General Israel/Palestine discussion thread

[bikerdruid]

So Hamas operates at the pleasure of Israel?

with regards to a seaport, very obviously so.

 

[WildCat]

with regards to a seaport, very obviously so.

So a blockade is now defined as an "occupation"?

No surprise, the Israel bashers have been applying new definitions to old terms that apply only to Israel for years.

 

[bikerdruid]

So a blockade is now defined as an "occupation"?

No surprise, the Israel bashers have been applying new definitions to old terms that apply only to Israel for years.

the occupied/blockade discussion was settled a long time ago.
btw....who will profit from the plentiful off-shore oil and gas in 'gazan waters'?

 

[WildCat]

the occupied/blockade discussion was settled a long time ago.

It sure was, as I recall no one in the Knee-jerk anti-Israel camp could find a single instance in history where a blokade was called an occupation.

btw....who will profit from the plentiful off-shore oil and gas in 'gazan waters'?

I don't know, why don't you star a thread about it in Conspiracy Theories?

 

[NWO Sentryman]

the occupied/blockade discussion was settled a long time ago.

Was Germany "Occupied" in WW1 by the Royal Navy Blockade?

 

[Mycroft]

no...nothing of the sort, please don't decend into the "evil this evil that" rubbish there is enough of that in this thread already..

Netanyahu needs the support of a majority. He chose to use The racist right to form his coalition leaving Kadima out in the woods.

I've reversed the order of these two statements, but maybe looking at them will give you an idea of why I paraphrase your arguments, and arguments from the far left in general in those terms?

 

[Mycroft]

"palestinians have nothing to do with it"? never said or believed anything of the sort.

Yet an example of the statement that leads me to say that follows:

you don't know what serious moves towards peace would be? ok start with defined borders, recognition of a palestinian state......

“Defined borders” is what’s up for negotiation between Israel and the Palestinians, yet here you’re saying Israel should just declare what they are without Palestinians having anything to say about it. Also, recognition of a Palestinian state is the end goal, not something that Israel should just do…, again without Palestinians having anything to do with it.

Is this making it clear to you?

 

[Mycroft]

...either of those two...if seriously proposed by netanyahu and acted apon..... would, in my opinion, lead lieberman's party to pull the pin on Netanyahus leadership.

And that's kinda the definition of democracy. Power is shared, so if any one person wants to enact a policy that others disagree with, there are systems in place that prevent that one person from taking action until he builds support for that policy.

I agree, the specific actions you proposed would very likely cause others in his government to object, and rightly so in my opinion. I don't believe at this point that Israel making unilateral concessions without the participation of the Palestinians will help anything or move anything forward. However, other steps towards peace might be well received.

Let's not forget, the last time Israel made a unilateral concession, when Ariel Sharon withdrew from the Gaza Strip, Israel was condemned for it. He did exactly what the far left claims they want, yet he was condemned with the flimsy excuse excuse that his unilateral concession didn't involve negotiations with the Palestinians. Remember that" supposedly he was "undermining Fatah authority" by not negotiating with them for the withdrawal, even though the same people couldn't name anything Fatah should have agreed to for that concession.

As evidence to contradict your theory that it's Israel's "racist right" (not "evil Zionists", don't want to misrepresent your characterization) is preventing Israeli progress towards peace, you will remember that a good portion of that supposed "racist right" quit their parties and joined Kadima. There is no reason to believe something like that couldn't happen again if another leader with the credibility and stature of Sharon were to lead the way.

Of course, that's the same Sharon who the far-left had been demonizing for decades as being something pretty close to the anti-Christ.

 

[bigjelmapro]

the occupied/blockade discussion was settled a long time ago.

I know, and your side lost it.

btw....who will profit from the plentiful off-shore oil and gas in 'gazan waters'?

Which field? Tamar, Mari-B, Leviathan, Nir, Or, and Noah fields/rigs aren't. There was a Gaza marine 1-2 test rigs built (not by Israel I might add), but to my knowledge the deal between BG international and Israel fell through for a variety of reasons: Gas Is King, and Now Even Israel's Got It

Map: Fields of Israel

Noble Energy Begins Gas Sales in Israel

For the time being, the significantly larger Leviathan and Tamar fields will keep the joint operations there (within Israel's economic zone) busy for quite some time.

The only reason I see for your paranoia, I can only assume, are based off this blog article (British Gas and Israel eyeing Gaza’s natural gas reserves
), that connects Operation Cast Lead to secret deals to incorporate the Gazan gas fields to Israel's control, albeit, 3 years later, still no apparent deal can be produced. This blog article is in turn based off of material from Global Research.

Perhaps you would like to point out specifics as to your above claim, disguised as a rhetorical question...

 

[angrysoba]

A Palestinian policeman shot and killed one Israeli and wounded four others early Sunday near Joseph's Tomb, a Jewish holy site inside the Palestinian city of Nablus, the Israeli military said.

The circumstances of the shooting were not immediately clear. One man approximately 30 years old reached an Israeli base outside Nablus before dying of his wounds, the military and rescue services said.

Two others reached a Jewish settlement nearby with bullet wounds and were rushed to the hospital in serious condition, while two more suffered light injuries.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/feedarticle/9611500

 

[bigjelmapro]

Supposedly the PA police that fired upon this group though the hassidic Jews were acting suspiciously.... Go figure.

 

[The Fool]

And that's kinda the definition of democracy. Power is shared, so if any one person wants to enact a policy that others disagree with, there are systems in place that prevent that one person from taking action until he builds support for that policy.

Thats absolutely correct. This group has the balance of power....but someone has to choose to give it to them. I think that the person who chose to give it to them made a bad decision.

I agree, the specific actions you proposed would very likely cause others in his government to object, and rightly so in my opinion. I don't believe at this point that Israel making unilateral concessions without the participation of the Palestinians will help anything or move anything forward. However, other steps towards peace might be well received.

Nobody is seriously asking Israel to make unilateral concessions without the participation of the palestinians.

Let's not forget, the last time Israel made a unilateral concession, when Ariel Sharon withdrew from the Gaza Strip, Israel was condemned for it. He did exactly what the far left claims they want, yet he was condemned with the flimsy excuse excuse that his unilateral concession didn't involve negotiations with the Palestinians. Remember that" supposedly he was "undermining Fatah authority" by not negotiating with them for the withdrawal, even though the same people couldn't name anything Fatah should have agreed to for that concession.

again...this is not an issue in question I am not proposing that Israel make unilateral

As evidence to contradict your theory that it's Israel's "racist right" (not "evil Zionists", don't want to misrepresent your characterization)

Thank you for correcting it.

is preventing Israeli progress towards peace,

I don't think they have the power to Prevent progress unless someone else gives them that power. Even if things are a groups stated objectives thats still short of actually doing it.

you will remember that a good portion of that supposed "racist right" quit their parties and joined Kadima. There is no reason to believe something like that couldn't happen again if another leader with the credibility and stature of Sharon were to lead the way.

Of course, that's the same Sharon who the far-left had been demonizing for decades as being something pretty close to the anti-Christ.

So are you saying you think that Liebermans party would splinter if he acted to torpedo a peace deal that involved a palestinian state?

 

[Mycroft]

Thats absolutely correct. This group has the balance of power....but someone has to choose to give it to them. I think that the person who chose to give it to them made a bad decision.

Then you missed my point. You’re trying to portray this group as being particularly nefarious or obstinate, preventing Netanyahu from moving towards peace, but a different coalition would have the same power, and would likely to block those moves in the same way. Not because they’re inherently anti-peace, but because the moves you suggested are foolish moves. Come up with some better moves and place them in the context of a cooperative Palestinian Authority, and I don't believe your predictions would hold water anymore.

Nobody is seriously asking Israel to make unilateral concessions without the participation of the palestinians.

You suggested unilaterally recognizing a Palestinian state. You didn’t suggest Palestinians do anything to help reach that goal, therefore it seemed like you were recommending a huge unilateral concession without any participation from the Palestinians. If that is not what you intended, then please clarify.

Thank you for correcting it.

I was being sarcastic. Please take another look at this post and see if you can’t think of any way to modify your rhetoric if you don’t like the way it’s perceived.

So are you saying you think that Liebermans party would splinter if he acted to torpedo a peace deal that involved a palestinian state?

I have no idea where you get this from and can see nothing in what I wrote that would lead to this conclusion. You seem to have this very consistent problem whenever you attempt to paraphrase my point of view.

My point is it doesn’t make any sense to speculate about how Lieberman’s party or Netanyahu’s coalition would react to a “move towards peace” without knowing what that hypothetical move would be, and the ones you mentioned don’t seem to make any sense.

Let me ask you a serious question, what do you think would happen if Abbas suddenly offered to change the Palestinian capital to Ramallah instead of East Jerusalem in order to jump-start the peace process?

 

[Skeptic]

So a blockade is now defined as an "occupation"?

No surprise, the Israel bashers have been applying new definitions to old terms that apply only to Israel for years.

I only now learned Germany occupied Britain during WWII -- it enforced (to the best of its ability) a naval blockade. And I thought "Sea Lion" was cancelled.

And did you know that, during WWI, Britain already occupied Germany by 1916 or ? The Royal Navy had a blockade going... one wonders why the war lasted another two years in that case, after Germany was already occupied. Funny nobody told the Kaiser that at the time. Guess the Brits just loved trench warfare as a recreation or something.

Oh wait, wait -- they weren't Jews. Nevermind -- different rules apply.

 

[The Fool]

Then you missed my point. You’re trying to portray this group as being particularly nefarious or obstinate, preventing Netanyahu from moving towards peace, but a different coalition would have the same power, and would likely to block those moves in the same way. Not because they’re inherently anti-peace, but because the moves you suggested are foolish moves. Come up with some better moves and place them in the context of a cooperative Palestinian Authority, and I don't believe your predictions would hold water anymore.

I can't see how peace could be achieved without a Palestinian state with defined borders. If your opinion is thats a foolish move then you certainly align with those I feel are or have the real potential to scuttle any peace deal.

You suggested unilaterally recognizing a Palestinian state. You didn’t suggest Palestinians do anything to help reach that goal, therefore it seemed like you were recommending a huge unilateral concession without any participation from the Palestinians. If that is not what you intended, then please clarify.

No I don't suggest Palestinians are not required to do anything to help reach that goal...Far from it. If they are to become a Nation they must understand and comply with their obligations...Please don't ask me to explain what a nations obligations are under international law.....but one of them is clearly to stop attacking Israel.

I was being sarcastic. Please take another look at this post and see if you can’t think of any way to modify your rhetoric if you don’t like the way it’s perceived.

No...you were taking the term "racist right" and substituting "evil zionists" one is clearly a small subset of the other.

I have no idea where you get this from and can see nothing in what I wrote that would lead to this conclusion. You seem to have this very consistent problem whenever you attempt to paraphrase my point of view.

you said you will remember that a good portion of that supposed "racist right" quit their parties and joined Kadima. There is no reason to believe something like that couldn't happen again if another leader with the credibility and stature of Sharon were to lead the way.

so you were speculating that the racist right could splinter off to Kadima....I responded with the question "so are you saying you think that Liebermans party would splinter if he acted to torpedo a peace deal that involved a palestinian state?"

whats the problem?

My point is it doesn’t make any sense to speculate about how Lieberman’s party or Netanyahu’s coalition would react to a “move towards peace” without knowing what that hypothetical move would be, and the ones you mentioned don’t seem to make any sense.

How detailed a description of "a move to peace" maybe you could describe a move to peace that you think Lieberman would go for? Because I can't think of one.

Let me ask you a serious question, what do you think would happen if Abbas suddenly offered to change the Palestinian capital to Ramallah instead of East Jerusalem in order to jump-start the peace process?

well, at the moment I don't think a statement like that would jump start the process....but if it did...and if Netanyahu looked like accepting any peace deal that included a palestinian state then Lieberman would abandon the coalition. What do you think? Please dont withdraw to it makes no sense to speculate" as a debate is best described as opinions. Sometimes even opinions that are not mine.

 

[Mycroft]

I can't see how peace could be achieved without a Palestinian state with defined borders. If your opinion is thats a foolish move then you certainly align with those I feel are or have the real potential to scuttle any peace deal.

Oh how cute. You claimed to want a “serious discussion” yet here you are excising the parts I wrote about “unilaterally” and “without participation from the Palestinians” and responding as though I hadn’t said those thing. Bizarrely, you even reference those things later on in this same post, so one wonders…why?

 

[The Fool]

Oh how cute. You claimed to want a “serious discussion” yet here you are excising the parts I wrote about “unilaterally” and “without participation from the Palestinians” and responding as though I hadn’t said those thing. Bizarrely, you even reference those things later on in this same post, so one wonders…why?

I had already explained earlier in the thread "Nobody is seriously asking Israel to make unilateral concessions without the participation of the palestinians." You must have missed it.

so as I am not and never have been proposing that is it going to be possible for you to express an opinion on what sort of peace deal you think Lieberman would go for (without withdrawing to "it makes no sense to speculate"?

 

[Mycroft]

I had already explained earlier in the thread "Nobody is seriously asking Israel to make unilateral concessions without the participation of the palestinians." You must have missed it.

Then your response is even more puzzling. If you got those parts why then would you claim that I'm against a Palestinian state? If you're being deliberately obtuse then that goes against your stated goal of having a "serious discussion". If you're not being deliberately obtuse...then your statement makes no sense and suggests communication is impossible.

If you understood that I'm against unilaterally recognizing a Palestinian state without requiring Palestinians do anything to reach that goal, why would you respond as though I were against a Palestinian state period?

so as I am not and never have been proposing that is it going to be possible for you to express an opinion on what sort of peace deal you think Lieberman would go for (without withdrawing to "it makes no sense to speculate"?

At the moment I can't seem to get you to speak the same language. You transform being against unilaterally recognizing a Palestinian state to being against a Palestinian state period, you squawk about my "mis-characterizing" your inflammatory language transforming "racist right" to "evil Zionist" but then admit that you consider one to be a subset of the other, and that's on top of seeming to be incapable of understanding why people take your support of Hamas having a sea-port to being in support of them being able to import weapons.

I think trying to have a "serious discussion" is a great idea, certainly I support trying to elevate the discussion, but if that's really what you want too then you have got to take some responsibility for your communication. It's impossible to have a "serious discussion" if you are going to continually misunderstand or misrepresent what is said to you, and you have got to take some responsibility for how your message is received by others.

 

[The Fool]

Then your response is even more puzzling. If you got those parts why then would you claim that I'm against a Palestinian state? If you're being deliberately obtuse then that goes against your stated goal of having a "serious discussion". If you're not being deliberately obtuse...then your statement makes no sense and suggests communication is impossible.

If you understood that I'm against unilaterally recognizing a Palestinian state without requiring Palestinians do anything to reach that goal, why would you respond as though I were against a Palestinian state period?

I responded as though you were against a palestinian state because you called it a "Bad Idea".

At the moment I can't seem to get you to speak the same language. You transform being against unilaterally recognizing a Palestinian state to being against a Palestinian state period,

sorry, I've always been saying the same thing. You seem to be complaining that your various interpretations of it differ....

you squawk about my "mis-characterizing" your inflammatory language transforming "racist right" to "evil Zionist" but then admit that you consider one to be a subset of the other,

yes...thats correct. one is a subset of the other therefore its not valid to substitute one for the other which is what you did.

and that's on top of seeming to be incapable of understanding why people take your support of Hamas having a sea-port to being in support of them being able to import weapons.

sorry I just don't sign up for Wildcats false dilemma argument. There are other possibilities other than total shutdown and open slather.

I think trying to have a "serious discussion" is a great idea, certainly I support trying to elevate the discussion, but if that's really what you want too then you have got to take some responsibility for your communication. It's impossible to have a "serious discussion" if you are going to continually misunderstand or misrepresent what is said to you, and you have got to take some responsibility for how your message is received by others.

sorry, from my POV i'm asking pretty direct questions. I even offer unlimited clarification...how about we work on one question. Get it completely agreed on what it means then you express your opinion...you can even pick the question. Deal?

 

[Virus]

sorry I just don't sign up for Wildcats false dilemma argument. There are other possibilities other than total shutdown and open slather.

You want to build a port then have Israel blockade it?