UN political chief criticizes Israel for new settlement plans

[Scott]

Off-topic posts and replies removed.

[NeverSure]

Historically we also used to throw Christians to the lions, burn witches, make African Americans sit at the back of the bus, and deny women the vote...but most of us have moved on from there.

This is the 21^st century where we have the rule of International Law and the Geneva Convention which states that you cannot occupy and populate land taken in war with your own citizens, and that refugees who flee during conflicts have the right of return afterwards.

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

No self-respecting country would give up its sovereignty to a group of nations, international or no.

What "international law" do you speak of? I know of none that says what you posted. I know of a treaty which some countries signed and some didn't, and those who didn't are not bound by it. Now, if those who did sign it break the agreement, who the hell is going to do anything about it?

Your own link says:

"Opponents of the right of return hold that there is no basis for it in international law, and that it is an unrealistic demand."

The government of Israel regards the claim as a Palestinian ambit claim, and does not view the admission of Palestinian refugees to their former homes in Israel as a right, but rather as a political claim to be resolved as part of a final peace settlement."

[dexterm]

Historically we also used to throw Christians to the lions, burn witches, make African Americans sit at the back of the bus, and deny women the vote...but most of us have moved on from there.

This is the 21^st century where we have the rule of International Law and the Geneva Convention which states that you cannot occupy and populate land taken in war with your own citizens, and that refugees who flee during conflicts have the right of return afterwards.

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

No self-respecting country would give up its sovereignty to a group of nations, international or no.

What "international law" do you speak of? I know of none that says what you posted. I know of a treaty which some countries signed and some didn't, and those who didn't are not bound by it. Now, if those who did sign it break the agreement, who the hell is going to do anything about it?

Your own link says:

"Opponents of the right of return hold that there is no basis for it in international law, and that it is an unrealistic demand."

The government of Israel regards the claim as a Palestinian ambit claim, and does not view the admission of Palestinian refugees to their former homes in Israel as a right, but rather as a political claim to be resolved as part of a final peace settlement."

Israel is a signatory to the Fourth Geneva Convention. Verify that here...

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

..the convention applies to non signatories too

“In 1993, the United Nations Security Council adopted a report from the Secretary-General and a Commission of Experts which concluded that the Geneva Conventions had passed into the body of customary international law, thus making them binding on non-signatories to the Conventions whenever they engage in armed conflicts.”

In particular read... Article 49 - Population transfers, Article 53 Destruction of Property, and Article 33 Collective Punishment.

Israel’s destruction of Palestinian homes, building settlements to replace them, then transferring its own Jewish population to these settlements is in breach of the Geneva convention to which they are a signatory.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_Geneva_Convention#Section_III._Occupied_territories

Article 49 - Population transfers

Individual or mass forcible transfers, as well as deportations of protected persons from occupied territory to the territory of the Occupying Power or to that of any other country, occupied or not, are prohibited, regardless of their motive.

The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies

Article 53 - Destruction of property

Art. 53. Any destruction by the Occupying Power of real or personal property belonging individually or collectively to private persons, or to the State, or to other public authorities, or to social or cooperative organizations, is prohibited, except where such destruction is rendered absolutely necessary by military operations.

Israel started off building small military outposts after the 67 war which was technically within the Geneva Convention but the wholesale transfer of 500,000 Jewish colonists isn’t.

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

[Morch]

I seriously doubt if Hezbollah, Hamas or the PLO have signed on to the Geneva Convention.

If they did, they would have to buy uniforms for their soldiers.

Palestinian Authority security personnel are uniformed.

As for Hamas and Hezbollah, this is only partially so (more in evidence with elite units and during mass parades).

[Morch]

The best uniforms and soldiers that could possibly intervene are the UN and a peacekeeping force.

I am sure the Palestinians would be happy with such an option.

Only the UN does not normally go in without all sides accepting its presence, and where security conditions are fragile.

For example, the UN forces pulled out of the Israel-Syria border, as it became unsafe for them to be there. The UN forces

in Lebanon been around for a long while, can't really say that they played a major role in keeping the peace.

Your assurance that the Palestinians would be happy with such an option is based on something solid? And is this assurance includes both the PA and the Hamas?

UN peacekeeping forces are placed in areas where peace (or at the very least, a sustainable ceasefire) is achieved, and most of what they do is monitor the area. They do not normally enforce anything. How would such a presence contribute to the situation under the current state of things?

[Morch]

I seriously doubt if Hezbollah, Hamas or the PLO have signed on to the Geneva Convention.

If they did, they would have to buy uniforms for their soldiers.

Exactly. Which is one of the reasons why it is so important to have Palestine recognised as a state.

If statehood is granted with a condition to ratify all appropriate international codes, treaties and agreements, Palestine in fact would become a better global citizen than Israel (who does not ratify all the Geneva protocols or other treaties).

The Palestinians are already free to join quite a few international treaties, conventions and agreements. This comes with the non-member observer state. Of course, signing these things and living up to them are different things. The assumption that the fledgling Palestinian state will indeed sign all of these things, and live up to their ideals is....very optimistic. But don't let that stop you from imagining Palestine as a "better global citizen" than Israel, even if that's putting the horses in front of the carriage.

[Morch]

Yes, thats an interesting article in the New Yorker.

http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2014/11/17/one-state-reality

Israel seems to be sleep walking into a one state solution if they are not prepared to give up their settlements or at least swap equivalent land for them. But Im sure Netanyahu has a plan..just curious what it is?

What are the options?

1. A unilateral declaration that the wall is Israels new border but connected by roads to various Israeli colonies through a patchwork of Palestinian Bantustans...the Palestinians would simply refuse to accept that. The world would not accept that either, with more countries coming out to recognize Palestine within the 67 borders.

2. The Israeli Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman route: Wholesale ethnic cleansing of 4 million Palestinians from the West Bank into Jordan, plus any Israeli Arabs who wont swear allegiance to the Jewish State of Israel. The world would definitely not accept that and may result in a serious escalation of the conflict world wide.

3. A sensible 2 state solution based on 67 borders and Barak and Olmerts 2000 and 2008 plans. 100% global and Arab recognition.

One thing I am certain of is that one day maybe decades from now Israelis and Palestinians will be so intertwined through transmigration that we wouldnt be able to tell them apart. They are geographic neighbors for eternity and people eventually intermingle. Thats the way the world evolves.

And this thread if it survives in cyberspace will be pored over with amusement by future students of history.

Your confidence that Netanyahu operates according to some long term plan is baseless. Netanyahu changes his plans, says one thing then does another, promises anything to anyone. He's a talker, a salesman - not one to take hard decisions.

The two things which seem to matter most for him are personal political survival, and making sure he won't go down in history as having caused Israel severe damage. The first makes him jump about, the second makes him freeze.

There's no master plan, at least not anything realistic or committed to. Play it by ear, dodge, delay, take a step forward, a step backward, but whatever you do keep talking. That's Netanyahu. So better not to expect anything new from him, same old.

In addition, Israel is a thoroughly divided country, and that goes for its political system as well. Currently, non of the "options" you listed will be able to pass the necessary majority votes in parliament.

Netanyahu will just wait and see if Abbas will actually carry out his UN thing. If it's on, well, most previous agreements can be scrapped (or at least, reviewed), which will give him an excuse to do more of the usual. If Abbas backs down, than things go back to "normal".

The leaderships of both sides here are not up to the task of solving issues through painful compromises. This conflict is here

to stay for quite some time.

And yes, from a historical point of view, this will probably seem a bit silly and obscure.

Thank you for your interesting reply.

It just seems odd to me that Israeli politicians and voters can’t see the elephant in the room...4 million Palestinians under occupation with a patchwork quilt of settlements being built all around them, with no idea what they are going to do about the people they are encircling.

Is this debated in the Israeli media or at election times? I am genuinely curious as to what options are being suggested. I can't believe that Israel does not have a contingency plan or is it really as you say..policy is made just day to day on the fly?

Elections in Israel are for parties, with the largest party trying to form a coalition. Voters rarely get an ideal government fitting their wishes, but rather a compromise. Domestic politics dictate certain alliances or impossibilities in the formation of these coalitions.

It is not necessarily that the right wing parties in Israel get an overwhelming majority, but they do have more flexibility when trying to form coalitions. The current government is an uneasy marriage between right wing and center forces, with the left, Jewish orthodox and Arab parties in opposition. In certain alternative scenarios, or with a slightly different spread of votes, things could have gone differently.

The elephant in the room alluded to applies mostly to the right wing - and yes, doubt there's any coherent realistic position on that issue coming from that side of the political map. On the other hand, the right wing often sees the left as delusional when it ignores the obvious issues of dealing with the Palestinians. I rather think both are correct in their assessments of each other.

The issues are debated endlessly on most media outlets, not to mention social media. Election times are obviously a more intense phase of the same. Mostly this goes nowhere, as both right and left are entrenched in their respective positions.

Not sure what is meant by contingency plan. Surely, there are many plans, just not a generally agreed upon one on a national level. In this atmosphere, certain elements and powers can sometimes advance one initiative or another, according to political/ ideological leaning, which does not necessarily have overall public support. Easier to do when holding the reins.

Saying that policy is made on a day by day basis is taking it to the extreme, and would not be accurate. There are, however, a lot of ad hoc decision, backtracking, and moves having more to do with domestic politics. Supporters of the illegal settlement effort have used this state of thing for years to advance their goals. On the other side of the fence, the Oslo accords serve as an example.

[uptheos]

I seriously doubt if Hezbollah, Hamas or the PLO have signed on to the Geneva Convention.

If they did, they would have to buy uniforms for their soldiers.

Exactly. Which is one of the reasons why it is so important to have Palestine recognised as a state.

If statehood is granted with a condition to ratify all appropriate international codes, treaties and agreements, Palestine in fact would become a better global citizen than Israel (who does not ratify all the Geneva protocols or other treaties).

Statehood has been recognized. The State of Palestine is a non-member STATE of the UN.

And as a non-member Hamas controlled STATE of the UN, what exactly is going to be its contribution to the civilised world........will Avocados and Oranges be reigning down on Tel Aviv?

[Morch]

Yes, thats an interesting article in the New Yorker.

http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2014/11/17/one-state-reality

Israel seems to be sleep walking into a one state solution if they are not prepared to give up their settlements or at least swap equivalent land for them. But Im sure Netanyahu has a plan..just curious what it is?

What are the options?

1. A unilateral declaration that the wall is Israels new border but connected by roads to various Israeli colonies through a patchwork of Palestinian Bantustans...the Palestinians would simply refuse to accept that. The world would not accept that either, with more countries coming out to recognize Palestine within the 67 borders.

2. The Israeli Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman route: Wholesale ethnic cleansing of 4 million Palestinians from the West Bank into Jordan, plus any Israeli Arabs who wont swear allegiance to the Jewish State of Israel. The world would definitely not accept that and may result in a serious escalation of the conflict world wide.

3. A sensible 2 state solution based on 67 borders and Barak and Olmerts 2000 and 2008 plans. 100% global and Arab recognition.

One thing I am certain of is that one day maybe decades from now Israelis and Palestinians will be so intertwined through transmigration that we wouldnt be able to tell them apart. They are geographic neighbors for eternity and people eventually intermingle. Thats the way the world evolves.

And this thread if it survives in cyberspace will be pored over with amusement by future students of history.

Your confidence that Netanyahu operates according to some long term plan is baseless. Netanyahu changes his plans, says one thing then does another, promises anything to anyone. He's a talker, a salesman - not one to take hard decisions.The two things which seem to matter most for him are personal political survival, and making sure he won't go down in history as having caused Israel severe damage. The first makes him jump about, the second makes him freeze.

There's no master plan, at least not anything realistic or committed to. Play it by ear, dodge, delay, take a step forward, a step backward, but whatever you do keep talking. That's Netanyahu. So better not to expect anything new from him, same old.

In addition, Israel is a thoroughly divided country, and that goes for its political system as well. Currently, non of the "options" you listed will be able to pass the necessary majority votes in parliament.

Netanyahu will just wait and see if Abbas will actually carry out his UN thing. If it's on, well, most previous agreements can be scrapped (or at least, reviewed), which will give him an excuse to do more of the usual. If Abbas backs down, than things go back to "normal".

The leaderships of both sides here are not up to the task of solving issues through painful compromises. This conflict is here to stay for quite some time.

And yes, from a historical point of view, this will probably seem a bit silly and obscure.

Thank you for your interesting reply.

It just seems odd to me that Israeli politicians and voters can’t see the elephant in the room...4 million Palestinians under occupation with a patchwork quilt of settlements being built all around them, with no idea what they are going to do about the people they are encircling.

Is this debated in the Israeli media or at election times? I am genuinely curious as to what options are being suggested. I can't believe that Israel does not have a contingency plan or is it really as you say..policy is made just day to day on the fly?

Albeit Morch's reply was interesting, I think it is only an entertaining idea to think that there is no long term plan. You only have to look at the Likud manifesto in conjunction with Netanyahu's actions to realise that he has a long term plan. Essentially, (and almost verbatim) Likud's call is "from the river to the sea", a chant decried by anti-Palestinians. Ironic, isn't it?

Another interesting aspect of Morch's idea is that if Netanyahu has no long term goal, while (as Israel claims) the Arabs do have a long term goal (of eradicating Israel), it means the Israeli leadership is short sighted and shallow while the Arab leaders are far seeing and have vision. Not a portrayal that Israeli's would embrace, I daresay.

The Likud charter of 1999 is indeed pretty clear on these issues. Jordan river as an eastern border, no Palestinian state and support for Jewish settlement in the West Bank. Since then, the Likud experienced a major split (mostly to do with territorial issues, namely Sharon's unilateral withdrawal from Gaza), pressed to fulfill certain commitments vs. the Palestinians, and in general, slowly be accustomed to some new realities. A major player in this neither-here-nor-there stance is Netanyahu - a speech given in 2009 being a milestone.

Netanyahu operates on the spectrum between his home grown ideological imperative and his personal disinclination to take big decisions. This is his third term as Prime Minister, and he's been in positions of power longer than that - other than talk, what decisive action did he take on anything?

Unless mistaken, the Likud charter, even in its harsh form, is milder than the PLO charter, never mind the Hamas one.

Additionally, the Likud is a political party (out of many), and not an armed organization, which operates against perceived

enemies under its own authority.

I did not claim that the Arabs have a long term of eradicating Israel. I am not even sure that Israel claims exactly that (yes, one can probably come up with a fitting quote, just please make sure its an official Israeli position). Specifically, the Hamas is indeed bent on that, but with very little likelihood of success. Abbas & Co. may be hostile but are generally more realistic as far as attitude toward Israel goes. I am sure that there are a lot of perfectly reasonable people on both sides who entertain secret fantasies of the others being....gone. That's human and acceptable, as long as it stays a fantasy.

Saying that Israel, and specifically its political right wing, do not have a realistic way of solving the situation (one way or

another), does not mean that the Palestinian leadership is any different. Abbas is as hesitant as Netanyahu, about as credible, and in a shaky political position as far as his authority goes. In the same way he is constrained by ideological premises, domestic politics, personal survival and the lack of needed cojones.

[jdinasia]

I seriously doubt if Hezbollah, Hamas or the PLO have signed on to the Geneva Convention.

If they did, they would have to buy uniforms for their soldiers.

Exactly. Which is one of the reasons why it is so important to have Palestine recognised as a state.

If statehood is granted with a condition to ratify all appropriate international codes, treaties and agreements, Palestine in fact would become a better global citizen than Israel (who does not ratify all the Geneva protocols or other treaties).

Statehood has been recognized. The State of Palestine is a non-member STATE of the UN.

And as a non-member Hamas controlled STATE of the UN, what exactly is going to be its contribution to the civilised world........will Avocados and Oranges be reigning down on Tel Aviv?

We will know what the contribution will be after the occupation ends and the illegal settlements are gone

[Morch]

Exactly. Which is one of the reasons why it is so important to have Palestine recognised as a state.

If statehood is granted with a condition to ratify all appropriate international codes, treaties and agreements, Palestine in fact would become a better global citizen than Israel (who does not ratify all the Geneva protocols or other treaties).

Statehood has been recognized. The State of Palestine is a non-member STATE of the UN.

And as a non-member Hamas controlled STATE of the UN, what exactly is going to be its contribution to the civilised world........will Avocados and Oranges be reigning down on Tel Aviv?

We will know what the contribution will be after the occupation ends and the illegal settlements are gone

Well, no. The Israeli occupation is not the sole cause for all the human right transgressions, political violence and other wrongs prevalent in the West Bank and Gaza Strip. Surely even ardent supporters of the Palestinian cause can at least acknowledge that there are real troublesome issues to do with Palestinian society which are not Israel's responsibility.

Based on their track record, there is not much to be optimistic about. It may not be a reason to withhold statehood, but I doubt that anyone seriously expects Palestine to be a role model country or even a fully functional one, at least short and middle term.

[Ulysses G.]

Based on their track record, there is not much to be optimistic about. It may not be a reason to withhold statehood, but I doubt that anyone seriously expects Palestine to be a role model country or even a fully functional one, at least short and middle term.

Or ever, but too many people want to ignore that fact and just "recognize" a foolhardy experiment that is most likely destined to turn into another failed terrorist state.

Edited November 14, 2014 by Ulysses G.

[Seastallion]

nd as a non-member Hamas controlled STATE of the UN, what exactly is going to be its contribution to the civilised world........will Avocados and Oranges be reigning down on Tel Aviv?

We will know what the contribution will be after the occupation ends and the illegal settlements are gone

Well, no.

The Israeli occupation is not the sole cause for all the human right transgressions, political violence and other wrongs prevalent

in the West Bank and Gaza Strip. Surely even ardent supporters of the Palestinian cause can at least acknowledge that there

are real troublesome issues to do with Palestinian society which are not Israel's responsibility.

Based on their track record, there is not much to be optimistic about. It may not be a reason to withhold statehood, but I doubt

that anyone seriously expects Palestine to be a role model country or even a fully functional one, at least short and middle term.

I don't think anybody has denied that Palestine has it's internal problems, and it's own nasty aggressive, antisemite citizens.

The optimistic outlook is that if Israel acted in a way whereby the UN, the international community, and the majority moderate Palestinians had nothing to criticise it about, a unified state of Palestine would mind it's manners and toe the line....for fear of a return to the generations of bloodshed, if nothing else.

[Morch]

We will know what the contribution will be after the occupation ends and the illegal settlements are gone

Well, no.

The Israeli occupation is not the sole cause for all the human right transgressions, political violence and other wrongs prevalent

in the West Bank and Gaza Strip. Surely even ardent supporters of the Palestinian cause can at least acknowledge that there

are real troublesome issues to do with Palestinian society which are not Israel's responsibility.

Based on their track record, there is not much to be optimistic about. It may not be a reason to withhold statehood, but I doubt

that anyone seriously expects Palestine to be a role model country or even a fully functional one, at least short and middle term.

I don't think anybody has denied that Palestine has it's internal problems, and it's own nasty aggressive, antisemite citizens.

The optimistic outlook is that if Israel acted in a way whereby the UN, the international community, and the majority moderate Palestinians had nothing to criticise it about, a unified state of Palestine would mind it's manners and toe the line....for fear of a return to the generations of bloodshed, if nothing else.

You're assuming rationality and mild mannered European relationship. This is hardly the way of the Middle East.

Furthermore, the assumption that there's a "majority moderate Palestinians" is not based on anything concrete that I know of, or at the very least, a rather vague term when it comes down to practicalities.

The notion that the Palestinian issues with Israel will cease once independence is won is laughable. For starters, the Hamas still holds on to the ideal of having all of it, the so-called Right of Return will always be around as an issue, even if agreement between leaderships is reached. Many other points of conflict will continue to exist.

[uptheos]

I don't think anybody has denied that Palestine has it's internal problems, and it's own nasty aggressive, antisemite citizens.

The optimistic outlook is that if Israel acted in a way whereby the UN, the international community, and the majority moderate Palestinians had nothing to criticise it about, a unified state of Palestine would mind it's manners and toe the line....for fear of a return to the generations of bloodshed, if nothing else.

You and others leave out one major factor, Hamas.

Please explain how Palestinians will rid themselves of this cancer or strategies for making Hamas 'toe the line'.

[jdinasia]

I don't think anybody has denied that Palestine has it's internal problems, and it's own nasty aggressive, antisemite citizens.

The optimistic outlook is that if Israel acted in a way whereby the UN, the international community, and the majority moderate Palestinians had nothing to criticise it about, a unified state of Palestine would mind it's manners and toe the line....for fear of a return to the generations of bloodshed, if nothing else.

You and others leave out one major factor, Hamas.

Please explain how Palestinians will rid themselves of this cancer or strategies for making Hamas 'toe the line'.

That is no more of an issue than making Likud and Israeli right wing groups toe the line.

[uptheos]

I don't think anybody has denied that Palestine has it's internal problems, and it's own nasty aggressive, antisemite citizens.

The optimistic outlook is that if Israel acted in a way whereby the UN, the international community, and the majority moderate Palestinians had nothing to criticise it about, a unified state of Palestine would mind it's manners and toe the line....for fear of a return to the generations of bloodshed, if nothing else.

You and others leave out one major factor, Hamas.

Please explain how Palestinians will rid themselves of this cancer or strategies for making Hamas 'toe the line'.

That is no more of an issue than making Likud and Israeli right wing groups toe the line.

So, you can't explain how a recognised terrorist group, dedicated to wiping Israel off the map can be subdued?

I know that you don't think Hamas is legitimate.....do you?

Everyone knows, even Palestinians that terror is their aim.

[Morch]

I don't think anybody has denied that Palestine has it's internal problems, and it's own nasty aggressive, antisemite citizens.

The optimistic outlook is that if Israel acted in a way whereby the UN, the international community, and the majority moderate Palestinians had nothing to criticise it about, a unified state of Palestine would mind it's manners and toe the line....for fear of a return to the generations of bloodshed, if nothing else.

You and others leave out one major factor, Hamas.

Please explain how Palestinians will rid themselves of this cancer or strategies for making Hamas 'toe the line'.

That is no more of an issue than making Likud and Israeli right wing groups toe the line.

Perhaps when the Likud sets up an armed wing separate from the IDF and operating independently of the Israeli government. Until then, get back under the bridge, please.

[Ulysses G.]

I don't think anybody has denied that Palestine has it's internal problems, and it's own nasty aggressive, antisemite citizens.

The optimistic outlook is that if Israel acted in a way whereby the UN, the international community, and the majority moderate Palestinians had nothing to criticise it about, a unified state of Palestine would mind it's manners and toe the line....for fear of a return to the generations of bloodshed, if nothing else.

You and others leave out one major factor, Hamas.

Please explain how Palestinians will rid themselves of this cancer or strategies for making Hamas 'toe the line'.

That is no more of an issue than making Likud and Israeli right wing groups toe the line.

It has already been pointed out to you repeatedly that Hamas calls for the genocide of Jews and Israelis in its charter. Try to compare Likud with them is just plain ridiculous. Likud do not want a terrorist state - dedicated to their destruction - right next door to them and who can blame them?

[Seastallion]

I don't think anybody has denied that Palestine has it's internal problems, and it's own nasty aggressive, antisemite citizens.

The optimistic outlook is that if Israel acted in a way whereby the UN, the international community, and the majority moderate Palestinians had nothing to criticise it about, a unified state of Palestine would mind it's manners and toe the line....for fear of a return to the generations of bloodshed, if nothing else.

You and others leave out one major factor, Hamas.

Please explain how Palestinians will rid themselves of this cancer or strategies for making Hamas 'toe the line'.

The idea was put forward in an article in a thread a few months ago; If Israel was to concede it's crimes, make compensation for them, make peace based on "67 borders and land swaps, then Fatah will be seen as a saviour, the situation will be seen to be vastly better than most Palestinians have memory of, and Hamas will lose most of it's support.

Peace is too good to pass up on for average people who just want their children to grow up without fear of IDF aggression.

The security of knowing that the land you till will not be bulldozed for Israeli settlers. The peace of mind that your child will not be arrested (or shot) for no reason. The joy of living in a city (Gaza) that can import cinnamon for sweets, and crayons for the kids. The pleasure of being able to go fishing for profit or leisure without having to keep an eye out for gunships.

Etc, etc, etc. These things that will come immediately out of a fair peace deal will sway the majority and severely undermine Hamas.

Or do you think Israel has created too big a chip on the collective Palestinian shoulder that the majority will still hold a grudge?

One of the most important things to keep in mind is that most Palestinians, if not all, have suffered all their lives. A respite, a genuine change in living conditions, will be too valuable to risk losing. Give them a taste of a normal life and see who wants to revert to bloodshed.

[uptheos]

Why I Support Israel - Pat Condell

[Ulysses G.]

One of the most important things to keep in mind is that most Palestinians, if not all, have suffered all their lives. A respite, a genuine change in living conditions, will be too valuable to risk losing. Give them a taste of a normal life and see who wants to revert to bloodshed.

You mean like when Israel handed over Gaza with thousands of money-making greenhouses and threw all the Jewish settlers out? Within weeks the Palestinians had bombed a bus station in Israel, destroyed the greenhouse and drastically increased the number of Qassam rockets fired at Israel. What could have been a first step towards having their own country was turned into an armed camp.

[Seastallion]

That sort of propagandist tripe is not worth listening to.

[uptheos]

That sort of propagandist tripe is not worth listening to.

Of course not it goes right to the core of everything that is really bad, so why would you listen?

[Ulysses G.]

That sort of propagandist tripe is not worth listening to.

All well known facts that are not to your liking. Of course you are not listening.

[Seastallion]

That sort of propagandist tripe is not worth listening to.

Of course not it goes right to the core of everything that is really bad, so why would you listen?

I listened to the first minute and heard so many lies that it was not worth listening to any more.

You asked a question previously about what strategy to get rid of Hamas....I'd be interested to see your response to my reply. I hope your propaganda video was not it!

[Ulysses G.]

Pat Condell does not "lie". He is very historically accurate. He might make a mistake very once in a while, like any human being, but not on purpose. You just don't like what he has to say.

You never complain about the fabrications that dexterm has posted repeatedly and which have been exposed. You are very selective about your outrage.

Edited November 14, 2014 by Ulysses G.

[uptheos]

That sort of propagandist tripe is not worth listening to.

Of course not it goes right to the core of everything that is really bad, so why would you listen?

I listened to the first minute and heard so many lies that it was not worth listening to any more.

You asked a question previously about what strategy to get rid of Hamas....I'd be interested to see your response to my reply. I hope your propaganda video was not it!

I believe in being fair so I went back and listened to the first minute.

Can you say which parts of that first minute were lies?

[Ulysses G.]

A lot of what he says is opinion, but it is all backed up by facts. You can disagree with his opinions and the conclusions he comes to about his facts, but he certainly is not "lying." I think that he is completely spot on.

[uptheos]

That sort of propagandist tripe is not worth listening to.

Of course not it goes right to the core of everything that is really bad, so why would you listen?

I listened to the first minute and heard so many lies that it was not worth listening to any more.

You asked a question previously about what strategy to get rid of Hamas....I'd be interested to see your response to my reply. I hope your propaganda video was not it!

This was your answer.

"The idea was put forward in an article in a thread a few months ago; If Israel was to concede it's crimes, make compensation for them, make peace based on "67 borders and land swaps, then Fatah will be seen as a saviour, the situation will be seen to be vastly better than most Palestinians have memory of, and Hamas will lose most of it's support".

TBH and once again to be fair, I honestly don't know how to respond to something that is pure fantasy, as it is never possible to respond to fantasy with logic and truth and it becomes just a waste of time, as I know what's coming back.