Bush backs Sharon Peace Proposal

[Cleopatra]

In 1967 Israel won the 6 days War.


Do I need to post my source for that? Please....

 

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by Hutch
Well, Z-N did call Cleo a "Token Jew" several pages back, which I think would qualify, but Cleo, being a Lady, didn't respond to that little piece of prejudice. And except to pointing it out to you, neither will I.

Hmm, I completely missed that. I agree, that was unkind.

Originally posted by Hutch
Remember the title of the thread,anybody? "Bush backs Sharon Peace Proposal." One question I have is how does this assist the peace process (in terms of a final negotiated plan)? It may be apparent that the US has never been the "honest broker" it has claimed to be, no matter if Democrat or Republican, but to state it as a fact does not seem, IMHO, to have been in our (the USA) best's interests. Comments on that, please?

Rational discourse on the Israeli Palestine issue?! How naïve.

I would take issue with your phrasing of has never been. Agree with them or not, the actions of the Bush administration are the actions of the Bush administration, and it’s just not reasonable to see anything that Bush does as indicative of the intentions of previous administrations.

But to answer your question, at the moment there is no peace process to be helped or hindered by any action of Bush or Sharon.

Originally posted by Hutch
Second, I am not sure that the precendent of allowing Israel to retain land taken in an Aggressive War is one we should be backing. And before Z-N, Rik, and Skeptic leap at my figurative throat, yes, Egypt, Syria, and Jordan had moved forces to the border, had acted in an aggressive and hostile manner, and given cause for Israel to fear an attack. But it WAS Israel that launched the attack in the end (and if Egypt was so set on war, why weren't it's aircraft better distributed and more patrols up?--I've always wondered if old Gamel Abdul was running a big bluff that backfired on him) and moved and occupied ground that no one ever considered to be part of an Israeli state, and now will apparently, if the US stance is validated, be allowed to keep it. It may be something that could not be changed, given the size of some of the settlements, but I still don't like the precedent.

The plan has always been for borders to be negotiated that offered more security than the 1948 armistice lines.

Originally posted by Hutch
Lastly, Z-N has gone on about Arafat and the P-A with something approaching monomania, but has never addressed the posters who have noted that Arafat is someone the Israelis have sustained and deliberately NOT assissinated over the past decade, when they most surely have had the ability to do so. Now why is that, Z-N, if he is the greatest roadblock to peace that ever was? After all, one laser guided HELLFIRE and.....

You can make a great case for killing Arafat, and people do all the time. You can also make a great case for not killing Arafat.

For all its faults, the Palestinian Authority is the only game in town. There is no other group with any claim to represent the Palestinian-Arabs. Killing PA leaders is not the same as killing Hamas leaders, who don’t negotiate anyway and never back away from their stated goal of destroying Israel. If you kill Arafat, then you have to wonder about such issues as who will take his place and exactly how that power vacuum will be filled. In short, he’s the devil you know.

 

[Hutch]

Rational discourse on the Israeli Palestine issue?! How naïve.

Ah, Brother of Sherlock, I always appreciate your replies--don't always agree with them, but they are appreciated...

I would take issue with your phrasing of has never been. Agree with them or not, the actions of the Bush administration are the actions of the Bush administration, and it’s just not reasonable to see anything that Bush does as indicative of the intentions of previous administrations.

Perhaps I wasn't clear, Mycroft--rereading my post, it sure confuses me. What I was trying to get across was that all US Governments since 1947 (Demo or Repub) have supported Israel (Although in the early 50's Ike wasn't to thrilled with the Suez Crisis and most of Israel's military equipment at that time came from England and France). And since 1967, all administrations have at least paid lip service to the concept that we were a middle road that both Israelis and Palestinians could trust, even though we tended to strongly favor the Israeli position. What Bush has done, IMHO, is change that concept to one where negotiations for any future Palestinian State that must begin, a pirori, with Israel getting settlements on the West Bank before anything else is decided. To me, that is a major change and one that only serves the purpose of angering Arabs and Euros...which might happen anyway, but I see no reason for us to do it for so little apparent political gain.

But to answer your question, at the moment there is no peace process to be helped or hindered by any action of Bush or Sharon.

None active...but as I said above, what Bush's shift does is say that Israel gets this West Bank land handed to them, and now we can "negotiate" the rest. I fail to discern how this will aid in getting the Peace process started again.

The plan has always been for borders to be negotiated that offered more security than the 1948 armistice lines.

Well, I don't dissent and the nine-mile wide corridor never made much sense, but again, the negotiation has been replaced by an American-stated fiat, has it not?

You can make a great case for killing Arafat, and people do all the time. You can also make a great case for not killing Arafat.

For all its faults, the Palestinian Authority is the only game in town. There is no other group with any claim to represent the Palestinian-Arabs. Killing PA leaders is not the same as killing Hamas leaders, who don’t negotiate anyway and never back away from their stated goal of destroying Israel. If you kill Arafat, then you have to wonder about such issues as who will take his place and exactly how that power vacuum will be filled. In short, he’s the devil you know.

And I do not disagree with you in the slightest on this. That is why I pointed my question straight at Z-N, who seems to be so rabidly Anti-Arafat and anti-PLA (and to give him his due, they are not nice people) that I thought he needed to address why the Israelis have found it in THEIR interests to let him live.

Now you need to get back to running the British Government from the bowels of the Diogenes Club!!

 

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by Hutch
Ah, Brother of Sherlock, I always appreciate your replies--don't always agree with them, but they are appreciated...

Thank you, you’re very kind.

Originally posted by Hutch
None active...but as I said above, what Bush's shift does is say that Israel gets this West Bank land handed to them, and now we can "negotiate" the rest. I fail to discern how this will aid in getting the Peace process started again.

Well, I don't dissent and the nine-mile wide corridor never made much sense, but again, the negotiation has been replaced by an American-stated fiat, has it not?

There are a lot of solutions I’d rather see implemented. I think the bottom line is that an imperfect solution that is implemented is better than a perfect solution that isn’t.

Your description seems more or less accurate, the question is is it a bad thing? For 37 years a bilateral solution has eluded us, in its absence a unilateral solution is being attempted. I certainly have my concerns, but I also have my hopes.

Originally posted by Hutch
And I do not disagree with you in the slightest on this. That is why I pointed my question straight at Z-N, who seems to be so rabidly Anti-Arafat and anti-PLA (and to give him his due, they are not nice people) that I thought he needed to address why the Israelis have found it in THEIR interests to let him live.

I think he’s more concerned with refuting the anti-Sharon/anti-Israel rhetoric. That doesn’t require much depth.

Originally posted by Hutch
Now you need to get back to running the British Government from the bowels of the Diogenes Club!!

My influence is less than it was, look at the state of the world!

 

[zenith-nadir]

[modu]This post has been reported for copyright infringement.
zenith-nadir, please site the source of your information and, in the future, please make it a point to indicate when you are quoting a third party.[/modu]

Wow, reported on a fourth time since joining JREF. Interesting. Generally I link sources more than the average bear here, I usually put a date and time and link but I didn't realize that every single word no matter in which combination I place them are subject to copyright infringement. Therefore;

http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/Israeli%20War%20of%20Independence

http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/un/res181.htm

http://www.israel.org/mfa/go.asp?MFAH00ps0

http://www.us-israel.org/jsource/History/67_War.html



Those are the links I used to make 2 wicked, evil, war-criminal-like copyright infringing paragraphs. I will never do it again "posters who bother Admins with time-wasting and frivolous complaints".

 

[Mr Manifesto]

Wow, reported on a fourth time since joining JREF. Interesting. Generally I link sources more than the average bear here, I usually put a date and time and link but I didn't realize that every single word no matter in which combination I place them are subject to copyright infringement. Therefore;

http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/Israeli%20War%20of%20Independence

http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/un/res181.htm

http://www.israel.org/mfa/go.asp?MFAH00ps0

http://www.us-israel.org/jsource/History/67_War.html



Those are the links I used to make 2 wicked, evil, war-criminal-like copyright infringing paragraphs. I will never do it again "posters who bother Admins with time-wasting and frivolous complaints".

Why don't you ask the admins if they think they're time-wasting and frviolous?

 

[Skeptic]

Second, I am not sure that the precendent of allowing Israel to retain land taken in an Aggressive War is one we should be backing.

Considering the fact the war of agression in question was Arab, I don't see the moral problem (practical issues aside). It isn't as if israel had for no reason started a three-front war with five nations which would result in its annihilation if it lost; it was clear in June 1967 that a three-front coordinated Arab attack with intent of destroying israel (I mean, "occupied Palestine", I mean, "the zionist entity") was imminent.

Incidentally, the PLO was founded three years before that, with the idea of "liberating occupied Palestine", when the WB and Gaza were not in israel's hands anyway, and "occupied Palestine" meaning all of israel. It still does, which gives one an idea what the Palestinians REALLY mean when they talk about "ending the occupation".

In any case, if "one should not keep land historically gotten in agressive war" is a moral principle that should apply, it should apply equally all countries, not just israel; and I can think of quite a few worse offenders--such as the US itself, Australia, most Arab nations, etc...

 

[zenith-nadir]

Why don't you ask the admins if they think they're time-wasting and frviolous?

Well first of all you are currently using a copyrighted image as your avatar, is my life so meaningless that I have to run to mommy and daddy admins to report it? No, that would be ridiculous and a waste of the Admin's time. Yet everytime I hear you complain about my criminal "copyright infringement" Mr Manifesto I have to laugh at your hypocrisy.

 

[Virgil]

my plan involes paying the palestinians 3 times fair market value for their property and transport to an arab country of thier choice where they can live in peace. then isreal will be at peace.


there will be no more killing


what do you think?

Virgil

 

[am7a]

among this interesting topic and hot replies I found some nutual points which every body agreed on such as that the new plan of sharon is very dissappinting and it might distroy the last hope of peace in the middle east however for those who are claiming that israel is a democratic country holding a civilized society who have the right to vote which means they can decide who is gonna lead thier country and make decisions on thier behalf and this chosen leader is the one responsible for all this mess in this situation, so please correct me if i was wrong since i'm a new student in this forum and new for posting on net in general

 

[The Fool]

Well first of all you are currently using a copyrighted image as your avatar, is my life so meaningless that I have to run to mommy and daddy admins to report it? No, that would be ridiculous and a waste of the Admin's time. Yet everytime I hear you complain about my criminal "copyright infringement" Mr Manifesto I have to laugh at your hypocrisy.

well, I bought up the point ZN... Is it too much to ask that you site where you cut and paste your material from?

just remember it this way....original writing needs no site(ing)

as you seem to spend most of your efforts as a reposting bot it is not unreasonable that the people who actually wrote the stuff are credited.

we are all interested in your opinins ZN, as long as they are your own.

 

[The Fool]

In 1967 Israel won the 6 days War.


Do I need to post my source for that? Please....

Did you take it from another author? Why is that question so difficult to understand?

 

[am7a]

originally posted by Virgil

my plan involes paying the palestinians 3 times fair market value for their property and transport to an arab country of thier choice where they can live in peace. then isreal will be at peace.

since tax payers of US already paying to israelies wouldn't be cheaper for them if they just transport the jews to america instead of wasting money on building new illegal territiries which could be distroyed later. with this plan i think the US would be saving a lot more since the war on terror will be ended with that and there would be no more enemies for the us in the hall pan arab countries.
how good this plan is
oh no more killing as well

 

[Virgil]

yes am7a that would be equally good...

Virgil

 

[demon]

am7a:
"among this interesting topic and hot replies I found some nutual points which every body agreed on such as that the new plan of sharon is very dissappinting and it might distroy the last hope of peace in the middle east however for those who are claiming that israel is a democratic country holding a civilized society who have the right to vote which means they can decide who is gonna lead thier country and make decisions on thier behalf and this chosen leader is the one responsible for all this mess in this situation, so please correct me if i was wrong since i'm a new student in this forum and new for posting on net in general"

"since tax payers of US already paying to israelies wouldn't be cheaper for them if they just transport the jews to america instead of wasting money on building new illegal territiries which could be distroyed later. with this plan i think the US would be saving a lot more since the wore on terror will be ended with that and there would be no more enemies for the us in the hall pan arab countries.
how good this plan is
oh no more killing as well"

Talking sense like that will get you will get you nowhere around here I`m afraid.
I`m sure you know that some of the Israelis and their apologists (there are plenty on this forum) believe god gave them that land and they have a right to keep on stealing more and more of it. They won`t even say where they think the limits of Eretz Israel should end...that`s an anti-Semitic question to ask by the way so go figure.

To the Palestinians they say, don`t look to the past....forget about getting your houses and land back...don`t fight back it`s not allowed...just accept you fate and piss off and rot in the desert.
Of course, the Israelis can carry on with their thieving and killing, while ignoring international law with impunity.
They want to forget about justice while they look to the future...a sentiment they share with most of the criminal thugs in the world...unfortunately they aren`t sharing their prison cells too.

 

[armageddonman]

Yes, yes, and yes, respectively. And not only can they do so, they in fact do vote and hold government positions.

Can non-jewish Israelis join the military? Is there a draft for non-jewish Israelis?

 

[varwoche]

A predictable reaction from Jordan, quasi-moderate friend of the US:
article

In addition, Bush's action thoroughly hung Tony Blair out to dry, and now:
article

Bush isn't providing a great deal of incentive for countries (other than Israel) to ally themselves with the US.

 

[Mycroft]

A predictable reaction from Jordan, quasi-moderate friend of the US:
article

In addition, Bush's action thoroughly hung Tony Blair out to dry, and now:
article

Bush isn't providing a great deal of incentive for countries (other than Israel) to ally themselves with the US.

Would you like to comment on the actual letters?

 

[Skeptic]

Can non-jewish Israelis join the military? Is there a draft for non-jewish Israelis?

Yes and no. Yes, they can volunteer; no, they don't HAVE to join (there isn't a draft). In any case, there are both designated units of Bedouins and Druze soldiers, or they can also serve in "regular" (jewish) units. As a matter of fact, the Druze in particular are well-known for "making it" in the military, having a higher percentage of soldiers, combat veterans, officers, and even colonels and generals than the jews.

 

[Skeptic]

since tax payers of US already paying to israelies wouldn't be cheaper for them if they just transport the jews to america instead of wasting money on building new illegal territiries which could be distroyed later.

Yes, and wouldn't it be cheaper if all those darkies in white neighborhoods just move out, instead of wasting money in buying apartments that the Ku Klux Klan is going to burn down anyway? Remember, folks: it's not REALLY racism if you only want to destroy and expel jews.

But it's nice to see what kind of "peace plan" you have in mind...