A friend of Israel - Gideon Levy

<snip>

"It's already clear: the U.S. president is a great friend of Israel. If Barack Obama continues what he started this week, he might prove to be the friendliest president to Israel ever. Richard Nixon saved Israel from the Arab states in 1973, and Obama is about to save Israel from itself. Nixon sent us arms and ammunition at a critical time, and Obama is sending us, at a time no less critical, the substance of a complete peace plan, a plan that would save Israel.

All that remains is whether Obama stays determined and decisive, as he was earlier this week. In one move he changed Washington's madness and the attitude toward the Israeli occupation. Now we will see if he succeeds in altering the same madness in Jerusalem and Tel Aviv. It's a long road, and Obama began well.

In a single move he shrank the fearmongering of Benjamin Netanyahu and his mouthpieces on Iran to its proper size. In a single move he put the centrifuges of occupation, the real existential threat to Israel, at the top of the agenda. He fended off Netanyahu's attempts to divert attention from substantial issues, and blocked all efforts to waste more precious time on Iran and impose ridiculous preconditions on the Palestinians. He also blocked all efforts to distract us with committees, promises for negotiations, formulas, declarations and empty words. These are Israel's best tricks and games; anything to evade responsibility for the main issue - the end of the occupation.

Obama understands that now is the time for an end to petty words, impotent negotiations and a hollow peace process; now is the time for big deeds and a courageous leap over the abyss.

Suddenly all of Israel's "friends" in Washington have shed their skin. They, too, sense a rare opportunity in the Middle East. They, too, are tired of what Netanyahu has tried to peddle. They, too, understand that the Yitzhar settlement in the West Bank must precede Iran's nuclear reactor in Bushehr. How pathetic and heartrending was the sight of the Israeli prime minister, sitting tense and sweaty, next to the new American president, confident, stylish, and impressive, without all the jokes and back-patting of Ehud Olmert and George W. Bush. The latter was in fact the least friendly president to Israel - one who allowed it to carry out all its violent madness.

How pathetic was the sight, yet how encouraging; perhaps Netanyahu learned something during his short and dramatic visit. The visit has already made one contribution: Obama tore off the mask of so-called peace-loving Israel. If Netanyahu really feared for the fate of the country he would have immediately agreed, in the Oval Office, to all the ideas put forth by this fantastic president. If Israel does not respond, we, the Israelis, will know, the U.S. president will know and the entire world will know that Israel does not want peace."

more

thanks!

He stands up for the original humanitarian values that state was meant to be about.

Even Israel's most liberal party, Meretz, disowns him.

He's completely unrealistic and still blames Israel as if Israel did nothing (or less than nothing) between the time of Camp David, the Lebanon withdrawal of 2000, Gaza 2005, etc..up until present day. It goes beyond unrealistic, actually, as he's just hostile towards Israel (Israel can do nothing right).

And of course, it doesn't matter to Levy that the PA rejected Camp David/Taba and declared war instead - or that Israel ended occupation and settlements in Gaza and Hamas has increased terror against Israel, or that Hezbollah attacked after the 2000 withdrawal.....etc, etc,...his extreme views remain unchanged regarding local Arab leadership who he believes (dishonestly) would become peaceful if only Israel made the right moves. Israel made the right moves and got repaid with more violence. This doesn't matter to Levy, however, and this is why he is almost completely disowned by Israel's liberals. Levy reminds Israel's left of how wrong they originally were about local Arab leadership in the territories and Lebanon, but he pretends as if Israel is still back in 1999 and has yet to make any conciliatory moves towards the Palestinians or Lebanese and that the terror resulting from those concessions didn't happen (or they happened for some good reason). This in turn only feeds the trolls, haters, and dupes who buy into his hostility and advocate based on Levy's dishonesty - ergo the enmity towards him.

I hope Levy speaks for more than that, but I'm not confident that he does.

I expect better from you Donald.

Israelis live under constant existential threat.

Their understanding of the conflict is predicated by constant terrorism, war and anti-semitism.

Israel is the only nuclear power in the region, they have total military superiority, and they have carte-blanche backing from the world's only superpower (hopefully we may be seeing some cracks in that, but I'm not optimistic).

The Palestinians live under a very real existential threat - Israel has the means to ethnically cleanse them totally if it chooses (as opposed to just continuing to do so peacemeal), and that option is gaining increasing public support.

Israel does not live under any kind of existential threat, but has to pretend it does in order to justify its treatment of the Palestinians.

I doubt it.

It is only because the Palestinians do not have the means (due to security measures) to cause more harm that Israelis aren't under even graver threats.

Before walls and checkpoints, a trip on a bus or to a pizza parlor could be the end of an Israeli life.

The Palestinians still manage to terrorize; only the latest war in Gaza has prevented as many of the 7000 rockets that fell for the previous seven years.

Unfortunately, the big stick seems to work at containing the existential threat.

Israel is also doing a very poor job at genocide and ethnic cleansing, even though it has the means to carry out both thoroughly.

Their goal is not to annihilate the Palestinian people, and they do not cheer the deaths of Palestinians.

One cannot have it both ways and support the settlements while complaining about the consequences. No people in the world would tolerate what is being done to the Palestinians without fighting back.

If one wants both the occupation and the consequences of the occupation to stop, the settlements, at least the vast majority of them will have to go.

Unless one proposes a single state solution in which both Jews and Palestinians can live and travel freely anywhere they want.

and believe that a "single state solution" is a bloodbath in the making, and therefore a ridiculous plan.

I may be misremembering (in which case I apologise), but I seem to recall a past discussion with you in which you said that you want "the settlements" to remain.

Now you say you want "the occupation" to stop.

Given that the settlements are part of the occupation, this puzzles me.

see posts 107-108 here:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=124x255450#256492

see posts 115-116 here:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=124x255450#256707

And there's no reason to believe once occupation ends in the W.Bank that rockets and suicide bombings will stop - hence the need for IDF defensive measures. Believing terror against Israel will stop once occupation ends is nothing more than an article of faith.

leadership(oh, and Shira, at some point you have got to admit that "the leadership" aren't the only Palestinians that matter) is also an article of faith. It makes as much sense as it once made to believe that bombing Vietnam into the stone age could force the Vietnamese people to accept a "leadership" that they didn't want.

it's the only thing preventing a bloodbath at this point.

And I haven't written that the occupation can force a change in the leadership. In fact, I wrote to you before that a change in Pal'n leadership wouldn't really change things up much.

Your claim that ending occupation will result in peace is, without question, an article of faith, however. One of our friends here (Donald) beleives that too.

1) There should be the replacement of Israeli troops with international peacekeepers, chosen from countries with no stake in the conflict, in order to go after actual specific troublemakers;

2) That there should be apologies to the Palestinians for the collective punishment and the immediate implementation of an economic reconstruction program(including compensation to those Palestinians whose land was effectively confiscated by the construction of the wall);

3) A Palestinian state needs to be immediately recognized.

So I never just said "take the IDF out of Palestine". I said that taking them out is crucial to there being any chance for peace. Even you would have to admit that there's no such chance and no chance for any positive change in Palestinian actions while the troops remain.

And you've cited "the leadership" over and over again as a justification for the Occupation, which naturally leads anyone reading your posts to assume that you hold the belief that the Occupation can somehow lead to this leadership being changed. It can't, and if it can't the Occupation has no justification since it can't be continued indefinitely. And it especially can't ever lead to the establishment of a Palestinian leadership that would accept the Occupation as a permanent state of affairs or accept that Palestinian tactics had to change BEFORE the Occupation can be ended.

..for the Israeli occupation be replaced by another....for how long, Ken? I thought this was all about an end to 'foreign' occupation.

the occupation is a justification for a jihadi warmongering leadership that incites terror and makes calls for genocide. without the occupation or defense barrier, Jerusalem and Tel Aviv would be flooded with suicide bombers and rockets.

and who's saying the occupation need to be permanent? I'm all for an end to the occupation.

Acting simply to maintain public order, and treating Palestinians and settlers as equals(which the IDF can never be capable of doing)
would be nothing at all like the existing Occupation. And a major economic rebuilding program would also differentiate it.

There should also be a "Truth and Reconciliation Commission" so that people who suffered on both sides could get acknowledgment of the injustices done to them and reparations.

The Occupation keeps the bad Palestinian leadership in place and prevents a better leadership from emerging. To get that better leadership, the answer would be to let ordinary Palestinians breathe and live their lives without constant harassment. They aren't ALL "terrorists".

Or are you calling for NATO forces with some teeth and who will counter Hamas terror activity?

but in reality it would never work.

There should also be a "Truth and Reconciliation Commission" so that people who suffered on both sides could get acknowledgment of the injustices done to them and reparations.

This is the one thing you said that I agree with. I actually think that any real solution to the IP conflict would have to be regional, so I would actually support an expanded version of what you're suggesting here whereby each nation would reimburse the governments of other nations, allowing the governments of each the responsibility of distributing or spending the reparations as it sees fit.

International peacekeepers acting in neutrality

OK, want to know why this idea would be DOA? I'll tell you.

1) What nation would want to do this? Why would any country willingly want to involve themselves in what is one of the most intractable problems on the entire globe? Remember when that cartoon thing happened and the Palestinians rioted, attacking the European group stationed in Hebron that existed specifically to PROTECT the Palestinians? Israelis all hate doing duty in the territories but they do it because they feel that they must. Who would volunteer to do it?

2) What peacekeepers would be effective? In the past whenever Israel has agreed to anything similar the result has been poor. Such as in Lebanon as Shira mentioned, where the peacekeepers did nothing to prevent Hezbollah from attacking Israel yet were unwittingly then human shields protecting their fighters from Israeli reprisals. Or in the Sinai pre-67 war. Egypt told them to go, and they left, offering Israel zero protection. International troops don't have anything at stake, why would they risk their lives trying to protect Israel when push comes to shove?

More importantly, Israel has spent decades developing means of protecting itself, not least of which being a complex network of information gathering. How could any group of people who are not from the area, don't speak Arabic, have no network of informants, etc., etc., possibly do the same job that the Shabak now does? They couldn't possibly. The kind of troops you're talking about could keep the peace someplace requiring a basic police force to reassure two sides who both want peace but need guarantees. They would be woefully unequipped to secure a border against terrorist forces like Hamas. The job is far more than just "Acting simply to maintain public order."

3) Occupation is occupation. There is no way to really offer any kind of security without taking the same basic actions that Israel has. Remember that most of the most oppressive measures are relatively new, only arriving as responses to an increase in Palestinian attacks.

4) Responsibility. This one is key. It takes responsibility for protecting Israel off of the IDF and Shabak and places it on someone else. So whose fault is it then when something happens? A huge suicide bombing? Or unending rockets raining down on Sderot? When the US asked Israel not to respond to Saddam's SCUD attacks in the early 90's it also provided Israel with Patriot missile batteries and tons of aid for reconstruction and related costs. You just can't ask any sovereign state to refrain from protecting itself without offering it substantial protection in return.

5) Expansion. The real risk in sending a multi-national force into the OPT would be the probability of it not really helping the situation but becoming another quagmire, making the populations of every involved nation asking themselves why they are fighting someone else's war for them. Because it IS a war. It would be spun in the Middle East as a key example of the West trying to colonize Muslim areas, especially because of the location. It would become a flashpoint, seen across Arab lands as a second crusade. Arab lands including Palestine. Remember what happened to US peacekeepers in Lebanon? What makes you think that anything different would happen in Jerusalem (of all places!)

It's a nice idea, but the reality of the situation is far more problematic than any idealized plan could possibly solve.

No people in the world would tolerate what is being done to the Palestinians without fighting back.

What specifically are you referring to? What is being done to them that you feel would provoke anyone in the world to respond to with terrorism and suicide bombings and the like? Because it seems to me that the terrorism against Israeli civilians far predates any occupation. (Occupation by Israel at least.) And I also recall that whenever Israel took steps to either freeze settlement construction, close settlements, turn land over to the Palestinians, give them greater autonomy, etc., the Palestinian's reaction has thus far been to "fight back" harder.

In the early days of Oslo it was not the average Palestinian fighting back against a cruel and brutal military occupation. Far from it. Polls showed a lot of optimism for the actions that Israel was beginning to take. Yet terrorism jumped. Why? Because of Hamas and other groups, none of whom were fighting the occupation so much as they were fighting the peace agreement.

One cannot have it both ways and support Palestinian resistance while complaining about the consequences. No people in the world would tolerate what is being done to the Israelis without fighting back. Do you honestly think that these groups would not be attacking Israel today had Israel refrained from settlement building? Should Israel close down every single settlement, do you think that any of these groups would begin to refrain from attacking Israel?

If the Jews who would later become Israelis had moved to the middle east to live as neighbours, then the conflict might well never have started.

Because they demanded the right to rule the natives, the Arabs quite rightly tried, and sadly failed, to prevent the establishment of Israel.

By now, the land inside the Green Line has been Israel for generations, giving Israel the right continue to rule it, and the Palestinians will have to be satisfied with getting back the land outside the Green Line (and most of them will be).

But Palestinian violence against Israelis and pre-Israelis has always been a response to unjust Israeli settlement.


And, in answer to your final question, yes, I am reasonably confident (not 100%) that should Israel withdraw to its own borders, organised violence against it would stop - there would still probably be rare, isolated acts; too many Palestinians have had parents or children killed by Israel for there to be any way to prevent that completely for another generation, I fear - but they would almost certainly be opposed rather than supported by the state, and few and far between.

Please excuse the length of this post, but I thought it necessary to answer your comments in a complete fashion.


If the Jews who would later become Israelis had moved to the middle east to live as neighbours, then the conflict might well never have started.
Because they demanded the right to rule the natives, the Arabs quite rightly tried, and sadly failed, to prevent the establishment of Israel.

Oh my. So the original Jewish immigrants were not there to live as neighbors but to dominate the natives. According to you they demanded to rule over them, yes? Problem is that's total bullshit. The original immigrants went there and bought land legally. Most of the land they bought was not being used but was swampland and such that the Zionists drained and reclaimed to use as viable farmland. In fact, their presence greatly improved the economy, providing jobs for everyone, which is why so many Arabs from surrounding states began immigrating there too, for the first time in forever.

But there's an easy way to disprove your assertions. Just look at the history. First of all, why did the Arabs begin attacking the Jews? We know that it began when the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem and company began spreading rumors that the Jews were planning on destroying the Al Aqsa Mosque, starting riots. Now this next part is crucial, so pay attention... the first victims of these Arab attacks were NOT recent Jewish immigrants. They were native Jews of Jerusalem and Hebron. These are the Jews who had been living as good neighbors to the Arabs for hundreds and hundreds of years and they were massacred due to xenophobic propaganda being spread by a compatriot of no one less than Hitler himself. (Yes, the Mufti was a friend and ally of Hitler's. There are even photos of the two together to prove it.)

So there goes your idea that if the Jews had only been nicer then none of this would have happened.

Besides that, your isea that the Jewsw insisted on ruling over the Arabs is total BS. No such thing ever happened. Again we can look at the history. The state of Israel was only first suggested after the British realized that the two groups could not live together peacefully. That fact was realized after the Great Arab Revolt of 1936-39. That was three years of violence, begun by the Arabs because they opposed any more immigration of non-Arab people. Up until this point the Jews of the Yishuv had not been attacking the Arab population. That only began after several years of unilateral attacks against them and the realization that the British were not interested in protecting them.

It should also be noted that the Jews accepted the Peel Plan which was rejected by the Arabs. The Jews also accepted the UN Partition Plan which was also rejected by the Arabs. There were plenty of chances for peace which the Arabs consistently rejected in favor of attempts to stymie all Jewish immigration. Note that the only state in the entire region that still has a mixed population of Arabs and Jews is Israel. All of those nice, non-Zionist neighbors that you assert would have been left alone were ethnically cleansed throughout the middle east, while the Arabs in Israel who did not leave or engage in fighting against the Jews were allowed to remain.

But Palestinian violence against Israelis and pre-Israelis has always been a response to unjust Israeli settlement.

Why is it that you don't have any problem with Arab immigration to Palestine during the 20's and 30's but Jewish immigration is considered unjust and a reasonable instigation to violence against unarmed farmers?

And, in answer to your final question, yes, I am reasonably confident (not 100%) that should Israel withdraw to its own borders, organised violence against it would stop

Based on what? Why don't you think that the groups that are now engaged in attacks against Israel would remain true to their word? These organizations, Hamas, IJ and so on have always been very clear about their intentions. During the Oslo years it wasn't average Palestinians who were suicide bombing buses after all. It was Hamas and friends. And these groups have sworn that ending the occupation would have no effect on their ultimate goal of freeing all of Palestine from Zionist control by any means necessary. They certainly made good on their promise during the Oslo years, when everyone was excited that both peace and a Palestinian state were within their grasp. No, you see Hamas wasn't attacking because they feared that Oslo would fail. They upped their attacks because they feared that Oslo would succeed! Don't believe me, this is by their own admission. So when these same groups again disagree with your assessment, what reason do you have to think they are lying?

And here's the thing. If Israel did as you ask and the result was rockets and mortars falling on their airport and on Tel Aviv then their reaction would not be something as relatively non-violent as the barrier or checkpoints. It would be a repeat of Cast Lead, on a much larger scale, by necessity. Neither Israel nor the Palestinians can afford to gamble on something like this. Just look at the violence that occurred between Hamas and Fatah in Gaza once Israel left. Unless Palestine has a secure central government BEFORE Israel leaves then the result could very well end up far worse than the occupation, for both sides.

One more thing. You clearly think that the Palestinians were well within their rights to attack the peaceful inhabitants of the Yishuv before Israel's founding merely because they disagreed with non-Arabs moving into their region, changing it and forcing them to re-evaluate the relationship between Arab and Jews there. Personally, I find this attitude quite disgusting. The issue was not that the Jews insisted on ruling over the natives so much as it was that they refused to comply with being ruled over BY the native Arabs. Had the native Arabs refrained from killing Palestine's Jews, whether they were native or not, (they made no distinction in their attacks), then this conflict surely could have been averted. The immigrants did everything they possibly could have to fulfill their goal while following the rules and laws of the day.

For some reason you think it's fair that an immigrant like Arafat should be considered Palestinian without question yet the native Jews of Hebron, or even Jewish immigrants and refugees, should be considered instigators and colonialists, and therefore less deserving of the right of self-determination. I'll leave you with a quote from Ben-Gurion during his Declaration of Independence speech. I challenge you to find a similar sentiment expressed by any of the Arab leaders of the day towards either the Jews of Palestine or even to those of their own states' populations.

WE APPEAL - in the very midst of the onslaught launched against us now for months - to the Arab inhabitants of the State of Israel to preserve peace and participate in the up-building of the State on the basis of full and equal citizenship and due representation in all its provisional and permanent institutions. WE EXTEND our hand to all neighboring states and their peoples in an offer of peace and good neighborliness, and appeal to them to establish bonds of cooperation and mutual help with the sovereign Jewish people settled in its own land. The State of Israel is prepared to do its share in a common effort for the advancement of the entire Middle East.

http://www.israel-independence.com/translation.asp

if their land isn't being slowly taken away. And the presence of the settlers has been 100% negative in its effects on Palestinians. Settlers never showed up in the West Bank intending to live in peace with Palestinians or to treat them as equals. The settlers, unlike people in Israel proper(the legitimate pre-1967 boundaries that Palestinians would accept Israel living within)
do see Palestinians as Afrikaaners see South African blacks.

"The settlers.....do see Palestinians as Afrikaaners"

Broadbrush much?

would it be reasonable for anyone here to post "Palestinians do see Jews as apes and pigs"?

Maybe they don't have quite so much of an Afrikaaner as a cynical opportunist viewpoint.

But the religious crazies, the ones who drive the settlement movement, do come in with an Afrikaaner mentality. That's what it means when you see the land as yours more than it is those who've lived on it for centuries and when you come in with the attitude that you have the right to displace them. That's exactly how Arutz Sheva sees it, and that's why the overwhelming majority of Israelis despise the settlers. Nothing positive whatsoever has come of the settlement movement, and the expansion of those settlements in the 90's had a massive degree of influence on the attitude Palestinians had towards the peace process. And how could it not? Are you honestly going to argue that the settlements were irrelevant, and that their expansion was nothing Palestinians had any right to feel outraged about?

I'm honestly just curious. What are your thoughts on places in the West Bank and Jerusalem where Jews themselves were native, having lived there for hundreds, or even thousands, of years before being expelled in the early to mid 20th century? Hebron for example, which may very well be the oldest known city that had an (almost) unbroken population on Jews dating back thousands of years. In other words, while they haven't had a majority population in the city for eons, (if ever), Jews have been there longer than any other group still in existence.

So how would you balance the rights of both groups to live in a city that either can rightly claim as their group's ancestral land; especially considering all of the political and nationalist strife surrounding the place nowadays?

On access to those places, and the concept of "parity of esteem" for both national communities, a concept that did a lot to end the war in Northern Ireland(a war most outsiders thought was just as unendable as the I/P conflict and which certainly involved just as much "terrorism")needs to be used. There needs to be education of the young in both communities about the true history of the contested areas, and not just a "wartime propaganda" version(the teaching of which both communities are guilty of to varying degrees).

I don't have a "one-sentence soundbite" response.

But it is clear that ending the Occupation and ending the daily harassment and humiliations Palestinians are subjected to will be a necessary precondition. It is possible to get Palestinians to reconcile eventually with the Jewish population of Israel, but this will involve getting the Israeli side in the dispute to show them much greater respect and to not go on treating Palestinians simply as an enemy to be crushed. As long as the "peace through victory" mindset dominates Israeli government thinking(and that government still seems to clearly be resisting the establishment of a Palestinian state, even though everyone in Israel knows that such a state MUST be created if peace is to be made) there will be no change for the better in Palestinian tactics, and any calls for a "Palestinian Gandhi" will remain absurd, arrogant and morally numb. You can't expect an occupied people to be saints, or to move in a better direction in their methods of resistance with no guarantee that they'll be rewarded for such improvements(as they were never rewarded at all, for example, in the 1990's).

As will an acceptance on the part of the Israeli government that the Palestinian side is actually capable of ceasing to fight and living in a normal relationship with Israel at some point. There will then need to be changes on the Palestinian side, but the side with the greatest military and military power in any dispute MUST be expected to make the first conciliatory steps and the first efforts to improve its behavior, and only then can more be asked of the forces of the powerless.

I think you have a lot of good ideas here. We're already seeing some application of ideas like parity of esteem in Jerusalem. Though it it still ultimately solely under Israeli rule right now there has been a considerable amount of power sharing when it comes to the various religious sites, such as giving the administration of Muslim sites over to the waqf. Not a sufficient end solution, to be sure, but a practical start of some of the ideas you've mentioned here.

There is one main point that I disagree with you over and that is the lack of responsibility you seem to place on the Palestinians over their role in the process. For example, you clearly think that calls for a "Palestinian Gandhi" are unrealistic considering the current occupation. I would argue that the only time that a "Gandhi" or "MLK" message is significant is when a situation exists that seems to justify violence. In fact, that is precisely what makes non-violence such an effective and revolutionary tool in the first place. What you are essentially saying is that we could never expect a Gandhi to appear until the Raj was ended first. That no MLK could be produced until after the civil rights movement's goals were achieved. I could not disagree with this more. In fact, I think it will require some kind of unifying nationalistic force within the Palestinian community that will enable it to withstand the myriad obstacles that stand between it and sovergeinty. And I'm not just talking about overcoming Israeli intransigence either.

No one, not even Israel, can just give the Palestinians their own nation. All anyone can do is create conditions favorable to their success. So far, the Palestinians have received many opportunities conducive to their building the institutions necessary for a successful state. And they've been, unfortunately, less than successful so far. Asking Israel to just end the occupation without allowing the Palestinians an opportunity to build a state capable of running itself is asking for a disaster. Look at Gaza for example. Gaza was just a small scale opportunity for the Palestinians to begin the necessary work required for any successful state. Look at the problems that Israel faced during its own inception. They far outweighed any of the obstacles currently being faced by the Palestinians. The entire world, Israel included, (especially Israel), wants the Palestinians to be successful. Just not at the expense of their own security or prosperity.

In my opinion, Israel HAS been making the first steps needed for a successful peace process to take hold. I don't think that they can do much more at this point until some kind of change occurs on the Palestinian's side. As long as groups like Hamas are able to exert such dramatic influence over the situation then I doubt that anything will change. Only when the Palestinians place their focus solely on building a successful state alongside Israel will they have any chance of ever attaining said state. There can be no decent reason for a place like Gaza to continue attacking a powerful state like Israel when it has so many internal problems worth addressing first. It is, quite literally, suicide for the Palestinian national dream. Look at what Israel is asking for... they basically want Palestine to stop attacking them. Regardless of the circumstances, this is not too much to ask. It can only advance the goal of most Palestinians. Problem is it doesn't advance the goal of groups like Hamas. And until Palestine reconciles its own internal struggles, deciding on a cohesive national goal for itself, then the middle east peace process will continue to be held hostage by the extremist fringe.

to demand that Palestinians come up with a "Gandhi". You wouldn't have accepted that the British had the right to demand nonviolence of the Indians, and the whites in the U.S. didn't have the right to demand it of the blacks. I would certainly support the emergence of a strong passive resistance movement among Palestinians if THEY INITIATE IT. But no one on the other side of the issue has any right to ask it of them. You aren't entitled to judge the people you hold down.

And there was a nonviolent leader in the Palestinian community. His name was Mubarak Al-Awad. The Israelis kicked him out of Palestine. And there are dozens of nonviolent protest marches held each week by Palestinians(they don't ALL throw bombs).
But those demonstrations never get American press coverage. Will you condemn the American media for only showing the violent side of Palestinian resistance?

sure, there has been "natural growth" within the existing settlements, and therefore, exponential settler growth the past 15 years - but no new settlements (not counting illegal outposts). I recall that under Shamir, the last new settlements were approved and that they were built after Oslo began, but only because they were approved before Oslo. But since then, nothing. And this was all Israel's initiative, as they signed nothing agreeing to stop building new settlements. It was and still remains a sign of good faith.

Or am I wrong? I'm open to correction.

Still, even letting the settlers expand the existing settlements is risky and inflammatory-and every Israeli official who approved the expansions knew that when he or she signed off on them.

The point of Israeli policy SHOULD be ensuring the safety of those living within Israel's generally accepted bounndaries-NOT on placing the expansion of Israeli territory before ending the war.

Turkey has occupied Cyprus almost as long as the Palestinian occupation. Turkey brought in Turkish settlers and built a separation fence. But you wrote...

"No people in the world would tolerate what is being done to the Palestinians without fighting back".

So since when are there suicide bombings and rocket/mortar attacks in Cyprus?

Oh yeah, BTW, Turkey denies the Kurds their national rights and independence and it refuses to withdraw from the Alexandretta Province it grabbed from Syria.

I don't see any endless campaign of "resistance" via suicide bombs and rockets in either of those areas of the world either.

==============

Bonus points for anyone capable of articulating WHY what happens with respect to Turkey doesn't happen WRT Israel.

Israel is not trying to commit genocide against the Palestinians; I have never suggested that it is.

Israel already has ethnicly cleansed large areas, and is adding to those areas slowly; a growing minority support more largescale ethnic cleansing.

Many Israelis do cheer the deaths of Palestinians; a great many more don't really care about them. Go take a look on the talk-back pages of Ynetnews or the Jerusalem post, or often even Haaretz. The default assumption for many posters there is that any Palestinian killed must have been a terrorist, and therefor their death was a good thing.

I was wondering where you were getting all these ideas of what Israeli's believe. Now I see...

Go take a look on the talk-back pages of Ynetnews or the Jerusalem post, or often even Haaretz. The default assumption for many posters there is that any Palestinian killed must have been a terrorist, and therefor their death was a good thing.

So you've been basing your knowledge of political trends in a foreign nation by reading the talkbacks on the ENGLISH-LANGUAGE version of a few newspaper websites?! Hahahaha. And you had the unbelievable gall to write, I'm sad that so few Israelis have any understanding of the conflict. earlier? Hahahaha.

Seriously dude, you're killing me.

Israel already has ethnicly cleansed large areas, and is adding to those areas slowly; a growing minority support more largescale ethnic cleansing.

Really, you don't say? What are these areas that have been/are being ethnically cleansed exactly? (You know, by the way, the only areas I can think of that were entirely ethnically cleansed are the areas that were under Arab control.)

Israel is not trying to commit genocide against the Palestinians; I have never suggested that it is.

Well, yes you kind of did. You said that the Palestinians are facing a very real existential threat. That would imply that you believe there is a very real chance of Israel trying to wipe them out. That's what "very real existential threat" means.

The Palestinians live under a very real existential threat - Israel has the means to ethnically cleanse them totally if it chooses (as opposed to just continuing to do so peacemeal), and that option is gaining increasing public support.

First of all, Israel does not have the ability to completely ethnically cleanse the Palestinians. To do so would require invading Lebanon, Egypt, Syria, Jordan and several other states. Perhaps you don't really mean "existential threat" but are referring to Israel expelling every Arab from the land it controls. I hope so because otherwise you just asserted that genocide is becoming a popular option in Israel.

So Israel has the means to expel the Palestinians from all of Palestine? Yeah right. Expel 20% of all Israelis? I guess they could do it, but the repercussions of such an act would be staggering.

Ummm... piecemeal ethnic cleansing? Yeah, right. Exactly where has that been occurring? And what kind of public support has total cleansing been getting? Where have you heard about this kind of stuff?

Can you give me even a single example of an Israeli politician suggesting total ethnic cleansing? What is this "very real existential threat" do the Palestinians live under? What, the fact that Israel has the potential to nuke them? Listen, America has the ability to destroy Luxembourg, would you say that constitutes a very real existential threat too? If you haven't noticed, the Palestinian population has done nothing but increase.

Israel does not live under any kind of existential threat

Well, not that you would know this, but it in fact does.

but has to pretend it does in order to justify its treatment of the Palestinians.

Oy, you have no idea what you're talking about. Israel's treatment of the Palestinians is directly related to the Palestinian's own actions. A nation does not need to face an existential threat before it has reason to defend itself.

Clearly, Operation Cast Lead wasn't, and neither was either Lebanon invasion. And it's also clear that Israel didn't have to reoccupy the West Bank and impose collective punishment on all Palestinians just to survive.

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

And by the same types who demonise other journalists like Amira Haas and Robert Fisk, just to name two. In Fisky's case, the demonisation isn't just about the I/P conflict, but because of what he's written on Iraq, which also stirs the irrational rage of conservative types. Generally the types who fly into a lather about those journalists are haters who aren't the slightest bit interested in a fair and lasting peace where Palestinians and Israelis have two states living side by side in peace and equality, but the sort of people who thrive on endless war as long as Israel's in the box seat and don't care how much misery is inflicted on the Palestinians....

But in the case of Israelis, I'd take a guess that those who have heard of him and don't like him do it because he's saying things they'd prefer not to hear. Amira Haas is very much in the same boat when she's reported from the West Bank or Gaza...

That crap was never retracted either. Some people have a problem with serial liars.

After he was beat up in Afghanistan, he wrote:

"In fact, if I were the Afghan refugees of Kila Abdullah, close to the Afghan-Pakistan border, I would have done just the same to Robert Fisk. Or any Westerner I could find."

Which kinda explains his soft-touch regarding Palestinian terror towards Israeli "westerners".

Or have you forgotten yet again why I have no intention on wasting time on you?

You get it wrong so consistantly....

you wrote:

"Generally the types who fly into a lather about those journalists are haters who aren't the slightest bit interested in a fair and lasting peace where Palestinians and Israelis have two states living side by side in peace and equality, but the sort of people who thrive on endless war as long as Israel's in the box seat and don't care how much misery is inflicted on the Palestinians....

But in the case of Israelis, I'd take a guess that those who have heard of him and don't like him do it because he's saying things they'd prefer not to hear."

This is complete nonsense, as the report on IDF use of Uranium reveals in Fisk's fiction of October 2006. Amira Hass is no better. I fail to see why any progressive interested in journalistic integrity, honesty, and accuracy is so enamored with propagandists like Levy, Hass, or Fisk.

I don't know why you find it so difficult to comprehend what I've said to you repeatedly about not wanting to waste my time on you, given yr behaviour....

yourself if you don't believe me.

But yeah, I guess I'm the extremist between the 2 of us.

:eyes:

..and pretending that the exchange yesterday about yr behaviour didn't happen. Do you need me to link to it for you to refresh yr memory? And if yr going to waste my time by replying again, don't clumsily ignore what I'm saying to you...

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

I mean, I'm seeing encouraging signs, but still think it's a bit too soon to tell for sure....

And he has taken on issues that he didn't really have to take on.
It seems clear he is not just another spoiled weasel.
But he also seems very "pragmatic", not necessarily a bad thing.
I think the question boils down to whether power will corrupt him or not.
And on that issue, only time will tell.