What Israel must do now

[Scott]

Off-topic posts and replies deleted. This topic is not about anti-semitism.

(Edit: Since this is thread is about What Israel should do now, a comparison with other countries and situation is permitted, but please keep it in the context of the situation between Palestine and Israel).

[Ulysses G.]

The fact is, no other "developed" Western nation would be allowed to do what Israel is doing.

If any other "developed" Western nation was having thousands of rockets shot them by terrorists, they would be doing exactly what Israel has been doing, but they would not hold back. They would put a stop to it permanently. There is no reason why Israel should have to put up with this hateful behavior. No one else would.

One example of another Western nations being attacked by terrorists with very similar aims to Hamas has been raised before.

It has been pointed out many times before that those terrorists had very different aims from Hamas, that the situation was very different and that the other nation fought back for decades.

Edited August 17, 2014 by Ulysses G.

[Scott]

A quote which violates fair use policy has been deleted. Please only quote the first 3 sentences and then a link to the remainder of the source.

[Ulysses G.]

One example of another Western nations being attacked by terrorists with very similar aims to Hamas has been raised before.

The Israeli Ambassador to Ireland examined that very claim and did a great job of pointing out some very important differences.

Hamas is not the IRA

At the core of this belief is the desire to create an Islamist state based on Islamic law over all the land, not just the West Bank and Gaza, but Israel as well. There is no acceptance of the notion of coexistence, no support for the idea of two states, Israel and Palestine, living side by side in peace, but an exclusive demand, based on fundamentalist interpretations of religious texts, for control of the entire territory.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/31/opinion/31iht-edevrony.1.7331274.html?_r=0

[Steely Dan]

One example of another Western nations being attacked by terrorists with very similar aims to Hamas has been raised before.

The Israeli Ambassador to Ireland examined that very claim and did a great job of pointing out some very important differences.

Hamas is not the IRA

At the core of this belief is the desire to create an Islamist state based on Islamic law over all the land, not just the West Bank and Gaza, but Israel as well. There is no acceptance of the notion of coexistence, no support for the idea of two states, Israel and Palestine, living side by side in peace, but an exclusive demand, based on fundamentalist interpretations of religious texts, for control of the entire territory.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/31/opinion/31iht-edevrony.1.7331274.html?_r=0

Good article, though I suspect you could re-post it periodically in response to exact same fallacious comparison.

[dexterm]

One example of another Western nations being attacked by terrorists with very similar aims to Hamas has been raised before.

The Israeli Ambassador to Ireland examined that very claim and did a great job of pointing out some very important differences.

Hamas is not the IRA

At the core of this belief is the desire to create an Islamist state based on Islamic law over all the land, not just the West Bank and Gaza, but Israel as well. There is no acceptance of the notion of coexistence, no support for the idea of two states, Israel and Palestine, living side by side in peace, but an exclusive demand, based on fundamentalist interpretations of religious texts, for control of the entire territory.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/31/opinion/31iht-edevrony.1.7331274.html?_r=0

Make peace with PA pretending you are not dealing with a PA Hamas unity government, just like PA pretends that settlement expansion is not the same as new settlement building. Just get talking rather than fighting and finding excuses not to talk.

Hamas has offered a 10 year truce (some sources say indefinite) but not recognition. So what? There will always be extremist Zionists who will never be satisfied with anything less than Eretz Israel from the Med to the Jordan or beyond.

If the majority of Palestinians and Israelis accept a peace agreement with secure and recognized borders, the benefits of several years of peace and prosperity will sideline extremists on both sides. Let the diehards spoil their ballot papers, refuse to vote or vote no. Let the silent majority who want peace on both sides be heard.

Shalom

[7by7]

The IRA and Northern Ireland and Hamas and Gaza are not, of course, exactly the same; but the similarities are enough for the Northern Irish peace process to serve as an example of what can be achieved if both sides agree to talk to each other without preconditions.

The aims, as stated in their constitution, of the IRA in it's various forms ever since it's formation in 1916, was independence from the UK of the whole island of Ireland.

When the island was partitioned into the Irish Free State, now the Republic of Ireland, and the UK province of Northern Ireland in 1921, this was because the majority of the population of Northern Ireland wished to remain part of the UK.

Although it must be said that in many ways, Catholics had fewer civil rights than Protestants, in practice if not officially.

The IRA was not interested in the democratic wishes of the Northern Irish, and continued with it's stated aim of destroying the province as part of the UK and forcing it into the Republic; using whatever means it deemed necessary.

This, as we all know, included terrorist attacks, often with no warning, both in Northern Ireland and the rest of the UK; with increased ferocity and regularity during the 1970s and 80s. Sometimes they gave warnings, often they didn't or the warnings came too late.

Had they had the means to have fired thousands of rockets into the UK, I am sure that they would have done so.

UK governments of both parties did not react in the way Israel has by indiscriminate bombing of Republican areas in Northern Ireland; had they done so, then they would have deserved the highest condemnation. Indeed, when events like Bloody Sunday occurred, such condemnation was instantly forthcoming from many sources.

For most of the '70s and 80's the British government would not negotiate directly with the IRA, or the Unionist terrorist groups. Especially Thatcher. Although, gradually, the inequalities between the civil rights of Catholics and Protestants were rectified.

But after she was gone, Major and then Blair would negotiate. They agreed to talks with no preconditions.

One result of this was that Sinn Fein/IRA changed it's constitution, and they now accept that Northern Ireland should remain part of the UK for as long as the majority of it's people wish it.

Thus the Good Friday Agreement came into being.

The situation in Northern Ireland is still far from perfect; but it is far better than it was and the majority of it's citizens can now go about their daily lives without the fear of bombings, shootings, knee cappings, kidnappings, extortion etc. by terrorists from either side of the divide.

All of this came about because the British government changed their previous 'no negotiating with terrorists' position and were prepared to sit down and talk to them directly without any preconditions.

That is the lesson which the Israeli government could and should take from Northern Ireland.

So they should, I believe,

1) Say they will change the discriminatory Israeli nationality laws which make non Jewish Israelis second class citizens.

2) Whilst reserving the right of IDF units to defend themselves if directly attacked, declare that they will maintain the current ceasefire/truce indefinitely; no matter the provocation.

3) Offer to enter into direct talks with Hamas and other Palestinian representatives without any preconditions.

The ball will then be very firmly in Hamas' court, and if they refuse such an offer of talks and/or try and provoke Israel by breaking the truce, then they are obviously to be condemned.

Obviously, neither side will get everything they want; but, for example, various Hamas leaders have already stated that they can co exist with Israel.

Edited August 17, 2014 by 7by7

[Seastallion]

Jews are Jews and Nazis are Nazis .

But Jews are not above all critizism !

Not everybody who dares to critic Israel is automatically an "Antisemit " !

The facts prove , I think , that Israelis are definitely not better than the rest of the world , so there should be the basic right of " Freedom of Speech " and Critizism as long as it is based on facts !

The fact is, no other "developed" Western nation would be allowed to do what Israel is doing.

We could ask ourselves, why is that?

I know the answer, and I am sure many of you do too.

Britain did it. The US did it. Can't think of a major western power that hasn't done 'what Israel is doing'.

We are supposed to learn from our mistakes. The sins of our predecessors do not justify the sins of today. That is what modern civilisation is all about.

Using your attitude, I should be excused for beating a woman over the head with a club and dragging her by her hair back to my "cave"

[dexterm]

Actually the arguments used here are amusing. Not the topic.

Jews stole the land from Arabs - amusing.

Arabs of Palestine are oppressed - amusing.

Israelis are Nazis - amusing.

Islam will march united against Israel and the West - amusing.

Iran building 'super modern weapons' - amusing.

Gaza needs free unrestricted supplies lines - amusing.

IDF deliberately kill innocent civilians and children - amusing.

Israel must talk to HAMAS - amusing.

Etc., etc., etc.

There is one argument though which has been overlooked here in deciding for Israel what it must do.

The argument is concerning the imbalance of the numbers of victims on each side.

Pro-Israelis lament about 66-67 Israelis dead! Anti-Israelis scream about 1,300-1,400 Gaza Arabs dead!

This represents at the moment an average of about 20 'Palestinians' for one Israeli.

Now if you take the ratio of numbers of hostile Arabs around Israel and the number of Israelis - the ratio is about the same - 300,000,000 to 6,000,000.

Forgive me for being cold and calculating but I think

a) Israelis are being short changes or far too generous.

When exchanging their 1 body for about 1000 terrorists they are being plainly screwed.

And finally, if Arabs of Gaza or HAMAS establish a 'going rate' of 1000 for 1 - why are they and the rest of Western Democracies not happy with the victims score in this stupid conflict?

Your post - amusing.

You sound like a general at the Battle of the Somme working out the average yards gained per 1000 dead soldiers. Sick.

[7by7]

What Northern Ireland can teach us about the Hamas problem

You can never achieve a lasting peace if a major player in the conflict is excluded from the process......

The analogy with Northern Ireland is instructive. The Ulster conflict, generally known as The Troubles, lasted 30 years and cost about 3,500 people their lives – and the conflict had roots that went back to the 17th century. Britons viewed the Irish Republican Army with no less loathing than we currently view Hamas, and the IRA’s terror tactics were often horrifying. There are even more analogies to the Israel/Palestine conflict, including the hunger strikes of Republican prisoners that played a crucial role in the conflict. And yet the IRA’s political wing, Sinn Féin, became a central player in the peace process that led to the Good Friday Agreement in 1998.

[7by7]

One example of another Western nations being attacked by terrorists with very similar aims to Hamas has been raised before.

The Israeli Ambassador to Ireland examined that very claim and did a great job of pointing out some very important differences.

Hamas is not the IRA

At the core of this belief is the desire to create an Islamist state based on Islamic law over all the land, not just the West Bank and Gaza, but Israel as well. There is no acceptance of the notion of coexistence, no support for the idea of two states, Israel and Palestine, living side by side in peace, but an exclusive demand, based on fundamentalist interpretations of religious texts, for control of the entire territory.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/31/opinion/31iht-edevrony.1.7331274.html?_r=0

Good article, though I suspect you could re-post it periodically in response to exact same fallacious comparison.

Written 7 years ago!

The situation has changed a lot since then; especially the statement by, admittedly some not all, Hamas leaders that they can and will co exist with Israel.

Zion Evrony is not Israeli ambassador to Ireland anymore; though he is, of course, still entitled to his opinions. I wonder if changing events have changed his opinion on this.

Edited August 17, 2014 by 7by7

[Jingthing]

Did I stumble upon a thread about Ireland? Israel - Ireland, both "I" countries. Hmm.

[Ulysses G.]

The situation has changed a lot since then; especially the statement by, admittedly some not all, Hamas leaders that they can and will co exist with Israel.

Does anyone think that Hamas leaders can be believed? They have lied over and over again to achieve their goals. Continually violating the recent ceasefires is just one example. They are all talk and no walk!

Edited August 17, 2014 by Ulysses G.

[7by7]

Until and unless Israel agrees to talk to them without any preconditions, we wont know.

What has Israel got to lose? Nothing, if the talks fail they will simply be back to the current situation.

What has Israel got to gain? A lasting peace if the talks succeed.

Which option do you prefer?

[7by7]

Did I stumble upon a thread about Ireland? Israel - Ireland, both "I" countries. Hmm.

Off-topic posts and replies deleted. This topic is not about anti-semitism.

(Edit: Since this is thread is about What Israel should do now, a comparison with other countries and situation is permitted, but please keep it in the context of the situation between Palestine and Israel).

(Edited to remove machine code errors)

Edited August 17, 2014 by 7by7

[Ulysses G.]

Zion Evrony is not Israeli ambassador to Ireland anymore; though he is, of course, still entitled to his opinions. I wonder if changing events have changed his opinion on this.

I don't think so.

Israel hoped that its complete disengagement from the Gaza Strip in August 2005 would lead to an end to the violence emanating from there, and create an opportunity for peace. Instead Israel has suffered on and off from missiles and rocket attacks on its civilian population.

http://www.zenit.org/en/articles/the-right-of-self-defense

[Steely Dan]

I sense a renewed urgency on the part of Hamas political supporters to argue that Hamas can be negotiated with, well individuals might be but the ideology explicitly laid out in the Hamas charter can't. Much has been made of the public relations problems Israel has incurred, but aside from the military losses to Hamas they are now Isolated amongst their Arab neighbors and the so called Hamas PA unity government is torn apart by deep divisions. Now the political backers of Hamas are faced with a united front of unlikely allies. As I observed before has the unexpected blowback of the Arab spring and the rise of Islamism caused a chance of peace between Israel and the PA?

http://app.debka.com/p/article/24197/A-solid-Netanyahu-Sisi-Abbas-lineup-confronts-Hamas-Islamic-Jihad-at-resumed-negotiations-in-Cairo

[7by7]

Zion Evrony is not Israeli ambassador to Ireland anymore; though he is, of course, still entitled to his opinions. I wonder if changing events have changed his opinion on this.

I don't think so.

Israel hoped that its complete disengagement from the Gaza Strip in August 2005 would lead to an end to the violence emanating from there, and create an opportunity for peace. Instead Israel has suffered on and off from missiles and rocket attacks on its civilian population.

http://www.zenit.org/en/articles/the-right-of-self-defense

No mention there of the example of the Northern Irish peace process; but lots of mentions for the Pope.

I guess he's just doing his job.

I'd still like to know, though, what Israel has to lose by offering to talk to Hamas without any preconditions.

If the talks fail, they've lost nothing as they are back to the current situation.

If the talks succeed; peace.

[dexterm]

There are reasonable arguments to say that Palestine SHOULD be offered 100%. If I stole $100 dollars from you, would you think it just that, when pressed, I returned only $25 and spent the rest on myself?

Your example has no bearing on reality. The Palestinians turned down the UN deal. They possessed no land to be "stolen" and they still don't. There was never an independent Arab state called Palestine. They are trying to get something that they never had and refused when offered it..

You have a very selective memory of UN resolutions, UG, and neglect to mention the fact that Israel has ignored every UN resolution since then. Very convenient.

Nor do you mention that the 20^th Zionist Congress rejected the earlier Peel Commission Plan of 1937 (when the Jewish population of Palestine was only 27%), even though Jews would have been given some of the most fertile land in the Galilee valley and more of the coastal strip than in the later UN plan, because the areas allocated to the "Jewish state" were "too small". The Zionists wanted more even then and they have never stopped wanting more.

But the most damning part of that rejection comes from Ben Gurion himself.

"Had partition been carried out, the history of our people would have been different and six million Jews in Europe would not have been killed---most of them would be in Israel" (“One Palestine, Complete: Jews and Arabs Under the British Mandate” by Tom Segev p. 414).

... all because of Zionist greed. Disgusting.

[Steely Dan]

There are reasonable arguments to say that Palestine SHOULD be offered 100%. If I stole $100 dollars from you, would you think it just that, when pressed, I returned only $25 and spent the rest on myself?

Your example has no bearing on reality. The Palestinians turned down the UN deal. They possessed no land to be "stolen" and they still don't. There was never an independent Arab state called Palestine. They are trying to get something that they never had and refused when offered it..

You have a very selective memory of UN resolutions, UG, and neglect to mention the fact that Israel has ignored every UN resolution since then. Very convenient.

Nor do you mention that the 20^th Zionist Congress rejected the earlier Peel Commission Plan of 1937 (when the Jewish population of Palestine was only 27%), even though Jews would have been given some of the most fertile land in the Galilee valley and more of the coastal strip than in the later UN plan, because the areas allocated to the "Jewish state" were "too small". The Zionists wanted more even then and they have never stopped wanting more.

But the most damning part of that rejection comes from Ben Gurion himself.

"Had partition been carried out, the history of our people would have been different and six million Jews in Europe would not have been killed---most of them would be in Israel" (“One Palestine, Complete: Jews and Arabs Under the British Mandate” by Tom Segev p. 414).

... all because of Zionist greed. Disgusting.

What is disgusting is your dishonesty, fresh from your Mondweiss link comparing Israel with the Nazis you are now misrepresenting history. Golda Meir lead rejections to the Peel commission because it did not give the Jewish state enough land to absorb the millions of refugees coming from Europe. The proposal wasn't rejected outright either, but clarification was sought along with the hope of a better offer. You also neglect to mention the Arabs rejected it outright and the British shelved their plan and restricted Jewish immigration to Palestine to 75,000. Not even a mealy mouthed admission of this from you, who persists in the tiresome charade of pretending to want peace when a little digging shows the filth you are clearly wallowing in.

[Ulysses G.]

There are reasonable arguments to say that Palestine SHOULD be offered 100%. If I stole $100 dollars from you, would you think it just that, when pressed, I returned only $25 and spent the rest on myself?

Your example has no bearing on reality. The Palestinians turned down the UN deal. They possessed no land to be "stolen" and they still don't. There was never an independent Arab state called Palestine. They are trying to get something that they never had and refused when offered it..

You have a very selective memory of UN resolutions, UG, and neglect to mention the fact that Israel has ignored every UN resolution since then. Very convenient.

Au contraire. YOU are the one with the "selective memory" although that would be putting it very kindly..

The Jewish Agency accepted the principle of partition in 1937, but criticized the proposed boundaries. They wanted to negotiate further with the British government on precise terms for the establishment of a Jewish state and the 20th Zionist Congress OKed it, provided that any scheme that might emerge would be submitted for approval to them.

The Palestinians' Arab Higher Committee denounced the plan completely and it was abandoned. However, the partition idea, first proposed by the Peel Commission Report, resurfaced as the basis of the proposal approved by the United Nations General Assembly in November 1947.

By the way, you have been informed a number of times already that Israel has NOT ignored every UN resolution since partition. That is a blatant falsehood and typical of your posts.

Edited August 17, 2014 by Ulysses G.

[Steely Dan]

Whilst we are touching on Ben Gurion and partition plans here is a preemptive debunking on other fraudulent misrepresentations the likes of Mondoweiss persist in belching out. For starters Ben Gurion did not say the Arabs should be driven out, the context was to the contrary.

http://blog.camera.org/archives/2012/08/distorted_quotes_to_defend_dis.html

[ABCer]

dexterm, I am glad you are amused.

I would like you to explain what exactly is sick in my way of thinking?

Do you agree with me that 1 Israeli exchanged for over a 1,000 terrorists is unfair?

If you do, or you don't - you are in a losing position.

Your reference to Somme is also amusing. You couldn't have possibly been there. Are you watching too many movies?

How on Earth can you compare 100 years old German military thought with today's terrorists not having any scruples and hiding behind women and children?

How can anybody compare war action between two armies and a bloody silent conflict between regular uniformed forces and madmen ready to 'martyr' their wives and kids?

And Israeli Army or Israeli Gov't must talk to this scum? In order to get 'recognition' from scum?

Israel was at war with Egypt, won the war, then talked to Egypt, signed a peace and got recognition for lots of land. Are you comparing HAMAS scum with Egypt?

If you do, or you don't - you are in a losing position again.

Now, please, keep your Shalom and explain to me why am I sick?

Edited August 17, 2014 by ABCer

[Jay Sata]

What Netanyahu has managed to achieve in his disproportional agenda in Gaza is a global backlash against Israel.

In the UK and. Europe we are seeing stories such as this. Sainsbury's in London has had to remove kosher food following a demo in Birmingham at a Tesco supermarket.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2727266/Sainsbury-s-strips-kosher-food-shelves-fear-attacks-anti-Israeli-protesters.html

What is obvious is that a boycott of settlement and Israeli goods will hurt the right wing government in the pocket.

The offensive was stopped because the USA pulled the plug.

They supply the money and arms to Israel.

Edited August 17, 2014 by Jay Sata

[dr_lucas]

But after she was gone, Major and then Blair would negotiate. They agreed to talks with no preconditions.

Since your entire post (and suggestions) are based on the sentences above, which are not true, I'd just address them specifically:

Northern Ireland, Sinn Fein, the political party that is affiliated with the I.R.A., did not enter the negotiations until after 15 months had elapsed in the negotiations, and only then because they met two central conditions that had been established:

The first was a cease-fire, and the second was a publicly stated commitment to what came to be known as the Mitchell Principles.

The commitments included (brief summary):

1) A commitment to democratic and exclusively peaceful means of resolving political issues.

2) A commitment to renounce for themselves and to oppose any efforts by others to use force or threaten to use force to influence the course or the outcome of the negotiations.

3) A commitment to agree to abide by the terms of any agreement reached in negotiations and to resort to democratic and exclusively peaceful methods in trying to alter any aspect of that outcome with which they may disagree.

These are just a few of the differences, there are other significant differences between Hamas and the IRA and the entire situation.

Further recommended reading:

Ulster's lesson for the Middle East: don't indulge extremists

If there is one lesson to learn from the Northern Ireland experience, it is that preconditions are crucial in ending violence and producing a settlement.

Being overgenerous to extremist groups is like giving sweets to a spoilt child in the hope that it will improve its behaviour - it usually results in worse actions.

A failure to

recognize this risks drawing the wrong conclusions from the recent history of Northern Ireland and fundamentally misunderstanding the peace process.

Source: http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2007/oct/25/comment.politics

Looking at Hamas and Seeing the I.R.A.

There has been a good deal of a discussion about references to Northern Ireland, and I have repeatedly been asked by reporters and individuals when I make public appearances, “Well, Senator, you talk to the I.R.A. in Northern Ireland, but don’t you talk to Hamas here.”

The questions reflect an incomplete understanding of what occurred in Northern Ireland and its relationship to this situation.

Source: http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/09/07/looking-at-hamas-and-seeing-the-i-r-a/

Edited August 17, 2014 by dr_lucas

[Jingthing]

What Netanyahu has managed to achieve in his disproportional agenda in Gaza is a global backlash against Israel.

In the UK and. Europe we are seeing stories such as this. Sainsbury's in London has had to remove kosher food following a demo in Birmingham at a Tesco supermarket.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2727266/Sainsbury-s-strips-kosher-food-shelves-fear-attacks-anti-Israeli-protesters.html

What is obvious is that a boycott of settlement and Israeli goods will hurt the right wing government in the pocket.

The offensive was stopped because the USA pulled the plug.

They supply the money and arms to Israel.

Dude, Kosher products are not the same thing as Israeli products. Most of the Kosher products on the shelves in England are not made in Israel. Yes, there have been Jew haters in England who have vandalized Kosher products (not the first time) including in the past putting pork products around them. It's quite revealing that you cite this incident as a case of BDS when it is actually a case of rabid antisemitism (against Jews).

Anyway, I hope you aren't suggesting that a legitimate part of the BDS movement is to harass observant Jews who want to keep Kosher.

A while back I posted a survey of British Jews revealing that a high percentage of British Jews perceive antisemitic (against Jews) intentions in the BDS movement. I hope nobody wonders why after reading this news story.

Edited August 17, 2014 by Jingthing

[dr_lucas]

Palestinians have never been offered 100% (they'll accept land swaps) of land stolen since 1967. Israel can keep the rest post 1948...not a bad compromise.

Sorry to debunk one more of your "mistakes": http://www.haaretz.com/news/abbas-olmert-offered-pa-land-equaling-100-of-west-bank-1.1747

Why does Israel sacrifice the youth of the majority of its citizens just to pander to half a million religious nutjob colonists in the West Bank. How on earth did Israel allow that to happen? It's been the thorn in the side of peace for the last 47 years.

Majority? That's an over exaggeration. Most of the IDF soldiers are not "pandering" the settlers. In fact, relatively - very few do.

to answer you other point about a so call "thriving" Israel:

I wouldn’t call the lifestyle “thriving” when Israel robs teenagers of the best years of their lives with 3 years brutalizing military service, or periodic bloodletting by the likes of Netanyahu with 67 young Israelis dead, and the population living in air raid shelters and the main airport closed, and wondering if the bus you get on has a suicide bomber on board, and the collective paranoia about hostile neighbors. Not much Gross National Happiness there.

Robs? Not thriving? Like Singapore similarly robs its teenagers "best years" and "not" thriving?

Did it occur to you that Israel has other security concerns except for the Palestinians?

Israel, as the most threatened country in the world, will always have an army with mandatory service, regardless of the Palestinian conflict. Sad reality, but true.

Economically wouldn’t Israel be better off by replacing the BDS with a free trade agreement with all its Arab neighbors and the EU? Israelis and Palestinians could one day be sitting on the most expensive piece of real estate in the world, the financial and tourist hub of the Middle East.

Shalom

Yes, this can be beneficial to Israel.

That said, I never heard this kind of free-trade agreement has ever been offered as an incentive to Israel by either the EU or any of its Arab neighbors. Did they authorize you to propose on their behalf?

Ma'a-Salame

[Ulysses G.]

But after she was gone, Major and then Blair would negotiate. They agreed to talks with no preconditions.

Since your entire post (and suggestions) are based on the sentences above, which are not true, I'd just address them specifically:

Northern Ireland, Sinn Fein, the political party that is affiliated with the I.R.A., did not enter the negotiations until after 15 months had elapsed in the negotiations, and only then because they met two central conditions that had been established:

So, in other words, there WERE preconditions and Israel would be foolish not to do the same. Let this be the end to repeating over and over again the fabrication that Britain negotiated with the IRA without any conditions. They DIDN'T.

[goatfarmer]

There are reasonable arguments to say that Palestine SHOULD be offered 100%. If I stole $100 dollars from you, would you think it just that, when pressed, I returned only $25 and spent the rest on myself?

Your example has no bearing on reality. The Palestinians turned down the UN deal. They possessed no land to be "stolen" and they still don't. There was never an independent Arab state called Palestine. They are trying to get something that they never had and refused when offered it..

You have a very selective memory of UN resolutions, UG, and neglect to mention the fact that Israel has ignored every UN resolution since then. Very convenient.

Nor do you mention that the 20^th Zionist Congress rejected the earlier Peel Commission Plan of 1937 (when the Jewish population of Palestine was only 27%), even though Jews would have been given some of the most fertile land in the Galilee valley and more of the coastal strip than in the later UN plan, because the areas allocated to the "Jewish state" were "too small". The Zionists wanted more even then and they have never stopped wanting more.

But the most damning part of that rejection comes from Ben Gurion himself.

"Had partition been carried out, the history of our people would have been different and six million Jews in Europe would not have been killed---most of them would be in Israel" (“One Palestine, Complete: Jews and Arabs Under the British Mandate” by Tom Segev p. 414).

... all because of Zionist greed. Disgusting.

There are indeed rumours that Ben Gurion had territorial ambitions beyond the allocation of the Peel Commission and even the November 29th UN agreement. It is even plausible that he welcomed the Palestinian's refusal to cooperate with the process and the ensuing civil war. But name-calling and feeling 'disgust' over history does not promote a clear understanding of history or provide a basis for suggesting solutions to the current mess, which is what this topic is about.

Edited August 18, 2014 by metisdead

[dexterm]

There are reasonable arguments to say that Palestine SHOULD be offered 100%. If I stole $100 dollars from you, would you think it just that, when pressed, I returned only $25 and spent the rest on myself?

Your example has no bearing on reality. The Palestinians turned down the UN deal. They possessed no land to be "stolen" and they still don't. There was never an independent Arab state called Palestine. They are trying to get something that they never had and refused when offered it..

You have a very selective memory of UN resolutions, UG, and neglect to mention the fact that Israel has ignored every UN resolution since then. Very convenient.

Nor do you mention that the 20^th Zionist Congress rejected the earlier Peel Commission Plan of 1937 (when the Jewish population of Palestine was only 27%), even though Jews would have been given some of the most fertile land in the Galilee valley and more of the coastal strip than in the later UN plan, because the areas allocated to the "Jewish state" were "too small". The Zionists wanted more even then and they have never stopped wanting more.

But the most damning part of that rejection comes from Ben Gurion himself.

"Had partition been carried out, the history of our people would have been different and six million Jews in Europe would not have been killed---most of them would be in Israel" (“One Palestine, Complete: Jews and Arabs Under the British Mandate” by Tom Segev p. 414).

... all because of Zionist greed. Disgusting.

There are indeed rumours that Ben Gurion had territorial ambitions beyond the allocation of the Peel Commission and even the November 29th UN agreement. It is even plausible that he welcomed the Palestinian's refusal to cooperate with the process and the ensuing civil war. But name-calling and feeling 'disgust' over history does not promote a clear understanding of history or provide a basis for suggesting solutions to the current mess, which is what this topic is about.

So long as the Israeli apologists keep digging up their phoney history, I’ll keep busting their myths.

There is a continuum of Zionist greed throughout their whole colonization of Palestine, which is relevant to today’s expansion of squattlements on the West bank...the main obstacle to a permanent peace.