The Crazy Lie of "Pinkwashing" and the Liberal Case for Israel

[King_David]

Last November, I published a blog post at The Huffington Post entitled "The Liberal Case for Israel." It was my most popular and most controversial piece to date. This week, I published a new book, "The Liberal Case for Israel: Debunking Eight Crazy Lies About the Jewish State." For 90 days, it is exclusively available in a digital format for Kindle, iPads and other eBook formats.


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jonathanmiller/the-crazy-lie-of-pinkwash_b_1565869.html

[aquart]

1. Anyone care to make a case for Jordan? Saudi Arabia?

No?

[King_David]

2. more

Israel has for decades boasted a proud, open, and vibrant LGBT culture. The Jewish State is a remarkable environment for gay and lesbian people of any nationality to vacation, live, raise a family and walk down the street -- hand in hand -- without fear of reprisal, harassment or violence.

Its largest city, Tel Aviv, regularly is recognized as one of the greatest places in the world for gay and lesbian people to live, and is considered internationally as one of the most gay-friendly tourist destinations. A 2011 poll commissioned by American Airlines rated Tel Aviv the best "gay city" in the world, with a whopping 43 percent of the vote, more than tripling second place New York.

More significantly, Israeli law and the country's record of protecting gay and lesbian people against discrimination are among the most progressive in the world, considerably more liberal than those of most American states and Western democracies. Consider these incontrovertible developments over the past three decades:




http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jonathanmiller/the-crazy-lie-of-pinkwash_b_1565869.html

[Ken Burch]

4. LGBT culture in Israel is NOT dependent

or the Occupation OR the settlements, though. And it can't be used to justify either.

[King_David]

10. Do you agree with this RIDICULOUS statement by a 'professor' no less,

Professor Jasbir Puar said "We cannot judge a country by it attitude toward homosexuals"

She should be banished from Academia.

http://www.queerty.com/anti-pinkwashing-activist-occupation-of-palestine-one-of-the-most-contentious-issues-in-queer-organizing-20120421/

[azurnoir]

11. Do you believe that attitude towards gays is the sole judgement of a country? yes or no

[oberliner]

13. The countries with the best human rights record also have the best record with respect to gay rights

These go hand in hand in liberal democracies.

Sweden, Canada, Netherlands, Norway, Belgium (to name a few) all recognize same-sex marriage and they generally rank towards the top in terms of human rights generally as far as countries go.

Whereas the countries that have the worst record with respect to gay rights also tend to fall near the bottom in other human rights categories.

Would you not agree?

[azurnoir]

17. In some cases yes in others not so much however that was not the question n/t

[azurnoir]

25. Does the EU's stellar "human rights" record apply to the Roma too

or does that stellar 'human rights' record somehow make the treatment of the Roma okay or excusable?

[oberliner]

37. The EU does not have a stellar human rights record

Last edited Tue Jun 12, 2012, 02:39 PM - Edit history (1)

With respect to the Roma, the countries with the best records are Germany, Austria, and the Scandinavian counties.

The Scandinavian countries tend to be universally recognized for their respect for human rights across a broad spectrum and wide variety of measurements - is that not something you agree with?

They also tend to have some of the best records with respect to gay rights.

Usually, gay rights and other human rights go hand in hand, don't they?

Do you not think that the countries with the most progressive policies with respect to same-sex marriage and unions are also the most progressive in other realms?

Similarly, the countries with the most regressive policies against homosexuality tend to be similarly intolerant in other areas.

That seems to be common sense.

[azurnoir]

38. Thank you for mentioning Scandinavias record on human rights

as we seen Scandinavia denounced as antisemtic on this board here is but one example of that

Jews reluctantly abandon Swedish city amid growing anti-Semitism

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=124&topic_id=327411

"Usually, gay rights and other human rights go hand in hand, don't they? " sometimes yes sometimes no

would you say a country that recognizes Gay marriage as long as its done elsewhere not in that country, but yet has laws that allow a community to deny people from living in it if they do not fit the 'cultural' identity of that community (whatever that means) has a good record on human rights?

Now it seem common sense that a country with a 'good' record on human rights record but sometimes common sense does not apply to politics

[oberliner]

42. You are welcome

I have never denounced Scandinavia as antisemitic on this board or anywhere else.

Anti-semitism, like homophobia is unfortunately still a major problem even in some of the most liberal and progressive countries in the world.

That situation in Malmo was really disturbing. Here's a more recent update:

Malmö mayor in new row with Sweden's Jews

Sweden's Jewish community has railed anew against Malmö mayor Ilmar Reepalu after comments suggesting the city's Jewish community had been "infiltrated" by Sweden Democrats to foment anti-Muslim sentiments.

http://www.thelocal.se/39858/20120323/

I'm sorry but I don't really understand what your question is asking - can you rephrase?

[azurnoir]

45. well thank you you seem to be admiting that despite having some of the most progressive laws

where Gays are concerned Sweden has problems with antisemitism, as shown by your OP which I posted a link too. It proves my point that laws concerning Gays are not necessarily the sole benchmark when it comes to a total record on Human Rights, but one of many considerations

[Ken Burch]

3. There's a liberal case for Israel's existence

but there can NEVER be a liberal case for the Occupation or the settlements...both of which have had nothing but reactionary results.

There's nothing in the settlements that could possibly be worth the roadblocks they put in the path to peace.

[pelsar]

6. so whats the liberal case....

for aiding in the creation of a bigoted, religious based dictatorship? as per the present govts of gaza and the west bank and the foundation documents?

(try to concentrate on the actual question, no wavering, no ranting about settlements, or apologies-just give me the liberal argument that supports strengthening dictatorships. i.e. the opposite of liberal values. Examples of the regional dictatorships and they civil rights record are easy to see, and you can defend those govts if you like as well)

[azurnoir]

7. same as the 'liberal case' for creating any other country

do Palestinians need some special requirements or is it simply Israeli nationalism (under the guise of 'liberal' concern) that we're seeing here?

[King_David]

16. You married to Anne Coulter ?

Your wife must not be very progressive if she does not support a very fundamental human right.

Kind of like a Republican in the USA.

[King_David]

19. Yep I alerted on the repulsive post,

And a Jury voted 5 to 1 to hide it.

Bravo indeed.

[azurnoir]

20. Repulsive it was plainly tongue in cheek but getting the right jury here is all important isn't it?

tell me have you alerted mine too? But I am am glad your pleased with yourselfposter is there? Oh BTW I self deleted mine before reading yours, but think otherwise if adds to your satisfaction and I asked you a question in comment # 11 I'd appreciate you replying unless there is some reason you wish not too?

[King_David]

21. ' it was plainly tongue in cheek '

Last edited Mon Jun 11, 2012, 11:31 PM - Edit history (1)

They took that into account.

(edited to remove part of an answer that the poster I was replying to removed from her post, it makes no sense now with her edit )

[azurnoir]

22. The post was not in the slightest homophobic it did not mention Gays at all

you know people can still read the post and being hidden is one way of assuring they will so thanks for your comment

King_David
21. ' it was plainly tongue in cheek '

View profile
They took that into account.

Homophobia has no relevance to the ethnicity of a poster.

BTW I'd love for you post the jury results of your accomplishment

[King_David]

26. How does a post talk about 'Gay marriage''

if ''it did not mention Gays at all'' ?

[azurnoir]

27. But anyone who has read the post knows he said his wife did not support Gay marriage

period, now you can continue to make that claim but as I have pointed out a hidden post can still be read and anyone looking will see that so you got the post hidden over the posters wife's views?

[King_David]

28. Well then read it again.

But I am not continuing with this because it is now getting absurd.

[azurnoir]

29. I did you got a post removed over the poster wifes views?

wow talk about zero tolerance and IMO the entire post was tongue in cheek

[King_David]

30. BTW anyone can read the edit you made after my reply.

Just FYI.

[azurnoir]

31. actually I made the edit after I reread the post but believe what ever pleases you

and once again could you please reply to comment #11 unless for reason your hesitant?

[King_David]

33. Link to my reply.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1134&pid=11385

[azurnoir]

34. IOW you can not or do not wish to reply directly? n/t

[Dick Dastardly]

156. I would like to answer this too.

The attitude towards BJ's should in general be the sole judgment of a country. The country with the highest per capita BJ's is the superior country. That said points should be given for countries with high per capita rates of cunning cunnilinguists as well. A country with a high per capita rate of both is the most superior and shows a high level of equality.

[azurnoir]

32. Could you please post the alert and jury decision ? I am most curious about this

and there are no rules against it's done quite frequently

[King_David]

35. OK I hope it is not against the rules:

REASON FOR ALERT:

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate. (See <a href="http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=aboutus#communitystandards" target="_blank">Community Standards</a>.)

YOUR COMMENTS:

Support for Gay Marriage should be a given on DU, especially in light of Obama's recent support. It is also no joking matter.Bigotry is bigotry,in a joke or otherwise.

A randomly-selected Jury of DU members completed their review of this alert at Mon Jun 11, 2012, 10:33 PM, and voted 5-1 to HIDE IT.

Juror #1 voted to HIDE IT and said: Really quite a repulsive post, and very much over-the-top for the thread in which it was posted.
Juror #2 voted to HIDE IT and said: No explanation given
Juror #3 voted to HIDE IT and said: This is an occassion when an alert and post hiding is unquestionably warranted.
Juror #4 voted to HIDE IT and said: No explanation given
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: Missing a ?
Juror #6 voted to HIDE IT and said: sarcasm? even if so, pretty awful.

Thank you.

[azurnoir]

36. No it is not against the rules I do have ethics however I disagree with jury

but then again I am familiar with poster and his style of posting

[King_David]

23. I can not improve on the reply Oberliner gave you,

As you would say.

Bravo Oberliner's reply.

[azurnoir]

24. Oh I'm sure you could I would really appreciate it in your own words

oberliners reply was a bit general

[pelsar]

41. well i'm with you...

i dont agree with the whole jury system anyway... a form of popular censorship, that i can never agree to.

tolerance of those with whom you disagree with is what tolerance is all about....

[azurnoir]

46. In this particular case I find it kind of well scary it shows that either

quite a few jurors do not take comments in the context of the discussion they are a part of or that certain buzz words have taken a life of their own and will evoke a knee jerk reaction even if the particular issue was not part of the discussion and it was brought up in the manner it was as an example of how ludicrous such a reaction would be

[pelsar]

49. that i've noticed for a long time....

not so much here but in the news from the US. If a politician/teacher/person uses the wrong word: wham, zam all hell breaks out-context is irrelevant.

the hyper sensitivity cuts in to the ability to discuss, screw up, explain, and continue the discussion.......(i.e. be human and communicate)

[pelsar]

39. whats the liberal case for supporting the creation of a dictatorship.....

ignoring sharons motivations, i believe it was the "liberal plan" for israel to evacuate the settlers and let the Palestinians rule themselves.....as in gaza.

as far as i understand one has to be some variation of the racist/bigot/nationalist to support either directly or indirectly the creation of a theocratic rule as in gaza today and as is the plan for the west bank via the palestenian foundation documents.

so explain how does a progressive/liberal support the creation of a theocratic dictatorship......

[azurnoir]

44. Doesn't Israel allow Rabbi;s authority over domestic laws marriage and such?

doesn't that make Israel at least in part a theocracy? What was the liberal support for that? The same could apply to the West Bank and the PA which claims to be secular despite one of its articles that says laws will be based on Islamic laws, now that Islamic law has become a code word of sorts, however one could also that virtually every countries laws are based in religious laws of some sort or another. As to Gaza is it actually a Saudi Arabia type theocracy as claimed or is Hamas simply regressive, however Hamas and the PA are different entities, for you to base the West Bank on Ismail Haniyeh and Hamas is similar to basing all judgements of Blacks on Joseph Cony or Charles Taylor, but Israel would never do that right?

[pelsar]

47. if your going to compare...keep it apples to apples..

western democracies may invoke god, religion etc and have some religion injected within the society, but the base remains with secular civil rights within their foundation documents. This is simply no sot with gaza nor with the west bank.

its not that the writing is on the wall for the west bank, its in their foundation documents, its in their judicial rulings, its in their society today.....Its not hidden.

seems to me the argument for the withdrawal from gaza from the progressive community was the same one your putting forth now....which is that its acceptable to the progressive community for the gazans (west bank) to be under a theocratic govt as longs as its Palestinians who are the dictators and not an occupation army.....that is your position isn't it?

[azurnoir]

53. so are we to take that the PA is enforcing women being veiled or cutting off thieves hands?

those would be Islamic laws, right? However I must say it is being kept secret that they are doing these things because it would seem even the Israeli press isn't saying saying all to much about it, well unless it's in Hebrew or something

[pelsar]

54. maybe....

hamas is going in that direction, how far is anybody's guess: The saudi's aren't as extreme as the taliban, the iranians aren't as bad as the saudis...syria nor egypt are not as extreme as the iranians...


but thats not whats its all about is it

its about limited choices, and where progressives dare not go:

at present as far as the writing on the wall goes, it appears the choices, in some limited views, are between israeli occupation vs creating a religious based dictatorship (the Palestinians themselves as a society have rejected western democracy)

so the never to be answer question remains hanging:

how can the progressive support the creation of a dictatorship based on religion...

[azurnoir]

59. Because your question seems to work on the assumption that the West Bank will be a theocracy

Last edited Wed Jun 13, 2012, 06:57 PM - Edit history (1)

if fact you make illusions that it already is, when in fact in the past you have been the one pointing out that the PA was indeed not making women veil and that the people of the West Bank would not stand for that sort of thing, why has that changed, does it have anything with increased pressure on Israel to withdraw from the West Bank, it could seem so.

so the answer to your question is this we progressives do not support the creation of theocratic dictatorship, but there is no proof or really indication that the West Bank will be, that is your assertion

edited for clarity

[pelsar]

62. so you see no "indication" that its a real possibility?

my assertion that a dictatorship based on shari law: as per the variations we see in iran/syria/jordan/egypt/saudi arabia/gaza/ is a very real possibility.

the foundation law, the polls, the present political culture, the rejection of western values as a society (they are not completely in the "bag" but then neither was gaza).

Its not that the west bankers are so religious, but the "peoples" in the west bank who identify with the west are in fact the minority.....and is it not a 'progressive value" what the majority wants should be what is? even if its against civil rights (another progressive value)

of course there is no proof...knowing the future is for the religious, con men, and fanatics, at the sometime closing one eyes to real possibilities and make decisions based on "best guesses" is what its all about.
________________________________
GAZA...being the prime example:
i take it from your point of view: no buyers remorse? the series of events (predicted in general by every israeli i met) that led to hamas taking over is "acceptable" as an outcome?

and if you could have a "do over" with the result already known, you would agree?

and one comment: its not that i "care" how they live. I really don't and wont lift a finger to help them as some kind of idealist. Its just that the last thing i want on the west bank is a version of syria, gaza, etc where a weak shari oriented dictatorship controls the west bank-the results of that will not be healthy for me or israel.

[azurnoir]

67. your comments on Arab/Muslim countries being alike reminds me of the not too distant past

'my assertion that a dictatorship based on shari law: as per the variations we see in iran/syria/jordan/egypt/saudi arabia/gaza/ is a very real possibility.'

it reminds me of Pro-Apartheidists in South Africa who said that iwithout their rule t would only be another terrible Black African country and that the Whites would be massacred, neither happened

but it seems that you are for Israel remaining in charge of those Arabs for their own good, I think you've said that too, except Israeli do not lift a finger to change anything except the demographics of Area C

[pelsar]

72. you've had your accusation...now back to the subject

so clarify....no "buyers remorse as per the status in gaza, if not why not.

as far as the failure of S. Africa....it actually did happen next door in Rhodesia: the massacre of the white farmers and a failed state. Those facts do not mean that i was or am for apartheid, but those are the historical and present facts...are they not?
____

no i am not for israel retaining the west bank nor gaza...but i really really really do not feel like going back or have my son go back as per the gaza experience, nor hiding in my hardened shelter while missiles fall and i don't believe we have to gamble yet again on some fantasy that the west bank will be a liberal land of civil rights.

and if you don't believe in that fantasy...what do you actually believe in?

[azurnoir]

73. an accusation that whether or not you realize it you confirmed

as far as the failure of S. Africa....it actually did happen next door in Rhodesia: the massacre of the white farmers and a failed state. Those facts do not mean that i was or am for apartheid, but those are the historical and present facts...are they not?

so BTW what was SA's failure that it gave up apartheid or that when it did so the White population wasn't massacred?
Rhodesia was a different story there were massacres back and forth and layers of civil wars, no political solution was at hand

now back to the subject you say that you don't want to retain the West Bank but do to fear you will because Israel can not be assured that someday the Palestinians won't become just like every other Arab country have I got that right?

What you are really saying is that Israel will forever retain he West Bank do to paranoia, because no one can 100% guarantee anything and Israel do to its distrust of Arabs both external and internal is willing to do this, IMO the conclusion I have reached is that 'Israel' will not feel safe as long as there is an Arab within a thousand miles in other words Israel will never feel safe and there for will try to go on with business as usual, in which case looks like you have lifetime career justifying the unjustifiable and as long as the US is acquiescent to this then who cares what any other thinks feels or does

[pelsar]

75. well that only took a few years.... (your viewpoint)

IMO the conclusion I have reached is that 'Israel' will not feel safe as long as there is an Arab within a thousand miles in other words Israel will never feel safe and there for will try to go on with business as usual, in which case looks like you have lifetime career justifying the unjustifiable and as long as the US is acquiescent to this then who cares what any other thinks feels or does

but the fault in your reasoning is that you have to ignore history:
egypt signed a peace treaty, had a stable govt and consequently the israeli/egyptian border was considered non threatening for many many years.

Jordan has a stable govt (in the meantime) and consequently that border is also considered non threatening

those two aspects simply show how wrong your whole theory is. As things change (as the egyptian border is now no longer quiet, only now is a wall going up)...no paranoia just the a new environment that requires changes.

Now look at the Palestinians: their first change at governing themselves is gaza. and they've used that partial independence to attack us randomly.
_____

you didn't answer: any buyer remorse on gaza and if not why not?
____

now look at the west bank, there too we see a very non stable govt, that is in fact the same model that was in gaza before hamas took over, any reason why hamas wont do a repeat?......it is in their plans, whats to stop them?

[azurnoir]

77. You left out the first part of my comment-again

so here it is

"What you are really saying is that Israel will forever retain he West Bank do to paranoia, because no one can 100% guarantee anything and Israel do to its distrust of Arabs both external and internal is willing to do this,"

your quotation started after the comma apparently you did not wish to address that part, that said let's 'get to it'

First you claim I ignore history, I most certainly did not ignore anything, I simply stated what IMO exists in Israel now, nothing more nothing less

"Jordan has a stable govt (in the meantime) and consequently that border is also considered non threatening"

Then why does Israel insist on keeping the Jordan river valley under its dominance, why does it make life difficult for the Palestinians there, encouraging to leave that area? Why do we see 'security' sited as the reason, simple Israel does not trust Jordan who's reward it seems is that for now IDF doesn't actively try to kill Jordanians who get too close to the border, and I am purposely ignoring for now the economic security involved in Israels actions.

you speak about Gaza as if the rocket attacks started in 2005 when we both know that is untrue, as to buyers remorse I did not buy anything about Gaza except that the 2006 elections were ill conceived and 'rumor' has it that Abbas counciled against them but Bush and Olmert insisted they proceed anyway and then acted surprised at the outcome, which they were warned about prior, the rest is disputed history.

why won't Hamas do a repeat well it seems that the Palestinians do learn and even they do not wish for Hamas rule and if elections were held today Hamas would suffer a defeat

but you seem to demand what you know is impossible for anyone a written in stone assurance that Israel will be 100% safe from any change. A self gratifying demand that any reasoning person can't guarantee, as I said you have work cut out

[pelsar]

95. heres the response...

"What you are really saying is that Israel will forever retain he West Bank do to paranoia, because no one can 100% guarantee anything and Israel do to its distrust of Arabs both external and internal is willing to do this,

yes its your opinion, but that opinion is certainly not based on the reality of the borders today:
Then why does Israel insist on keeping the Jordan river valley under its dominance......simple Israel does not trust Jordan who's reward it seems is that for now IDF doesn't actively try to kill Jordanians


Map time: look north and south of the west bank...what do you see? a long barely guarded border by the IDF...
(and its the jordanians that actively shoot across the border, and its the Jordanians who actively alert the IDF when there is activity on their border and its the IDF that has supported Jordan in the past, be it black september or other aspects. Hence once again we see proof that israel is not paranoid about its arab neighbors.



you speak about Gaza as if the rocket attacks started in 2005 when we both know that is untrue, as to buyers remorse I did not buy anything about Gaza except that the 2006 elections were ill conceived and 'rumor' has it that Abbas counciled against them but Bush and Olmert insisted they proceed anyway and then acted surprised at the outcome, which they were warned about prior, the rest is disputed history.

the question is if you are satisfied with the outcome....of Israel leaving gaza and knowing how it would turn out, would you still support it.

as far as the internal politics, rumors and ill conceived elections...thats called the real world. Nothing really works out as per one persons plan, but does work out sometimes as per someone else's. In this case the hamas plan worked out quite well whereas the PA/US plan didn't'. We in israel are well aware of such events and do not close our eyes to the reality. If you need another example, the arab spring, the iranian spring, didn't work out as "planned" by some, but did quite well by others. Israels attempt to change the Lebanese govt fell flat, that is the essence of politics....some plans work out, its just not always yours.

as far as the rocket attacks....the concept was that when israel leaves gaza, uproots settlements, the gazans would then stop trying to kill us. If that is not the concept, then why even bother leaving the west bank?
______________

why won't Hamas do a repeat well it seems that the Palestinians do learn and even they do not wish for Hamas rule and if elections were held today Hamas would suffer a defeat
hamas was "outgunned" in gaza, by the numbers, yet easily defeated the PA forces. They were not "elected" to take over the security of gaza, that was the PA's job. All of a sudden you can read the future about hamas suffering a defeat?, perhaps they will do a variation of the egyptian spring, perhaps a version of lebanons civil war will spring up, the options that involve an unstable govt, where there are multitude of intl forces involved is endless, with one constant-change will occur.

as per the jordanian govt, egyptian govt or even the lebanon govt, israel doesn't need 100% assurance because such a thing does not exist, but it does need something better than the gaza example has shown, and its a PA problem to convince us, we already "did the big thing", break the cycle of violence, made the big gesture, destroyed settlements, let them govern their own (remember all of those progressive mantras before gaza?..i sure do, the progressives couldn't get enough of them and then when israel did it, and kept on receiving rockets, and more of them and larger ones......

all of a sudden "pulling out of gaza didn't count' as per the excuses you mentioned

you do remember that history as well.......that should be an essential part of information to base your opinion on

Hamas and friends were a lot smarter than bush/abbas/NGO's, the progressives, etc that that all demanded an israeli pullout, thats the bottom line of the gaza pullout. Hamas has I'm sure adjusted their plans for the west bank as well, as has proven very astute, they are a serious player in this game with serious consequences, your ignoring them, just like the progressives did in gaza, because it complicates matters and makes a pullout no longer a sure thing toward any peace or even any kind of "progressive" govt. It certainly makes life easier....

but we don't have that luxury of ignoring hamas and friends.

[azurnoir]

101. So now you claim that Jordan is actively shooting right now at Israel cross border?

or are you siting what happened in the past prior to the peace treaty, because if it is present isn't that an act of war?

other than that what you have convinced me of is your total disdain for progressives, strange on a progressive site

and what I am becoming convinced of is that Israel has no intention ever allowing a viable Palestinian state, oh perhaps they'll pull out of Area B creating yes another Gaza type situation an even more hopelessly impoverished Palestinian enclave, nothing like self fulfilling prophecy eh, but Israel will continue to to attempt to keep the Jordan River valley and it's resources, Israel has become quite dependent on those and the its West Bank colonies as an overflow for it growing Jewish population

thanks for this

[pelsar]

105. no.....it occurs rarely but it does occur-attacks from Jordan

shooting across borders is hardly an act of war in the middle east...its considered "normal"

total disdain for progressives, strange on a progressive site
i have total disdain for those who ignore history, present events, redefine words (kens redefining difficult and impossible to be the same). I disdain the concept of viewing societies as helpless victims that are not responsible for their own deeds, and for those who manipulate/ignore information to better fit their ideology, rather than adjust their beliefs to fit the events. And i disagree, with the concept that the "ends justifies the means" especially when word definitions are raped to "make a point." something i see on this forum a lot. I don't care if its left or right, its the samething to me. I'm an equal opportunity disdainer


what I am becoming convinced of is that Israel has no intention ever allowing a viable Palestinian state,

you convincing yourself, not because of any information i give you, but because you have your belief first and filter out that which negates it.

classic example:
you believe israel will keep the jordan valley. to back up that belief you claim security against jordan, when that is shown to be false, rather then rethink and adjust you, then decide well if its not security it must be for the resources and population. i.e. your initial claim is wrong, but that doesn't affect your belief. If i make a case that its not a population problem (as per your claim no 3), again you wont change your belief you'll double down on the resources. Well the jordan valley isn't' resource rich and Israel has now 1 going on 3 desalination plants that will take care of its fresh water needs.

now what? your three reasons have no base: not security, not population, not resources....what your left with is your belief and the minimal challenge of thinking up another reason for believing what you do.

Israel already proved it can uproot settlers and destroy their local economies, so you can't use that as a reason...hmm. I'm sure you'll come up with something. (I'd go with place to dump the religious extremists and keep them away from the center- except the jordan valley by the border are secular in nature)
____

and back to gaza....looking back on the pullout, and the subsequent events, do you believe it was a good thing to do or not? (i know you don't like giving definitive answers.....)

[azurnoir]

111. an answer at least in part

but first let me thank you for showing that Israel's claims about security needs WRT the Jordan River Valley are BS, it just somehow would not have been quite as believable coming from me

now you went on about how Israel doesn't need the resources and boosted about the desalination plants so let me ask, how much does it cost to run those plants? Not to mention that in the event of war they make pretty good targets, and then there's always natural disaster not that Israel seems to have much but it has happened, so perhaps Israel doesn't at the moment need the West Bank water but it is a good fall back and oh BTW when I refer to Israel let's understand that means within the green line, however the settlements do need the water and they use it quite liberally from what I've read, there some really nice houses and swimming pools why a couple of them remind me of Palm Springs CA and then there is simply space and some arable land, in country like Israel where half the country is desert that's always a plus and Israel as we're constantly told is very small with a growing population and a bit of an economic/housing crunch now I'm guessing most Israelis don't really want to live in the settlements but there and always a few who will, the really need a cheap mortgage-niks and others and space is at a premium price within the green line

you also say that Israel removed the settlers from Gaza so Israel can do it the OPT too, well lets look at that there were around 7800 settlers in Gaza who did give IDF a hard time of it, but in the West Bank there are about 305,000 and some of them seem determined that what happened in Gaza will not happen to them making their removal a bit more daunting, don't ya think?

[pelsar]

112. evacuating the west bank?...not going to happen...

thats a fantasy.....if it ever comes to an agreement, i would assume the blocs remain and the smaller posts are destroyed. Bringing back 300,000 settlers would cause chaos in israel, economically, physically and socially. (most of the gaza settlers took a very long time to get resettled......finally taking over a failed kibbutz), ....but the actual withdrawal went far smoother than the IDF imagined.

as far as blowing up the water plants?....israel is vulnerable to having chemical plants blow up spewing gasses all over haifa, so thats just your imagination at play (that israel must stay in the west bank for the water...especially since the underground water of the main acquirer flows toward israel) ..werent you one of those who believed that israel invaded lebanon for a 2" water pipe a few years ago?...ooops

and those pools in the west bank....i personally have never seen any, but if there are i would assume its one per the larger settlements. i know the arial has got one, just like the Palestinian cities.

the settlers are not rich and don't have pools in their back yards.....thats just one of the little fantasies based on the "end justifies the means"...i.e. making up stuff is good, especially if it gets around and is believed.

housing crunch is in Tel Aviv/Jerusalem...not in the desert or semi desert areas or the outlying areas around Tel Aviv-20 minute train ride.

keep em coming.....it wont change your mind, but i'm sure there a few amused readers, reading this.

[azurnoir]

124. yes lets amuse readers more shall we

here you say this

Israel already proved it can uproot settlers and destroy their local economies, so you can't use that as a reason...hmm. I'm sure you'll come up with something. (I'd go with place to dump the religious extremists and keep them away from the center- except the jordan valley by the border are secular in nature)

Then when presented with facts and figures you change up and admit that Israel has no intention of removing the settlers from the West bank

then this

as far as blowing up the water plants?....israel is vulnerable to having chemical plants blow up spewing gasses all over haifa, so thats just your imagination at play (that israel must stay in the west bank for the water...especially since the underground water of the main acquirer flows toward israel) ..werent you one of those who believed that israel invaded lebanon for a 2" water pipe a few years ago?...ooops

why do you make things up?

I did not mention anything about poison gases I merely said that desalination plants make good targets IMO simply putting them out commission would be sufficient, no "poison gases being spewed" necessary
As to Lebanon I've never said anything about the Litani River or a 2 inch water pipe that seems one of your fav-o-rite claims though , no Lebanon 2006 was simply a macho show nothing more

and this

and those pools in the west bank....i personally have never seen any, but if there are i would assume its one per the larger settlements. i know the arial has got one, just like the Palestinian cities.

the settlers are not rich and don't have pools in their back yards.....thats just one of the little fantasies based on the "end justifies the means"...i.e. making up stuff is good, especially if it gets around and is believed.

what exactly did I make up, I did not say all settlers were rich in fact they run the gamut of socio-economic classes, but I did point out there is some very nice housing and that some of them have swimming pools, so let's stick to what was really said huh?

and finally

housing crunch is in Tel Aviv/Jerusalem...not in the desert or semi desert areas or the outlying areas around Tel Aviv-20 minute train ride.

true enough but you wish us to ignore that the Jordan River Valley simply has more water than the Negev, and is there for more desirable territory for development seems simple enough

anything else so far you haven't prove much I've all too wrong

[pelsar]

125. i see you've been ignoring my question about gaza ......but i'll amuse you and then ask again

Then when presented with facts and figures you change up and admit that Israel has no intention of removing the settlers from the West bank
its my opinion and has always been such....go back in any of my posts over the last years, the main blocs will remain with the smaller ones being evacuated.


I merely said that desalination plants make good targets
i was pointing out that whereas you wrote desalination plants make "good targets" you were explaining that, that is why israel will remain in the jordan valley. I was pointing out how foolish such an argument is since tanks full of poison gas are far better targets and just as vulnerable.....which means the desalination plants are not of primary importance in terms of defense resources

but I did point out there is some very nice housing and that some of them have swimming pools,
and i was pointing out that i don't know of any-houses with pools...so lets seem some picts or links with real information (which house, which settlement, that sort of thing.)

true enough but you wish us to ignore that the Jordan River Valley simply has more water than the Negev, and is there for more desirable territory for development seems simple enough
actually not....israelis prefer living in the Tel Aviv area far more than the jordan valley. Its hot, dry far from anything and in fact is very undesirable place to develop and live. Tel Aviv has enough water to take care of its residents.

lets do a summary:
question 1: Your false accusation, corrected by me
question 2: clarification of question with further information about my response (about the 2' water pipe, i wrote with a question as i wasn't sure)
question 3: private swimming pools....i asked for proof since i have never seen any and doubt that they exist
question 4: corrected your false and misleading opinion about where israelis find it more desirable to develop and subsequently live

looks like 3 out of 4 were misleading or wrong on your part.


now back to that gaza question that you avoided:
i asked knowing how the gaza pulled worked out, do you believe it was a good thing to do....

[azurnoir]

157. Lets summarize okay

in the last post I went point by point with your own quotes now the best you can do is claim oh I didn't mean that I meant this?
that goes for removal of settler, water pipes and bombing the desalination plants

Now you got me about the swimming pools, but that is about it
my point about housing being cheaper stands

as to my false and misleading opinion about where Israeli's prefer to live Israeli's is your memory bad ?

I said IMO most Israel did not want to live in the West Bank but some would especially the need a cheap mortgageniks

as shown here

It's a sleepy area with little tension between the Jewish settlement and neighboring Palestinians villages, whose men work in Barkan. The community of 100-plus families identifies itself as a national-religious community – a stream of Israeli society that includes serving in the army and participating in the larger political and social fabric – making them distinct from most ultra-Orthodox.

And the price is right: The Ovadiahs paid $292,000 for a 1,300-square-foot, three-bedroom home. A comparable property would cost at least triple in any of the outlying Tel Aviv neighborhoods where Moti and Vered both grew up.

http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Middle-East/2009/0921/p06s01-wome.html/%28page%29/2

Now about Gaza what I said once again is that I would change the manner in which it was dealt with after the pull out especially WRT the elections go back and look

so in short yes the pull out was in and of itself a good thing 'mistakes' were made after that

[pelsar]

163. thats your summary?...its self serving...

I'll give you example...the most obvious of your subtle movement of the goalposts:

you first started with the water and had two points: the acquirer in the jordan valley and the swimming pools in the west bank

the non existent swimming pools went away.
the water in the jordan valley became important, not just because it was water but because it was good place for development and for the growing population, as per your posts.

with the knowledge of the building of the salt desalination plants and the fact that israelis are not interested in living in the hot dry jordan valley, you massaged it to be cheap housing in the west bank near the Barkan factories and no longer about water, nor the jordan valley

i believe that is a better summary

and the removal of the settlers?....try looking and look very very hard, you'll never find a single post where i advocated removing of the blocs...look back for years. What you will find are assumptions like Ken, who "fill in what i don't say" to satisfy their own arguments. I just let him and others go on an on wondering if they are ever going to ask (they never do,you never did).

the water pipe was one of my favorites (did some looking later, you weren't involved) but it reminded me too much about how israel "owned" the gaza/egyptian border after pulling out and hamas and egypt were busy arguing with each other when to open and close and even shot at each other.....hence my mix up.

those are my two favorite demonizations about israel-evidence and history, physical facts having no relevance what so ever...and i got mixed up (I"ve been here too long)

__

and gaza? what mistakes were made and by whom? Hamas probably disagrees with you that mistakes were made, the PA might agree with you that they made some mistakes. But if you insisting that mistakes were made and you believe israel should pull out of the west bank, then the question is what exactly should be different so those "mistakes" wont happen in the west bank?

[azurnoir]

164. talk about self serving summaries ?

perhaps you should go back and look I mentioned that some Israeli's the "need a cheap mortgageniks" several posts back would live in the West Bank but most did not want to and again in the previous one from tonight, I did not massage anything and in fact when in the first post in this conversation I mentioned security I also said I'd leave out other stuff resources ect-for now meaning I'd bring it up later and I did

as to Gaza and mistakes I already posted about that twice in this conversation go baack and look

and how do we know they won't happen again well they could if elections were pressured by third parties and Hamas won again both however are unlikely

[pelsar]

166. gaza...went back and found no specifics...just the usual generalities....but

you did write this:
well they could if elections were pressured by third parties and Hamas won again both however are unlikely

hamas has a strong showing in the student elections, they lost, but they are a real political force in the west bank...just as they were in gaza.
http://www.jpost.com/LandedPages/PrintArticle.aspx?id=267853

and the pressure for elections by third parties?
are you sure about that?, that there is no pressure on the PA to have elections?


and as far as Hamas not being likely to win:
That was the exact position of the "progressives" and the US and the EU, when they pressured for elections in gaza...guess hamas outsmarted them then, why would hamas not outsmart them again in the west bank? or a better question: could hamas outsmart them again?

___________________
so the answer to your question is this we progressives do not support the creation of theocratic dictatorship,

but as i understand it, your clearly prefer the hamas theocratic rule, with their religious philosophy and strict enforcement of religious laws to IDF rule in gaza

limited options in the real world do not always mean good solutions, but it does clarify ones preferences-gaza is such a case.

[azurnoir]

170. well......

as I said pressure from 3rd parties IMO Palestinians even students are not 3rd parties the Quartet would be a 3rd party, the US would be a third party, those whose civilian population are not directly involved in the conflict themselves are 3rd parties, Israel would be in this case a second party, if we were discussing Israeli elections Palestine would be the second party, so no I do not think there is 'outside' pressure for elections but here is a snip from your article

Assad said that Hamas’s defeat, on the other hand, was an indication of the movement’s failure in various fields. He added that contradictory statements by Hamas, especially regarding “resistance attacks” against Israel, were also behind the decline in the movement’s popularity.

“On the one hand, Hamas talks about the need to continue the resistance,” he pointed out.

“But on the other hand, Hamas is not doing anything to resist the occupation.”

Palestinian political columnist Adel Abdel Rahman dismissed Hamas claims about forgery in the recent elections for universities, colleges and professional unions.

“Hamas’s claims are the product of bankruptcy in defending their defeat and failure,” Abdel Rahman explained. “Hamas is lacking credibility among Palestinians and the easiest way is to resort to forging the facts and inciting.”

http://www.jpost.com/LandedPages/PrintArticle.aspx?id=267853

now some students supporters of Hamas in the West Bank said they were intimidated out of voting and supposedly they are "holed up" at Bir Zeit university for fear of arrest ect as if PA forces can not arrest them there, in Gaza Fatah supporters are also arrested however WRT to Abbas this internal conflict with Hamas puts him in a damned if he does/damned if he doesn't situation that would make even Machiavelli blush, when the PA under Abbas arrests Hamas or IJ supporters in the West Bank we hear about how he abuses human rights and suppresses political opposition, here this mostly from ProIsrael posters, however if he did not do this the very same people would be accusing him supporting terrorism/ists, its almost brilliant in a way, well at least until you scratch the surface in any event and despite this polls done not in universities and in both the West Bank and Gaza show Hamas losing and actually by a little more in Gaza

here is the poll questions 16 and 17

http://www.pcpsr.org/survey/polls/2012/p43efull.html#resultstable questions 16&17

Now about Gaza what you do is pose a rather self serving either/or an ultimatum of sorts

but as i understand it, your clearly prefer the hamas theocratic rule, with their religious philosophy and strict enforcement of religious laws to IDF rule in gaza

so I must either support occupation or theocracy

I prefer neither that is the best answer I can give you, and I believe the latter could have been prevented but 3rd parties the US under Bush in particular chose not to for 'some' reason

[pelsar]

172. there was no door no 3.......never was

Last edited Mon Jun 18, 2012, 04:23 AM - Edit history (3)

Now about Gaza what you do is pose a rather self serving either/or an ultimatum of sorts

but as i understand it, your clearly prefer the hamas theocratic rule, with their religious philosophy and strict enforcement of religious laws to IDF rule in gaza
so I must either support occupation or theocracy
I prefer neither that is the best answer I can give you, and I believe the latter could have been prevented but 3rd parties the US under Bush in particular chose not to for 'some' reason

of course you support neither (neither do I) but unfortunately for you and me hamas was a bit smarter than the EU/Bush/Progressives and all those others who pushed and supported the elections and reduced the options to two: hamas or the IDF.

This is why the naive "progressives" and others are so dangerous. Pushing for an ideal that is not yet realistic, with the subsequent consequences that are simply bad....and then instead of taking up ownership or learning from it, what is your answer? "oops"....lets try it again in the west bank. There was only two options to choose from.....you just ignored that reality for a illusion and still are by not being able to own up to that limited choice. (see egyptian spring for same obvious limited options, different circumstances but similar...and obvious limited consequences).

now try rereading all of what your wrote about the hamas in the west bank an you'll find similar writing about hamas in gaza pre israeli pullout, (political games and guesswork and intreprations) furthermore as far as 3rd parties go, i wasn't asking about the students or israel, but about third parties.....there is little pressure on abbas, but when it starts, are you going to stand by your previous statement, go against the "progressive" and say if there is 3rd party pressure, then there should be no elections in the west bank and the dictatorship should stand?

[azurnoir]

175. so your the dungeon master I take it?

and Hamas was smarter than what? I think the situation is what it is supposed to be, with the exception of Fatah no longer in Gaza and there for can no longer be held guilty of firing rockets too.

I still do not chose either and it is not an ideal I am pushing for either the situation could be better, ever hear the saying you catch more flies with sugar than vinegar? after the election Hamas was basically offered an either/or now the renouncing of terrorism could have been swung IMO with enough sugar if the recognizing Israel part had been left out, that could have come later, instead the West after Hamas not too surprising refusal, decided it would be best to isolate them (with Iran), stupid unless what happened was the desired outcome because once that path was set it was inevitable, there are 2 more small chances now, one with Egypt, we'll if the West acts stupid again and the other more risky and distant is with Abbas who seems to talk with Maashal a bit, and Maashal seems to present a more moderate face of Hamas and ya I've pointed out that he's been in exile since the last century but I've wondered if there is a split in Hamas that's being worked

However in the present anyone from West who even speaks to Hamas is denounced as a terror supporter, and the current level of political isolation is being maintained quite well, it denotes to me a certain level of comfort with the situation as is, despite the claim of existential threat

[pelsar]

176. i just don't close my eyes....and pretend events couldnt happen.....

yes i'm familiar with the theory of religious fanatic will be willing to give up their religion and beliefs for "sugar." Funny how i doubt you can be bribed to give up your progressive belief for a 'larger house' yet you believe the islamists in power would be willing to.

what does it mean? their beliefs (hamas) can be bought off and whereas your beliefs are "real" and can't be?

is your belief system so "superior" to theirs?
_______________________

i'm always impressed by these types of monologues:
there are 2 more small chances now, one with Egypt, we'll if the West acts stupid again and the other more risky and distant is with Abbas who seems to talk with Maashal a bit, and Maashal seems to present a more moderate face of Hamas and ya I've pointed out that he's been in exile since the last century but I've wondered if there is a split in Hamas that's being worked

its as if those who are against such talks/plans don't exist (i mean you dont even know the names, backgrounds, history of the players involved (for and against), yet you believe you know whats going on upfont let alone whats happening behind the scenes)

Maybe the west wont act stupid, but the hamas/iran/hizballa simply act smarter and do a better job of manipulation of the politics and people to get what they want...is that part of your equation? How many "ifs" do you need before you say perhaps this is not a game that should be played right now, since a failure has far greater consequences?

does that thought even enter as a possiblity?
---

I think the situation is what it is supposed to be, with the exception of Fatah no longer in Gaza and there for can no longer be held guilty of firing rockets too.

well good to hear...that you believe that us having random attacks on our civilian population as well as on the border fence from gaza and from the sinai is the way its suppose to be.

your becoming clearer and clearer in your views.....far closer to rw nationalism that any liberalism that i know about.

[azurnoir]

177. I;m a RW nationist because I point out Gaza could have benn better handled than it was by Bush

/Olmert? and I asked a question about a possible split in Hamas that means I proclaim it so or something?

and the random attacks once again if Sderot is in such horrible danger why are the civilians still there, after how many years now?
It doesn't wash anymore

Gaza's civilian population is far more danger from Israel, than the reverse

[pelsar]

178. if your preference is for a theocratic govt vs a secular one....based on genes.....

Last edited Mon Jun 18, 2012, 10:43 AM - Edit history (2)

then yes, i would certainly define such a viewpoint far more closer to the rw nationalism than anything on left side of the line. Theorcatic govt irreguardless of what genes they have are by definition far less inclined toward event the basis civil rights that a secular occupation has.
___

there were two actual choices as we look back before israel left gaza: secular occupation by israel or a series of events that put hamas in power.

as the series of events were getting started, and with all the "pseudo political experts" that were pushing for elections: be it the Bush people, the EU people and the progressives, with their ideology and/or political analysis (as per yours above as one example), they all seem to have ignored hamas political savvy and military ability (note israel politicians, nor military people did).

the choice in the end came down to hamas or israel as the ruling party of gaza- as we see with history.....and cleary in the world of limited choices when one does not get a chance to vote "present" your bottom line choice would be hamas....as you write in so many non direct ways.

What i don't get is why you can't simply admit it, its not a matter of wanting them in power or liking them, clearly you believe they really don't believe in what they claim they do, as you believe they can be manipulated/persuaded to change their beliefs. (unlike you for example who is more principled). And you get the chance to expand upon the theory about how its the first step toward the "inevitable" democratic/western govt as we see happening in iran and egypt....

as far as sederot goes, why would israelis leave? being under attack by random attacks happens all over israel at different times, sederot now, kiryat shomona before, Jersualem before that, ashdod now, beersheva....unless of course your one of those that believe random missiles attacks on cities is actually acceptable for israel.

[azurnoir]

179. again a self serving ultimatum if I don't support this then I support that

what part no or neither don't you get?

[pelsar]

180. its not a matter of supporting...its a matter of what is least worst choice....

you are "progressive"..i believe that means, you have had a very small part in the following:

pressure on israel to leave the territories. (gaza)
pressure on the PA to have elections
____

as far as i understand you were for both actions..and in fact (just guessing here- would like to see both happen tomorrow in the west bank).

To a certain degree that gives you some "ownership" over the israeli withdrawal, the PA elections and the subsequent Hamas take over of gaza. It was after all a process that you agreed with, was it not?

so the question goes back to, now that you've seen what happened is there any regrets?. If it could be done again with a similar result would you agree.

on one hand its just a game, on the other hand it affects the west bank. If your for the same process,
there might be the same result, which some believe was the proper result. Maybe you are one of them.

you certainly don't like giving straight answers to problems that have very limited solutions.

The difference for us in the middle east, is that we don't get to vote "present"....because when we do that, it still results in a series of events that affect us, hence, there is no "present" only a preference for poor choices.

you have a nice luxury, too bad the gazans now live under facist theocratic regime that was result of such naive idealism....

[azurnoir]

181. so your saying that Bush and Olmert were naive idealists?

and yes you have given me an either /or more than once here
I have given you straight answers just not the ones you want
and honestly your an Israeli so of course you'd think the people of Gaza would be better off under Israeli fascism (military rule) rather than Hamas

but IMO what your asking is tantamount to would you rather be shot in the knee cap at close range or simply have it crushed with sledge hammer pretty equally bad choices I would say

[pelsar]

182. now you getting close....

but IMO what your asking is tantamount to would you rather be shot in the knee cap at close range or simply have it crushed with sledge hammer pretty equally bad choices I would say

sometimes you don't get good choices.....but sometimes you have to choose....and when you don't choose someone chooses for you.

you just don't like what was "cooked" up on your watch, so you get to pretend it just happened and you had nothing to do with it.

One of the things i have noticed with the "progressives" is the lack of ownership. If they push for something (elections in gaza, replacing the shah, replacing mubarak) and it doesn't go the progressive way, there is no "ownership" and lessons to be learned. All of sudden what ever "went wrong" was "unexpected, a surprise" and wont surely wont repeat itself....and so the same formula should be tried again......such is the world of the ideologue.

its works great if you live outside, but not if your iranian, an egyptian or a gazan....
____

as far as what would be better for the gazans? well being a secular liberal, i find the thought of unlimited theocratic rule abhorred and would definite prefer an outside secular military rule that does have an expiration date....progressives clearly prefer theocratic rule as the better of the poor options.

[azurnoir]

183. well I'll hand it to you it isn't often we see someone proclaim themselves

to be a liberal in the same breath that they proclaim Bush and Olmert naive idealists

oh and just is the expectoration date of Israels military occupation? your entire tack here renders 9/2005 invalid

[pelsar]

184. its goes with being independent....

to be a liberal in the same breath that they proclaim Bush and Olmert naive idealists


we don't have the weight of ideological blinders that likes to put people in little cubicles and keep them there no matter what they do.

and the expiration date of the occupation depends upon the Palestenians.....most israelis don't want the west bank nor did they want gaza.....but we sure don't need a gaza repeat in the west bank.....

[azurnoir]

185. well maybe most Israelis don't want West Bank but do they want the Israelis living there as

neighbors, do you?

[pelsar]

186. as i mentioned......the Palestinians and friends might want to face reality....

they will lose part of the west bank....the sooner they understand that, the sooner peace has chance. This whole concept of keeping the Palestinians in refugee camps, living in poorer conditions, refusing to put pressure on their govt to improve their own HR values now (as per your post on other threads), has been shown by history to be losing proposition, a fantasy land, a policy where voting "present" results in consequences that are not good for the Palestinians.

this is the other side of the "voting present"....pushing for a fantasy that when it doesn't/can't come has undesirable consequences:

don't like hamas in the gaza/westbank? don't push for a fantasy Palestinian govt that doesn't exist

don't like the settlements? don't push for the single/fantasy solution of 100% withdrawal.
_________


those living in fantasy land, leave the field open to other consequences.....what is pretty obvious if you look at the history.

[azurnoir]

187. I take it the answer is no

but I knew that however we'll see what happens,

and oh BTW I have no fantasies about the Palestinian governments

[Ken Burch]

126. Hamas would not have gone away in Gaza or lost support there

if the IDF hadn't left first. It was the continued IDF presence that drove up support for Hamas. If anything, Hamas would have much more support there now if your fellow soldiers had STAYED...they might not hold office, but that's irrelevant in terms of the question of violence and physical safety. It's not as if Hamas would be less dangerous simply by virtue of not holding political office. They were just as violent BEFORE they won the PA election. And the PLO was violent with horrific effect long before the PA was formed.

If your argument held together, Hamas should have been losing support in Gaza before the IDF pullout and the Gazans should have been begging you to stay. Yet it wasn't losing support and they weren't begging for any such thing. It has lost a lot of support now, AFTER the IDF and the Gaza settlers departed, and there's no reason to assume that it's going to be in power in Gaza for any great length of time. The Arab Spring didn't require IDF troops to be occupying Tunisia or Tahrir Square for tyrants to fall in those countries, either. You're going to have to let go of the idea that Arabs can never change their societies for the better without non-Arabs forcing them to do so. The Arab Spring has totally discredited that narrative.

I have faith that Palestinians can get rid of bad leaders without being denied self-determination, and that it is at least as likely that they can do so AFTER getting self-determination, as it would be if they were forced to do so by your army as a precondition of independence. The U.S. abolished slavery and radically democratized itself AFTER the British Army sailed back home, after all. You can't assume that North Americans can democratize on their own terms but Arabs can't...at least not without being an anti-Arab racist.

Anybody, anywhere, can make their countries better. But they have to have sovereignty over their countries, in this day and age, to do so. The examples of postwar Germany and Japan that you like to cite were one-time situations and can't be repeated now. It's simply not worth trying to.

[pelsar]

162. you assume to much....

Last edited Sat Jun 16, 2012, 03:22 AM - Edit history (2)

and i can't read the future unlike yourself.....no do i have that strange and wonderful ability to be able to put together a bunch of events that never happened and come to conclusion of what would have happened if the non events, actually happened.

read that a couple of times, its an uncanny ability of yours. Reminds me of those sci fi movies of multiple worlds where different events made different time lines on the "parallel universes."

what your missing in your fantasy world is how individuals can change a whole dynamic...and change a sequence of events to make entirely different outcomes of what was planned, and you can never know who, what or when.....try putting that in to your fantasy world, boy would that make a mess wouldn't it*.

___
*its conditional, if you believe in the "inevitability of something", as all fanatics and believers than this has limited affect-only toward that inevitable goal and not away from it

[Ken Burch]

8. I don't support creating a religious-based dictatorship

But I don't accept that keeping an entire people under military occupation can actually prevent that. What they have now isn't liberal or democratic.

Dictatorship can only be prevented by non-repressive means. You can't stop it by keeping one country's people at the mercy of another people's army.

And no, Hannan Ashrawi would NOT endorse YOUR arguments on the matter.

[pelsar]

40. do you really need another history lesson?...how many times do i have to teach you?

occupations by their own definition are not nice, yet they have lead to democracies...i know you close your eyes brain to history that you don like, but i'm an optimist, perhaps you can learn:

do you have no idea of the history of japan after WWII?
do you have no idea of the history of germany after WWII?
do you have no idea of the history of israel pre and post British rule?

hmmm perhaps your the one who is anti arab, who believes arabs are incapable of creating a democracy like the jews, like the germans, like the japanese..

__


as far a your supporting a religious based dictatorship...obviously you do. Abbas and the foundation documents are based on shari law, religious law. If you support israel leaving now with the present PA govt as is, you are clearly supporting their present system.

you may not like it, but that is reality.....face it.

[Ken Burch]

43. You can't compare the situation in Palestine now with postwar Germany and Japan

Since you won't let that one go...I'll admit(even though it has no bearing on this situation)that Germany and Japan created democratic societies(or recreated one, in Germany's case, since they'd had democracy in the 1920's and early 1930's)under U.S. military occupation. Fine, at THAT point, in that ONE situation, it was possible to create a democracy under military occupation-and that was the only time in history that that EVER worked(the situation with the British was different, because the Zionists brought democratic organizations with them rather than having to create them from scratch as Palestinians have had to do because none of their previous rulers had ever allowed them the space to create them). But the fact that it was the case then does NOT mean it's possible for Israel to use military occupation to make Palestine more democratic than it would have been without military occupation. So give that one a rest. Ramallah in 2012 is NOT Berlin in 1948(there's also the fact that Palestinians haven't done anything remotely comparable to what the Nazis did, as you know, but let's let that pass for now).

Japan and Germany had been absolutely defeated...the wars there were OVER...Palestine isn't defeated(the situation is militarily inconclusive and will always remain so)and the war isn't over. That, by itself, makes it impossible to impose "democracy" as a badge of conquest. Can you not see the difference in the scenarios right there? You can't expect Palestinians to act like a defeated nation when Israel hasn't defeated them and CAN'T defeat them(and nor can they ever defeat Israel, so Israel's survival is absolutely not in question in this). If you could have, you'd have done so by now, after forty-five years.

A lot of Germans and Japanese had never backed what their country's leaders were doing. Everyone in Palestine has always backed and will always back independence and self-determination. So it's not a situation in which a ruling regime has been discredited. Also, unlike Germany and Japan, NOBODY in Palestine regards the IDF as their allies against tyranny(there was never a pro-Israeli, anti self-determination Palestinian underground).

And nothing the Israel authorities have ever done in Palestine(most importantly of all)compares to the Marshall Plan. The government you fight for hasn't done anything to win Palestinians over...hasn't done anything to materially improve their conditions, ever(even before the PA)hasn't rebuilt from the damage the Occupation has caused, hasn't even stopped bulldozing houses and is still doing pointless shit like destroying alternative energy systems that international volunteers have built to make life better for Palestinians(the British never destroyed the kibbutzes or plowed under the orange crops Zionist pioneers raised or did anything that was collectively punitive to noncombatants). That has a lot to do with why the situation is different than postwar Germany and Japan.


Of course Palestinians and other Arabs are capable of building a democracy...and no, I would never refer to Israelis as "the Jews", so please stop using that phraseology to describe Israel here, because it isn't appropriate and it implies that I'm a closet antisemite, which you know perfectly well that I am not...but, like MOST people, they have to be given control of their destiny first to be able to do so. They need to be able to breathe. The Arab Spring, whose story is not yet over, proves that they can change their societies without having to be under somebody's bootheel. It's the height of arrogance to assume that you and the others in your army are protecting them from anything...or especially from protecting them from themselbes. Israel is not entitled to treat Palestine as if their whole country are convicts and Israel itself is the parole board. No country, in this day and age, has any right to treat any other country that way.


And it's a damn lie to say that I favor religious dictatorship in Palestine. I favor democracy. Why do you insist that I endorse the IDF occupation of Palestine, when Hamas and the other religious crazies have never done anything but grow under IDF occupation? If your argument made any sense, wouldn't those groups have died out there at some point in the last forty-five years, rather than just growing and growing and growing every time you and your fellow soldiers intervened? Wouldn't Palestine just have become more and more secular and democratic every time you made some old lady die of a heart attack at a checkpoint because somebody in your uniform assumed that a Palestinian could only be playing a trick when her husband begged them to let them through to get to a hospital(btw, why can't you guys have medical teams waiting at the checkpoints just to make sure that innocent Palestinians don't suffer in the name of "security"?)

What the IDF is doing isn't about making Palestine less repressive, The Occupation ALSO has nothing to do with making Israelis any safer(if it did, it would have cleared out all the illegal settlements in the first place and made sure no new ones were ever started, since you know as well as I that those settlements do as much to endanger Israelis as anything any Palestinian leader does). It's solely about preventing Palestinians from getting independence and about Bibi's still-not-abandoned goal of annexing the West Bank(annexation being the only reason for the settlements, since the settlements have now taken up virtually all the usable land in the West Bank and left Palestinians themselves with none of any value). It has no other objectives and cannot have any positive results. Please, do the right thing and refuse to serve in the Territories. You and your fellow soldiers aren't defending your country there...you're only defending the arrogance of the extreme right.

[pelsar]

48. wow...why do you think so little of the Palestinians?.

this is the summary of your viewpoint:

But the fact that it was the case then does NOT mean it's possible for Israel to use military occupation to make Palestine more democratic

a summary of that is, and i shall be kind: is that you don't believe the Palestinians are a very capable society/people, nor are the capable of understanding the concepts of civil rights, freedom of speech and doing what the jews did, which was to develop of society with those values all by themselves. Your claiming they need the IDF to do if for them...WOW, talk about bigoted perspective!!! They've got more freedom under their govts then the jews did under the brits.

and you support them to create a govt knowing full well that it will be anti liberal, anti democratic

or maybe, you don't believe that, perhaps you believe that once israel leaves, as in gaza, they will make a western liberal govt...is that it? (even though the Palestinians make no such claim)



____

Please, do the right thing and refuse to serve in the Territories. You and your fellow soldiers aren't defending your country there...you're only defending the arrogance of the extreme right.

not only do i serve, but by my own service i provide an example for others.....you may not have to live under the threat of random missiles, but we do....

and the arab spring? like the iranian spring.....look around, its not producing a democracy or anything close, the creation of a western democracy is more than just an attempt at over throwing a govt, it requires a population that is educated in those values.....

[Ken Burch]

50. I think highly of the Palestinians

I don't have to defend the IDF Occupation of the West Bank to prove that.

And again, you can't compare this situation with postwar Germany and Japan...because your side is treating the Palestinians WORSE than the people of postwar Japan and Germany were being treated by their occupiers.

If the IDF had ever treated Palestinians with the basic respect that the Allied forces showed...if they had acted like the GI's in postwar Germany and Japan, treating Palestinian civilians as the GI's treated German and Japanese civilians(both of whom had behaved far worse than Palestinians ever did or ever will do, and neither of which were collectively punished for any violent acts by extremist individuals, such as the "Werewolves" in postwar Germany)...If the Israeli government were allowing foreign NGO's to do reconstruction work without restriction(since reconstruction work, especially the construction of alternative energy sources, can't possibly be a threat to Israeli security)...if there hadn't been the knowing and deliberate provocation of the land theft for the settlements...you MIGHT have a point.

What the present situation proves is that, while democracy could be built IN THE PAST, IN OTHER PLACES, WITH CONCILIATORY TREATMENT OF THE LOCALS, it can't be built in Palestine with the way the IDF is treating everybody there. Do you see the distinction?

Of course they can understand civil rights. Of course they can be democratic. BUT THEY HAVE TO BE ALLOWED TO HAVE BREATHING SPACE to be able to do that. Nothing the IDF is doing there is nurturing to democratic ideals. Freedom can't be imposed at gunpoint. It has to be built by the people themselves, from below. They WILL build it...but NOT if they are made to feel that they owe it to a foreign army to do so. They have to be treated with respect and with dignity(neither of which can happen under occupation). They have to be masters of their own house.

They have to be treated as equals from the start...not as subservient criminals who have to prove they deserve release from custody. The British never treated the civilian Zionist population as you treat the civilian noncombatant Palestinians(and most of them, as even you would have to admit, are in fact civilian noncombatants who are just trying to get through their day).

It is YOU who think little of Palestinians, with your arrogant insistance that they should have to prove themselves to YOUR country...an attitude that is inherently imperialist in nature even if Israel isn't a colonialist project(and, in the pre-1967 areas, it isn't).

And if the Occupation was effective at stopping the missiles. they wouldn't ever have been fired again after the first retailatory IDF action, would they?

The IDF are not the liberators of the Palestinian people...nor are you and your fellow soldiers the protectors of secular democratic ideals there...and you have no right to judge them while you and your fellow soldiers are still making their lives miserable on a daily basis. THEY are the primary victims...not your side(yes, people on your side have suffered, and shouldn't have, but the Occupation has made all of that much worse than it ever had to be). It's time to admit that Palestinians DO have legitimate grievances and that they aren't driven solely or even primarily by bigotry.

The status quo doesn't work. Why pretend otherwise? And why keep up with the smug, arrogant "they know what they have to do" taunt, when you know perfectly well that a fully democratic Palestinian leadership would STILL insist on getting the whole West Bank back?

[pelsar]

51. you have to lay off the kool aid......

only you and only you believe this- i don't even think anybody on this mini forum (or the world for that matter) even believes this.

that the IDF are the liberators of the Palestinian people (as you constantly write about for some bizarre irrelevant reason )


once you get your head wrapped around the concept that us israelis do not see ourselves as liberators only then will you have something of substance. You base is 100% wrong. I don't know if someone is feeding you this information or you made it up all by yourself...but its wrong. Now then the question is and has alway been, why do you refuse to learn?

and your wrong again here..
The British never treated the civilian Zionist population as you treat the civilian noncombatant Palestinians

in fact you know ZERO, NADA, NOTHING about how the brits treated the jews. Shall i repeat that? NADA, ZERO

basically your still making stuff up, so that you can have a belief, that the Palestinians are not too smart and can only take away the rights of their own, rather then keep the very few freedoms they had under the secular israeli occupation.

heres your challenge: compare the brits occupation to the israelis? ( i know, you can't, you wont and you don't want to ......), but that is your base for the Palestinians inability to create democratic institutions - btw, Palestinians disagree with you on that point

Since many Palestinians disagree with you about not being able to change their society because of israel....are you going to claim that they are wrong (you answer should be very entertaining....)

Abdel Sattar Qassem
Majdoleen Hassouneh
http://www.paltelegraph.com/opinions/views/10501-palestinians-need-high-calibre-leaders--urgently.html

[Ken Burch]

52. NOTHING I said equates to the belief

that Palestinians are "not too smart".

I used the term "liberators" ironically, since you implied that the presence of your troops somehow helps the cause of secular democracy in Palestine. It does nothing of the kind, of course, but for some reason you like to pretend it does(perhaps to salve your conscience).

I know that the British did not destroy Zionist homes or olive groves(all of the kibbutzim were allowed to cultivate the land with no Mandatory interference whatsoever)...that they didn't treat the entire Zionist population as if all were responsible for what the Irgun and Lehi(groups just as bad as Hamas)got up to. I admit I don't know everything, but the Palestinians have been treated FAR worse collectively than the British treated the Zionist immigrants. The British made a clear distinction between combatant and civilian.

Of course Palestinians can change their society(and I salute those who try, NONE of whom endorse the Occupation)...but they have to be sovereign to do that. Israel doesn't gain any security from preventing them from being sovereign(and actually it endangers Israelis for the status quo to be preserved.

The United States ONLY began to make itself a truly free society after ceasing to be a British colony. That's how it goes with most countries. And nobody in the 18th Century(including North American abolitionists) accepted the argument that the existence of slavery in "the colonies&quot which was worse than anything Palestinians have in the West Bank) justified preventing the establishment of American independence OR justified maintaining a British military occupation of the rebellious sectors of North America.

[pelsar]

55. no...you don't know....

I know that the British did not destroy Zionist homes

House demolitions were used in the region under the British Mandate. In 1945 the authorities passed the Defence (Emergency) Regulations[20] and Regulation 119 made this practice available to the local Military Commander without limit or appeal

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_demolition_in_the_Israeli–Palestinian_conflict


The British made a clear distinction between combatant and civilian. LOL....
and how did they do that? given that the the jewish groups did not always wear uniforms? that women and children were involved in the underground activities?

did they have mind readers? think before you write (i guess you don't know that they had roadblocks, checked IDs, raided homes, kibbutzim, arrested innocent and guilty alike....detentions without trial)
____

actually the brits were much worse as they actually aided or were passive while the arabs killed the jews...
(see Haddass massacre: The British commander of Jerusalem assured the Jews that the road was safe as per one example.....)
___________________

ones first step in overcoming an addiction is to admit they are addicted, in your case the first step is to admit that you don't really do any research and subsequently are wrong. Try to remember how you were wrong in the assertions above
_______

Of course Palestinians can change their society(and I salute those who try, NONE of whom endorse the Occupation)...but they have to be sovereign to do that

So the Palestinians who are now attempting to change their own society today, in your view are just waisting their time? since its impossible to do it now as per your claim. Do they know that?

now a footnote:
I don't mind you having your beliefs: i actually respect them as much as i do hamas, the settlers, the haridim etc. But they have one thing you don't have: god, hence they don't need to find a logical sequence for their beliefs. In your attempts to find a logical value based sequence of events for your beliefs, your either going to have to ignore real historical events (which you do constantly), believe you can read the future, make statements of facts that are nothing more than an opinion....

just say you believe in "a' b and c and don't bother trying to prove your right....believers come in all shapes and sizes and why they believe something has always been a mystery to me, but it exists and it is to be respected (and restrained).

[Ken Burch]

56. I don't operate out of blind faith in anything...and I'm not addicted to anything.

I just disagree with you. That's ALL this is about between us. You have your views, I have mine. You have no exclusive claim to rationality OR infallibility. A lot of Israelis totally reject your analysis and your smug sense of certainty. People like Uri Avnery...a person who has fought for Israel just as you have, yet who totally disagrees with what you do.

And no, the Palestinians who are trying to change their society aren't wasting their time...I admire them...but the Occupation does make their work much, much harder. It's not like anyone who wants a secular democratic Palestine benefits from anything the IDF does. And NONE of them want the Occupation to go on. So please stop patting yourself on the back and acting as if Palestinians should see you and your fellow soldiers as benefactors OR moral superiors. You're neither. You're just another soldier in just another army.

I don't deserve your contempt or your condescension...and I'm not calling for anything that would harm you or your country. What does the harm is the status quo.

[pelsar]

57. then stop contradicting yourself.....

You specifically wrote that there can be no change until there is no occupation:
but they have to be sovereign to do that

and now your write
the Palestinians who are trying to change their society aren't wasting their time...I admire them...but the Occupation does make their work much, much harder.

so which is it?....its one or the other. Either the occupation prohibits any change in their society by the Palestinians or it doesn't....choose...and i'll link to your choice so that when you go back on it, we'll have a link to your choice.


_____

i reserver my "contempt" and condescension for those who

1) claim they don't believe in god yet believe they can read the future, and KNOW what will happen

2) hold two contradictory statements and cannot see that they are contradictory

3) make up stuff.....again and again and again and again
So please stop patting yourself on the back and acting as if Palestinians should see you and your fellow soldiers as benefactors

4) when shown to be wrong (the brits did blow up houses and were not so nice to "civilians&quot pretend they never wrote anything.

[Ken Burch]

58. I admit I was wrong about the Brits.

That wasn't the impression I'd had, but fine, I was wrong.

And there's no contradiction between admiring people who are trying to change a bad situation and acknowledging, at the same time, that they face a difficult if not impossible task. I admired Soviet dissidents, yet it was clear during most of the time that people like Sakharov and the others worked that there was little if any chance of changing conditions in the Soviet Union(had it not been for the cosmic fluke of Gorbachev's appearance, things might never have changed there at all, and Gorbachev got nothing but contempt from the West after he did everything the West wanted).

As to the "patting yourself on the back" comment, that was in reference to your insinuation that some Palestinians were quietly glad the IDF was in the West Bank. In truth, none of them are. None at all.

Also, I never said I don't believe in God...just that I don't want religious dictatorships. You do realize that a person can believe in God and still NOT want religious dictatorships, don't you?

[King_David]

60. 'In truth, none of them are. None at all.'

You speak for them? polled them?

Wheres that 'fact' come from?

Share your source.

[Ken Burch]

61. It's self-evident.

Nobody, anywhere, wants to have their country occupied by a foreign army.

Just like nobody wanted the British Army occupying the area either-nobody on either side.

[King_David]

65. So you have no data or proof or poll or anything?

Where the information come from?

[Ken Burch]

127. Nobody in the Zionist community was thankful for the British military presence

If none of them would be, why would you think Palestinians would be thankful for the Israeli military presence?

Are there any circumstances in which YOU would be thankful for another country having your country under military occupation? Any in which you'd beg the occupiers to stay? If you wouldn't be(and you wouldn't)why would you expect anyone else to feel that way about any other occupier?

I mean sure, there are collaborators on the Palestinian side who might be thankful(because it means they stay on the payroll)but what would you expect? And those who collaborate with an occupying army are not acting out of goodwill towards the occupier-they are looking out for "the main chance"-they're in it for themselves. Or(and this is particularly true in the Palestinian case)they are settlng scores with somebody in the Palestinian community...often collaborators in the West Bank are people who wanted to join a militant group but were rejected, and are acting as informers because they want payback. Like collaborators in any other war, such people are not driven by honorable motives and even those they collaborate with don't trust them-because if they could sell out their own side this week, they could sell out those they are currently collaborating with NEXT week if they get a better offer.

Collaborators are never peacemakers.

[shira]

131. Ken, what do you make of the many Palestinians who prefer Israeli rule over Hamas/PA control?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/113411286#post68

You can't just ignore or deny that. As someone claiming to be pro-Palestinian, you should empathize with them. They don't prefer Israeli rule over self-determination, but they certainly prefer the IDF to Hamas and the PA.

When you ignore most Palestinians who suffer under Hamas and want something better, you may as well be accusing those Palestinians of being traitors. To them, you support Hamas rule. How does that make you feel?

[Ken Burch]

133. Most of those who want something other than Hamas do not want that something

to be continued military occupation of their homeland and continued settlement building, building that has become so extensive that there is no longer enough land to create a viable Palestinian state(especially if the "major settlement blocs" are kept in place).

And if you really cared about those Palestinians who want Israeli citizenship, you'd admit that that proves that, at least in theory, Palestinians could be trusted to share power with Israelis in say, a Belgian-type federation(at least ultimately)you'd give up the idea that Palestinians have to be kept in a subordinate position in the power equation. A federation would end the situation of either community living at the mercy of the other, while preserving the character of each national entity in a way that a unitary state or the two-state solution(or what's left of it after the settlements)really can't.

[shira]

135. They prefer IDF rule over Hamas. And you could seemingly care less...

You're so intensely focused on the evil of the IDF occupation that you refuse to see what Hamas has been doing. Again, those Palestinians would NOT consider you as someone supporting them. They'd consider you an apologist for Hamas.

And now you're pushing 1 state again when the VAST majority of Palestinians & Israelis are against a secular one state democracy.

How rightwing/colonialist is that?

[Ken Burch]

139. I'm talking a federation...that's different than a unitary state.

Your side has pretty much destroyed all hope for the 2-state solution by insisting that the Palestinian state be forever at the mercy of Israel, rather than accepting that it must have parity of esteem with Israel.

If you want to save the 2-state solution, stop defending the status quo. At the very least, admit that there couldn't possibly be any reason to do any more settlement expansion anywhere. At least admit that the Palestinians have lost enough.

But you won't do that, because you don't want 2 states. You want your side to win...even though winning is a meaningless concept in this dispute.

Those Palestinians you quoted want to get rid of Hamas. We both know that sending the IDF back into Gaza can't accomplish that and we both know that keeping it in the West Bank can't accomplish it. The Occupation MADE Hamas. What made it can't be what destroys it.

If you really wanted to get rid of Hamas, you wouldn't defend the status quo, since you know the status quo(let alone Gaza revanchism)can't make anything better.

The fact that Hamas still exists PROVES that. The fact that the IDF couldn't end Hamas before they left Gaza proves that. Can't you just accept that reality already?

[oberliner]

142. The occupation of Gaza/West Bank did not make Hamas

A combination of Israel's existence and Islamic fundamentalism made Hamas.

If and when Israel does leave Gaza and the West Bank, Hamas would more likely become even more popular.

They would be able to point to their success in driving Israel out of the territories and promise to continue the fight until they drive Israel out of the rest (from the river to the sea).

[Ken Burch]

147. The fact that the IDF hasn't militarily defeated Hamas yet

proves that they can't. Don't you get it?

Nothing different could possibly happen if the IDF went back to Gaza. If they couldn't win the first time, they never can win.
I mean, fine, they could hit the place with nuclear warheads...but even pelsar wouldn't say that that was acceptable. They tried EVERY possible tactic. Going back would be acting out the definition of insanity.

Therefore, the answer is to stop thinking of the issue in strictly military terms.

[oberliner]

168. I don't really disagree with anything here

I just don't think Hamas would go away even if Israel withdrew completely from the OTs.

[Ken Burch]

141. Four people isn't "many"

And one guy's guess as to what a poll in Gaza would show doesn't mean a damn thing.

If the IDF couldn't get rid of Hamas BEFORE it left Gaza, why would sending them back produce any different results? If it went one way the first time, it would have to go the same way the second time.

And if the IDF hasn't been able to stop Hamas or Hamas-like groups all the time it's been in the West Bank, why would you ever think that keeping them there longer would produce any results different than what the past has produced?

The Occupation doesn't do anti-Hamas Palestinians any good. If it did, Hamas would already be extinct.

Do I need to remind you of the definition of insanity, shira?

[shira]

146. More denial. It's not difficult at all to believe when considering....

1. Palestinians admire Israel's government more than any other on earth. They rate the PLO very low in comparison.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/113411071#post8

2. Many E. Jerusalem Arabs (Palestinians) prefer to live under Israeli rule than PA...
http://www.cjnews.com/node/86025

Here's another from Haaretz where only 30% of E.Jerusalem Palestinians prefer PA rule over Israeli...
http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/would-east-jerusalem-arabs-rather-be-citizens-of-israel-or-palestine-1.336758

=======

And you're simply wrong WRT the IDF being incapable of destroying Hamas. You do realize they held back significantly during OCL, don't you? International pressure was a factor as well.

[Ken Burch]

148. OK...logical problem with your position then...

If they admire Israel's government more than any other, than doesn't that prove that they could be trusted to share in it in a Belgian-type federation?

Doesn't it discredit the premise of the current State of Israel(that is, that the majority population of that state can only be safe if it IS the majority, if it has power and the Palestinians have none?)

Why assume that they must be kept powerless, as maintaining the occupation and continuing to build more settlements keeps them powerless?

The fact that they admire that government does NOT mean, and cannot mean, that they accept the argument they must be powerless against that government and that they must be dispossessed and stateless until that government says they don't have to be anymore(and that that government still reserves the right to return them to statelessness anytime it wants to send the IDF in to do so).

A Belgian-style federation(which is not a unitary state) would preserve the parts of Israel you treasure, while ending the parts that are unjust. It would protect Israeli Jews without oppressing Palestinians.

On the other hand, the continued settlement building and the insistence of the Israeli government on effectively having the power of life-or-death over a future Palestinian state, and the power to undo that state and restore the Occupation anytime it sees fit(both of which are part of Bibi's "security concept", and neither of which he will ever budge on)have all-but-discredited the 2-state solution(a solution that was predicated on NEITHER state having dominance over the other).

You can't have it both ways...they can't be admirer's of Israel's government and STILL not be trustworthy with shared power.
If they admire Israel's government, that proves that they're democrats and civilized human beings, and it proves that they AREN'T obsessed with wiping out the Jews.

[shira]

149. Still pushing the rightwing one state solution, Ken?

Before I answer you, I want to know if you now agree that Palestinians prefer Israeli rule to that of Hamas or the PA.

[Ken Burch]

150. I don't agree that they prefer the Occupation.

They don't admire the Israel for that. And it's been proven over and over again that continuing the Occupation can NEVER lead to Hamas and the PLO being removed from influence. The fact that it hasn't happened yet, after decades and decades, proves by itself that it can't happen. Just accept that already.

And a Belgian-style federation is not the same as a one-state solution, since it preserves the national character of both nations without giving either nation power over the other.

[shira]

151. A significant number of Palestinians prefer occupation to Hamas or the PA...

Do you agree with that?

I didn't ask you if Palestinians preferred the occupation and that's that. We agree they prefer self-determination to occupation. However, a significant number of Palestinians, and very likely the majority, prefer Israeli rule over Hamas or the PA.

Agree or disagree now?

[pelsar]

63. NONE? 100%?

another one.....when do you stop?.

In truth, none of them are. None at all

Unlike you many of the Palestinians are aware of the concept of "limited choices." Clearly you have no idea what that is (yes i'm being condescending here, as its a critical concept that you simply do not understand).

Limited choices is when a person understands that he cannot have his ideal choice. Its clearest in war zones...

now bring that concept to the avg Palestenian in the west bank. And here the polls show this to be true in so many variations: He may dislike/hate the israeli occupation, but his other option today is the corrupt PA, with the corrupt Police force backing them. This same Palestenian can also see gaza from places in the west bank, and see what Hamas has done to weak PA, he also sees the weakness of dictatorships as per the civil war in syria... vs the stability and non massacres that do not occur with the IDF.

does that mean he loves the IDF?....no, but it does mean that he may prefer to see an IDF soldier outside his home to a hamasnik/PA policeman. How many west bankers/gazans would prefer that? i don't know, but i would bet that at least a few who were dragged off by the PA/Hamas to their torture chambers, might disagree with your 100%.

want more? how about the Palestinians living in jerusalem that do not want to give us their israeli citizenship even though they are treated like second class citizens to live under the PA?. If you don't know about them, then i would say you really shouldn't be making comments on what all of the Palestinians believe

but then again, i do believe your bigoted, in that you do not respect the Palestinians to have different beliefs. Your 100% tells me that you can't even fathom the concept that some Palestinians have the ability to believe as sane, intelligent human beings something different from yourself. In short you have no tolerance at all for some one who believes something different from you and that translates to disrespect in my opinion. (I'm using a nice PC word to describe that "disrespect".....see i'm being nice)
____________


And there's no contradiction between admiring people who are trying to change a bad situation and acknowledging, at the same time, that they face a difficult if not impossible task.

so your still asserting that all of the Palestinians that are attempting to make a change in their society today are wasting their time as its impossible as per your first assertion?

make a decision: its either impossible or difficult, they are two different concepts that contradict one another:
so in which post are your wrong (again).

[Ken Burch]

64. Stop acting like an interrogator.

And don't keep calling me things that you know are untrue...like accusing me of being a bigot.

The IDF wouldn't leave if Palestine was fully democratic...because a fully democratic Palestine(which I do support)would not accept less than Palestine's current demands. None would accept, for example the survival of the Ariel settlement or any of the other large settlement blocs, because there isn't any land that Israel could possibly swap that could make up for the fact that Palestinians would have to spend the rest of eternity having to go through IDF checkpoints just to get from one part of Palestine to another part of Palestine.

Of course the political choices are limited in Palestine right now, but it's not as if the Occupation reduces the limits. In fact, the Occupation has helped impose those limits, because it's been used, among other things, to attack secular movements in Palestine(there was a belief at one point that it was in Israel's interest to strengthen Hamas against the secular groups).
The Occupation doesn't give anybody in Palestine any more room to maneuver than they'd have if the IDF weren't there...any more than apartheid protected internal black democracy within South Africa.

I said I admired people who are trying to work for change within Palestinian political culture. There work is difficult and I'm not sure possible, especially while the Occupation is in place. You have no reason to be fixated on the distinction between difficult and impossible...demanding that I say one or the other is childish and pointless, and it's ridiculous for you to think that what I say is going to make a huge difference. No matter what I say or do, Israel is secure and will always exist. I can't do the place any harm.

You keep acting like I'm a heretic and you're some sort of latter-day Torquemada, who cannot let up until you get me to recant. Why? Why are you so obsessed with getting me to abandon all disagreement with you? It's not as if YOUR view is the only possible legitimate one. A lot of your fellow soldiers don't even agree with you. Some refuse to serve in the Territories anymore as a result.

As to Palestinians in Jerusalem, if they don't want to give up their Israeli citizenship, that's up to them. But the fact that they don't doesn't justify the evictions of Palestinians in East Jerusalem and the expansion of Israeli settlements there. The fact that those Palestinians wish to be Israeli citizens does NOT mean that they accept the argument that the Occupation is somehow a lesser-evil for Palestinians in the West Bank OR that they back the siege of Gaza. They haven't disowned their countrymen.

And you have never pointed to any possible way that the presence of the IDF could ever, possibly, in any way, lead to Palestine getting democratized. Perhaps because you know that it CAN'T lead to that.

If you want to defend the Occupation because you buy into the fascist "Judea and Samaria" canard, fine. If you just hate Arabs, fine. But don't insult everyone's intelligent by trying to pretend that the Occupation is beneficial to the occupied. Just don't go there. You have to reason to. And it would make no difference to anything were I to become a total conservative and agree with you.

[pelsar]

66. its you who is insulting ......to the Palestenians

i'm just pointing the contradictions in your viewpoint...and judging by your long irrelevant posts, not only do you not like it, your having a hard time accepting it. Believe what you want, just don't try to sell an view point that is full of contradictions, and false information thats my point

so what happened to your 100%?
As to Palestinians in Jerusalem, if they don't want to give up their Israeli citizenship, that's up to them
(that means they prefer israeli rule to PA, in case you don't understand the meaning of retains israeli citizenship....

and another 100% WOW....
None would accept,

and you really expect me not to be sarcastic and condescending to someone who write that 100% believe something?....that is a very condescending approach to the Palestinians


You have no reason to be fixated on the distinction between difficult and impossible.
Again? explaining to me what is and what is not important to me?.....i am fixated on your contradictions and broad, baseless statements that are false in this conflict. If there was no difference you wouldn't have written impossible, but you did and as far as i can tell you still stand by it, showing your disrespect for many Palestinians who do believe and are working for change under the occupation.

If your exact and precise, your posts would take on a whole different meaning.....and that would screw up your base beliefs, hence you continue with your condescending attitude toward the Palestinians that they all must believe as you do, every single one of them from the 5year old kid to the 85 year old christian grandmother, all 100% believe as per your beliefs...

the words that describe such an attitude goes from the white colonial, to disrespect of the individual, to groupthink to cultist and most of all massive intolerance....as i read your posts, your intolerance is very very clear..... (all cultist, fanatics and religious believe they "love" everybody and they know whats best, the one common thread is what you express: intolerance for a belief other than their own)

that is a good description of the posts you write (oops i forgot, false information as well)

[shira]

68. Facts for Ken: A Palestinian who would accept settlements & many Palestinians who prefer occupation

....over PA or Hamas rule:

1. Ray Hanania supports land for peace with 1:1 swaps for land:

I can support some settlements remaining – given the reality of 42 years of time passing -- in a dunum-for-dunum land exchange. If Ariel is 500 dunums with a lifeline from Israel, then Israel gives Palestine 500 dunums in exchange.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ray-hanania/re-energizing-the-two-sta_b_360241.html

[font color = "red"]So contrary to Ken's beliefs, there are Palestinians who not only would accept settlement land swaps, but also Ariel existing as Israeli territory in a 2 state solution.[/font]

2. Many, many Palestinians prefer Israeli occupation to Hamas/PA rule:

"The journalist adds: "There are two options today that could take us out of this situation: Someone strong in the Gaza Strip who does not care about a confrontation with the clans, or an Israeli occupation. Many people in the Strip hope that Israel will reoccupy it because these phenomena were not prevalent during the Israeli occupation."

http://www.haaretz.com/weekend/week-s-end/as-gaza-burns...

=======

Bassem Al-Nabris
Palestinian poet from Khan Younis, Gaza Strip

"If a there was a referendum in the Gaza Strip 'would you like the Israeli occupation to return?' half the population would vote 'yes'... But in practice, I believe that the number of those in favor is at least 70%, if not more - much higher than is assumed by the political analysts and those who follow. For the million and a half people living in this small region, things have gone too far - in practice, not just as a metaphor. with the internal conflicts, but even earlier, in the days of the previous Palestinian administration, which was corrupt and did not give the people even the tiniest hope. The fundamentalist forces which came into power also promised change and reform, but got a siege, with no security and no making a living... If the occupation returns, at least there will be no civil war, and the occupier will have a moral and legal obligation to provide the occupied people with employment and food, which they now lack."

=======

Al-Hayat Al-Jadida columnist Yahya Rabah wrote: 'When the national unity government was formed, I thought: "This will be a government of national salvation." If a government that includes Fatah, Hamas, other factions and independents associated with various factions has not been able to save the day, it means that no one can, unless Israel decides that its army should intervene. Then it will invade the Gaza Strip, kill and arrest people - but this time not as an occupying force but as an international peace-keeping force. Look what we have come to, how far we have deteriorated, and what we have done to ourselves.' (Al-Hayat Al-Jadida, PA, 15 May 2007)

=======

Palestinian journalist Majed Azzam wrote: 'We should have the courage to acknowledge the truth... The only thing that prevents the chaos and turmoil in Gaza from spreading to the West Bank is the presence of the Israeli occupation in the West Bank... as opposed to its absence from the Gaza Strip.' (Al-Risala, Gaza, 14 May 2007)

=======

"People in Gaza are hoping that Israel will reenter the Gaza Strip, wipe out both Hamas and Fatah, and then withdraw again... They also say that, since the massacres, they miss the Israelis, since Israel is more merciful than who do not even know why they are fighting and killing one another. It's like organized crime, . Once, we resisted Israel together, but now we call for the return of the Israeli army to Gaza."

Faiz Abbas and Muhammad Awwad:
Al-Sinara (Nazareth), May 18, 2007

=======

"Between one murder and another, between one kidnapping and the next... our leaders continue to sit in their seats and to speak of 'resistance,' 'liberation,' 'unity,' and 'return'... They are all liars. The weapons they wish to retain, as the weapons of resistance, are actually weapons of internecine terrorism and murder... You are murdering the cause, people and future... Oh murderers, you have ruined our world, castrated our nationalism, prostituted our resistance... You have turned our lives into hell. hell is preferable... Take your government, your militias, and your gangs and go to hell."

Al-Ayyam (PA), May 17, 2007

=======

"The whole world seems to be talking about the future of the Arabs of Jerusalem, but no one has bothered asking us. The international community and the Israeli Left seem to take it for granted that we want to live under Mr. Arafat's control. We don't. Most of us despise Mr. Arafat and the cronies around him, and we want to stay in Israel. At least here I can speak my mind freely without being dumped in prison, as well as having a chance to earn an honest day's wage."

The Daily Telegraph (London), Jan. 28, 2001.

====

"The hell of Israel is better than the paradise of Arafat. We know Israeli rule stinks, but sometimes we feel like Palestinian rule would be worse."

‘Abd as-Samiya Abu Subayh, quoted in The Washington Post, July 25, 2000

Here's a lot more you should bookmark WRT Palestinians preferring and admiring Israel in other ways:
http://www.theaugeanstables.com/2007/11/14/when-palestinians-prefer-israeli-occupation-to-palestinian-self-rule/

[font color = "red"]Hopefully, we've seen the last of "all Palestinians believe..." or "no Palestinians would ever accept..." nonsense from Ken.

But I doubt it.[/font]

[azurnoir]

74. facts for shira Ray Hanania is an American comedian who resides in Chicago

is that why you promote him so much here? and the Augean Stables well I can understand why Richard Landes is a favorite of yours he did coin the term 'Pallywood' didn't he?

Now I am sure that had there been a net back in the 1950's and 1960's someone like Landes would have been able to ante up a few Blacks who were against the civil rights movement, but while no one can ever say all I would guess the overwhelming majority Palestinians would prefer their own governance over that of Israel

but thanks it says something when one has to refer to so many rightist sources to promote their views

[oberliner]

76. And Ali Abuminah is an American who also resides in Chicago

Don't know if he's quite the comedian Ray is, but he certainly can be amusing.

In any case, bear those facts in mind the next time you encounter anything from Ali via Electronic Intifada.

He was born in the US and lives in Chicago, just like Ray.

[azurnoir]

78. true however last I looked no one was promoting Abuminah for President of the PA

nor do they site his personal views as the do all end all for good Palestinians as was done by the poster I was addressing, now you could claim that by posting from Abuminah's publication Electronic Intifada people here do that and it would be true if Abuminah personally hand wrote every piece, but he does not

[oberliner]

113. True

But I do think that people who are not themselves living in the region are still often times in positions to comment on what is going on there and can have insights that people find worthwhile.

[shira]

119. The point is Hanania is a popular, American liberal Palestinian voice...

...unlike Abunimah who is for one state and holds every rightwing view as Hamas WRT the conflict.

[azurnoir]

123. so that's your point huh? well thanks the thing is Hanania who is along with

Khaled Tomeh are JPosts 'Arab voices Tomeh who of late seems to have dropped the 'abu' from name is a right winger and Hanania is a centrist but neither are actually live in the West Bank do they?

[shira]

132. LOL. Hanania and Toameh are centrist/rightist? But they're for 2 states...

Meanwhile, those you quote/support like Abunimah, Maan News, etc... are one-staters. You've written many times here you're okay with 1 state.

You know, back in the 90's, those who were 2 staters were considered left of center. The one staters were rightwingers.

Think about that...

But now, "progressives" seemingly have it backwards. Unless one is okay with 1-state and they pretend it can be secular under majority Arab rule - essentially the same view of the most extreme rightwing Islamists - they're now considered leftwing.

How'd that happen?

[oberliner]

137. Khaled Abu Tomeh was born in the West Bank and lives in Jerusalem

He has been reporting on and from the West Bank for three decades.

He also has not dropped the "abu" from his name and is not a right winger.

Where are you getting this nonsense from?

[pelsar]

97. actually Ray wasn't so funny...

I heard him in israel a few years ago.....a few cute jokes but nothing to "laugh your socks off."

[oberliner]

114. Who are some of your favorite comedians?

Perhaps it is simply a matter of taste.

[shira]

79. So attacking the messenger, not the substance, is all you've got. Here's more substance...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1134&pid=11071

Not only do Palestinians prefer Israeli rule over that of Hamas or the PA, they admire Israel's democracy more than any other government in the world. And 75% of Israel's Arabs are zionists...



The cognitive dissonance must be tough to deal with, huh?

[azurnoir]

80. The cognitive dissonance must be tough to deal with, huh?

ya sometimes it is especially with some of posters here who like to throw in red herrings

now do you wish to actually address what I said rather than giving me a link to an unrelated article, it is about Israeli Arabs that is those residing in Israel with Israeli citizenship not Palestinians living under Israeli military occupation without the rights of Israeli citizenship

[shira]

82. How many more sources do you need? You think those sources are fake, right? n/t

[azurnoir]

90. no I do not think they're fake at moreover that is not what I've said is it? seems your looking for

an excuse to post more of your sources, be my guest

[shira]

96. So if they're not fake, they're legit. They show many, many Palestinians prefer....

...Israeli rule to that of the PA/Hamas. That's not to say they prefer the occupation over self-determination. It means they can't stand Hamas and the PA.

[azurnoir]

98. so what percantage of the the 4 million Palestinians living in the OPT and Gaza does

many, many entail? Perhaps you did not know that many here in the US can't stand either party the Democrats or Republican but find a percentage that wish for foreign rule because of that, its pretty much the same thing, in short your taking the word of a relative few and presenting them as some major force

[shira]

118. Read those quotes...

"The journalist adds: "There are two options today that could take us out of this situation: Someone strong in the Gaza Strip who does not care about a confrontation with the clans, or an Israeli occupation. Many people in the Strip hope that Israel will reoccupy it because these phenomena were not prevalent during the Israeli occupation."

http://www.haaretz.com/weekend/week-s-end/as-gaza-burns...

=======

Bassem Al-Nabris
Palestinian poet from Khan Younis, Gaza Strip

"If a there was a referendum in the Gaza Strip 'would you like the Israeli occupation to return?' half the population would vote 'yes'... But in practice, I believe that the number of those in favor is at least 70%, if not more - much higher than is assumed by the political analysts and those who follow. For the million and a half people living in this small region, things have gone too far - in practice, not just as a metaphor. with the internal conflicts, but even earlier, in the days of the previous Palestinian administration, which was corrupt and did not give the people even the tiniest hope. The fundamentalist forces which came into power also promised change and reform, but got a siege, with no security and no making a living... If the occupation returns, at least there will be no civil war, and the occupier will have a moral and legal obligation to provide the occupied people with employment and food, which they now lack."

=======

Al-Hayat Al-Jadida columnist Yahya Rabah wrote: 'When the national unity government was formed, I thought: "This will be a government of national salvation." If a government that includes Fatah, Hamas, other factions and independents associated with various factions has not been able to save the day, it means that no one can, unless Israel decides that its army should intervene. Then it will invade the Gaza Strip, kill and arrest people - but this time not as an occupying force but as an international peace-keeping force. Look what we have come to, how far we have deteriorated, and what we have done to ourselves.' (Al-Hayat Al-Jadida, PA, 15 May 2007)

=======

Palestinian journalist Majed Azzam wrote: 'We should have the courage to acknowledge the truth... The only thing that prevents the chaos and turmoil in Gaza from spreading to the West Bank is the presence of the Israeli occupation in the West Bank... as opposed to its absence from the Gaza Strip.' (Al-Risala, Gaza, 14 May 2007)

=======

"People in Gaza are hoping that Israel will reenter the Gaza Strip, wipe out both Hamas and Fatah, and then withdraw again... They also say that, since the massacres, they miss the Israelis, since Israel is more merciful than who do not even know why they are fighting and killing one another. It's like organized crime, . Once, we resisted Israel together, but now we call for the return of the Israeli army to Gaza."

Faiz Abbas and Muhammad Awwad:
Al-Sinara (Nazareth), May 18, 2007

It's very likely a significant percentage.

They prefer the IDF over Hamas/PA rule. Read why, show some empathy for the Palestinians you claim to care about...

[Ken Burch]

81. Why are you so obsessed with preserving the settlements, shira?

They've brought nothing but misery to the world. There's nothing about the settlements that could possibly be more important than ending the war.

[shira]

83. Seems you guys are for preserving settlements. If it were up to me, they wouldn't...

...be a factor due to the Clinton Initiatives from 12 years ago. A peace offer your team is still against. One that would have ended the occupation and settlements more than a decade ago.

[Ken Burch]

84. I'm not on a "team".

Stop acting like I'm a conspirator.

You didn't answer my question.

Does the fact that the theft took place decades ago make it ok?

The settlements really aren't any different than what was done to Native Americans, and nobody on the Left in this country thinks that THAT should be forgotten.

There was never any justification to keep any of the settlement blocs. Their effect on life has been totally negative.

[shira]

85. Ken, it's silly for you to argue against settlements & occupation....

...when you've been against every Israeli effort to end them. I'd have agreed to the Clinton Initiatives 12 years ago, just as I have no problem with Barak (Netanyahu/Peres) calling for a unilateral withdrawal to end most of the occupation of the W.Bank now.

It's really hypocritical of you to accuse me of supporting the occupation and settlements.

=====

Also, the settlements aren't land theft.

When you say that, you're clearly arguing Jews have zero claim to that land. I know you'll deny that, but if they do have claims to that land then it's not theft. You're contradicting yourself. But go on if you will. Claim Jews have zero rights to any W.Bank land. Or else admit you're contradicting yourself.

Palestinians already have a homeland in Jordan, where the Hashemites rule (occupy) the majority Palestinian population. The reason Trans-Jordan was formed (78% of the Mandate) was to give the Palestinians there their own homeland, with no Jews remaining. Jews were supposed to get the remaining 22% of the Mandate (historical Israel). But Palestinians also have a good case for claims to the W.Bank, just like the Jews do. It's disputed land. It's not exclusively theirs. No theft...

[Ken Burch]

86. OK. I can accept that they can have a nominal claim to a few bits of land in the West Bank.

But not that it's worth creating perpetual antagonism, and not that enforcing that claim is more important than ending the war.

Why can't they just say "ok, we don't renounce the claim, but we're not actually going to be crazy enough to act on it"?

And if you're going to say that Jews have claims to the West Bank, you can't say that Palestinians have no claims on the other side of the Green Line. Don't you see the problem in saying that one side has a claim in the other's territory, but the other side doesn't?

And btw, the "Jordan is Palestine" thing isn't accepted by anybody, and is only backed by the furthest right-wing extremist elements even in Israel itself. There's no reason to dredge that up.

[shira]

87. So it's not theft...

Palestinians have no claim to Israel just as Jews have no claim to Jordan. It's not Israel's fault the majority Palestinian population in Jordan is ruled by the minority Hashemites. That was supposed to be their homeland and the reason it was separated from Israel in the 1920's.

[Ken Burch]

89. "Jordan is Palestine" is discredited. Only the racist far right in Israel still argues for that.

Netanyahu himself doesn't(btw, have you ceased to be a Kadima supporter, now that that party has joined Bibi's coalition and thus abandoned all differences with Netanyahu on any major issue? The polls in Israel show that Kadima's support has collapsed as a result of their disgusting decision to join the anti-peace government. Are you still backing them anyway? If so, why? They can't be in Netanyahu's coalition and still support anything that Tzipi Livni claimed to want.)

You can't seriously say that Jordan is an alternative to a Palestinian state.

And there's no contradiction between saying that there could be a few tiny Jewish claims in the West Bank and saying that virtually all of the settlements were built on stolen land.

You have no good reason to try to legitimize the settlements.

And you just outed yourself as a far-right extremist with the post you made above. Even Netanyahu doesn't claim that Jordan is Palestine.

[shira]

93. Do you agree it has a majority Palestinian population and was meant to be...

...the Palestinian homeland when Trans-Jordan was separated from the other 22% of the Mandate?

If I were an extreme right-winger claiming Jordan is Palestine and that's that, I wouldn't support the Geneva Initiative, Clinton Parameters, or Olmert's offer. Also, if I'm an extreme right-winger, what does that make you and your fellow "progressive" activists for Palestine, since you're against every Israeli offer to end the occupation and settlements? Better yet, if you could go back in time and influence Arafat to accept the Clinton Parameters, Palestine would exist today with no occupation or settlements. Twelve years. Would you do that or not?

I don't support any political party in Israel.

[Ken Burch]

103. My apologies if I got the political party thing wrong

You'd talked up Kadima's ideas so much I assumed you were one of their supporters.

In hindsight, it now appears it would be better if Kadima had never existed. All it did was to push the Israeli spectrum further to the right.

I don't accept the idea that Jordan was meant to be for the Palestinians and that nothing in the Jordan valley was meant to be theirs. And even raising the Jordan thing is demagogic and divisive at this point.

[shira]

120. Kadima has moved Israeli right-wingers significantly towards the Left....

They even have Netanyahu from Likud talking 2 states, doing a 10-month settlement freeze, and offering more than Rabin from 1995. WRT the conflict and 2 states, Israelis have shifted farther Left.

OTOH, the Left in Israel has shifted more towards the center since Intifada 2 and the Gaza withdrawal.

You couldn't be more wrong asserting Israel has shifted farther to the right.

==========

Who was Jordan meant for if not the Palestinians when it was separated from the other 22% of the Ottoman Palestinian territory?

If you're pro-Palestinian, you should be fighting for Palestinian self-determination in Jordan since they're the majority (and at 75% a significant one at that). It's already a majority Palestinian state.

[Ken Burch]

91. It can't be fair to say that Israel has claims to the West Bank

but Palestinians have none in the areas of pre-1967 Israel. It has to be both or neither.

Jordan is irrelevant to this, since Jordan will be run by the Hashemites forever(thanks to the U.S.-supplied war machine that preserves Hashemite power) and it can't be acceptable to make the Palestinians live in a country where they will always be powerless.

This should be the deal. Extinguish any Palestinian land claims in pre-1967 Israel IN EXCHANGE for extinguishing all Israeli land claims in the West Bank. Simple, straightforward and, since there was never any justification for Israel trying to settle the West Bank(they only did it to prevent Palestine from becoming a state, and even you would have to admit that it couldn't be possible for Palestine to exist as a real state as long as Palestinians would have to continue passing through Israeli checkpoints just to get from one part of Palestine to ANOTHER PART OF PALESTINE...something nobody in any other country in the world has to do on their own territory).

Why insist on preserving the settlements, when they are nothing but a symbol of oppression...when they bring nothing positive even to Israel? The settlements don't make Israel any more secure at all.

[shira]

94. If the Arab Spring comes to Jordan and the Palestinian majority starts ruling...

...would you say that's a Palestinian homeland?

The settlements are reality at this point. While I agree they do not make Israel more secure, Israel cannot afford to give up the high ground (mountains) where most of the settlements are. UNSCR 242 is clear that Israel is entitled to secure, defensible, and recognized borders. Giving that highland up (very much like the Golan) means anyone could shoot right down into Israel from the hilltops. Like ducks in a pond. That's intolerable. Start @ 2:10 here and you'll see...

I'm for a peace deal along the lines of the Clinton Parameters, Olmert's offer, and the Geneva Initiative. Many left-wingers support Geneva. It's hardly rightwing. And settlements stay in place via land swaps.

[Ken Burch]

99. Israel doesn't need settlements to have the high ground

A few IDF personnel by themselves would cover that, or perhaps just some cameras.

And at some point, Israel has to stop working from the assumption that even a peace settlement wouldn't really end the war. It has to work as if actually resolving the conflict is a possibility, or else it will simply end up working to keep the conflict going.

[holdencaufield]

100. Based on what?

"Israel has to stop working from the assumption that even a peace settlement wouldn't really end the war."

Your belief that a settlement with Palestinians would end all aggression between Palestinians, the Arab States or Iran is based on what precisely?

Have there been a lot of encouraging words from Egypt, Iran or Syria lately about their wanting to make peace with Israel?

Not even Charlie Brown would kick that particular football.

[Ken Burch]

102. Egypt MADE peace with Israel in 1978.

It doesn't have to keep re-making it.

As to Syria...it needs to make peace with the Syrians before it can make peace with anybody else.

As to Iran...that has nothing to do with the I/P situation. It's not as though the Palestinians would have made peace with Israel if only it wasn't for Ahmadinejad. Do you honestly believe that Palestinians don't have reasons of their own to resist the Occupation? That they have no real grievances? Good God, do you take all your information on this issue from the CAMERA/FLAME ads?

It's childish to keep acting as if the whole thing is only the Arab/Palestinian side's fault. There's blame to share, and everybody needs to accept that. Most Israelis accept that, at some level.

[holdencaufield]

104. Apparently, it does...

Egyptian Prime Minister Essam Sharaf said that "A peace deal with Israel was not sacred."

The Deputy chief of Egypt's largest party, the Muslim Brotherhood, has said that they will not recognize Israel's right to exist, the treaty is non-binding, and will be put to a referendum.


Apparently, the Peace Treaty isn't something Israel should consider permanent.

I'm curious how you changed your argument from -- "Making peace with the Palestinians will end all threats to Israel"

To -- "If Israel IS attacked, it will be the Israeli's fault."

[Ken Burch]

106. I don't think I said making peace with the Palestinians would end ALL threats

I have said, repeatedly, that you can't expect the other Arab countries to make peace with Israel WITHOUT Israel accepting Palestinian self-determination. Clearly, resolving the Palestinian situation HAS to go before anything else. Why would you ever think it was possible to get peace with the Arabs WITHOUT a Palestinian state being established first?

You'd have to agree with that. And certainly, it's not reasonable to expect the other Arab countries to normalize while the Occupation remains in place and the status quo in the West Bank is preserved. That was never a valid expectation.

The problem with Camp David was that Sadat was effectively forced by Begin to abandon the Palestinians. Begin SHOULD have accepted at that point that there was no alternative to negotiating with the PLO...if for no other reason than that there really wasn't any alternative Palestinian leadership waiting in the wings in case the PLO were to fall, and because it wasn't going be possible to end the I/P dispute without getting the PLO's cooperation at some level. Militarily defeating the PLO and imposing peace-through-victory on the Palestinians was never a realistic option, and the Palestinians were never going to accept anything, under any leadership, that looked like they were surrendering. This is simply common sense.

[holdencaufield]

107. You said...

"Israel has to stop working from the assumption that even a peace settlement wouldn't really end the war."

You think Palestinians are the only threat to Israel? Even if the Palestinians were completely satisfied with a West Bank state -- and there is no indication that they would be. Palestinians are merely the proxy cannon fodder of the nations and groups that fund and support them. Countries and groups who finally realized that they don't have to fight Israel with their own troops and weapons but can get Palestinians to do it for them at a fraction of the cost. Those groups are still looking to do Israel in if the Palestinians laid down their arms.

And why do you, as most people who ignore the history of the region, assume that the status of the Palestinians connected with external threats to Israel? If that is the case, why were there 20 years of full-on war and multiple invasions of Israel before the occupation? Do you expect those enmities to dissolve away once Palestinians have a state?

[Ken Burch]

108. And what I said there was still not the same thing

as implying that ending the I/P conflict would end ALL hostilities towards Israel by anybody. But ending that conflict is a precondition to ending any other.

From what I've seen, though, at least in terms of most of the Arab countries, they aren't exactly eager to remain in a state of conflict with Israel...I think that most of them, other than the most extreme, don't really want the perpetual state of war to go on.

I'm not really sure that it's worth pursuing any further conversation with you at the moment, since you are totally invested in the "they just hate Jews" mindset...even though that argument hardly explains the totality of the conflict and even though reducing the conflict to that means giving up on EVER ending the conflict. Why would you be so determined to hold to an oversimplistic view of things that serves no purpose other than to justify not changing anything?

Conflict between Israel and the other Arab states is NOT about antisemitism.
If the Arab world had always been filled with murderous hatred of all Jews(as you would like to believe, for some reason)the Arab countries would have sent the Mizrahi to Europe to be slaughtered in Hitler's camps. Yet nothing of the sort happened, and, as I've repeatedly pointed out, the Arab/Islamic world(even those parts tied to pro-Nazi European countries, such as Algeria and Morocco, and those areas where Rommel's Afrika Korps had thousands of troops)were about the safest places, OTHER than the U.S. or Canada, to spend World War II if you happened to be Jewish. People who are "pro-Israel" should thank the Arab/Islamic world for this...since those countries had a far better record of protecting Jews from the Nazis than any country in "Christian Europe"...even Merrie Olde England, a country that cruelly separated Jewish refugee children from their parents and sent the parents back to Nazi-occupied countries to be slaughtered-and in fact, better on balance than the U.S. or Canada, BOTH of which could easily have acommodated every refugee from Hitler(giving the able-bodied men among them military training to go back and fight the Nazis)and between them prevented the Shoah from occurring at all(something the Palestinians could NOT have done). A region and a people driven by hatred of Jews above all else would never have protected the Jews in their midst from extinction. They'd have just taken the opportunity to be rid of them once and for all...yet they didn't. That, by itself, discredits the "they just hate Jews" narrative and that narrative needs to be retired, since keeping it alive accomplishes nothing.

The truth is, the hostility of other Arab countries to Israel was always about not wanting a country of Western influence in the region...something they had every right not to want, since they'd received nothing but misery and exploitation from all previous examples of Western influence there going back to the Crusades. Yes, there has been antisemitism in Arab/Islamic countries, but nothing in the pre-1948 period that came anywhere near to what Hitler, the tsars, or the Inquisition did in Europe.

And Palestinians are NOT merely Arab proxies...to assume that they are means assuming that they have no legitimate grievances about anything the Israeli government or military has done to them. You can't seriously believe that they are without any such grievances. Can you honestly tell me that, if you were Palestinian and had been put through everything they've been subjected to, that YOU wouldn't be hostile to the Israeli government? That you'd accept the narrative that everything that happened was your own side's fault? You should read the quotes that people like Moshe Dayan and Yitzhak Rabin have had on that subject before you answer.

It just isn't as simple as "Arabs hate Jews and that's all this is about". OK?

[holdencaufield]

109. Show me where I said...

"they just hate Jews"

[Ken Burch]

116. That's the basis for your whole argument

That's the entire Zionist argument about the Arab response to the creation of Israel. You may not have used the exact words, but that was always what you were implying.

The truth is, the Arab issue with Israel was the connection of Israel with Western culture. They'd have reacted the same way to a group of European or American Christians setting up a state on the same land. Or a group of European or North American athiests, for that matter.

And, while it was simplistic of them to see it that way, some of Israel's leaders didn't exactly help matters by using rhetoric about how they were bringing European civilization to a "backward" land. If you talk like that, the locals are going to hear it as colonialism-wherever in the non-European world you go.

On balance, the Arabs should have chosen different tactics. But it serves no purpose to keep implying that antisemitism is even the primary motivation for the Arab response to Israel. If that were the case, Jordan wouldn't have had essentially back-channel relations with Israel the whole time, and Sadat would never have gone to Camp David no matter what. Also, nobody in Lebanon, even the Christians, would have tolerated the IDF presence there(as opposed to the reality in which the Lebanese Christians, who are also Arabs, welcomed that presence).

What I'm saying is that it's not as simple as YOU would like to think it is. Is that really an inadmissable thought?

[holdencaufield]

122. The next time you're going to tell me what I think...

... try and get it right?

[pelsar]

110. when will you quit talking down to the arabs?...when

You are not the great white colonialists who knows better than them, who is all knowing..and knows whats best for the "local brown natives.....and knows what is wrong with them....

When will stop treating them as "dumber than dumb" if they don't do what you believe is the proper way? when?

The problem with Camp David was that Sadat was effectively forced by Begin to abandon the Palestinians.


Sadat out negotiated begin by making israel keep gaza, incase you didn't know that (i'll add that to your list of things you don't know about the conflict)

[Ken Burch]

115. I'm not talking down to them

What I'm saying is that people who are being subjugated by a foreign army can't be held to the same standards as people who aren't. Your position would be comparable to the British Crown demanding democratic reform in the Colonies before it pulled the Redcoats out(and believe me, if you were black or a woman, or gay, or a member of any religion other than Protestant Christianity, your life in the Thirteen Colonies was pretty much just as repressive as life under Hamas-the differences were only of degree).

You can't treat an entire country like inmates who should face a parole board. And you can't hold every Palestinian responsible for what Hamas or Fatah does. Only the leaders and the militants themselves are responsible for the violent acts. The rank-and-file in Palestine do not have the power to change the tactics the leaders use. What part of "Collective punishment is wrong" do you not understand? What part of "Collective punishment simply doesn't work" don't you understand?

And what part of "you are sabotaging the work of pro-democracy Palestinians by perpetuating the status quo" do you not get? How can you possibly think you are helping those people, and where do you get off acting as if they should feel grateful that you're there? Of course some of them might say things you want to hear to you...but for God's sake, you're effectively holding guns at their heads, so what else would you expect them to say? In Warsaw, Prague, or East Berlin during the Warsaw Pact era, a lot of people would have publicly stated that they wanted the Red Army to stay and protect them from the decadent West. But would you actually have believed them when they said that?

Palestinians are as good as anybody else, and can act as honorably as anyone else. But the country whose army has its troops on their land is not the country that has the right to demand better behavior of them. And it's bullshit for you to act like you're saving them from Hamas. You're not. Hamas is declining in support even in Gaza, and the only thing that gives them any leverage on the Palestinian "street" is Israeli condemnation of Hamas and Israeli demands that Palestinians repudiate it as a precondition to anything changing. Those actions on the part of YOUR leaders keep Hamas in business. If they 'd just shut the hell up, Hamas would wither away, because most Palestinians have little if any use for it-however, by attacking it, Israel makes it a point of honor for at least some Palestinians NOT to disown it. Why would you expect anything else, when your leaders create a situation in which they make it look to Palestinians as if doing the sensible thing is a form of collaboration? The best way to get rid of Hamas is to ignore it to death. Given that nothing your side has done has worked against them(if it had, Hamas would be gone by now), you have nothing to lose by trying.

And there's no reason to assume that greater democracy on their part(which most of them do want)is going to change how they react to Israel. Why would you think that greater democracy would lead to more Palestinians saying that they'd settle for whatever crumbs Bibi would leave them? Have you ever heard of greater internal democracy in anybody's liberation struggle leading to people being more accomodating to the side they're seeking liberation from? When has anything remotely like that EVER happened anywhere? The Zionist movement had full democracy, yet you never heard anybody within Zionist circles saying they'd like the British to stay longer.


You are the one who is condescending to the Palestinians...playing an active role in oppressing them and then acting as if you're entitled to make demands of them before you stop the oppression. You are the one who is insulting them by acting as if the whole thing is THEIR fault and that they could make it stop if only they behaved better. Neither is true, and you know it. Even if every Palestinian became a Gandhian tomorrow, nothing would change in terms of what your government is doing. None of the settlement construction would stop and you wouldn't be back in the barracks or back at home(and believe me, I hope the time comes when you are back at home and nobody in your country ever becomes a soldier again). The power of the settlers drives the status quo in the West Bank just as much as what Palestinians do does. You are naive if you don't believe that.

Also, tell me this...given what's happening in the Arab Spring, isn't it a bit silly to assume that Hamas can only be stopped BEFORE the Occupation ends? Why can't you have some faith that Palestinians are capable of getting rid of them without you and your fellow soldiers demanding that they do it? Why can't you accept that they might do that on their own once they're FREE of the IDF?

You argue that your presence holds back Hamas and other extremists...but what you miss in that argument is that the continuation of the Occupation for decades and decades has played a major role in bringing Hamas to power. Hamas was only able to rise because the preservation of the status quo allowed them to argue that they, and they alone, could end the Occupation(because, at that point, Fatah clearly couldn't, due partly to their mistakes but partly also due to intransigence on the part of YOUR leaders). Before 1967, there WAS no Hamas(there was the Muslim Brotherhood, but it was apolitical and would have remained apolitical if the West Bank hadn't been taken, as it always had prior to that).

Also...why should Gaza ever have gone to Egypt? The people of Gaza didn't want to be Egyptians. Egypt didn'w WANT Gaza(it was only ever Egyptian territory because of the way the League of Nations bureaucrats drew the maps after World War I). There was never any good reason for Gaza to be part of Egypt or any chance that it would have been part of it. If a country doesn't want a piece of territory, you rarely if ever hear of that country being forced to accept it against their will. So even if that was something Sadat "outnegotiated" Begin on, it's irrelevant and trivial. It has nothing to do with the fact that the Palestinians were left out of Camp David(when the only way to include them was to include the PLO).

[pelsar]

128. Colonialism didn't die....its just went left

well clearly you have little understanding of the dynamics of israeli democracy as well as the way the Palestinians see themselves as well.

We're back to square one, where your sitting on your high perch looking down upon the little brown peoples" and telling us what we should be doing. Once you learn to respect both israeli democracy, learn how it works, and respect the Palestenains as a society that does take responsibility for its actions you might be "humbled" a bit and with that new approach get a better understanding of the conflict and its possible solutions.

So lets start with israeli democracy.....it works. (yes i know you still have trouble wrapping your head around the concept that the israeli politicians and military personal are real people and actually do react to public pressures). The reason there is little public interest in leaving the west bank is because of gaza....it failed. If the Palestinians would somehow give the israeli population confidence that a west bank withdrawal would not be a repeat of gaza, then the politicians would fall in line. We would be pretty stupid to withdraw knowing full well that the result will be nothing more than a throwing the dice in the air (we don't have your ability to read the future).

Which brings us to our next point...your total condescending attitude that the Palestinians are not responsible for their society.
Well it appears that many of the Palestinians disagree with you. They have a dept of education, security, sport, economics etc In fact they have a working govt that makes decisions that affects all of the society, they even have some dissent in the streets that are attempting to make changes and are working towards that end (some for a more religious PA some for a more secular one), and have had some success and quite a few failures.

hmmm, whats a progressive/colonialist to do?..
i call that a very condescending attitude, that you don't recognize the fact that they are taking responsibility toward their society, its education, economics, social structure, etc

BUT, we do know why you cant accept that don't we. if they take responsibility toward their society while under the occupation your whole thesis of the helpless victim goes out the door...hence you have to disrespect them.

and then you compound you misunderstanding of democracy combined with your condescending attitude by writing this:
And there's no reason to assume that greater democracy on their part(which most of them do want)is going to change how they react to Israel. Why would you think that greater democracy would lead to more Palestinians saying that they'd settle for whatever crumbs Bibi would leave them?

democracy is about free flowing information, discussion, argument, getting to know each other and in the end compromise to best fit the others needs. Furthermore democracies have a better record of stability as opposed to dictatorships.

Your 100% attitude is that everyone has to agree with your point of view, if not they are "anti" right wingers. etc. that attitude has no place in a democracy, which is why you wrote what you did..you simply don't understand what a real dynamic democracy is all about..i'll give you a hint: its about 100% of the people never agreeing 100% about anything (and anybody who write that EVERYBODY believes X would feel more comfortable writing for pravda during stalins days).

[Ken Burch]

130. I don't have to demand that Palestinians change their leadership BEFORE getting self-determination

just to prove I'm not talking down to them.

And it's Orwellian of you to say that it's colonialist for people to oppose what amounts to a de facto colonial power structure. Do you also believe that war is peace, slavery is freedom, and ignorance is strength?

What I actually believe is that you can't expect people under military occupation to be able to do the same things people NOT under military occupation can do. For an occupying army to demand democratization of the people it occupies isn't anticolonial, it isn't showing respect to "brown people&quot your words not mine and not my thoughts). It's just arrogant. And the fact is, no matter how democratic the Palestinians were to become, the government that sent you and your fellow soldiers into the West Bank will just keep saying "not enough...not enough...not enough" and will just keep building more and more settlements, taking over more and more land, and going on creating enough "facts on the ground" to make a Palestinian state impossible.

And before you bring up postwar Germany and Japan again(situations that have nothing in common with the West Bank Occupation and were never valid comparisons to it), the U.S. occupiers after World War II weren't destroying German and Japanese homes and plowing under German and Japanese crops. They weren't forbidding the Germans and the Japanese to rebuild their countries by tying up all building applications in paperwork and bureaucratic delays. They were, in the main, leaving ordinary Germans and Japanese alone(they never collectively punished postwar German civilians for what the "werewolves&quot postwar German anti-Allied terrorists)were doing. They weren't preventing German and Japanese people from getting to hospitals when they were having chest pains. And they weren't doing a Marshall Plan for the West Bank. There was nothing in either situation comparable to the way the IDF is treating Palestinians. The postwar German and Japanese occupations were nonviolent. YOUR occupation is just war by other means.

Finally, I don't insist that everybody agree with me. If I did I'd be insane to post in this forum(or on DU at all, or anywhere on the web) What I do insist on is that nobody accuse me of believing in things that they KNOW I don't believe in. That's disrespect, and it's unworthy of you. You are the one who brooks no disageement...because YOU are the one who distorts the views of those who disagree with you into despicable caricatures of their actual views.

You have lied, and knowingly lied, every time you said that I support a religious dictatorship in Palestine. You know I don't support that, I've proved it over and over again. and yet you repeat it over and over again. I support no such thing and you know it. It's just that I don't accept your argument that the only choices are continuing the Occupation or accepting Hamas dominance. The Arab Spring PROVES that Arabs can democratize without a foreign army forcing them to so.

What this really comes down to is that you believe that the fact that you've been a soldier means that no one can question YOUR conclusions and remain an honorable person, that you and you alone know the only possible ways the West Bank situation can play out. You're a soldier, not the Pope...and even the Pope only claims infallibilty once in a very rare while.

You should just accept that a person can disagree with YOU without wanting something evil And if someone says they don't want a religious dictatorship in Palestine, you have an obligation to accept that and not to insist on saying that they believe what you KNOW they don't believe.

OK?

Just don't accuse of holding beliefs I don't hold. That is all I ask. You are perfectly free to disagree with me, but you don't have to distort my views to do that. Agreed?

[shira]

134. Ken, if you don't support a theocratic religious dictatorship in Gaza, then why...

...do you give such short shrift to Palestinians who hate Hamas so bad that they'd rather see the IDF replace them?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/113411286#post68

If you care for Palestinians and do not support a theocratic dictatorship, then why the silence over this?

[Ken Burch]

136. Your link found FOUR Palestinians who want the IDF back in Gaza

You could probably find three or four black South Africans who used to be on the collaborationist gravy train that long for the pre-1991 "good old days". It means nothing to find such people.

If the IDF was going to be able to stop Hamas by re-entering Gaza, shouldn't they have been able to wipe it out when they were there in the first place?

It's not like those Gazans you cited want more IDF bombings(the supposedly "targeted ones&quot or more white phosphorus. They want something other than Hamas. Revoking Gaza's sovereignty is not the way to do that. And it simply can't work. The IDF already tried everything it possibly could have done before the pullout. What could they do on a return engagement that would make any positive difference? There's nothing to be gained by destroying any more homes or buildings there.

Has it ever occurred to you that, by being there in the first place, the IDF was actually HELPING Hamas by giving it something to engage the populace with? That maybe the Occupation is what MADE Hamas what it is and gave it it's big break in show business?

Remember, when the IDF entered Gaza in '67, Hamas was not a political or violent entity...but simply a harmless Islamic social service organization. It's a fair question to ask if that would ever have changed had the IDF simply never occupied Gaza at all? How could Hamas have gained any purchase their if there'd been no occupying force for them to rain against?
Would anybody in Gaza have thrown in with Hamas at all?

You've made no case, because there is no case, for how returning the IDF to Gaza could possibly weaken Hamas. This is a conflict that is in permanent military stalemate. Resuming the Gaza occupation couldn't possibly change that, anymore than South Vietnam could be brought back from the dead if only the U.S. started bombing Hanoi again...or the Nationalists returned to power in China if only the Flying Tigers went back into business. |

The best way to help Palestinians get rid of Hamas is to LEAVE THEM ALONE and let them run their own affairs. The Arab Spring has totally discredited the "Arabs can only democratize if somebody else forces them to" narrative.

[shira]

138. Denial. Now you don't believe the Palestinians when they tell you most prefer the IDF...

...over Hamas. They must be lying. That's one hell of a lie.

The fact is that those Palestinians speaking out are incredibly brave to do so. As you're well aware, they have no freedom of expression that guarantees they won't be killed for their views.

How does it feel knowing that more than half of Palestinians think you support Hamas?

Your lack of respect for Palestinians you claim to support is something else. Obviously, they believe the IDF can come in and clean house w/o having to tie both hands behind their backs as they did during OCL. You have no idea what you're writing about. The IDF could destroy Hamas 100x over. They've chosen not to do so. It's not due to them being incapable of it.

[oberliner]

140. You've got some of your facts wrong here

You wrote:

Remember, when the IDF entered Gaza in '67, Hamas was not a political or violent entity...but simply a harmless Islamic social service organization.

However, Hamas did not exist in 1967. It did not come into being until 20 years later.

It was also founded not in opposition to Israel's occupation of Gaza (or the West Bank), but rather in opposition to Israel's occupation of Israel itself.

The main entity that was committing violence in the name of liberating Palestine from Israeli occupation during the period before Hamas came into being was the PLO.

I'm sure you remember the Coastal Road massacre in 1978.

The PLO was also not calling for the end of the occupation of Gaza and the West Bank, but rather the end of the occupation of all of Israel.

It was only when the PLO shifted its position in the early 1990s and attempted to make peace with Israel and accept its existence supporting the two-state solution that Hamas really got going with its campaigns of violence against Israeli civilians.

This was because Hamas continued to embrace the idea that all of Israel was occupied Palestine, not just the West Bank and Gaza. A position they continue to hold to this day.

[Ken Burch]

143. in 1967(as I believe shira pointed out)what would become Hamas existed

as the Palestinian branch of the Muslim Brotherhood...a group that, at that point, was not doing anything remotely like what Hamas got up to when it took that name 20 years later. The Brotherhood at that point(and Hamas itself in its early years)was an Islamic social service organization.

And Hamas' later views would not have gained any purchase with Palestinians if it weren't for the fact that, even during the "peace process" settlements continued to be built(even if this was allowed, there was no GOOD reason for the Israeli government to keep building them, since they were always going to be a provocation and would always do harm to the Palestinian side in the process by making it look weaker than the Israelis).

Hamas was created by Israeli intransigence(and the Israeli government spent a number of years insisting on building Hamas up as a counterweight to the PLO, and working to drive out secular and progressive Palestinian groups at the same time, as has been documented by many, many sources, including many Israeli sources. For a start, read what Uri Avnery has to say about it and has been saying for years). Hamas didn't emerge just because Palestinians got deliberately uglier for no reason.

People embrace groups like Hamas when they don't see real gains from choosing nonviolence and moderation...and in the Nineties, the gains they got from moderation were trivial at best. The Israelis NEVER treated the PLO as equals in the process(and a negotiated peace can only succeed if parity of esteem is granted). The PLO have done a lot of bad things, but they were trying to do the right thing in the Nineties and got nothing but disrespect for their efforts. Peace can't be built when you have one side insisting, as even the "dovish" Israeli governments of the day did)on always having the upper hand and on gloating, as those governments did, about how contemptuously they were treating the PLO and the PA.

The lesson is...always treat both sides in negotiations as equals and don't try to make gains from the other side while the negotiations are still going on. Negotiations aren't supposed to be about saying "we won and they lost". That's what the Israeli side in this never understood. They were more interested in claiming victory and having the upper hand than on ending the war.

[oberliner]

144. Everything you have written here is not correct

Hamas never said anything about settlements. All of Israel was a settlement. The whole country was occupied Palestine.

Hamas was not created by anything other than people who were fundamentalist Muslims, who believed in removing Israel from existence and were not happy with any Palestinian organization that was remotely secular or remotely interested in accepting Israel's existence.

[Ken Burch]

145. People started listening to Hamas

because they saw that the Israeli side was determined to go on building West Bank settlements(this insistence sabotaged the 2 state solution, as you would have to admit)and because they saw that the Israeli side was refusing to treat the Palestinian side as equals in the process...that, despite the talk of peace, Israel was still just looking for "peace through victory&quot even though it knew that peace through victory wasn't possible and would be inherently unjust).

Hamas wouldn't have gained much support for its views if the Israelis had just said, for example, that the Palestinians would get the entire West Bank and control of their own water supply and airspace. It was a major sacrifice and a massive concession for any Palestinian leadership ever to accept Israel's existence...and the Israeli side never acknowledged that what Arafat did in 1994(when he put the recognition issue to rest by recognizing Israel)was a massive thing. If the Israelis had said "it's enough that we get what's on our side of the Green Line", if they hadn't used water as a weapon, if they hadn't snubbed and disrespected Arafat himself on repeated occasions...you'd have seen a massive difference in Palestinian attitudes.

Palestinians aren't pathological. They don't fight just for the sake of fighting. And they aren't driven solely by bigotry(one of the most insulting aspects of all of this has been the Israeli insistence that Palestinians accept that Israeli Jews are the GREATER victims in the conflict...something nobody anywhere would accept if they'd been through what the Occupation has put Palestinians through, and something a lot of Israelis themselves don't even believe). Like anybody else, they will act better if treated better. To assume anything else about them is to collectively demonize the entire Palestinian people and to deny their humanity. Human beings don't value peace and life less just because those human beings happen to be Arab.

This would all have been different if the Israeli side hadn't insisted on using the negotiations to find a way to declare "victory". It should have been enough for them to negotiate in the spirit of ending the conflict and establishing a relationship of equal nations with a Palestinian state. Hamas could not have gained the support it gained for its extreme views, for views I find as objectionable as you, if Palestinians hadn't been convinced by the way the Israeli side treated their leaders in the Nineties that the path of moderation led nowhere.

Learn from that.

[shira]

165. Hamas won political power due to Israel's withdrawal, not b/c of settlements...

They won partly b/c of Fatah's corruption and partly b/c they convinced the people that their terror attacks scared the Jews out of Gaza. They convinced Palestinians that their terror broke Israel and sent them running out of Gaza, not Fatah's terror.

They came into power as Israel was ending an occupation and uprooting settlements, both within Gaza and the W.Bank. Some settlements were abandoned there too in order to show Israel was serious about wanting to withdraw from the W.Bank as well.

[oberliner]

169. I appreciate you sharing your insights

I don't agree with your conclusions, but this thread has sort of gotten out of control and off topic so I am happy to leave it at that.

[pelsar]

167. this is simple...just try to answer it with a short answer...

israel left gaza:
who made the decision that after israel left to shoot rockets, mortars, and maching gun fire from gaza to israel.

was it a Palestinian decision or an israeli decision?

could the Palestinians also have decided NOT to import, build factories to produce missiles with which were used to try to kill israelis?
_______

If your going to blame israel for this Palestenian decision, i would say your talking down to them, your taking away from the Palestenians a very basic right, the right to make decisions about their own lives.

(The rockets and attacks have come from the PA/islamic jihad/Hamas..importing of materials from the general population as well as transportation and factory building.)

Just don't accuse of holding beliefs I don't hold. That is all I ask.

thats why i claim you have a colonialist attitude toward them, you believe they can't even make their own decisions, and are responsible for those decisions...... whereas they disagree with you and have said so and have proven it.
____

You have lied, and knowingly lied, every time you said that I support a religious dictatorship in Palestine
This is the reality of what happened, if you knew hamas would take over gaza (a real possibility back then) , what would you have preferred, continued israeli rule or hamas

this is called the reality of limited choices, you don't get your fantasies...cant choose can you?
yet looking back those in fact were the two choices that actually emerged, so, which is your prefernce?

and no you wont be betraying your progressive credentials, you will however enter the harsh reality of the conflict, where fantasies are dangerous and have really bad consequences....

[Ken Burch]

171. Here's two simple responses

1) I don't accept that the options you posit are the ONLY options. I'm not obligated to accept that they are just because you say they are

2) Palestinians are capable of doing anything anybody else can do. What I MEANT by "impossible&quot (and I think you realize this but just aren't willing to admit it) is that the IDF occupation makes any large-scale effort on their part to do what you demand that they do look like collaboration WITH the IDF, and thus puts the lives of anybody who'd try to do it at risk.

[pelsar]

173. oh...so you prefer to live in fantasy land...while ignoring the consequences...

i know that you absolutely hate reality and the limited options it gives, and thats fine if you live far away and can pretend everything is a computer game, but thats not the case in the real world.

you don't have to accept that that looking back on the israeli withdrawal there was only two realistic outcomes: IDF or hamas, but that infact was the outcome. Why? because of the naivety and the fantasy world of the progressives, bush, the EU etc.

what are you claiming? that you "don't accept" that there was only two realistic options and that hamas owns gaza? wow, thanks, in the meantime our reality is that the gazans live under harsh shari law and israel is now under attack from gaza and from the sinai. GOOD JOB!

thats called reality, the direct result of bush, the progressives, the EU ignoring the political reality of gaza and pushing for an agenda that hamas took advantage of.
__

now that same power struggle is in the westbank today...and once again we see the progressives pushing forth the very same agenda....and you don't believe hamas can do it again, they outsmarted you once?...is that even relevant to you?
_____

as far as your no 2...thats part of your fantasy world, there is little to add, outside of your very active imagination to find excuses for the Palestinians,

so who decides about the manufacturing, smuggling, and shooting for the missiles in to israel from gaza....past and present? (if you say the Palestinians, you'll then be putting yourself in a ideological corner......

[Ken Burch]

174. It's not living in fantasy land

to reject the idea that the choices you offer were the ONLY possible outcomes.

Besides which, nothing would be better in Gaza if the IDF were still there. Hamas would still be launching missiles. They IDF was never able to stop them doing that at any point. And unlike the current situation, in which Hamas' support is falling in Gaza, Hamas support would likely still be increasing.

[Ken Burch]

117. So you're arguing that nobody should even try to end this conflict

That's what you have to be arguing if you insist it's all the Arabs' fault(rather than accepting that there's equal blame on both sides).

Peace can only come of compromise, and that requires giving up claims of either side being morally superior.

[pelsar]

129. on the contrary...

i'm arguing that both sides are EQUAL in this conflict...both have full responsibilities for the actions of each of its citizens......and of their society. The Palestinians believe it, the israelis believe it

is you who doesn't.

[shira]

121. So Israel requires some of the mountain range for security if you say some IDF personnel....

....could be deployed there, right?

Do you now agree that Israel would be extremely vulnerable by ceding the mountain range to the PLO? It wouldn't be secure/defensible according to UNSCR 242. Agreed?

[shira]

9. Since you're against the occupation, Ken, are you in favor of unilateral withdrawal...

...recently proposed by Ehud Barak? That would end most of the occupation in the West Bank. You should know that there are no anti-Israel (anti-occupation) organizations for it. No one here in the "pro" Palestinian camp in favor.

So are you for or against?

I predict you'll state you're against. You're therefore in favor of the status quo and against Israel lifting any of the occupation in the W.Bank. Not very "liberal" according to your daily postings here.

[Ken Burch]

12. It isn't a simple "either/or".

And you're not entitled to play prosecuting attorney.

I don't know enough about Barak's proposal to feel comfortable answering.

[shira]

14. Then look into it. I would think anti-occupation "progressives" like yrself...

...would be all in on the IDF withdrawing from most of the W.Bank.

Don't disappoint me now.

And if you don't support the withdrawal, don't act surprised when your hypocrisy is thrown back at you by your "rightwing, pro-occupation" opponents; when it's really you and yours who actually support it and can't live without it.

[azurnoir]

69. lol still trying huh quite the challange there take what ever Israel is willing give sight unseen or

you really want the occupation to remain I say show us the goods what exactly is Israel offering at this moment in the way of land RoR ect not what they possibly might could offer, or have in the past offered, exactly what they are right at this moment offering and exactly what a pullout means will there be any troops remaining where how many you know I'm asking about terms when you can do that, get back

otherwise you pose a self fulling ultimatum that no reasonable person could accept

[shira]

70. You keep making things up, like unilateral withdrawal is an Israeli ultimatum...

Where do you get that from? Israel is demanding nothing. They are speaking of pulling out and ending most of the W.Bank occupation. No ultimatums.

And you're against ending any occupation.

Figures.

[azurnoir]

71. I did not say or mean Israel was posing an ultimatum

I meant you are, as in- either you accept this (Israeli withdrawl) or you really want that (occupation) but my question is what is this (israel's offer what lan is involved what are the borders being offered right now as this minute? oh and exactly what does a withdrawal mean exactly how many and where will IDF remain on the West Bank)

[azurnoir]

5. Thanks for the advertisment for Jonathan Miller's new book

I'm sure he is appreciative of such efforts

[shira]

88. The Liberal case for anything Israeli really drives anti-Israel nuts up the wall....

It's nice you, as a fellow liberal, are thankful for Miller's efforts.

[azurnoir]

92. No my point was that the OP is not a news story of any kind, it is in fact an advertisment

for a book
Now by using the technique of subject change the OP has been kept alive, perhaps no ones alerted it, who knows?

[King_David]

152. Seems to be a very successful thread,nevertheless nt

[azurnoir]

153. yes it does it is, indeed a testament in and of it self

I am sure you'll agree

[King_David]

154. yep

[azurnoir]

155. But in your own words exactly what is it a testament to why do you think the Hosts of this group

would allow an advertisement for a book to stand as an OP?

[King_David]

158. If you click on the link

There ie an excerpt,kind of like an opinion piece.


•In 1992, the Knesset banned discrimination in the workplace against gay and lesbian people.

•In 1993 -- at the same time the United States was fiercely debating the role of gay people in the military, ultimately initiating the much-flawed "Don't Ask; Don't Tell" policy -- the Israeli Defense Forces abolished all restrictions and requirements that discriminated against gay and lesbian people serving in the military.

•In 1994, the Israeli Supreme Court issued historic decisions that recognized same-sex partner benefits in the private sector and granted equal rights to same-sex couples.

•In 1997, a lower court extended same-sex partner benefits to the public sector, enabling gay and lesbian partners to qualify for state fringe benefits.

•In 2000, the Supreme Court recognized that gay and lesbian couples had full rights of adoption, with both parents sharing full legal custody.

•As of 2012, unfortunately, gay marriages are not conducted in Israel; indeed, there is no concept of civil marriage at all under Israeli law. However, the Israeli High Court of Justice ruled in 2006 that gay marriages certified abroad would be fully recognized in Israel; and gay and lesbian civil unions have long been legally recognized for a wide variety of purposes: including property tax benefits, inheritance and housing aid. As the U.S. marriage equality debate intensifies following President Obama's 2012 declaration of support, so does the discussion in Israel, encouraging Israeli gay marriage advocates to be hopeful for positive developments in the coming years.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jonathanmiller/the-crazy-lie-of-pinkwash_b_1565869.html

[azurnoir]

159. Thanks however I asked for your own words not a rehash of something you already posted here n/t

[King_David]

160. Ha

You sound like my old School Teacher (who i loved and died at age 86)

[azurnoir]

161. well then by that standard I have 30 years to go

and 38 years if I am to out live my Dad he was 93 when he died, it sounded like him too