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

[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Although you do not like my historical references to the conflict it is important to remember for many palestinians actions implemented then are still being implemented today.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.))