General Israel/Palestine discussion thread

[Doctor Evil]

Why would no one in Israel be opposed to peace negotiations?

Correct me if I am wrong, but I get the feeling that by asking why you really mean whether. In any case I will answer both.

When I said that no one is opposed to peace negotiations I was generalizing. What I meant was to say that all the major parties officially support negotiations whose goal is a two state solution. If you look closely you may find some parties which do not state that, such as 'The Jewish Home' who do not believe in negotiations, but they are in the minority.

The reason why somewhat right wing parties are in favor of negotiations, at least in principle, is simple, most of the Israeli public still see a two state solutuon as the most likely solution of the conflict. (That assumes that a solution is possible.) At the same time a lot of people do not think that this is a particularly good time for negotiations, but this is beside the point, and I have no time to expand on it.

The Israelis have the upper hand in terms of settlement expansion, varying rights based on race, full control over borders, etc. And for many on the right in Israel, especially Likud, there has been reluctance to engage in negotiations and possibly threaten their ability to continue construction expansion and their ability to retain legal preferential treatment based on race.

That is a calculus that is not shared by many on the left and middle in Israel. For them, the increased stability, predictability, and reduction of tensions that could develop as a result of negotiations are more in Israel's National security and economic interests.

I am part of the left in Israel, and in the upcoming election I will again try to convince my family and friends not to vote for Bibi. Yet I believe that your first paragraph is simply not true. It has been Bibi official policy that he would welcome talks without preconditions. (A reminder, Bibi negotiated with Arafat in his previous stint as PM.) At the same time it was Abbas who required various conditions before talks start. Bibi was even forced to greatly reduce settlement construction for a period and Abbas still refused to negotiate. As a result it was easy for Bibi present himself as moderate, and shift the political discussion in Israel to other topics.

By the way, I think that both Bibi and Abbas are not interested in negotiations at this time because i) it is not clear that Abbas has a claim to represent all Palestinians and ii) no current Israeli leader will match the offer Olmert gave to Abbas four years ago, and Abbas did not accept the offer at the time. This is all maneuvering to make the other side bad, without any substance.

 

[John Mekki]

Who, me?

Excellent to condemn Ahmadinejad for what he said about Isreal.
Wondering why the same people do not say a heck about this:

When specifically questioned about the potential use of nuclear weapons against Iran, President Bush claimed that "All options were on the table". According to the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, "the president of the United States directly threatened Iran with a preemptive nuclear strike. It is hard to read his reply in any other way."[161]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction

President George W Bush has refused to rule out a nuclear strike on Iran as diplomats from the world's major powers met to respond to Teheran's defiance over its atomic programme.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...fuses-to-rule-out-nuclear-strike-on-Iran.html

Ah!!
I am sure that the people who strongly condemning Ahmadinejad for his harsh words against Israel will immediately ask for the arrest of Mr. Bush and bring him to The Hague for call for genocide, threatened crimes against humanity or however you want to call threatening a nuclear strike against a nation that does not have nukes.

 

[bit_pattern]

**** Israel!

 

[WildCat]

Excellent to condemn Ahmadinejad for what he said about Isreal.
Wondering why the same people do not say a heck about this:

When specifically questioned about the potential use of nuclear weapons against Iran, President Bush claimed that "All options were on the table". According to the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, "the president of the United States directly threatened Iran with a preemptive nuclear strike. It is hard to read his reply in any other way."[161]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction

President George W Bush has refused to rule out a nuclear strike on Iran as diplomats from the world's major powers met to respond to Teheran's defiance over its atomic programme.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...fuses-to-rule-out-nuclear-strike-on-Iran.html

Ah!!
I am sure that the people who strongly condemning Ahmadinejad for his harsh words against Israel will immediately ask for the arrest of Mr. Bush and bring him to The Hague for call for genocide, threatened crimes against humanity or however you want to call threatening a nuclear strike against a nation that does not have nukes.

 

[McHrozni]

Excellent to condemn Ahmadinejad for what he said about Isreal.
Wondering why the same people do not say a heck about this:

When specifically questioned about the potential use of nuclear weapons against Iran, President Bush claimed that "All options were on the table". According to the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, "the president of the United States directly threatened Iran with a preemptive nuclear strike. It is hard to read his reply in any other way."[161]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction

President George W Bush has refused to rule out a nuclear strike on Iran as diplomats from the world's major powers met to respond to Teheran's defiance over its atomic programme.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...fuses-to-rule-out-nuclear-strike-on-Iran.html

Perhaps because this is a way to prevent a nuclear holocaust, rather than starting one. If you can't tell the difference between the two you need to get your medicine adjusted.

Ah!!
I am sure that the people who strongly condemning Ahmadinejad for his harsh words against Israel will immediately ask for the arrest of Mr. Bush and bring him to The Hague for call for genocide, threatened crimes against humanity or however you want to call threatening a nuclear strike against a nation that does not have nukes.

Please cite the laws about genocide and highlight the parts that define such actions as one. If you think it was a crime against humanity instead, use that, etc.

If you can't, please admit to using the strawman. Thanks

McHrozni

 

[HoverBoarder]

Correct me if I am wrong, but I get the feeling that by asking why you really mean whether. In any case I will answer both.

When I said that no one is opposed to peace negotiations I was generalizing. What I meant was to say that all the major parties officially support negotiations whose goal is a two state solution. If you look closely you may find some parties which do not state that, such as 'The Jewish Home' who do not believe in negotiations, but they are in the minority.

I think it is more than being outright against negotiations at all. I don't think Likud or Bibi is interested in the negotiating part of negotiations, and I don't think the statements from Bibi are serious on wanting to have a peace negotiation that both sides would agree to.

There are all kinds of political landmines when it comes to negotiations, and I just don't think that Bibi has the ability or desire to sell a peace negotiation that is not entirely on Likud's terms to his party. Therefore, I do not think his statements on being open to negotiations are genuine.

The reason why somewhat right wing parties are in favor of negotiations, at least in principle, is simple, most of the Israeli public still see a two state solutuon as the most likely solution of the conflict. (That assumes that a solution is possible.) At the same time a lot of people do not think that this is a particularly good time for negotiations, but this is beside the point, and I have no time to expand on it.

A solution is possible, but it would take serious work towards working with the other side, and two of the biggest issues for the right is settlement expansion, and East Jerusalem. Are something that many on the Left, much less the Right cannot bring themselves to negotiate on.

I am part of the left in Israel, and in the upcoming election I will again try to convince my family and friends not to vote for Bibi. Yet I believe that your first paragraph is simply not true. It has been Bibi official policy that he would welcome talks without preconditions. (A reminder, Bibi negotiated with Arafat in his previous stint as PM.) At the same time it was Abbas who required various conditions before talks start. Bibi was even forced to greatly reduce settlement construction for a period and Abbas still refused to negotiate. As a result it was easy for Bibi present himself as moderate, and shift the political discussion in Israel to other topics.

By the way, I think that both Bibi and Abbas are not interested in negotiations at this time because i) it is not clear that Abbas has a claim to represent all Palestinians and ii) no current Israeli leader will match the offer Olmert gave to Abbas four years ago, and Abbas did not accept the offer at the time. This is all maneuvering to make the other side bad, without any substance.

You don't think that Israel has the upper hand in terms of laws and control over the borders (which was the paragraph you disagreed with)?

Of course they have the upper hand, and they are going to have to come to grips with the fact that no matter what would come out of negotiations, there will likely still be attacks coming from Gaza, maybe even worse than they are now if the Palestinians in Gaza get more autonomy and access to weapons under a peace deal.

Right now, many of the laws and control in Israel focus control and protection for Israelis vs. non Israelis. Call that apartheid or whatever you want, but the fact is that it is needed to protect the Israeli population from a majority of non Israeli neighbors that time and time again stated their desire and core goal as the removal (i.e. killing) of all Israeli people in Israel. Israel needs special protections to ensure that the Israeli people are protected from this.

That doesn't however mean that there shouldn't be negotiations with Abbas. Economic development, a reduction of checkpoints, and increased autonomy in the West bank is one of the best ways that Fatah has to convince people to go their route instead of siding with Hamas.

 

[HoverBoarder]

Excellent to condemn Ahmadinejad for what he said about Isreal.
Wondering why the same people do not say a heck about this:

When specifically questioned about the potential use of nuclear weapons against Iran, President Bush claimed that "All options were on the table". According to the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, "the president of the United States directly threatened Iran with a preemptive nuclear strike. It is hard to read his reply in any other way."[161]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction

President George W Bush has refused to rule out a nuclear strike on Iran as diplomats from the world's major powers met to respond to Teheran's defiance over its atomic programme.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...fuses-to-rule-out-nuclear-strike-on-Iran.html

Ah!!
I am sure that the people who strongly condemning Ahmadinejad for his harsh words against Israel will immediately ask for the arrest of Mr. Bush and bring him to The Hague for call for genocide, threatened crimes against humanity or however you want to call threatening a nuclear strike against a nation that does not have nukes.

That is not a valid excuse for ignoring what Ahmadinejad has said.

It does not justify Ahmadinejad's actions, or excuse them.


Ahmadinejad should not be publically supporting genocide. Period. It is not good for him, it is not good for the Iranian people, it is not good for anyone, and no excuse will change that.

 

[bikerdruid]

Excellent to condemn Ahmadinejad for what he said about Isreal.
Wondering why the same people do not say a heck about this:

When specifically questioned about the potential use of nuclear weapons against Iran, President Bush claimed that "All options were on the table". According to the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, "the president of the United States directly threatened Iran with a preemptive nuclear strike. It is hard to read his reply in any other way."[161]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction

President George W Bush has refused to rule out a nuclear strike on Iran as diplomats from the world's major powers met to respond to Teheran's defiance over its atomic programme.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...fuses-to-rule-out-nuclear-strike-on-Iran.html

Ah!!
I am sure that the people who strongly condemning Ahmadinejad for his harsh words against Israel will immediately ask for the arrest of Mr. Bush and bring him to The Hague for call for genocide, threatened crimes against humanity or however you want to call threatening a nuclear strike against a nation that does not have nukes.

the rebublicon war-mongers will pooh-pooh this post.

 

[HoverBoarder]

the rebublicon war-mongers will pooh-pooh this post.

I never said that I did not condemn those kinds of statements from Bush, and I have done so many times in the past.

That however does not provide an excuse for ignoring just as bad or worse statements from Ahmadinejad.

Statements in support of genocide are never good for anyone, and no excuse will change that.

 

[bikerdruid]

That is not a valid excuse for ignoring what Ahmadinejad has said.

Ahmadinejad has said that, " the state of israel will be wiped from the pages of history."
that is hardly equal to a threat of a nuke attack.

 

[HoverBoarder]

Ahmadinejad has said that, " the state of israel will be wiped from the pages of history."
that is hardly equal to a threat of a nuke attack.

Why?

One is pro genocide through mass destruction and killing, and the other is pro mass destruction.

Neither are good.

Also, Bush is no longer in power, and never will be again. Ahmadinejad however is.

Ahmadinejad has the ability to carry out his threat, while Bush does not and will never be able to in the future.

One is an active threat to everyone in the world, one was a historical threat.


Why should anything be used as an excuse to ignore the pro genocide and mass destruction comments from Ahmadinejad?

 

[bikerdruid]

Why?

One is pro genocide through mass destruction and killing, and the other is pro mass destruction.

Neither are good.

Also, Bush is no longer in power, and never will be again. Ahmadinejad however is.

Ahmadinejad has the ability to carry out his threat, while Bush does not and will never be able to in the future.

One is an active threat to everyone in the world, one was a historical threat.


Why should anything be used as an excuse to ignore the pro genocide and mass destruction comments from Ahmadinejad?

re-read what he said.
he did not threaten genocide.
he said that history would not remember the 'state' of israel.
this is not a threat to its people, only to their treacherous 'state' with its draconian domestic and foreign policies.

and as far as israel's ability to make war....
iran has no nukes...israel has many.

 

[HoverBoarder]

re-read what he said.
he did not threaten genocide.
he said that history would not remember the 'state' of israel.
this is not a threat to its people, only to their treacherous 'state' with its draconian domestic and foreign policies.

and as far as israel's ability to make war....
iran has no nukes...israel has many.

No Israel, means no Israelis in it.

There is no way to achieve the goal that Ahmadinejad has stated many times without carrying out genocide.

Iran’s President Calls Israel ‘an Insult to Humankind’ + more quotes from him here.

"The Zionist regime and the Zionists are a cancerous tumor. Even if the Zionists remain on one span (more like inch) of the Land of Palestine is dangerous, because they will come to have a legal and official government."

"A new Middle East will definitely take shape, but with the grace of God and the help of the nations in this new Middle East, there will be no American or Zionist presence in it."

You don't achieve the goal that Ahmadinejad talked about above without killing a lot of people and performing genocide in Israel.



However, that doesn't mean that there is not a way forward, it just means that comments like the ones from Ahmadinejad should be condemned, not excused.

Here's something very positive:

Israel and Iran hold 'positive' nuclear talks in Brussels

Israeli and Iranian officials are taking part in a nuclear non-proliferation meeting in Brussels on Monday, in the hope of paving the way for a full international conference in the next few months on banning nuclear arms and other weapons of mass destruction from the Middle East.

A handful of officials from both Israel and Iran are involved in the two-day event, ostensibly in their capacity as private citizens, in what was billed as an academic seminar.

But the delegations are led by senior officials and have the permission of their respective governments to take part in an informal discussion with representatives from about 10 Arab states, US officials and European moderators to explore the possibility of holding a UN-sponsored conference on establishing a WMD-free zone in the Middle East.

The Israeli team is led by Jeremy Issacharoff, an ambassador for strategic affairs at the foreign ministry; the chief Iranian representative is Ali Asghar Soltanieh, the country's long-serving ambassador to the International Atomic Energy Agency in Vienna. Also taking part is Jaakko Laajava, the Finnish diplomat tasked by the UN secretary general to organise the planned conference in Helsinki.

In contrast to the ever-worsening sabre-rattling over the Iranian nuclear programme, the mood at the meeting, convened by the EU Non-Proliferation Consortium, was described by one participant as "respectful and positive".

 

[bikerdruid]

No Israel, means no Israelis in it.

There is no way to achieve the goal that Ahmadinejad has stated many times without carrying out genocide.

Iran’s President Calls Israel ‘an Insult to Humankind’ + more quotes from him here.


You don't achieve the goal that Ahmadinejad talked about above without killing a lot of people and performing genocide in Israel.



However, that doesn't mean that there is not a way forward, it just means that comments like the ones from Ahmadinejad should be condemned, not excused.

Here's something very positive:

Israel and Iran hold 'positive' nuclear talks in Brussels

although i agree with, "The Zionist regime and the Zionists are a cancerous tumor," it does not mean that i wish all israelis dead.
not all israelis of jews are zionist, and not all zionists are jews.
for example, the harper government in canada is very 'zionist' and blindly supports everything that israel does.

 

[HoverBoarder]

although i agree with, "The Zionist regime and the Zionists are a cancerous tumor," it does not mean that i wish all israelis dead.
not all israelis of jews are zionist, and not all zionists are jews.
for example, the harper government in canada is very 'zionist' and blindly supports everything that israel does.

You cannot achieve that goal without performing genocide.

 

[bikerdruid]

You cannot achieve that goal without performing genocide.

overthrowing an oppressive government does not equate with genocide.

 

[trustbutverify]

Excellent to condemn Ahmadinejad for what he said about Isreal.
Wondering why the same people do not say a heck about this:

When specifically questioned about the potential use of nuclear weapons against Iran, President Bush claimed that "All options were on the table". According to the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, "the president of the United States directly threatened Iran with a preemptive nuclear strike. It is hard to read his reply in any other way."[161]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction

President George W Bush has refused to rule out a nuclear strike on Iran as diplomats from the world's major powers met to respond to Teheran's defiance over its atomic programme.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...fuses-to-rule-out-nuclear-strike-on-Iran.html

Ah!!
I am sure that the people who strongly condemning Ahmadinejad for his harsh words against Israel will immediately ask for the arrest of Mr. Bush and bring him to The Hague for call for genocide, threatened crimes against humanity or however you want to call threatening a nuclear strike against a nation that does not have nukes.

Do you actually read your posts before submitting them?

 

[trustbutverify]

although i agree with, "The Zionist regime and the Zionists are a cancerous tumor," it does not mean that i wish all israelis dead.
not all israelis of jews are zionist, and not all zionists are jews.
for example, the harper government in canada is very 'zionist' and blindly supports everything that israel does.

Just because someone uses exactly the same vile, racist terminology used to demonize, terrorize and liquidate Jews throughout history doesn't mean that someone is a racist. As long as they replace the word "Jew" with the word "Zionist". That's the key.

 

[bikerdruid]

Just because someone uses exactly the same vile, racist terminology used to demonize, terrorize and liquidate Jews throughout history doesn't mean that someone is a racist. As long as they replace the word "Jew" with the word "Zionist". That's the key.

codswallop.
i despise the domestic and foreign policies if the israeli government.
i have nothing against the jewish people.
i despise our prime minister and his governments blind support of anything that israel does.
however, i have nothing against jewish canadians.
if you cannot see the difference, it is your issue, not mine.

 

[Mycroft]

although i agree with, "The Zionist regime and the Zionists are a cancerous tumor," it does not mean that i wish all israelis dead.

It doesn't mean you don't want them dead either. If you're the head of a nation that's building nuclear weapons, the onus is on you to clarify.

Your personal agreement with that statement doesn't say good things about you, either.

not all israelis of jews are zionist, and not all zionists are jews.

You think this makes it less bigoted?

overthrowing an oppressive government does not equate with genocide.

With nuclear weapons?