Netanyahu declares 'victory' in Gaza

[Seastallion]

Post edited to indicate points of contention:

1. .... FEAR of being mass murdered based on actual evidence of Palestinian desire to do exactly that.

2. A powerful Palestinian state with intentions to win all of Jewish Israel could potentially do that. ...

3. So Palestinian recognition of Israel's right to exist in words and actions is something that actually could move things forward ... easier said than done though of course.

But Netanyahu isn't Israel and Israel still IS a Jewish state. People on both sides shouldn't stop working for a two state solution .....

1. Where is the evidence that Palestinians want to mass murder Jews? Just to help you along - Hamas is not Palestine. Fatah is not even Palestine.

2. You are, honestly, worried about a "powerful Palestinian state"? Fat chance of that while Israel has crushed Palestine economically for decades. And I will have to conclude that your paranoia is taking over again unless you can direct me to a statement from the Palestine Authority - or Fatah - that they aim to "win all of Jewish Israel".

3. Palestine has offered and still offers recognition of a right to exist of Israel. As recently as June this year. Wake up.

4. Netanyahu is the leader of Israel. More importantly, there are fellow sociopathic politicians just as nefarious as he who are ready to take his place should he fall under bus. And I am impressed that you are one of the minority of Israelis who is "working for a 2 state solution". All you have to do is to convince the land thieves to take the option seriously, and not keep using it as a diversion for ever more colonial activities.

So, by your logic, if both the Fatah and the Hamas do not represent the Palestinians (or as you put it "is not Palestine"), who

is Israel supposed to negotiate with? Can't have it both ways. Hamas and Fatah do represent, between then, most of the

Palestinian public. Over the years there were numerous incidents of terrorist attacks, massacres and rockets attacks on Jews.

These were inspired and orchestrated, in turn, by both the Fatah and the Hamas (not to mention earlier days, before the two

existed). The accompanying rhetoric to these attacks is almost without change. So just to help you along, the Jewish

apprehensions are well grounded.

As far as I understand the claim is not that there will instantly be a "powerful Palestinian state" but weariness it should become

so in the future. It can be noticed that even Hamas by itself, and operating solely from the Gaza Strip can pose a hardship for

Israel. Having to deal with an extended version of the same would be much more difficult, and effectively mean all of Israel's

territory would be exposed to attacks. The Fatah currently head the PA, and their claim is far from solid. New elections might

very well see Hamas gain the upper hand. Regardless, some elements in the Fatah are pretty close to Hamas views when it

comes to armed struggle against Israel. Certain representatives of this approach remain quite out-spoken and some are in a

ringside position to play a major role once Abbas steps down.

As you claim neither the Fatah nor the Hamas are "Palestine", which "Palestine" was it that offered recognition of Israel's right

to exist? If this was meant to imply the PA, then the PA is effectively run by Fatah (and both do not need to offer recognition of

Israel's right to exist, as they already did this - sort of the basis of current agreements in place). If you meant Hamas, then this

is of course not a real proposition, but a re-hash of some misguided claims.

So while Palestinian political leadership is not "Palestine", Netanyahu and other right wing politicians are somehow "Israel".

Great logic at work. Again. Could you possibly name any accepted right wing leader in Israel able to unify and lead all the

relevant parties into a semblance of a coalition? Or, for that matter, to be able to strike an essential coalition deal with non-

right wing parties. Also, as far as I am aware JT is not Israeli, although with the way some people mix Israelis/Jews/Zionists

the confusion is understandable.

Quote: Who is Israel supposed to negotiate with? Well, if Netanyahu hadn't been such a war-mongerer, he could have been negotiating with the Palestinian Unity Government that was formed in April 2014 - and recognised Israel's right to exist. Sure, this was a temporary government, but that meant an even better opportunity to hold out an olive branch to influence the planned Palestinian elections. But it isn't that relevant who Israel can negotiate with - we know that Israel does not want peace. It sue is happy to have a long lasting truce - but a long lasting peace? Nope. Can't steal land anymore.

BTW, Fatah and Hamas may be the major Palestinian parties, but there are about a dozen or so that contested the last elections. My personal favourite, as you already know, is the Palestinian National Initiative - a pro-peace 2 state solution party. Led by an intelligent and compassionate man of high integrity. He is the one who actually brokered the deal that led to the formation of the Palestinian Unity Government in April 2014. So, no. Fatah and Hamas may be major parties, but do not represent all Palestinians.

Sure, there is not just the possibility, but the certainty that the Palestinian political scene will change over time. And this could lead to continuing, or even greater, threats to Israel. UNLESS, Israel seeks a sincere solution, and does so sooner rather than later. A just negotiated peace would weaken the militants in Palestine, and strengthen the pro-democracy forces. It's as plain as the nose on your face that Israel must choose between future security or stealing more land. While the land theft proponents rule the Israeli position, the future threats grow. Its up to Israelis - either they want their children to live in peace, or they want to attain the insane visions of obsolete religious sects.

Quote: As you claim neither the Fatah nor the Hamas are "Palestine".

Yes, that's right, I did. Just in case you didn't quite grab what I said above, there are over a dozen political parties in Palestine. Some - such as the PNI - should be nurtured by those in Israel who hope for a Palestine that is a good neighbour who shares the aims of peaceful coexistence. I don't deny that Hamas and Fatah are the largest parties, but it is not that simple. All the more reason why the failure to deal with the Unity Government was such a stupid move for peace-lovers in Israel.

Quote: Great logic at work. Again.

Thankyou for your kind and honest recognition of my talent.

The question "Who is Israel supposed to negotiate with?" is so very much redolent of a Golda Maier rhetorical yet significant (to today's discussions) question; "How can we return the occupied territories? There is nobody to return them to." Golda Maier, March 8, 1969. " .

[Ulysses G.]

No doubt UG will request the truth to be deleted.

Don't worry. Who is going to read this illiterate mishmash of what are, no doubt, lies? It is not even worth trying to figure out what point you are trying to make, in order to refute it. I can't remember the last time that you posted something that turned out to be accurate.

Edited August 31, 2014 by Ulysses G.

[arjunadawn]

Yet the conclusion is actually all the matters. In light of my deep seated knowledge (yes, I am sure I possess) regarding Islam I just cant see how any of this is but re arranging furniture on the titanic. Yes, it must be done if there is even a sliver of hope for peace. But if Israel realizes what I realize I would not be surprised the well is being poisoned; perhaps.

Yes, I agree to a large extent. I am not over-confident about the possibilities of peace with the increasing influence of more radical and fundamentalist groups in Gaza, especially when we have an Israel ruled by fanatics as well.

But focusing for a moment on the Palestinian side - I don't think Islam itself is the problem (although I acknowledge that you seem to have a much greater knowledge of the religion than I). I think the twisting of Islam to suit the agendas of power-hungry fundamentalists and/or angry people is where the fault lies, not in the religion itself. The same as I don't believe that the Jewish religion is the problem, but that in Israel it has been hijacked by power-hungry fundamentalists with delusions of both grandeur and persecution. If we look at the sermons of priests and vicars during the Troubles in Ireland we find the same twisted use of religion, so it is not restricted to the Middle East, nor Islam and Judaism. The fundamental flaw is one of human nature, not religion.

The faded, jaded optimism I cling to is based on meetings I had with a number of Palestinian people (some Muslims, some agnostic, some atheist) over 10 years ago - including Mustafa Baghouti, who I have mentioned previously as a Palestine peace activist who is worthy of admiration. I know these Palestinian people haven't changed in any fundamental way. Sure there has been considerable change in other elements of Palestinian society, but I do maintain my hope that the qualities of integrity and compassion the Palestinians I know exhibited can still guide the future of their people. Baghouti and others like him continue to struggle to set the agenda in Palestine. Likewise, there are Israelis who demonstrate similar qualities to Baghouti, and who struggle to shift the agenda of Netanyahu. But as we have seen just now with what happened in Gaza, both groups have failed to have sufficient impact. And I maintain that the largest share of the responsibility for this rests with Israel, especially given the circumstances that led to this latest war in Gaza. The biggest kid on the block must always be the one to kick start peace - or who kick starts war. Israel could create the momentum that those concerned with peace in Palestine would benefit from. But under the present regime of people such as Lieberman and Netanyahu it chooses the alternative, leading to the deaths of thousands of innocent Palestinians, and dozens of well-meaning Israeli patriots whose lives have been sacrificed for the egos and agendas of fanatics.

The difference is they are not using a false, "twisted use of religion." Their citations are specific. Moreover, Islamic history and Jurisprudence is largely filled with precedents for most things happening today in the middle east. Through scriptural exegesis (most of it long closed), fatwa, and practice they have a highly developed, if repugnant structure for the conduct of life. People do not wildly make citations that is not based in sharia. Otherwise, irrespective who they were, they would be hunted down and stoned. But they always make citation. When they speak to each other they must cite authority. Listen!

The unpleasant nature of really understanding the underlying motivations and obligations is distasteful; it causes one to view people in a way that is... frightening. Their purpose is Allah, their method is war, their aim is Shariah, their bodies are irrelevant, and Jihad is their vehicle. Gosh, it nearly reads like one of those drone cults in a B movie, like Conan the Barbarian or the Temple of Doom but this is precisely the case. It is not related to Gaza or the Levant; this is a symptom.

Actually, have you considered that you too might also read like one of those drone cults? I ask this with the confidence that I can cite numerous examples from this forum, but also with the confidence that you, as you so often claim, accept different views for contemplation and consideration of their validity or otherwise, and thus will take my observation for what it is.

You know, I was just in the garden thinking I need to back off; back off, of course, regarding this forum thread and how my posts are subtle but increasingly seem bordering on impolite. I have already communicated everything (kinda) that this thread could generate from me and at this point I am beginning to sound really closed minded. I see this; you are correct. I am confident but I am not really closed minded. (I loathe the day I tell someone I am right and secretly know I am wrong. I am not this).

If I wanted to draft an argument against me I could wander through this entire thread extracting comments I have made. Perhaps it could be argued I am an anti muslim anti Palestinian agitator hiding behind sentence construction and English. I think someone could make an argument like this from my posts and depending on how the excerpts were used, could make a valid point against me. It is not true, however. I am so passionately interested in the course of affairs in this area but I have no idea what to do, or even paths. I have a deeply held, constantly informed view, of the underlying religions of the area, but I am eventually lost in details- like many others.

I, for one, have already had my views influenced on a very significant point regarding the Israeli/Arab issue, in this and another thread, and explained to others how I revised my view. Unlike some religions, my book is not closed. Revelation may still come. Thank you, Seastallion. You are again correct.

[arjunadawn]

Fast forward to the future...."Everybody has to move, run and grab as many hilltops as they can to enlarge the settlements because everything we take now will stay ours... Everything we don't grab will go to them." Ariel Sharon, Israeli Foreign Minister, addressing a meeting of militants from the extreme right-wing Tsomet Party, Agence France Presse, November 15, 1998.

In a democratic society people pander to various constituencies. Perhaps he was doing this here. But it doesn't matter if his remarks reinforce the perceptions of the arabs he will deal with. So, it has the effect of not being true but incidentally effecting peace possibilities as if it were true, or being true, which effects the peace process possibilities. Either way, it makes you wonder what the hell these people are thinking some times- all of them!

I think in one form or another this is/was a subtle policy in prep for later conceding in negotiations. I think this underlies the settlement policies as well as some other expansions that seems incredulous.

On the day before Israel expands a settlement a Palestinian negotiator may consider these tracts of land as negotiable, and calculate accordingly. The next day they become Israel's tracts of lands so later, at negotiations, Israel has more to give. However, that which they are offering up in concessions consists of details which were only recently added to the Israel real estate folder. Yes, I think many people see this. I rationalize this activity as Israel preparing for overwhelming pressure to concede 67 borders, etc. I am uncertain. I have a view but others here speak to this better than me.

[Jingthing]

Well, I don't know if there EVER will be a two state solution, but I'm sure unless Israel's enemies manage to win militarily that part of any deal will need to include significant security allowances for Israel, like buffer zones, because a new Palestinian state won't be the only threat to Israel and Israel is indeed VERY SMALL compared to her surrounding NEIGHBORS. Whether Israel's enemies think that is "fair" or not isn't really relevant.

[Morch]

How, exactly, is Israel increasing its territory by handing control over some of the West Bank to the Palestinians, or by its

withdrawal from the Gaza Strip, or by withdrawing from Southern Lebanon, or by giving the Sinai Peninsula? Present day

Israel is way smaller than the post-1967 Israel.

"Handing control over some of the West Bank to Palestinians". Oh joy. Maybe next Israel may consider giving Palestine back some of their stolen land to have control over.

And "withdrawal from Gaza" indeed. More hasbaric spin. You make it sound like Israel was being a responsible Catholic and practicing the rhythm method. The reality - as I am sure you know - is that Israel was forced to leave the Gaza strip because it had become far too expensive and contentious to have to maintain substantial IDF forces to protect the few ratbag settlers who were the advance troops of the colonists.

You could play cricket for England, you know. The public has been bemoaning the lack of a good spinner in the side.

Not quite sure what your first line is supposed to mean - the PA does control some of the original Palestinian territory, with various level of authority. Inferring that this is complete control or that the current situation is ideal is far removed from what I posted on this topic and others.

The rest as well. Israel withdrew from the Gaza Strip, as it did from Southern Lebanon. Nowhere did I insinuate that this had other reasons than the cost of maintaining presence getting too high, and public opinion in Israel being receptive to the act of withdrawal. It was a factual statement, not a judgmental one - and in response to a claim Israel increased its territory. Whatever imaginary meaning you heaped on my post is your own addition, not mine.

Seems like the one attempting to spin words is you - I never wrote any of the stuff you claimed and it was never part of my posts. Besides, I find cricket terribly boring.

[joepublic]

Well, I don't know if there EVER will be a two state solution, but I'm sure unless Israel's enemies manage to win militarily that part of any deal will need to include significant security allowances for Israel, like buffer zones, because a new Palestinian state won't be the only threat to Israel and Israel is indeed VERY SMALL compared to her surrounding NEIGHBORS. Whether Israel's enemies think that is "fair" or not isn't really relevant.

A state thats has over 200 undeclared nukes, a $3B in the most advanced military technology and a chokehold on the major world institutions does not have to fear anything - unless they know that their basic cause is unjust and cannot be sustained in its current form.

[jacky54]

A state thats has over 200 undeclared nukes, a $3B in the most advanced military technology and a chokehold on the major world institutions does not have to fear anything - unless they know that their basic cause is unjust and cannot be sustained in its current form.

Well the only thing they have to fear is a few million Muslims surrounding them dedicated to the destruction of Israel, some like Hamas more fanatical than others, not a big deal then right? As for a choke hold on world institutions this sounds like classic anti semitism form the 30's with no basis in fact. Hamas do remind me of this bloke the black knight, if they won a victory then i'd hate to see what a defeat would have looked like.

Edited August 31, 2014 by jacky54

[Ulysses G.]

Well, I don't know if there EVER will be a two state solution, but I'm sure unless Israel's enemies manage to win militarily that part of any deal will need to include significant security allowances for Israel, like buffer zones, because a new Palestinian state won't be the only threat to Israel and Israel is indeed VERY SMALL compared to her surrounding NEIGHBORS. Whether Israel's enemies think that is "fair" or not isn't really relevant.

A state thats has over 200 undeclared nukes, a $3B in the most advanced military technology and a chokehold on the major world institutions does not have to fear anything - unless they know that their basic cause is unjust and cannot be sustained in its current form.

So America did not need to worry about hateful, Islamic nuts crashing passenger planes into office buildings full of innocent people?

Any civilized country that does not fear terrorism by radical Islam is a foolish country indeed. It is always better to be safe than sorry, so matter how powerful and just you are and no matter how backwards your enemies.

Edited August 31, 2014 by Ulysses G.

[Jingthing]

Well, I don't know if there EVER will be a two state solution, but I'm sure unless Israel's enemies manage to win militarily that part of any deal will need to include significant security allowances for Israel, like buffer zones, because a new Palestinian state won't be the only threat to Israel and Israel is indeed VERY SMALL compared to her surrounding NEIGHBORS. Whether Israel's enemies think that is "fair" or not isn't really relevant.

A state thats has over 200 undeclared nukes, a $3B in the most advanced military technology and a chokehold on the major world institutions does not have to fear anything - unless they know that their basic cause is unjust and cannot be sustained in its current form.

Chokehold on major world institutions? There it goes again. It used to be you had to visit Nazi and radical Islamist sites to find hate speech like that. Now it's mainstream. This forum has become poisoned by racism.

I want to ask the other active Israel demonizer (so called "anti-Zionists") posters to do me a favor if you will. Please join me in CONDEMNING the Jew hating rhetoric blatantly represented in the post above. It would really give your position more moral authority if you don't just tolerate classic Nazi style racist garbage like that without comment.

Edited August 31, 2014 by Jingthing

[dexterm]

No doubt UG will request the truth to be deleted.

Don't worry. Who is going to read this illiterate mishmash of what are, no doubt, lies? It is not even worth trying to figure out what point you are trying to make, in order to refute it. I can't remember the last time that you posted something that turned out to be accurate.

It's an honor when you shoot the messenger, UG. it means you have run out of rational argument.

Apologies this is just a first draft bust of your oft quoted 47 partition myth. I know I will have plenty of time to hone it, because you are bound to dredge it up again.

Did you know that only ONE of the original 37 signatories to Israel's Declaration of Independence was actually born in modern day Israel. No wonder the Palestinians rejected a partition plan that gave 60% of their land away to illegal aliens.

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

Edited August 31, 2014 by dexterm

[krisb]

Congratulations Israel.

[Ulysses G.]

Did you know that only ONE of the original 37 signatories to Israel's Declaration of Independence was actually born in modern day Israel.

Who cares? How many of the he original signatories to America's Declaration of Independence were actually born in modern day USA?

Israel's Declaration of Independence was signed the day Israel declared independence. It would have been IMPOSSIBLE for any of the original signatories to Israel's Declaration of Independence to be born in modern day Israel.

Edited August 31, 2014 by Ulysses G.

[Jingthing]

Congratulations Israel.

You've got propaganda pictures.

That's novel:

[Morch]

Morch,

“The issue with an approach that pretends to accept all relevant narratives is that ultimately it gives more credence to those explanation which lean on emotive and sensational elements.”...says who? You?

“So, for you, there is no real difference whether a death was caused intentionally or not?”

That is exactly why we need an independent war crimes tribunal, with which Israel will not cooperate. Let's hear narratives different from Mark Regev's

How about quoting the post you're replying to? Makes it both easier to relate and does not leave out parts of it:

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/755451-netanyahu-declares-victory-in-gaza/page-10#entry8319124

No, can't take credit for this notion, it is taught in many history departments, as part of classes which talk about theory

of historical research and such. Alternatively, there are instances which are pretty much the same dealt with in cognitive

and social psychology. Applications for mass communication and political science exist as well, of course.

The level of independence and lack of bias expressed by some of the relevant agencies makes the prospect of even

handed justice a rather problematic issue. There is a lot of talk about Israel not cooperating with such investigations,

but relatively less stress on the difficulties of conducting such investigations in Gaza while under Hamas rule, for example.

It doesn't help investigations when Israel would not even allow Amnesty International or Human Rights Watch to enter Gaza.

http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/.premium-1.611015

If the IDF (from the democratic freedom loving state of Israel) has nothing to hide, why not allow soldiers to testify. Let respected jurists adjudicate with all the evidence at their disposal.

According to your paranoid notion that all other agencies must be biased, you are left with Mark Regev's sole emotive narrative.

But the truth will out ultimately with much braver IDF soldiers bringing more honor to the state of Israel by speaking out about what really happened http://www.breakingthesilence.org.il/

Israel permits entry to the Gaza Strip of reporters, UN workers and several Aid organizations. As far as I know both HRW

and Amnesty are non of the above? HRW and Amnesty, have a rather consistent penchant for doing the best they can to

avoid investigations into human rights violations by Palestinians in general and specifically, Hamas. To be clear, the story

refers to HRW and Amnesty people from the Israel branches, so no real semblance of detached objectivity here. This is

illustrated by the fact that this situation is not new (since 2006 for HRW, 2012 for Amnesty), and that both organizations

have local representative already in the Gaza Strip. Doubt they were really shocked and surprised, but it scores media

points, for sure. Could wonder why they do not attempt the same approach with respect to Egypt.

I will ask again, since still did not get a clear answer on this - do many countries allow their soldiers to be interrogated and

judged by foreign/international courts all that readily? Why does this higher standard applied to Israel? Most countries do

not give up their judicial sovereignty willingly.

The relevant investigation underway, by the UNHRC, is a good example of why Israel rightly sees some UN agencies as

biased. An agency which dedicated about half of its efforts and energy to dealing with issues pertaining to Israel, cannot be

taken to be anything but biased. Israel does wrong, but surely, it does not amount to half of the human rights violations and

issues happening globally. The view that the council's work was biased in this regard was even pronounced by the UNSG.

I daresay that Israel would be much less defensive (or indeed, likely to reject) an investigative effort by the UNSC or the

UNGA. I did not claim all agencies are biased, but some, alleging otherwise is your own addition.

Not quite sure what your point was with the Breaking the Silence link. In fact, it leads to something that starts off with the

headline Morals and war don't go together, which is a sentiment many soldiers and ex-soldiers could wholly or partially

accept. Don't think I ever claimed the IDF is the Army of Light and that IDF soldiers are angels. Warfare isn't pretty or nice.

As others on this forums posted, the standards expected from the IDF are unreal, and similar standards are not usually

posed before other armies carrying operations under similar conditions or otherwise.

[Jingthing]

Speaking of reporters in Gaza ...

[Ulysses G.]

It's an honor when you shoot the messenger, UG. it means you have run out of rational argument.

Pointing out all your FAKE QUOTES, incorrect information and outright fabrications in your posts is rational argument where I come from. The truth is that you almost never provide accurate information in any of your posts and that has been proved repeatedly.

[Morch]

How, exactly, is Israel increasing its territory by handing control over some of the West Bank to the Palestinians, or by its

withdrawal from the Gaza Strip, or by withdrawing from Southern Lebanon, or by giving the Sinai Peninsula? Present day

Israel is way smaller than the post-1967 Israel.

"Handing control over some of the West Bank to Palestinians". Oh joy. Maybe next Israel may consider giving Palestine back some of their stolen land to have control over.

And "withdrawal from Gaza" indeed. More hasbaric spin. You make it sound like Israel was being a responsible Catholic and practicing the rhythm method. The reality - as I am sure you know - is that Israel was forced to leave the Gaza strip because it had become far too expensive and contentious to have to maintain substantial IDF forces to protect the few ratbag settlers who were the advance troops of the colonists.

You could play cricket for England, you know. The public has been bemoaning the lack of a good spinner in the side.

Present day Israel is way smaller than the post-1967 Israel.

...and present day Israel is much bigger than 1947 Israel! The Palestinians are compromising hugely already agreeing to 67 borders (incl land swaps).

It's like stealing someone's house, holding onto it but allowing the victims to camp out in the back garden.

I am amazed that someone such as yourself who professes to be educated on the subject, could dish up such naive baloney spin.

Well, things could have gone differently in 1947 had the Palestinians accepted the partition resolution instead of rejecting it,

going to war and losing. There's a certain point where some responsibility for actions taken needs to be acknowledged.

Discounting Hamas's wishes for total territorial gain, most formulations for final peace agreements revolve around the 1967

lines, not 1947. The differences in territory between 1947 and 1967 are less dramatic. Since 1967, Israel did not expand it

territory in any meaningful lasting way, quite the contrary.

[dexterm]

Did you know that only ONE of the original 37 signatories to Israel's Declaration of Independence was actually born in modern day Israel.

Who cares? How many of the he original signatories to America's Declaration of Independence were actually born in modern day USA?

Israel's Declaration of Independence was signed the day Israel declared independence. It would have been IMPOSSIBLE for any of the original signatories to Israel's Declaration of Independence to be born in modern day Israel.

Thanks for your puerile pedantry, UG. I'll remember to write "what is now modern day Israel" if it helps your comprehension the next time you mention the 47 partition plan. Although it would strike most people as tautological.

[Morch]

Yes, I agree to a large extent. I am not over-confident about the possibilities of peace with the increasing influence of more radical and fundamentalist groups in Gaza, especially when we have an Israel ruled by fanatics as well.

But focusing for a moment on the Palestinian side - I don't think Islam itself is the problem (although I acknowledge that you seem to have a much greater knowledge of the religion than I). I think the twisting of Islam to suit the agendas of power-hungry fundamentalists and/or angry people is where the fault lies, not in the religion itself. The same as I don't believe that the Jewish religion is the problem, but that in Israel it has been hijacked by power-hungry fundamentalists with delusions of both grandeur and persecution. If we look at the sermons of priests and vicars during the Troubles in Ireland we find the same twisted use of religion, so it is not restricted to the Middle East, nor Islam and Judaism. The fundamental flaw is one of human nature, not religion.

The faded, jaded optimism I cling to is based on meetings I had with a number of Palestinian people (some Muslims, some agnostic, some atheist) over 10 years ago - including Mustafa Baghouti, who I have mentioned previously as a Palestine peace activist who is worthy of admiration. I know these Palestinian people haven't changed in any fundamental way. Sure there has been considerable change in other elements of Palestinian society, but I do maintain my hope that the qualities of integrity and compassion the Palestinians I know exhibited can still guide the future of their people. Baghouti and others like him continue to struggle to set the agenda in Palestine. Likewise, there are Israelis who demonstrate similar qualities to Baghouti, and who struggle to shift the agenda of Netanyahu. But as we have seen just now with what happened in Gaza, both groups have failed to have sufficient impact. And I maintain that the largest share of the responsibility for this rests with Israel, especially given the circumstances that led to this latest war in Gaza. The biggest kid on the block must always be the one to kick start peace - or who kick starts war. Israel could create the momentum that those concerned with peace in Palestine would benefit from. But under the present regime of people such as Lieberman and Netanyahu it chooses the alternative, leading to the deaths of thousands of innocent Palestinians, and dozens of well-meaning Israeli patriots whose lives have been sacrificed for the egos and agendas of fanatics.

You make it sound easier than it is. Does Israel just have to announce it wants peace? you make it sound this simple; and it is not. You don't attach all the many things that would be contingent on even this profound, declared good will. Peace is not reached from a position of weakness, only strength- If Israel says lets discuss peace NOW- today, in Ramallah, Jeru, wherever, after a pause from shock there will be implicit and explicit attachments. Why? Because the only reason, from an arab mind, that someone with strength seeks peace, is because they lack the strength! The muslim cosmology does not work the same way as the western mind. It just has a very different perspective on which it views the world.

To add a relevant example to your argument - Egypt's perceived achievements of the 1973 war (without getting into debate

whether this perception was founded) played a key role in its willingness to engage in peace negotiations with Israel. Post

1967, this would have been much harder, due to the defeat suffered and subsequent loss of prestige.

The same could be applied to the current Palestinian Unity government effort. It was not possible to to push this through so

long as one side did not have a strong enough leverage over the other (in this case, economic).

The victory announcements by both Israel and the Hamas could be views as instances of the same. One simply cannot go

and strike a deal as a losing side in the Middle East. If possible, this should be conveyed to the people of the opposing side,

but as often as not, leaders make do with broadcasting this image domestically, regardless of the situation and their rival's

similar claims.

Edit - a bit cut by accident.

Edited August 31, 2014 by Morch

[chuckd]

Did you know that only ONE of the original 37 signatories to Israel's Declaration of Independence was actually born in modern day Israel.

Who cares? How many of the he original signatories to America's Declaration of Independence were actually born in modern day USA?

Israel's Declaration of Independence was signed the day Israel declared independence. It would have been IMPOSSIBLE for any of the original signatories to Israel's Declaration of Independence to be born in modern day Israel.

UG:

Don't confuse him with facts. His mind is made up.

[Ulysses G.]

Well, things could have gone differently in 1947 had the Palestinians accepted the partition resolution instead of rejecting it, going to war and losing. There's a certain point where some responsibility for actions taken needs to be acknowledged.

There it is in a nutshell. THE FACTS.

[Ulysses G.]

Did you know that only ONE of the original 37 signatories to Israel's Declaration of Independence was actually born in modern day Israel.

Who cares? How many of the he original signatories to America's Declaration of Independence were actually born in modern day USA?

Israel's Declaration of Independence was signed the day Israel declared independence. It would have been IMPOSSIBLE for any of the original signatories to Israel's Declaration of Independence to be born in modern day Israel.

UG:

Don't confuse him with facts. His mind is made up.

Very true. Facts are the main thing that are missing from most of his posts..

[arjunadawn]

You make it sound easier than it is. Does Israel just have to announce it wants peace? you make it sound this simple; and it is not. You don't attach all the many things that would be contingent on even this profound, declared good will. Peace is not reached from a position of weakness, only strength- If Israel says lets discuss peace NOW- today, in Ramallah, Jeru, wherever, after a pause from shock there will be implicit and explicit attachments. Why? Because the only reason, from an arab mind, that someone with strength seeks peace, is because they lack the strength! The muslim cosmology does not work the same way as the western mind. It just has a very different perspective on which it views the world.

To add a relevant example to your argument - Egypt's perceived achievements of the 1973 war (without getting into debate

whether this perception was founded) played a key role in its willingness to engage in peace negotiations with Israel. Post

1967, this would have been much harder, due to the defeat suffered and subsequent loss of prestige.

The same could be applied to the current Palestinian Unity government effort. It was not possible to to push this through so

long as one side did not have a strong enough leverage over the other (in this case, economic).

The victory announcements by both Israel and the Hamas could be views as instances of the same. One simply cannot go

and strike a deal as a losing side in the Middle East. If possible, this should be conveyed to the people of the opposing side,

but as often as not, leaders make do with broadcasting this image domestically, regardless of the situation and their rival's

similar claims.

Edit - a bit cut by accident.

My posts frequently get ate up when using the ipad and when messed up, my train of thought expires, so I delete or edit.

Yes, these folks need a roadmap to the roadmap to the peace talks. Its hard to ever get to substantive talks when so many interested or aggrieved parties have their finger in the soup. As I have said previously the minutiae of the talks process over the years is not my strong area; I know some, but it can be improved upon. This is why I read Dextrem [sp] and UG and Cbr250[sp] and other posts with interest.

[dexterm]

How, exactly, is Israel increasing its territory by handing control over some of the West Bank to the Palestinians, or by its

withdrawal from the Gaza Strip, or by withdrawing from Southern Lebanon, or by giving the Sinai Peninsula? Present day

Israel is way smaller than the post-1967 Israel.

"Handing control over some of the West Bank to Palestinians". Oh joy. Maybe next Israel may consider giving Palestine back some of their stolen land to have control over.

And "withdrawal from Gaza" indeed. More hasbaric spin. You make it sound like Israel was being a responsible Catholic and practicing the rhythm method. The reality - as I am sure you know - is that Israel was forced to leave the Gaza strip because it had become far too expensive and contentious to have to maintain substantial IDF forces to protect the few ratbag settlers who were the advance troops of the colonists.

You could play cricket for England, you know. The public has been bemoaning the lack of a good spinner in the side.

Present day Israel is way smaller than the post-1967 Israel.

...and present day Israel is much bigger than 1947 Israel! The Palestinians are compromising hugely already agreeing to 67 borders (incl land swaps).

It's like stealing someone's house, holding onto it but allowing the victims to camp out in the back garden.

I am amazed that someone such as yourself who professes to be educated on the subject, could dish up such naive baloney spin.

Well, things could have gone differently in 1947 had the Palestinians accepted the partition resolution instead of rejecting it,

going to war and losing. There's a certain point where some responsibility for actions taken needs to be acknowledged.

Discounting Hamas's wishes for total territorial gain, most formulations for final peace agreements revolve around the 1967

lines, not 1947. The differences in territory between 1947 and 1967 are less dramatic. Since 1967, Israel did not expand it

territory in any meaningful lasting way, quite the contrary.

I can see you’re anxious to deflect debate away from the nefarious Zionist background to Israel’s foundation. Would you have accepted a UN General Assembly without authority giving 60% of your land away to illegal aliens and agree to be ethnically cleansed as was suggested in the earlier Peel Commission?

And a very neat sweeping under the carpet of 47-67, Morch, which just happens to have created most of the refugees currently living in Gaza, who are still resisting.

Then we have since 1967... “ Israel did not expand its territory in any meaningful lasting way”

Nice try with the weasel words, Morch. But you ain’t fooling anyone. I’m amazed you are naive enough to think you could.

You are playing with statistical land areas..the Sinai Peninsula is a huge 60,000 sq kms compared with Israel’s present 20,770 sq kms. It’s like carjacking and mugging the passengers, and saying “Look I have already returned the car to the driver? What more do you want?” while you’re still kicking the passengers on the ground.

Of course statistically Israel gave a lot of empty desert back to its rightful owner..Egypt. It had to if it wanted peace with them.

Better refresh your memory about Israel’s expansion here...

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

Israel should try returning land to the Palestinians on the West Bank, if it wants a permanent peace.

Edited August 31, 2014 by dexterm

[dexterm]

Did you know that only ONE of the original 37 signatories to Israel's Declaration of Independence was actually born in modern day Israel.

Who cares? How many of the he original signatories to America's Declaration of Independence were actually born in modern day USA?

Israel's Declaration of Independence was signed the day Israel declared independence. It would have been IMPOSSIBLE for any of the original signatories to Israel's Declaration of Independence to be born in modern day Israel.

UG:

Don't confuse him with facts. His mind is made up.

Very true. Facts are the main thing that are missing from most of his posts..

Wow, 4 ad hominem attacks...praise indeed, thanks guys. Quick...phone a friend; call in the Obfuscation Squad. Obviously I'm hitting a very raw nerve with the truth .

[Morch]

1. Where is the evidence that Palestinians want to mass murder Jews? Just to help you along - Hamas is not Palestine. Fatah is not even Palestine.

2. You are, honestly, worried about a "powerful Palestinian state"? Fat chance of that while Israel has crushed Palestine economically for decades. And I will have to conclude that your paranoia is taking over again unless you can direct me to a statement from the Palestine Authority - or Fatah - that they aim to "win all of Jewish Israel".

3. Palestine has offered and still offers recognition of a right to exist of Israel. As recently as June this year. Wake up.

4. Netanyahu is the leader of Israel. More importantly, there are fellow sociopathic politicians just as nefarious as he who are ready to take his place should he fall under bus. And I am impressed that you are one of the minority of Israelis who is "working for a 2 state solution". All you have to do is to convince the land thieves to take the option seriously, and not keep using it as a diversion for ever more colonial activities.

So, by your logic, if both the Fatah and the Hamas do not represent the Palestinians (or as you put it "is not Palestine"), who is Israel supposed to negotiate with? Can't have it both ways. Hamas and Fatah do represent, between then, most of the Palestinian public. Over the years there were numerous incidents of terrorist attacks, massacres and rockets attacks on Jews. These were inspired and orchestrated, in turn, by both the Fatah and the Hamas (not to mention earlier days, before the two existed). The accompanying rhetoric to these attacks is almost without change. So just to help you along, the Jewish apprehensions are well grounded.

As far as I understand the claim is not that there will instantly be a "powerful Palestinian state" but weariness it should become so in the future. It can be noticed that even Hamas by itself, and operating solely from the Gaza Strip can pose a hardship for Israel. Having to deal with an extended version of the same would be much more difficult, and effectively mean all of Israel's territory would be exposed to attacks. The Fatah currently head the PA, and their claim is far from solid. New elections might very well see Hamas gain the upper hand. Regardless, some elements in the Fatah are pretty close to Hamas views when it comes to armed struggle against Israel. Certain representatives of this approach remain quite out-spoken and some are in a ringside position to play a major role once Abbas steps down.

As you claim neither the Fatah nor the Hamas are "Palestine", which "Palestine" was it that offered recognition of Israel's right to exist? If this was meant to imply the PA, then the PA is effectively run by Fatah (and both do not need to offer recognition of Israel's right to exist, as they already did this - sort of the basis of current agreements in place). If you meant Hamas, then this is of course not a real proposition, but a re-hash of some misguided claims.

So while Palestinian political leadership is not "Palestine", Netanyahu and other right wing politicians are somehow "Israel". Great logic at work. Again. Could you possibly name any accepted right wing leader in Israel able to unify and lead all the relevant parties into a semblance of a coalition? Or, for that matter, to be able to strike an essential coalition deal with non-right wing parties. Also, as far as I am aware JT is not Israeli, although with the way some people mix Israelis/Jews/Zionists the confusion is understandable.

Quote: Who is Israel supposed to negotiate with? Well, if Netanyahu hadn't been such a war-mongerer, he could have been negotiating with the Palestinian Unity Government that was formed in April 2014 - and recognised Israel's right to exist. Sure, this was a temporary government, but that meant an even better opportunity to hold out an olive branch to influence the planned Palestinian elections. But it isn't that relevant who Israel can negotiate with - we know that Israel does not want peace. It sue is happy to have a long lasting truce - but a long lasting peace? Nope. Can't steal land anymore.

BTW, Fatah and Hamas may be the major Palestinian parties, but there are about a dozen or so that contested the last elections. My personal favourite, as you already know, is the Palestinian National Initiative - a pro-peace 2 state solution party. Led by an intelligent and compassionate man of high integrity. He is the one who actually brokered the deal that led to the formation of the Palestinian Unity Government in April 2014. So, no. Fatah and Hamas may be major parties, but do not represent all Palestinians.

Sure, there is not just the possibility, but the certainty that the Palestinian political scene will change over time. And this could lead to continuing, or even greater, threats to Israel. UNLESS, Israel seeks a sincere solution, and does so sooner rather than later. A just negotiated peace would weaken the militants in Palestine, and strengthen the pro-democracy forces. It's as plain as the nose on your face that Israel must choose between future security or stealing more land. While the land theft proponents rule the Israeli position, the future threats grow. Its up to Israelis - either they want their children to live in peace, or they want to attain the insane visions of obsolete religious sects.

Quote: As you claim neither the Fatah nor the Hamas are "Palestine".

Yes, that's right, I did. Just in case you didn't quite grab what I said above, there are over a dozen political parties in Palestine. Some - such as the PNI - should be nurtured by those in Israel who hope for a Palestine that is a good neighbour who shares the aims of peaceful coexistence. I don't deny that Hamas and Fatah are the largest parties, but it is not that simple. All the more reason why the failure to deal with the Unity Government was such a stupid move for peace-lovers in Israel.

Quote: Great logic at work. Again.

Thankyou for your kind and honest recognition of my talent.

The question "Who is Israel supposed to negotiate with?" is so very much redolent of a Golda Maier rhetorical yet significant (to today's discussions) question; "How can we return the occupied territories? There is nobody to return them to." Golda Maier, March 8, 1969. " .

Nice twist and cherry picking there. CBR250 was the one claiming the neither Fatah nor Hamas are Palestine (despite them representing an overwhelming majority of the population). In his mind, Israel ought to negotiate either with either Palestinian Unity government (which does not have the mandate to do that) or wait until smaller more pro-peace oriented parties assume a central position. Both options do not address Hamas's stance toward Israel, nor are they in touch with reality.

[Ulysses G.]

Would you have accepted a UN General Assembly without authority giving 60% of your land away to illegal aliens and agree to be ethnically cleansed as was suggested in the earlier Peel Commission?

The Palestinian Arabs owned very little land of their own - as has been pointed out to you repeatedly - and plenty them were also "illegal aliens" who had come to the area to take advantage of the economic boom that mainly the Jews were responsible for. The Arabs had no more right to land than the Jews did, but the Jews accepted the UN deal and the Arabs didn't. That is why the Palestinian Arabs are still stateless and whining about it, 66 years later.

Edited August 31, 2014 by Ulysses G.

[Morch]

Fast forward to the future...."Everybody has to move, run and grab as many hilltops as they can to enlarge the settlements because everything we take now will stay ours... Everything we don't grab will go to them." Ariel Sharon, Israeli Foreign Minister, addressing a meeting of militants from the extreme right-wing Tsomet Party, Agence France Presse, November 15, 1998.

In a democratic society people pander to various constituencies. Perhaps he was doing this here. But it doesn't matter if his remarks reinforce the perceptions of the arabs he will deal with. So, it has the effect of not being true but incidentally effecting peace possibilities as if it were true, or being true, which effects the peace process possibilities. Either way, it makes you wonder what the hell these people are thinking some times- all of them!

I think in one form or another this is/was a subtle policy in prep for later conceding in negotiations. I think this underlies the settlement policies as well as some other expansions that seems incredulous.

On the day before Israel expands a settlement a Palestinian negotiator may consider these tracts of land as negotiable, and calculate accordingly. The next day they become Israel's tracts of lands so later, at negotiations, Israel has more to give. However, that which they are offering up in concessions consists of details which were only recently added to the Israel real estate folder. Yes, I think many people see this. I rationalize this activity as Israel preparing for overwhelming pressure to concede 67 borders, etc. I am uncertain. I have a view but others here speak to this better than me.

I seriously doubt the existence of a coherent unified policy applied by all Israeli governments over time.

That certain actions (not necessarily a reference to Sharon or this specific instance) were done in order to boost future

negotiation positions is true enough. However, with Israeli political views and motivations being rather diverse, what one

government does as a negotiation move may turn to be the next governments ideological Alamo. These changes do not

always take place overnight, but they do occur.

This often makes even things originally intended as bargaining chips hard to trade later on. Pre-negotiation posturing can

acquire a reality of its own if repeated often enough, ending up as a real condition or demand. The longer things drag on,

the list of such things gets longer on both sides.

[dexterm]

Would you have accepted a UN General Assembly without authority giving 60% of your land away to illegal aliens and agree to be ethnically cleansed as was suggested in the earlier Peel Commission?

The Palestinian Arabs owned very little land of their own - as has been pointed out to you repeatedly - and plenty them were also "illegal aliens" who had come to the area to take advantage of the economic boom that mainly the Jews were responsible for. The Arabs had no more right to land than the Jews did, but the Jews accepted the UN deal and the Arabs didn't. That is why the Palestinian Arabs are still stateless and whining about it, 66 years later.

I suggest you take another look at the 1950 UN published map land ownership?

http://www.palestineremembered.com/Acre/Maps/Story573.html

As of 1947, Jews in Palestine owned under 7% of the Palestine's lands, and after the 1948 war 80% of the Palestinian people were dispossessed of their homes, farms, and businesses

“and plenty them were also "illegal aliens" ..wow is that a concession from UG that immigrant Jews were illegal aliens. Thanks.

You seem to be using Joan Peters “From Time Immemorial” for your myths about Palestinian immigration.

You’d better read the critique of that hoax By Norman Finkelstein at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/From_Time_Immemorial#Criticism

I suggest you view http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestine for the true history of the Palestinian people. The region has been controlled by numerous different peoples, including Ancient Egyptians, Canaanites, Israelites, Assyrians,Babylonians, Persians, Ancient Greeks, Romans, Byzantines, the Sunni Arab Caliphates, the Shia Fatimid Caliphate, Crusaders, Ayyubids, Mameluks, Ottomans, the British and modern Israelis and Palestinians.

Next you’d have us believe that Moses walked across the Red Sea to inherit a land flowing with milk and honey but devoid of inhabitants . Was Abraham (he wasn’t even a Jew) the first Zionist kicking out Canaanites. Whatever happened to their descendants?

Edited August 31, 2014 by dexterm