfect, rendering Gaza a prison or nothing in or out with out "our" say so is to a great degree rendering the "turning over" of Gaza a joke. Yes there were Kassam's fired that same night, let me ask was there any damage or casualties? Was it possible that the Kassam's were at that time a "and the horse you rode in on" gesture just as the settlers destroying everything they built was?
If you ask me both parties in this case were acting as spoiled children who did not get their way.

As far as Israels defense believe what you want if you take some comfort in believing that I or others here think Israel should just lie back and take it so be it, I stated my case.

this seems to happen every time you write about something thats more than a month old.....

once again i find i have to correct you...so incase you didnt know: the PA and israel agreed to flatten the settlements....except for the greenhouses. And the infrastructure was left intact.

so perhaps you might explain to me where you got your "scorched earth from"....i'm sure it will be enlightening to say the least: Http://www..........

_______________

the kassams: 30 the first night and almost every day since then for 2 years.....was there any damage from those kassams.....minimal, just terrorizing the residents of the area with random bombings....but that doesnt really count, i know, they are after all just "lame" missiles.

and israeli defense?....for the kassams?....perhaps enlighten me, what would be acceptable to you... i dont believe you've ever actually spelled it out:

there was an agreement between the PA and Israel to knock the settlements and what I read then and now seems to indicate that it was an Israeli decision or did Sharon sit down the PA and ask is it OK?

On April 8, 2005, Defense Minister Shaul Mofaz said that Israel should consider not demolishing the evacuated buildings in the Gaza Strip, with the exception of synagogues (due to fears of their potential desecration, which eventually did occur), since it would be more costly and time consuming. This contrasted with the original plan by the Prime Minister to demolish all vacated buildings.

On May 9, the beginning of the evacuation of settlements was officially pushed back from July 20 to August 15, so as to not coincide with the Jewish holidays of the Three Weeks and Tisha B'Av, traditionally marking grief and destruction.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel's_unilateral_disengagement_plan

now as for "scorched earth" that was put in quotes for a reson it meant that virtually nothing usable was left behind.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel's_unilateral_disengagement_plan

Link will not work
appears normal when I paste it but has an added forward slash in Israel when I go to the page, has happened 3 times now, rendering the link useless
sorry

Was it possible that the Kassam's were at that time a "and the horse you rode in on" gesture just as the settlers destroying everything they built was?

Where do you learn this stuff? Really. Where?

The destruction of the settlers homes was the result of a carefully thought out agreement between Israel and the PA. The homes didn't meet the needs of the new residents who had bigger families and Israel did not want the media images of Palestinian militants standing on top of "conquered" homes to complicate a delicate situation. The agreement was for Israel to demolish the homes and then to PAY the Palestinians to remove the rubble, giving them both employment and a vested interest in their new community, (as they would be the ones to build it out of the rubble.)

They left the greenhouses as the Palestinians could use those. And they didn't destroy the synagogue as demolishing a holy place would not go over well with many soldiers or constituents. The agreement was that they would be allowed to remain standing. Once the IDF left though, both the greenhouses and the synagogue were destroyed, though for different reasons.

If you ask me both parties in this case were acting as spoiled children who did not get their way.

Could it be that you believe this because you haven't bothered to really learn much about the history or factual details of the current events? The turnover of Gaza was hardly "a joke" as you put it. Your statements here are a great example of how everything Israel does, (even if it is something that everyone at the time agrees is an entirely positive development), and no matter how careful they are in doing it, within a short time any helpful actions they've accomplished will be derided as having stoked the violent conflict while the actual events are distorted, deleted or replaced with a version that plays to Israel-haters' worst prejudiced assumptions and preys on their unfortunate lack of knowledge to further an anti-Israel agenda. (As opposed to an "agenda" concerned with historical accuracy.)

now the green houses that you claim the settlers left out of kindness?

more to point the greenhouses were left because they were purchased from the settlers by Bill and Melinda Gates for the purpose of promoting the Palestinian economy, as for the green houses themselves they did not much help the Palestinians, who did not immediately destroy all of them as I have seen claimed here, but when the first harvests were brought in they could not be exported out of Gaza

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=124&topic_id=126254

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2006/07/the_fate_of_the_jewish_state.html

As for agenda, lol I do not have one-, do you?

Was this article supposed to support your assertion that " . . as for the green houses themselves they did not much help the Palestinians, who did not immediately destroy all of them as I have seen claimed here, but when the first harvests were brought in they could not be exported out of Gaza".

which supports just that

In the stifling heat of a former Israeli greenhouse where he had worked for the past six months, Hattem Samar uprooted a robust pepper plant in preparation for shutting down this once-promising enterprise -- possibly for good.

"Everyone here feels awful," said Samar, 27, shaking sand from the peppers' roots. "If it ends like this, it will be really terrible."

Their success in growing the produce was unmitigated. Despite widespread looting after the Israeli Army's withdrawal in September, occasional attacks from Palestinian militant groups seeking to claim territory, and the challenge of managing their own crops for the first time, the Palestinians produced more than 12,000 tons this season of what one Israeli exporter who tested the fruit and vegetables called "very high-quality" produce.

But during the height of the harvest, from January until now, Israel frequently closed the main cargo crossing between Israel and the Gaza Strip because of what it said were continuous security threats from Palestinian terrorists. In April, for example, two cars of gunmen attacked the Karni-crossing terminal before they were thwarted by Palestinian security forces.

The result of Karni's closure, Jabir said, is that only 1,500 tons of produce made it out of Gaza during this season.

generally produces a picture of everything being burned to the ground, destroyed......yet the roads, sewers, water lines were left in place...the greenhouses (any evidence of this "looting"....i didnt think so....) were left useable as evidence of the images during the withdrawal and the aftermath when the Gazans were shown on TV to be destroying them, and the subsequent guarding by the PA....and the guards themselves taking the pieces home with them.....

your using of terminology to produce an image that wasnt even true....a few seconds in google might help, but i've already gotten the impression that its not facts that you want....just confirmation of how bad israel is even if its not true.

or if you had been reading the papers at the time, you would have discovered the "back and forth" discussions and political statements to destroy or not to destroy the settlements by both the PA and israel....and their eventual agreement that both preferred......its only a few years old.

its called negotiation and agreement

Once again I put "scorched earth" in quotes for a reason, the same reason that is used with other phrases that is to denote that in this usage it's meaning is altered from the usual, if I had been meaning thew scenes you describe the term(s) used would have been devastation, cataclysmic, holocaust(lower case), in any event sorry if that was taken to mean more.

Now about the agreement the article I linked to stated that the final agreement between the Israelis and Palestinians has never been made public, if that is untrue then I would like to see it, if not then ???

http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P1-111983957.html

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/09/12/wmid12.xml


The Palestinian Authority, aware of the needs of the 1.4 million people crowded inside Gaza City and refugee camps, agreed to the demolition.
The authority needs to provide high-density housing, not the single-storey homes common to Jewish settlements.
The demolition had threatened to delay the withdrawal after the Israeli planners said it would take up to 80,000 lorry-loads to shift the rubble.
____

as far as i know nothing was actually written..just an agreement, that was carried out by israel


a note:
a more accurate description of the events would have been as follows:
In agreement with the PA israel demolished all the homes, left the infrastructure for possible use by the Palestinians as well as the synagogues (but that was probably for internal political reasons).

I put "scorched earth" in quotes for a reason


why did you even use those words if you werent trying to produce a totally false image of the actual events that showed how "mean and vindictive israel is"....

what false image were you trying to show? and more interesting why?

(is this one of those "the ends justifies the means" types of philosophies?)

how ever if you wish to read more into than I intended what else can I say, the mental image is your own not mine.

You are, aren't you? I think you read some stuff, then fill in the gaps with assumptions, and somewhere along the way you become convinced that they are accurate.

now the green houses that you claim the settlers left out of kindness? more to point the greenhouses were left because they were purchased from the settlers by Bill and Melinda Gates for the purpose of promoting the Palestinian economy

Firstly, I never said that they were left out of kindness at all. Secondly, the Gates clan did not outright purchase the greenhouses from the settlers either. That deal was spearheaded by James Wolfensohn, who organized a group of primarily Jewish philanthropists to pay for them. Bill and Melinda Gates got in on the deal and contributed a very large amount. I'm not making light of their contribution, but I think that in light of your comments it is important to note that the deal was originated and orchestrated by Jews who supported an economically viable Gaza. It was Zionists that made that deal happen. Make a note of it.

who did not immediately destroy all of them as I have seen claimed here, but when the first harvests were brought in they could not be exported out of Gaza

Nothing you linked to said anything of the sort, and in fact one said the exact opposite. That the Palestinians immediately destroyed them. The other one said nothing about the Palestinians destroying them later, after the harvests couldn't be exported. (It said they closed them up for the rest of the season. You realize that closing them is different than destroying them, right?) It did however say that the PEDC had to spend 20 million renovating them before they could be used, they just didn't say why. (It doesn't matter, we already know why. Because the Palestinians destroyed them.)

It also mentioned WHY the crops couldn't be exported.

But during the height of the harvest, from January until now, Israel frequently closed the main cargo crossing between Israel and the Gaza Strip because of what it said were continuous security threats from Palestinian terrorists. In April, for example, two cars of gunmen attacked the Karni-crossing terminal before they were thwarted by Palestinian security forces.

The result of Karni's closure, Jabir said, is that only 1,500 tons of produce made it out of Gaza during this season.

``We understand the importance of Karni, but unfortunately terrorists are trying to use the crossing to attack the Israeli people and in the end they are hurting their own people," said a spokesman for Israel's Civil Administration, which oversees Israeli activities in the Palestinian Territories. ``We are trying our best to keep Karni open, but we cannot do that at the expense of our people there."

Also mentioned in that article was the millions of dollars that the closings cost Israeli importers of the produce. So it seems unlikely that the crossings were closed in order to thwart the palestinian's economic potential since doing so also hurt Israelis (not to mention that a more plausible explanation exists as well.) I would ask why Palestinian terrorists chose to attack the crossing that their growers rely on to export goods, since attacking there has had such a negative impact on their economy. It doesn't make much sense to me.

But then, neither do any of the assertions you made here, especially since none of the articles you referenced seem to agree with you.

you say I am making things up,then quote from a post I made that would say I am not, however from your assertions about who lost money not only did the Palestinians lose money so did the Israeli's attempting to do business with Palestinians, a lesson in it self.

as well as the reality of the situation in general. Let me try and be more specific here.

So would it be ok for Palestinians, if they had the means, to come and say ok that's it all Israelis out now, and forcibly remove Israelis into refugee camps? Using the justification of historic or religious ties to the land?

Obviously not, but then it would be wrong of Israel to do so as well. While I'm sure that some instances exist of Palestinians losing their homes so that settlements could be built over them, they are a very small minority. Settlements are almost always built on undeveloped and supposedly unowned land. Now, I'm not speaking of most settlements anyway, but specifically about areas that Jews lived in until very recently before being evicted.

I'm not talking about any situations where Palestinians were evicted to make room for Israelis. In fact, I'm talking about the opposite, whereby Jews were evicted to make room for Palestinians... exactly what you are describing above. Obviously, I don't think this is OK, but since it happened my question is about whether or not Jews, who now have the means, should be allowed to move back into the areas that they were recently forced out of. Not to displace Palestinians, but to move in alongside them.

There can be no validity to illegal settlement growth until a final resolution is established between both sides, be it a one-state solution or a two-state solution. Borders must be defined, and finally at that point, Israel will be morally and legally free to build within their own borders, just as Palestinians at that point would be free to build within their borders.

You seem to be saying two different things here. On the one hand you have referred to the disputed land as belonging to the Palestinians and to settlements as being "theft." But here you seem to be saying that the land is unclaimed and thus neither side has any right to build. Which is it?

You argue that the rules have to be consistent for both sides. Bearing that in mind I am curious as to your views on East Jerusalem and Hebron. Jews were recently evicted to make room for Palestinians, who could be described as having built "settlements" there. My question is why you consider Jews moving back into areas that they were recently illegally evicted from as illegal settlers themselves? And why would you say that they are stealing Palestinian land in these instances? When the Palestinians evicted the original Jewish inhabitants and then settled the areas themselves did the land then become Palestinian?

One can reasonably conclude that Israel at this point does not want a resolution because they know that along with the establishment of a clear border, the dream of claiming all of the "Judea" and "Samaria" will be dashed.The slow but steady takeover would come to an end, and that just cannot be allowed to happen.

This makes little sense. It is not even accurate. The "slow but steady takeover" has been largely the opposite, with Israel ceding control to large areas of the OPT to the Palestinians. Do you have any evidence at all that your assertion is the goal? Surely, if this is Israel's dream, then you would be able to point to decades worth of policy statements testifying to it as a fact. How, since Israel has been losing control over far more land than it has been "taking over" in the past decade, do you even see this working?

That's the rub. The land is disputed. And the Israelis know that expanding settlements is a provocative act, no? Regardless of the details of the issue, isn't it hard to claim to be working for peace and at the same time take provocative actions?

"Regardless of the details of the issue, isn't it hard to claim to be working for peace and at the same time take provocative actions?"

Actually, no. The bombing of German cities was an action taken by the allies to secure peace - by defeating the enemy that started the war using however much violence was necessary. History is full of such examples. When an enemy declares war and states they will not stop until you are defeated, then the only choice is to defeat them by all means available. The sooner it is done the sooner there will be peace.

Israel's choice to expand some settlements may be strategically wrong or right. But it is their choice to make. They are the one being attacked.

"Defeat the enemy with however much violence necessary"

Yep. That's Hamas-talk right there, no doubt about it.

Personally, I would find it troubling if my logic and reasoning was no better than theirs. But then, that makes me a bit of an outsider on this issue I suppose.

. . thinks otherwise? What makes one side moral and the other immoral is whether they attacked or are acting in defense. Attacking the civilians of Israel is an act of aggression and a war crime and a crime against humanity. Doing whatever is necessary to stop those attacks is not any of those.

There is no act that justifies an attack of aggression against another state. Read the UN Charter.

They are, as you say, just a "state at war".

Read my edited comment.

Hamas' stated logic is that the state of Israel has no right to exist, that all of its land is Arab land by right and that they will continue fighting until the whole of Palestine, from river to sea, is "liberated" from the Zionist entity.

Please explain how this logic is at all similar to what msmgee wrote.

between Israel's practice of fighting terrorism and Hamas' actions in fighting Israel?

Actually they are attacking AND being attacked. Of course it's their choice to make. My point is that it's a poor choice - unless of course their actual intent is to continue the conflict.

How do you expect Israel to "defeat" the millions of displaced Palestinians worldwide who will never cease their struggle until they feel they have achieved some semblance of justice? Do you think they can ALL be killed? And ALL their allies? Do you not feel that Israel has any concessions they could make for peace? Has Israel done nothing at all wrong that would require recompense? Ever? Zero? Really? So no negotiation or comrimise? Just total war for generations on end? That's your only solution? Sad.

Or you are just lying. Door A or door B?

Rockets on Israel are attacks. There is nothing defensive about them. Zilch. They started long before Israel tried to stop them. Israel ceases operations periodically. The militants only stop long enough to reload.

It isn't one or the other, it's both.



You denying that this conflict has anything to do with land?

Of course it's been a dream of several Israeli leaders - leaders and plenty of citizens too - to take over all of the so-called 'Holy Land'. To deny this is to deny reality.

"The settlement of the Land of Israel is the essence of Zionism. Without settlement, we will not fulfill Zionism. It's that simple" - Yitzhak Shamir

"Eretz Israel will be restored to the people of Israel. All of it. And for Ever" - Menachem Begin

"We must expel Arabs and take their places." - David Ben Gurion

"Let us not ignore the truth among ourselves ... politically we are the aggressors and they defend themselves... The country is theirs, because they inhabit it, whereas we want to come here and settle down, and in their view we want to take away from them their country" - David Ben Gurion

"This country exists as the fulfillment of a promise made by God Himself. It would be ridiculous to ask it to account for its legitimacy" - Golda Meir

"Everybody has to move, run and grab as many (Palestinian) hilltops as they can to enlarge the (Jewish) settlements because everything we take now will stay ours...Everything we don't grab will go to them." - Ariel Sharon

This response ignores most of what I wrote and focuses only on the most tertiary claim you made, that Israel's goal is the annexation of all of Palestine. I honestly wanted your opinion on the complex question of ethnic "ownership" over areas of Palestine that are heavily disputed, like east jerusalem and hebron. But you seem determined to steer the argument into the realm of the absurd, presumably so you can make sweeping generalizations about what Israel's sinister goals are and why they are immoral. The sad thing is that you aren't even bothering to stick to reality here, preferring to veer off into hyperbole and propaganda. You not only twisted my complex statement into a simplistic and absurd exaggeration but you then tried to back up your claim using selected quotes, pulled out of any context whatsoever, and EVEN THEN they don't offer any support for your cockamamie theory.

You denying that this conflict has anything to do with land?

Good Lord, are you serious? Is that honestly all you were able to glean from my posts... is that seriously what you think I am saying? I hope not for your sake.

Of course it's been a dream of several Israeli leaders - leaders and plenty of citizens too - to take over all of the so-called 'Holy Land'. To deny this is to deny reality.

Great, then support it. All you did was pull some quotes out of context here. For example... ""We must expel Arabs and take their places." - David Ben Gurion." OK, first of all, this says nothing about any desire to settle all of Palestine or even to expel ALL of the Arabs from Palestine. To think that's what Ben Gurion was saying you must first ignore everything else he said and did throughout his life. This is the same man who INVITED all of the Arabs of Palestine to stay and help build a new state with the Zionists. He also did not even bother to expel all of the Arabs from Israel proper; he even let many Arabs back in following the Nakba to reunite families. Lastly, this quote has no context here. We have no idea at all what Ben Gurion was discussing or what exactly he meant by saying this. You are insisting that the context was that he was supporting Israel annexing all of Palestine and evicting every last Arab, right? Um... bullshit. Ben Gurion never advocated that and this lame ass quote doesn't say otherwise. You have ONE quote that supports your statement, by Begin. Who resigned in shame and hasn't held office for decades.

Some actually say the opposite of your assumption...Everything we don't grab will go to them." - Ariel Sharon Seems like Sharon is saying that much of the OPT will GO TO THE PALESTINIANS. So how exactly is he supporting the idea of greater Israel if he's telling us that most of it is going bye-bye? And of course Sharon was the politician who gave Gaza over to the Palestinians completely, EVICTING all of the Jewish settlers who lived there and even a few settlements in North West Bank! Did you consider that?

The only time these lame out-of-context quotes are convincing at all is if they are shown to someone who lacks an education about the people quoted and the events that they presided over. Heck, using this technique I could show you how Gandhi supported the third reich. (But it would only work if you had never heard of Gandhi before.) Stop insulting my intelligence by offering this stuff as your supporting evidence. Construct a real argument if you actually think your assertion is true. Posts like these just highlight the weakness of your basic argument to anyone who has a working knowledge of mid east history.

Now, my simple question to you is this. If it is Israel's current political goal to annex all of Eretz Israel then why are they giving away pieces of it, such as Gaza, and withdrawing their control over other areas of it like Jericho?

But I'd much rather discuss the actual problem that I posed to you originally, back in post #4. This whole argument is dumb, if you bothered to look anything up then there'd be nothing to discuss. Settlement expansion isn't even illegal, the Palestinians have already agreed to the expansion of existing settlements in the Oslo accords. (I would like to see your source for that bit about thousands of Palestinians being evicted to refugee camps so that million dollar houses could be built on their previous homes, though. Can you give me that at least?)

and here I was hoping this was going to be a 'positive' thread.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.