Israel refuses to temporarily suspend all settlement construction

[WildCat]

The same organization that gained power in elections which were a demand by the US for continuing the peace process. So, I guess there should be new democratic elections except it'd be illegal to vote for Hamas?

Huh, imagine that! There's consequences for electing an internationally recognized terrorist organization as your legitimate government.

Guess those Palestinians never saw that coming!

 

[Dragoonster]

That wouldn't be very democratic, now would it. However, perhaps the Palestinians should consider what effect electing a terrorist organization that wants to destroy Israel might have on peace negotiations with Israel. If the Gazans want that, they should realize that choices have consequences. It is the Palestinians in Gaza that have done more to damage the peace process than anything Israel has done. That was their choice.

And perhaps the Israelis should consider the effect of voting in Netanyahu, Sharon, etc. might have on peace negotiations. Both electorates are reacting to the status quo and fomenting of their governments and ideologues, very few of which actually want peace. Both sides suck and I'm against supporting either of them, but imo when two antagonists suck, it's more responsibility of the more powerful of the two to not suck. The more powerful can better withstand any material, economic, or political drawbacks of not sucking. Since they already have the high road in strength, they should take the high road in morality too.

 

[Dragoonster]

Huh, imagine that! There's consequences for electing an internationally recognized terrorist organization as your legitimate government.

Guess those Palestinians never saw that coming!

Guess the US never saw the downsides of demanding democracy either then...

 

[WildCat]

Guess the US never saw the downsides of demanding democracy either then...

How is it a "downside of demanding democracy"?

 

[Dragoonster]

How is it a "downside of demanding democracy"?

Uh, because the Palestinian people voted for terrorists as their government.

 

[mortimer]

And perhaps the Israelis should consider the effect of voting in Netanyahu, Sharon, etc. might have on peace negotiations. Both electorates are reacting to the status quo and fomenting of their governments and ideologues, very few of which actually want peace. Both sides suck and I'm against supporting either of them, but imo when two antagonists suck, it's more responsibility of the more powerful of the two to not suck. The more powerful can better withstand any material, economic, or political drawbacks of not sucking. Since they already have the high road in strength, they should take the high road in morality too.

Ah, moral equivalency. Because Netanyahu and Sharon take a harder line against the Palestinians, they are just as bad as terrorists who purposely target civilians. No, worse, because they are more powerful.

Let's not forget that the Israelis did "not suck" by pulling out of Gaza and letting the Gazans determine their own future. The Gazans responded by electing a terrorist organization that openly wishes to destroy Israel. How many "not sucky" things does Israel need to do before the Palestinians are expected to do something "non sucky"? Or should Israel just do the ultimate "not suck" and do everything Hamas wants them to do (i.e. disappear)?

 

[Dragoonster]

Ah, moral equivalency. Because Netanyahu and Sharon take a harder line against the Palestinians, they are just as bad as terrorists who purposely target civilians. No, worse, because they are more powerful.

Your point seemed to be that average Palestinians should bear responsibility for voting in a government that is not conducive to peace. The parallel to that for Israel is Israelis voting in "hawk" parties who are not conducive to peace. Has nothing to do with comparing the actual practices each takes that make them not conducive to peace, more that there are/were alternatives to vote for who are more pro-peace.

So to clarify: If an Israeli votes for a hawk rather than a dove does he bear some responsibility when the hawk doesn't push strongly for peace?

Let's not forget that the Israelis did "not suck" by pulling out of Gaza and letting the Gazans determine their own future. The Gazans responded by electing a terrorist organization that openly wishes to destroy Israel. How many "not sucky" things does Israel need to do before the Palestinians are expected to do something "non sucky"? Or should Israel just do the ultimate "not suck" and do everything Hamas wants them to do (i.e. disappear)?

Both sides suck, both can do the right moral thing at any time. If you actually believe Israel is pro-peace then there's not much we can discuss. And I have no desire to argue back 60 years trying to convince the other of which immoral side is less immoral.

 

[WildCat]

Uh, because the Palestinian people voted for terrorists as their government.

And this is a "downside of demanding democracy" how?

That the Palestinian people elect people we don't like (who are actually criminal in this case) is not a failure of democracy.

 

[WildCat]

Your point seemed to be that average Palestinians should bear responsibility for voting in a government that is not conducive to peace. The parallel to that for Israel is Israelis voting in "hawk" parties who are not conducive to peace. Has nothing to do with comparing the actual practices each takes that make them not conducive to peace, more that there are/were alternatives to vote for who are more pro-peace.

So to clarify: If an Israeli votes for a hawk rather than a dove does he bear some responsibility when the hawk doesn't push strongly for peace?

What would an Israeli political party have to advocate in order to meet your definition of "dove"?

Both sides suck, both can do the right moral thing at any time. If you actually believe Israel is pro-peace then there's not much we can discuss. And I have no desire to argue back 60 years trying to convince the other of which immoral side is less immoral.

Ah, and here it comes out. It's Israel's fault all their neighbors want to destroy them. Because they're not "pro peace". Evidence for their "not pro-peace" stance is an incursion into Gaza after several years of rockets and mortars from Gaza aimed at Israeli civilians.

Once again Israel, alone among all countries on earth, is expected to put up with constant low-level attacks by a neighbor. If only they were "pro-peace".

 

[Dragoonster]

And this is a "downside of demanding democracy" how?

That the Palestinian people elect people we don't like (who are actually criminal in this case) is not a failure of democracy.

If you see Hamas being elected as a net negative and not allowing elections/maintaining Fatah with Abbas as a positive, and if the primary goal is peace, then obviously it's a downside or even failure. But the failure I was pointing out wasn't in democracy, it was in the US not being prepared or expecting that the Palestinians would vote for Hamas. A spin on your sarcastic rapproach of Palestinians being surprised that voting in terrorists has negative consequences for peace. So does granting democracy to a populace which is likely to vote for the same terrorists.

What would an Israeli political party have to advocate in order to meet your definition of "dove"?

A selfless approach to a final peace rather than the quid-pro-quo system that each side breaks. The current situation (preferred by political leaders) is one of status quo, not progression.

Ah, and here it comes out. It's Israel's fault all their neighbors want to destroy them.

Israel's conduct has rightfully or wrongfully led to retribution or ill will, yes. You disagree?

Palestine's conduct has rightfully or wrongfully led to retribution or ill will from Israel too. Disagree?

Because they're not "pro peace". Evidence for their "not pro-peace" stance is an incursion into Gaza after several years of rockets and mortars from Gaza aimed at Israeli civilians.

Once again Israel, alone among all countries on earth, is expected to put up with constant low-level attacks by a neighbor. If only they were "pro-peace".

Committing immoral or belligerant acts because they offer "negotiating bargaining chips" is not pro-peace. Not committing immoral acts is pro-peace.

This goes for both sides. The Occupied Territories also put up with low-level attacks by their neighbor. They should also not react with their own low-level attacks or by doing other immoral/illegal things.

Neither side is reacting in an acceptable way, neither side is truly pro-peace.

 

[pipelineaudio]

I guess its ok with some here that I blow up all the foreign owned homes in Hawai'i?

Im pretty sure we will gladly trade places with the palestinians. I know I would

 

[WildCat]

If you see Hamas being elected as a net negative and not allowing elections/maintaining Fatah with Abbas as a positive, and if the primary goal is peace, then obviously it's a downside or even failure. But the failure I was pointing out wasn't in democracy, it was in the US not being prepared or expecting that the Palestinians would vote for Hamas. A spin on your sarcastic rapproach of Palestinians being surprised that voting in terrorists has negative consequences for peace. So does granting democracy to a populace which is likely to vote for the same terrorists.

What makes you think that? The US was well-prepared to sanction Gaza once they elected Hamas as their government. The only people who seem unprepared are the apologists who claimed that most Palestinians only wanted peace, and that the terrorists don't reflect the majority of the people. The election of Hamas in Gaza destroyed that argument, at least as far as Gaza goes.

This is a failure of the Palestinian people to reject terrorism, not of democracy. Democracy did what it was supposed to do - it gave the people the government they wanted.

A selfless approach to a final peace rather than the quid-pro-quo system that each side breaks. The current situation (preferred by political leaders) is one of status quo, not progression.

Could you define that a bit more? What do you expect a "pro-peace" Israel to do, today, and what do you think the consequences of that would be?

Israel's conduct has rightfully or wrongfully led to retribution or ill will, yes. You disagree?

You mean the fact that it exists?

Palestine's conduct has rightfully or wrongfully led to retribution or ill will from Israel too. Disagree?

If you mean a state-sponsored embrace of terrorism as a response to Israel existing yes.

Committing immoral or belligerant acts because they offer "negotiating bargaining chips" is not pro-peace. Not committing immoral acts is pro-peace.

So, unless Israel become the first 100% moral government on the planet they will not be "pro-peace"? If not, what exactly do you consider "moral" enough?

This goes for both sides. The Occupied Territories also put up with low-level attacks by their neighbor. They should also not react with their own low-level attacks or by doing other immoral/illegal things.

What "low-level" attacks by Israel? Killing terrorist leaders the PA refuses to arrest, let alone try or deport for trial?

Neither side is reacting in an acceptable way, neither side is truly pro-peace.

Once again, demand an impossible standard of conduct on Israel's part, hand-wave away the fact that the Palestinians in Gaza elected a genocidal fundie religious cult as their government, and declare them both equally at fault.

It's like saying the girl deserved to get gang raped, because she wore a short skirt to the party.

 

[Dragoonster]

What makes you think that? The US was well-prepared to sanction Gaza once they elected Hamas as their government. The only people who seem unprepared are the apologists who claimed that most Palestinians only wanted peace, and that the terrorists don't reflect the majority of the people. The election of Hamas in Gaza destroyed that argument, at least as far as Gaza goes.

This is a failure of the Palestinian people to reject terrorism, not of democracy. Democracy did what it was supposed to do - it gave the people the government they wanted.

I think that because the Road Map was contingent upon both sides having leaders that would approve and follow it. If the US expected Hamas to come into power, they'd also expect for that to destroy their own peace initiative. Seems an odd demand to make if the demand is incongruent with the larger goal.

Could you define that a bit more? What do you expect a "pro-peace" Israel to do, today, and what do you think the consequences of that would be?

Remove all illegal settlements, stop settlement building, remove things that disrupt Palestinian movement, establish a firm route for their wall, build it, and not go beyond it. This would set the Palestinian borders de facto, and if Israel sets them with the "selfless" intent I mention, the borders would/should be acceptable. The Palestinians declare statehood. Rocket attacks continue or not, if they do the new government is given formal UN sanctions, etc. Something like that.

You mean the fact that it exists?

I mean there's a causal relation between Israel's conduct, and regional countries and Palestinians desiring them harm. Do you think if Israel removed all settlements, every single person who held animosity towards Israel would continue to hold exactly the same level of animosity?

Are you capable of thinking that some people might only fault Israel for it's conduct, and not that it exists?

If you mean a state-sponsored embrace of terrorism as a response to Israel existing yes.

I mean their conduct, which includes that. Do you think if Palestinians stopped rocket launches into Israel, every Israeli that held animosity towards Palestinians would continue to hold exactly the same level of animosity?

So, unless Israel become the first 100% moral government on the planet they will not be "pro-peace"? If not, what exactly do you consider "moral" enough?

Not breaching international law for starters. Not doing immoral/illegal things that is in no way crucial to their country's survival and carries a risk much much greater than the reward. Is the risk associated with expanding the populace into the Occupied Territories worth the slight reward of living space?

What "low-level" attacks by Israel? Killing terrorist leaders the PA refuses to arrest, let alone try or deport for trial?

Fully justified incursions to rout out rocket-launching folk are still low-level attacks.

Once again, demand an impossible standard of conduct on Israel's part, hand-wave away the fact that the Palestinians in Gaza elected a genocidal fundie religious cult as their government, and declare them both equally at fault.

It's not impossible. Most of the civilized world has learned to negotiate with the idea that they have more to gain long-term if they give things up short-term. Neither Isreal nor Palestine seem to grasp this.

You're mistaking types of transgressions for fault btw. The OP's point is significant--both rocket attacks and settlement-building are political maneuvers. Both also happend to be war crimes according to int'l law, and both immoral. The important thing to notice is that neither side will stop on their own.

It's like saying the girl deserved to get gang raped, because she wore a short skirt to the party.

It's nothing like that. If you insist on that sort of rhetoric--You're favoring one gang-rapist over another because of your bias. I don't support any kind of gang-rapist.

And on a personal note, I'd be fine with letting the idiots over there continue their juvenile antics for another 60 years. Problem is I'm helping pay for it without my consent, so I feel that the parties I am paying should damn well try to resolve the situation.

 

[Thunder]

How about getting rid of the terrorist organization that is "governing" more than a third of their population. The same organization that wants the destruction of Israel.

i thought Israelis respect democracy? the people made their choice. as long as Hamas isn't firing rockets into Israel, Israel should respect that choice.

 

[Thunder]

Once again, demand an impossible standard of conduct on Israel's part, hand-wave away the fact that the Palestinians in Gaza elected a genocidal fundie religious cult as their government, and declare them both equally at fault.

I don't think anyone here is expecting more from Israel then we would from any other Western democracy.

And the USA supports Israel in ways that no other country could ever dream of. Such support, comes with baggage.

So you can stop playing the "double-standard" whining game.

 

[mortimer]

i thought Israelis respect democracy? the people made their choice. as long as Hamas isn't firing rockets into Israel, Israel should respect that choice.

You asked what concession the Palestinians should make. If they want peace, they should recognize that electing a terrorist organization would be a major roadblock to peace. That has nothing to do with Israel and whether they respect the choice or not.

 

[Thunder]

You asked what concession the Palestinians should make. If they want peace, they should recognize that electing a terrorist organization would be a major roadblock to peace. That has nothing to do with Israel and whether they respect the choice or not.

i would be happy to see the USA demand that Hamas be kicked out of office, if Israel agreed to lift all racist restrictions and regulations from the Knesset and removed all racist parties in the Knesset.

 

[WildCat]

I think that because the Road Map was contingent upon both sides having leaders that would approve and follow it. If the US expected Hamas to come into power, they'd also expect for that to destroy their own peace initiative. Seems an odd demand to make if the demand is incongruent with the larger goal.

The PA is bound by the signed agreements no matter who is in power there. That the people of Gaza elected a genocidal fundie religious terrorism cult as their government is neither here nor there as far as democracy goes.

Remove all illegal settlements, stop settlement building, remove things that disrupt Palestinian movement, establish a firm route for their wall, build it, and not go beyond it. This would set the Palestinian borders de facto, and if Israel sets them with the "selfless" intent I mention, the borders would/should be acceptable. The Palestinians declare statehood. Rocket attacks continue or not, if they do the new government is given formal UN sanctions, etc. Something like that.

Wasn't Gaza a pilot program for removing qall Israeli settlements? Gaza was made Jew-free, and what did Israel gain for this? Why should they follow that model in the West Bank without any concessions at all by the PA?

I mean there's a causal relation between Israel's conduct, and regional countries and Palestinians desiring them harm. Do you think if Israel removed all settlements, every single person who held animosity towards Israel would continue to hold exactly the same level of animosity?

Yep. Those countries attacked Israel long before any such settlements existed. They attacked Israel simply because Israel existed, period. Go back to the 1967 borders and you're left with the fact that Israel was attacked by several of their peace-loving neighbors in 1967. Why should they believe anything has changed? Would Israel gain Arab recognition by reverting to borders that didn't gain them Arab recognition before?

Are you capable of thinking that some people might only fault Israel for it's conduct, and not that it exists?

Some people, sure. Most people, no. Find just about any demonstration against Operation Cast Lead in the world and the crowd chants "Palestine will be free, from the river to the sea". Not any real estate left for Israel in that case, is there? Even among the "moderates" living in Europe.

I mean their conduct, which includes that. Do you think if Palestinians stopped rocket launches into Israel, every Israeli that held animosity towards Palestinians would continue to hold exactly the same level of animosity?

Feelings are irrelevant, it's actions that count. If all the rocket and mortar and other attacks stopped there would be no more IDF incursions into Gaza.

Not breaching international law for starters. Not doing immoral/illegal things that is in no way crucial to their country's survival and carries a risk much much greater than the reward. Is the risk associated with expanding the populace into the Occupied Territories worth the slight reward of living space?

Maybe, maybe not. It does enhance their bargaining position, yes?

Fully justified incursions to rout out rocket-launching folk are still low-level attacks.

So you're against even "justified" attacks?

It's not impossible. Most of the civilized world has learned to negotiate with the idea that they have more to gain long-term if they give things up short-term. Neither Isreal nor Palestine seem to grasp this.

What negotiating position does one take against an enemy whose written goal is genocide of your people and the destruction of your country? Negotiate a compromise where only half your population is slaughtered and just half your territory taken?

You're mistaking types of transgressions for fault btw. The OP's point is significant--both rocket attacks and settlement-building are political maneuvers. Both also happend to be war crimes according to int'l law, and both immoral. The important thing to notice is that neither side will stop on their own.

Ah, once again the assumption that Israel has committed war crimes. And one of these days, I'm sure, evidence will turn up proving it!

So reminiscent of the 9/11 truthers. They just know the US was behind 9/11, all they need is an independent investigation to finally prove it.

 

[Thunder]

----Wasn't Gaza a pilot program for removing qall Israeli settlements? Gaza was made Jew-free, and what did Israel gain for this? Why should they follow that model in the West Bank without any concessions at all by the PA?

----So reminiscent of the 9/11 truthers. They just know the US was behind 9/11, all they need is an independent investigation to finally prove it.

maybe if Israel had coordinated the withdrawal with the Palestinians, things may have gone a little bit differently. There are zero guaruntees when you act unilitarerally. And Sharon counted on that very fact.

and are you suggesting that the Goldstone call for an independent commission into Cast Lead is analagous to the 9-11 truthers wanting a nutty investigation into 9-11?

you are better then that, Wildcat. At least we think you are.

 

[Darth Rotor]

From the Fourth Geneva Convention, Art. 49:

"The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies."

I see, you fight a war, you win a war, you get the territory, and now you tell me that your people can't live there.

Sorry, you are not making sense.

Also, under your silly logic, the US has been guilty of a war crime for having any of its people living in Germany since WW II. (We have a SOFA now, so that's a mitigation, of course).

You aren't making sense. The semantics argue against your position. The war has been over since 1967 and 1973. As on the West Bank there is no war going on, you can have no war crime.

You can argue that Israel is in breach of the cease fire agreement. I'll buy that. You rhetorical attempt to put this on the moral footing of an atrocity is despicable.

DR