News The price of democracy: The Palestinian 'diet' begins

[Art]

First I spoke about the Camp David Accords you responded to that post so I naturally presumed you were talking about the same thing.. There were no such accords from the Clinton meetings.

The justifications you use for brutal Israeli actions are the very same the extremist palestinians use to justify their terror acts and both are wrong! Both sides claim to be responding to acts by the other side and both accuse the other side of trying to annihilate them.

As a member of the world community the onus is on Israel to set a good example. If Israel wants to hold the moral high ground then they need to desist from contravening international agreements such as the Geneva conventions. I have never seen the logic of responding to an attack on one's civilians by simply killing an even greater number of civilians on the other side. This only plays into the hands of terrorist groups and pushes former moderates into the hands of the extremists. The best way to defeat Hamas is to isolate them by bringing the moderates back into the fold of centre politics.

As I said in an earlier post I would like to see the world community exert pressure equally on both sides to come to a fair agreement in which both sides make compromises. Israel's current plan which the US is supporting to give back a patchwork quilt of land to the palestinians whilst maintaing full control of all access and egress points does not leave the palestinians with a viable state and so is doomed to failure.

The point of comparing israeli gov't behaviour today with the behaviour of pre-war nazis is that at the beginning the nazis did not slaughter jews. They first created an illusion that the jews were a sub-species not worthy of normal human considerations.

I see parallels with the way the israeli gov't dehumanises palestinians and so ultimately Israel's current policies could easily lead to them also seeking a 'final solution' to deal with the problem of the palestinians.
It may not be gas chambers but whether it be gas or tanks and missiles the outcome is the same for those on the receiving end.

 

[Gokul43201]

Hamas has been observing a ceasefire for over a year now whilst Israel has continued merrily with it's program of assassinations (illegal under international law). So who is terrorising who??

Over a year ago ?

The only ceasefire agreement I'm aware of was made late in September last year (about 7 months ago).

If they had made a ceasefire agreement much earlier, then the Aug 28 suicide bombing which they claimed responsibility for would have been in violation. Or would it ? I only recall the ceasefire being imposed on rockets attacks.

In any case, there have at least 5 major suicide attacks since then (mostly claimed by Islamic Jihad) that have killed about 25 civilians and injured over 200 Israelis.

Was Israeli retaliation directed at Hamas or the other groups (like IJ) ?

Nevertheless, I think the present US policy regarding aid to Palestine may not be the best way to get Hamas to denounce and crack down on terrorism. I think it takes a little bit of carrot as an incentive, and towards that end, the just finalized plan for direct payment of salaries by funds set up in the World Bank may help some...if executed correctly, and with a strict sunset clause.

 

[Art]

Hamas has been observing an unofficial ceasefire since Jan 2005.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4251591.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3256858.stm

Fargoth you asked if there were any other references to the "break the bones" policy. If you google on - "break the bones" Israel - you will find 9,300 references.

 

[fargoth]

what ceasefire? they fire rockets on israel every day, and send suicide bombers.

and israel's retaliation is not killing even more civilians, its catching those who planned these operations and putting them behind bars - if they resist arrest by shooting at the troops they are being shot at, and may get killed, the civilians who get killed, are less in number then those in the israelli side, and they die by accident.

i didnt get your way to isolate hamas... please elaborate.

i found only 570 links for breaking the bones, and haven't found the thing you talked about so far... i'll keep looking.
ok, found it... and its so old... the first intifada was in the 80's, and rabin got lots of criticism about this policy.
israel acts now much better toward the palestinians.

you'll have to get fresh news if you want me to condamn the "acts of terror" israel do.
the acts in these old news were condamned many time already, that's why you don't see israel repeat them.
infact i liked the latest links you posted, they are more updated and show the current picture better, although they lack details.
you don't see them talking about how israel is evil and you don't see them compare israel to the pre-war nazis...edit:
and for recent development:
-israel will hand over taxes at the sum of 50 million dollars to the PA for humanitary aid.

and another one:

Hamas at the head of Palestinian government and Mahmoud Abbas’s defeated Fatah are spending tens and hundreds of millions of dollars on arming their groups and paying adherents. Not a single Quartet foreign minister called Palestinian leaders to account for diverting funds needed to feed the population to armament. Instead, the US, EU and Russian foreign ministers accepted the claim put before them by Saudi, Egyptian and Jordanian envoys, that the Palestinian people faces humanitarian disaster if international funds continue to be held back.

They even took on trust the Arab foreign ministers' attempt to somehow ascribe the violent Fatah-Hamas violent power struggle raging in the Gaza Strip to the purported lack of funds (sic).

Despite the evidence from Jerusalem that the Palestinians are not short of medicines and essential foods, which Israel allows through to the Gaza Strip, the US surrendered to the majority Quartet view after EU foreign affairs executive Javier Solana’s declared with pathos: “We will not let the Palestinians starve.”

Washington is expected next to allocate $10m urgent medical aid to the Palestinians. IDF allowed another four trucks of medicines and medical equipment for Palestinian hospitals to pass through Gaza crossing Tuesday, in the wake of food convoys.

 

[russ_watters]

Hamas is making small noises about the possibility of accepting the principle of the existence of Israel in a negotiated deal with Fatah. The current wording doesn't apparently accept the concept of peace, nor does it explicitly state that it would accept the existence of Israel, but it does imply that it would accept the existence of Israel.

At the same time, Israel is ready (and has been for a while) to withdraw from much (but no, not all) of the occupied territories.

After months of tensions, senior members of the rival Hamas and Fatah factions have forged a joint platform, including acceptance of a Palestinian state alongside Israel, said Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas.
However, it was unclear whether Hamas, particularly the group's hardline leaders abroad, will back the program, which would signal a major softening of positions. Until now, Hamas has balked at the West's demands that it renounce violence, recognize Israel and accept existing peace agreements...

The document calls for the establishment of a Palestinian state "in all the lands occupied in 1967," a reference to the West Bank, Gaza Strip and east Jerusalem. Such an implied recognition of Israel would mark a major breakthrough for Hamas, which remains committed to the destruction of the Jewish state.

Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert has said he is ready to withdraw from much of the West Bank to create an independent Palestinian state. But he plans on holding on to large blocs of West Bank settlements and holy sites in east Jerusalem. Israel withdrew unilaterally from Gaza last year...

The draft does not renounce violence. Instead, it says that Palestinians would "focus their resistance on the lands occupied in 1967." Hamas has largely observed a truce since February 2005, but has refused to formally renounce violence. Barghouti has supported continued shooting and bombing attacks against Israelis in the West Bank and Gaza, in contrast to Abbas who opposes all violence.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2006-05-11-palestinian-politics_x.htm

Again, all that is really required for that process to move forward is for Hamas and its constituents to accept the principle of peace with Israel. And for the world community, accepting the principle of peace is what is required for Hamas's government to be recognized. It seems like such a simple and obvious thing to me - an obvious moral difference:

Accept the principle of peace = good
Don't accept the principle of peace = bad

Until Hamas accepts the principle of peace, though, it is perfectly acceptable - heck, necesary to treat it like the criminal organization it is, and bring the full legal weight of our influence to bear on changing them.

Anyway, Hurkyl has said it before, but it bears repeating. Some of you don't even acknowledge the existence of this issue (the issue of the acceptance of peace and coexistence with Israel). But to the rest of the world, this issue is the critical issue for accepting the Palestinian government as legitimate. The world community considers the desire for acceptance from the rest of the world incompatible - indeed, mutually exclusive - with the desire to annihilate Israel. Is that fair? I think so, but a better question is is the question of fairness relevant? No. Fair or not, it is a reality that Hamas and its constituentes need to deal with.

 

[Art]

And if Israel continues to act as a criminal organisation what should be done with them? It's ironic but in 1947 Israel refused to denounce terrorism as it saw it as a necessary strategy in it's attempt to form a jewish state.

Following is a quote from UNSCOP at that time,

"The right of any community to use force as a means of gaining its political ends is not admitted in the British Commonwealth. Since the beginning of 1945 the Jews have implicitly claimed this right and have supported by an organized campaign of lawlessness, murder and sabotage their contention that, whatever other interests might be concerned, nothing should be allowed to stand in the way of a Jewish State and free Jewish immigration into Palestine. It is true that large numbers of Jews do not today attempt to defend the crimes that have been committed in the name of these political aspirations. They recognize the damage caused' to their good name by these methods in the court of world opinion. Nevertheless, the Jewish community of Palestine still publicly refuses its help to the Administration in suppressing terrorism, on the ground that the Administration's policy is opposed to Jewish interests. The converse of this attitude is clear, and its result, however much the Jewish leaders themselves may not wish it, has been to give active encouragement to the dissidents and freer scope to their activities."

http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread190081/pg1

Forgetting the day to day transgressions for a moment and looking at the overall picture;

International law states unequivocally that it is illegal for states to acquire land through conquest yet Israel insists that is precisely what it intends to do.

It also states it is illegal to create settlements on occupied land, a law which Israel breaks daily.

There is also a legal responsibilty for the well being of civilians in occupied land and given the poverty and dire living conditions the palestinians suffer after nearly 40 years of occupation nobody can seriously claim the israelis are fulfilling their obligations

Forgetting about what is or is not fair the question is does the world really want to create a precedent that ethnic cleansing and acquisition of land by conquest are legitimate policies for governments to adopt by rewarding such behaviour? Would europe or the US be happy to support a policy refusing the right of return to Kosovans who fled the conflict there? I think not!

Ultimately we either have international law or we don't. If we do then everybody should be treated equally under it's provisions and if not then chaos and anarchy will reign as demonstrated in Palestine.

 

[russ_watters]

And if Israel continues to act as a criminal organisation what should be done with them?

Let's be clear: the world community recognizes Israel as a legitimate country and does not recognize Hamas as a legitimate government. It doesn't matter how you choose to characterize it - that's the way it is and you'll need to deal with that reality even if you don't accept it as being reasonable. You can't just make Israel a criminal organization just by saying it - not even by arguing it, no matter how strong you may think your argument is (and especially not with 60 year old arguments). And you cannot esecape the fact that Israel desires peace and Hamas does not. The simple reality is that the world at large disagrees with you and because of that, you will need to deal with the issue on those terms, and in the present tense. Otherwise you will simply continue be pushing against a brick wall.

That's what I/Hurkyl have been talking about: you put on the blinders and don't even acknowledge the realities of the situation. Reality does not have to conform to how you wish it would be.

So - there is no need for me to respond directly to that statement or the rest of your post. What you said was pointless because it doesn't address the issue as the world community sees it (which is why I haven't said much in this thread in a few days). Little arguments over how bad each side is are pointelss or even counterproductive for the goal of finding a solution.

And we've pointed this out before as well, but the blinders one side has on means that the negotiating table only has one side sitting at it: Israel. Only Israel (with the support of the world community) is currently attempting to find a peaceful solution to this issue. That's a two-part reality: part 1 is that this is why Israel is considered to be a legitimate government, while Hamas is not. Whether it matters to you or not, the fact that Israel wants peace and Hamas does not matters to the world community. Part 2 is that this makes peace mostly a decision for Hamas: they can have peace if they want it. Right now, they do not.

So, that is why this article was noteworthy: it shows that Hamas may be willing to take the blinders off and start actually negotiating for peace.

 

[Art]

Lets be clear: the world community recognizes Israel as a legitimate country and does not recognize Hamas as a legitimate government. It doesn't matter how you choose to characterize it - that's the way it is and you'll need to deal with that reality even if you don't accept it as being reasonable. You can't just make Israel a criminal organization just by saying it - not even by arguing it, no matter how strong you may think your argument is (and especially not with 60 year old arguments). The simple reality is that the world at large disagrees with you and because of that, you will need to deal with the issue on those terms, and in the present tense. Otherwise you will simply continue be pushing against a brick wall.

That's what I/Hurkyl have been talking about: you put on the blinders and don't even acknowledge the realities of the situation. Reality does not have to conform to how you wish it would be.

So - there is no need for me to respond directly to that statement or the rest of your post. What you said was pointless because it doesn't address the issue as the world community sees it (which is why I haven't said much in this thread in a few days).

The israeli palestinian conflict didn't just pop up out of nowhere yesterday. It is impossible to adjudge the conflict today without reference to it's historical roots.

Palestinians are not genetically inclined to become suicide bombers; there is a reason for their behaviour. Unless those reasons are addressed then it is hard to see how there can ever be a long term solution.

The reality today, much as some may not like it, as expressed by the voiced opinion of the world community is represented by the series of UN resolutions which Israel has steadfastly ignored. I am surprised that some here seem to think that ignoring these resolutions is okay especially as they are the same folk who advocated war with Iraq for purportedly ignoring UN resolutions.

So returning to my point above in the absence of any new UN resolutions any solution to the conflict must be based on the existing UN resolutions or the concept of international law will be seriously damaged. That is the reality much as those who are blinkered do not wish to see it.

i.e. No territorial gains by conquest, no ethnic cleansing and no random or reckless attacks on civilians. So Russ which of these legal principles do you disagree with?

BTW the world community DOES recognise Hamas as the legitimate leaders of the PA, they just don't like them. There's a big difference between these 2 positions.

Edit just read your edit so I'll reply to that.

First your assertion that Israel wants a negotiated peace is, as I have already pointed out to you, simply wrong! Israel is on record as saying they WILL NOT negotiate with the palestinians. They have said they will unilaterally decide where their borders will lie and IMPOSE this on the palestinians. By no stretch of the imagination can this be called negotiating peace.

The palestinians are not war mongering savages, of course they want peace, probably more so than Israel as they are suffering more. The problem is, Israel wants peace okay but entirely on it's terms. Hitler wanted peace too after conquering europe. Did that make those countries who tried to push him back to his borders war mongerers and peace haters?

 

[russ_watters]

The israeli palestinian conflict didn't just pop up out of nowhere yesterday. It is impossible to adjudge the conflict today without reference to it's historical roots.

I was going to comment on that in the above post, but decided not to... It is certainly true, but at the same time, just because things were one way 60 years ago, doesn't automatically make them that way today. The way you cite history implies accusations about how things are today. Ie, the thing about imperialism and Israel. Whether or not it was true 60 years ago, the fact that Israel is unilaterally withdrawing from occupied territories means it is not true today.

Tying that to your next quote: if the reasons don't exist anymore, what then? Should they still be addressed or is it counterproductive to count the bodies of past wars? Sometimes you need to put the past behind you in order to move forward. Remember the lesson of WWI/WWII? Punish your enemy for past actions and all you do is ensure he'll be your enemy tomorrow. It is difficult to let go, but it is essential, and it is a sign of cultural maturity.

Palestinians are not genetically inclined to become suicide bombers; there is a reason for their behaviour. Unless those reasons are addressed then it is hard to see how there can ever be a long term solution.

The problem is much more basic. The problem is: do they want a long-term solution? As long as they continue to hold the official position that they do not want a long term solution, solutions will continue to be imposed on them by the outside world.

You cannot address the particulars of the problem unless both sides actually show up at the negotiating table.

So returning to my point above in the absence of any new resolutions any solution to the conflict must be based on the existing UN resolutions or the concept of international law will be seriously damaged.

Since it is hypothetical anyway, I have no problem stipulating to it. Yes, any solution needs to have a basis in international law and, better yet, be brokered by international mediators. Ok, but so what? How do you get to the point of finding a solution if Hamas continues to say they do not WANT a solution?

 

[fargoth]

i thought id argue with you about your 60 year old news, because they're not accurate.
but they don't even relate to israel, on 1945 israel didnt exist...
and as russ said there's no point in dwelling in the past.

i wanted to say i fully agree with everything russ said in his last two posts (maybe more, but i don't perfectly remember them, so i don't guarantee it ).

 

[Art]

Russ I can say with a lot of confidence if Israel were to abide by and implement the terms of the outstanding UN resolutions the vast majority of palestinians would be utterly delighted and there would be peace. There may well still be extremist leaders of groups such as Islamic Jihad unhappy with the arrangements but I think they would find it very, very hard to recruit their foot soldiers.

Although you do not like my historical references to the conflict it is important to remember for many palestinians actions implemented then are still being implemented today. Entire generations of ethnically cleansed palestinians and their descendants have lived and died in refugee camps. Theirs or their parents displacement may seem like history to you but to them it is their present.

 

[russ_watters]

Russ I can say with a lot of confidence if Israel were to abide by and implement the terms of the outstanding UN resolutions the vast majority of palestinians would be utterly delighted and there would be peace.

Again, so what? Hamas does not want peace under any terms, so what does it matter if the Palestinian people might under the terms you just outlined? Are you saying that Israel should unilaterally give everything it has to give on the chance that Hamas might drop its requirement that Israel be annihilated? What if they don't??! Don't you see how rediculous it is to give all your concessions before negotiating? Don't you see how rediculous it is to require only one side of the conflict to make concessions or follow UN mandates?

And just a note - I'm letting go all of the one-sidedness of what you are posting, but I'll just point out that there are, of course, UN resolutions that the Palestinians/Hamas/neighboring Arabs have violated as well. But that doesn't stop Israel from going to the negotiating table. Again, regardless of the particulars of who has done what to whom (and there is a lot to go around, on both sides), only one side is currently willing to negotiate: Israel. Don't you see how rediculous it is to require that only one side make concessions, and even then without any guarantee that will result in an agreement? That does, however, highlight how truly remarkable it is that Israel is making these unilateral concessions. It shines a spotlight on the contrast between the two parties and again makes it clear why one is accepted by the international community and the other is not.

Although you do not like my historical references to the conflict it is important to remember for many palestinians actions implemented then are still being implemented today. Entire generations of ethnically cleansed palestinians and their descendants have lived and died in refugee camps. Theirs or their parents displacement may seem like history to you but to them it is their present.

You're changing the issue. What is in the present is in the present, and since I said what is in the present is what is important, how could I argue with what is in the present? What I object to (and I was explicit about this) is the historical references that although true at the time are not true now, but by referencing them, you imply that they are. I won't get drawn into a side-argument, but to give one example:

It's ironic but in 1947 Israel refused to denounce terrorism as it saw it as a necessary strategy in it's attempt to form a jewish state.

So what? That isn't true anymore, so what possible relevance can it have to cite it? Do you want me to acknowledge that it was wrong then? I do! It was wrong then, regardless of the reason they held the view. So will you acknowledge that it is wrong now for Hamas to hold a similar position for any reason?

 

[Art]

I thought I had made my position abundantly clear but I shall repeat myself yet again. I do not support Hamas and it's policies so why you expect me to try and defend them is beyond me.

I am talking about the palestinian people. You seem to believe this is one and the same thing as Hamas. It obviously is not as the majority of palestinians did not vote for them.

And I really am tired of having to repeatedly tell you Israel is not looking for negotiations with the palestinians. In fact Israel has stated categorically it will not negotiate with the palestinians. Israel will decide unilaterally where it's borders will lie and the palestinians will have to like it or lump it. Given that the likely outcome will be a patchwork quilt of unviable land with Israel controlling entry and egress from these enclaves I imagine it will be a case of 'lumping' it.

And Russ you are either not reading my posts or are deliberately misrepresenting them.

 

[russ_watters]

I thought I had made my position abundantly clear but I shall repeat myself yet again. I do not support Hamas and it's policies so why you expect me to try and defend them is beyond me.

I am not asking you to defend the policies of Hamas - just acknowledge that you know what they are and why they matter for the peace process!

And while you have said "Hamas=bad", you also said "Israel=bad or worse". In order to claim that, you must substantiate it, and that big elephant in the living room you keep ignoring makes that pretty tough.

I am talking about the palestinian people. You seem to believe this is one and the same thing as Hamas. It obviously is not as the majority of palestinians did not vote for them.

1. Regardless of the vote distribution, Hamas won.
2. Hamas is in power, so they are the ones who must be dealt with on the international level. So what the Palestinian people may or may not think is not relevant to finding a solution.
3. In the second sentence of that post of mine, I was explicit in differentiating the wants of Hamas and the wants of the Palestinian people(indicating I did notice you did the same), then made an argument as to why one is relevant and the other is not. So which one of us is missing the other person's argument?

And I really am tired of having to repeatedly tell you Israel is not looking for negotiations with the palestinians. In fact Israel has stated categorically it will not negotiate with the palestinians.

And you base that assertion on what? It explicitly contradicts the statements of Israel's leaders, posted in this thread. (you said it earlier today as well, and I missed it then.)

And Russ you are either not reading my posts or are deliberately misrepresenting them.

Et tu, Art. At least I quote specific parts and reply to them. If I misrepresented an argument of yours, quote the specific place I did that and explain. You haven't even acknowledged that you've seen most of my arguments - including some of the key points. But please - I want to understand your points: if there is a point that I have misrepresented or missed, please do point out my error. Most of your assertions are one-liners that you don't substantiate anyway. I have responded to quite a number that you have then failed to support.

But by not even acknowledging, much less addressing the specific points/questions of others, you give the impression of trolling. The last section of my previous post, for example. Barring a better explanation, which you haven't provided, I am forced to assume you know it wasn't relevant, but you posted it for the purpose of taking a pot-shot at Israel. That's trolling.

 

[Art]

Let me know when you're finished editing and I'll reply...

 

[russ_watters]

Important enough to re-emphasize:

And I really am tired of having to repeatedly tell you Israel is not looking for negotiations with the palestinians. In fact Israel has stated categorically it will not negotiate with the palestinians.

Please substantiate that. It directly contradicts quotes from Israeli leaders, cited earlier in this thread. Ie:

I wish to move forward with a political process with our Palestinian neighbors.[Sharon, 2003]

 

[russ_watters]

Let me know when you're finished editing and I'll reply...

Finished...sorry, I know that's distracting when I post a work-in-progress.

 

[Art]

I am not asking you to defend the policies of Hamas - just acknowledge that you know what they are and why they matter for the peace process!

Any reasonable interpretation of the following would conclude that I had been supporting Hamas' policies which I have previously stated unambiguously I do not!.

So will you acknowledge that it is wrong now for Hamas to hold a similar position for any reason?

And while you have said "Hamas=bad", you also said "Israel=bad or worse". In order to claim that, you must substantiate it, and that big elephant in the living room you keep ignoring makes that pretty tough.

Elephant?? You've lost me there Russ

But as I already responded when Fargoth asked this same question what makes Israel possibly worse is their access to more and better weapons as evidenced by the civilian bodycount on both sides. Here's a quintessential example

Gaza militants cook up deadly mix
By Matthew Price
BBC News, Gaza

Since the start of the year, Palestinian militants have fired hundreds of home-made rockets from the Gaza Strip into Israel, killing two Israeli civilians.

The Israeli army has hit back hard, firing some 6,000 shells into Gaza.
Five Palestinian civilians have been killed in these attacks.

with both sides using very similar justifications - First the palestinians

I ask them why they are doing this.

"To retaliate against Israeli aggression. To create a balance of fear. They shell our houses, so we will shell theirs."

But these rockets are hardly a match for one of the world's most sophisticated armies.

"We have to do something," comes the reply.

and then the Israelis

Army spokesman Captain Jacob Dallal said Israel was responding to Palestinian fire.

But was it acceptable for one of the world's most sophisticated armies to be shelling areas where civilians live, putting lives at risk?

"We can't have a situation where people living in this village here, or that city over there, are under rocket fire," he said. "And this is a border. The border has to be quiet."

For now, neither side is backing down.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4763507.stm

So as I said both as bad as each other. Both justify terrorist acts by claiming they are responding to fire from the other side with Israel having the edge in terms of quantity and quality of munitions with the result Pal 2 Isr 5.

1. Regardless of the vote distribution, Hamas won.
2. Hamas is in power, so they are the ones who must be dealt with on the international level. So what the Palestinian people may or may not think is not relevant to finding a solution.
3. In the second sentence of that post of mine, I was explicit in differentiating the wants of Hamas and the wants of the Palestinian people(indicating I did notice you did the same), then made an argument as to why one is relevant and the other is not. So which one of us is missing the other person's argument?

To answer your last question first - You ,based on your quote above. Just to be perfectly clear I support a dual state solution in line with current UN resolutions not the annihilation of Israel.

Fortunately most of the world also agrees with me that Hamas and the palestinian people are distinguishable and so the palestinians can be dealt with on an international level whilst bypassing Hamas and so if the US stops blocking it aid will be restored. Hopefully a victory for humanitarianism and common sense.

And you base that assertion on what? It explicitly contradicts the statements of Israel's leaders, posted in this thread. (you said it earlier today as well, and I missed it then.)

Sharon's UNILATERAL declaration of where Israel's borders will be drawn which included the UNILATERAL anexation of palestinian land. Note unilateral means no negotiations. http://www.jnul.huji.ac.il/IA/ArchivedSites/Gushshalom291203/www.gush-shalom.org/archives/article282.html

Et tu, Art. At least I quote specific parts and reply to them. If I misrepresented an argument of yours, quote the specific place I did that and explain. You haven't even acknowledged that you've seen most of my arguments - including some of the key points. But please - I want to understand your points: if there is a point that I have misrepresented or missed, please do point out my error. Most of your assertions are one-liners that you don't substantiate anyway. I have responded to quite a number that you have then failed to support.

See examples cited above in this post.

I posted detailed responses to your posts earlier in this thread. Check back and you will see you didn't so much as acknowledge them.

If there are key points of yours you would like me to address list them and I'll respond. Though some such as this

Again, so what? Hamas does not want peace under any terms, so what does it matter if the Palestinian people might under the terms you just outlined? Are you saying that Israel should unilaterally give everything it has to give on the chance that Hamas might drop its requirement that Israel be annihilated? What if they don't??! Don't you see how rediculous it is to give all your concessions before negotiating? Don't you see how rediculous it is to require only one side of the conflict to make concessions or follow UN mandates?

I had already addressed and didn't see the point of repeating myself.

But by not even acknowledging, much less addressing the specific points/questions of others, you give the impression of trolling.

See bolded paragraph above before throwing around accusations of trolling.

The last section of my previous post, for example. Barring a better explanation, which you haven't provided, I am forced to assume you know it wasn't relevant, but you posted it for the purpose of taking a pot-shot at Israel. That's trolling.

Just because YOU think the historical content of the israeli palestinian conflict is irrelevant does not make it so. Past behaviour is often a good indicator of current and future behaviour. Israel has always demonstrated the capacity and the will to achieve it's goals no matter what. For example - it is even today in breach of international law (as previously outlined) and is still flouting UN resolutions.

I have spelt out clearly what I think the resolution of the conflict should be so perhaps it would help if you spell out clearly what you think it should be.

Just to be perfectly clear I support a dual state solution in line with current UN resolutions

Just in case you missed it.

 

[Bilal]

Many thanks to Art for his informative answers.

*******************************
Is it difficult for some people to know the value of the homeland?

Is it difficult to be kicked out of your country to live under miserable conditions for decades as a refugee without any rights?
If USA, Israel and UK left any hope for the Palestinian people, then you will never hear about what so called Palestinian terrorism.
******************************************
No comments:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060514/ap_on_re_mi_ea/israel_palestinian_unification

((By ARON HELLER, Associated Press Writer Sun May 14, 6:30 AM ET
JERUSALEM -
Israel's high court Sunday narrowly upheld a controversial law that restricts the right of Palestinians to live in Israel with their Arab Israeli spouses and children.
The law, imposed in 2002 at the height of Israeli-Palestinian fighting, is believed to have kept hundreds, and possibly thousands, of West Bank and Gaza Palestinians from moving to Israel to live with their families.))