America must find courage to stand up to Israel, injustice

[ProgressiveMuslim]

By Mustafa Barghouthi

From News Services

Friday, March 13, 2009

During a recent visit to Washington, I met with several members of Congress to discuss the prospects for Palestinian and Israeli peace. This included a marvelous, unexpected introduction to Rep. John Lewis (D-Ga.), the courageous civil rights advocate. The Palestinian National Initiative, which I head, works to emulate the nonviolent resistance to segregation that Lewis personified. For too long, however, our best efforts have been stymied by America’s lack of evenhandedness. Many people in Washington believe the main obstacle is AIPAC, the pro-Israel lobby.

One way for Washington’s leaders to sidestep the AIPAC obstacle is to travel to Gaza. Rep. Brian Baird (D-Wash.) went and was shocked. “The amount of physical destruction and the depth of human suffering here is staggering,” Baird wrote on his Congressional Web site. “Entire neighborhoods have been destroyed, schools completely leveled, fundamental water, sewer, and electricity facilities hit and relief agencies heavily damaged … What went on here, and what is continuing to go on, is shocking and troubling beyond words.”

I believe that under an Obama administration Israel will no longer have carte blanche to lay waste to Gaza. But the new administration must recognize that there can be no peacemaking without talking to the whole Palestinian political spectrum following democratic elections in 2006.

I brokered the first Hamas-Fatah agreement in 2007. The same can be done now, but there must be assurances from the West that a unity government will be recognized.

Despite the Obama administration’s reluctance to deal with the government Palestinians elected, a breath of fresh air is clearly blowing through Washington. And just in time. Another few years and the two-state solution will be finished, done in by relentless Israeli settlement expansion. With Peace Now in Israel reporting government plans for another 73,000 West Bank housing units, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton must speak out against settlement activity.

In Israel, the Obama administration appears likely to be constrained by a right-wing coalition government led by Benjamin Netanyahu; a government in which neo-fascist Avigdor Lieberman is the kingmaker. I do not employ the term “neo-fascist” lightly. But Lieberman’s calls for loyalty oaths and transferring Palestinian citizens out of Israel are demagogic and dangerous.

The Obama administration, alert to the closing window of opportunity for a two-state outcome, will have to counter Netanyahu’s prescriptions for Palestinian economic development —- a Potemkin village on the West Bank —- as a substitute for Palestinian freedom.


more...
http://www.ajc.com/services/content/printedition/2009/03/13/barghouthied0313.html

[alofarabia]

1. The main obstacle is Hamas

"Another few years and the two-state solution will be finished, done in by relentless Israeli settlement expansion".

Nothing to do, I suppose, with the thousands of rockets launched into Israel. Also, has Hamas agreed to recognize Israel's right to exist that would allow a two-state solution? I didn't think so.

[cali]

2. codswallop.

The chief obstacle is Israeli expansionism. And that was happening long, long before Hamas was even created.

[shira]

3. what was the main obstacle leading to the '67 war

Israeli expansionism?

What's truly amazing is that you actually believe radical Jihadists in that area of the world all suddenly realized the error of their ways after the '67 war, and up til this day really want to recognize a sovereign Jewish state - if not for those darned expansionist policies.

Really now, what on earth makes you think radical Jihadists are any different now WRT their views on Israel as opposed to before the '67 war, when they were also opposed to Israeli existance prior to "expansionism"? Is it just a hunch?

[cali]

4. That was then, this is now.

The settlement expansions over the last few decades have been and continue to be, the most prominent obstacle to peace. Furthermore, I don't believe that everyone will suddenly welcome Israel with open arms if Israel withdraws from the settlements, but I do believe the majority of Palestinians will be on board if that happens.

I've never stated that violent opposition to Israel was originally caused by settlement activity. that's clearly not true.

And it's almost amusing to hear you righteously rail agains radical jihadists when you can't bring yourself to admit that Israel's actions have frequently been just as bad.

[pelsar]

5. your right...this is now...

and hamas is very much part of the equation now. Just as the settlements were not a fact pre 67 and post 67, it could have been said they maybe were the obstacle to peace, hamas has made that simplistic viewpoint mute.

Hamas has made it clear the settlements are not the problem, furthermore they are gunning for the westbank, just as they went for gaza. Israel pulling out of the westbank, and Hamas "moving in" (not a sure thing, but it is their plan just as it was for gaza.... ) would create an impossible situation for israel.

can you imagine kassams on jersusalem, hadera, Afula, the intl airport, Tel Aviv?......

outside of a massive IDF response to retake the westbank (would you support that?) what would be israeli options? there would be no more "land for peace" to serve as the "obstacle"?.....and why on earth would the israeli govt put itself in such an impossible position.

I've been told by a close relative that israel has to "do something"....so is risking such a situation the intelligence choice? Whats the chance for success? 50-50? 30-70 80-20? Israel and the US have a pretty poor record when it comes to interfering in others affairs.....why would they "get it right this time?

[azurnoir]

10. Yes Hamas is a part of the equation

and is apparently changing it's tune too

Hamas condemns Gaza rocket strikes on Israel

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=124x264820

[pelsar]

19. changing their tune?..

one comment hardly makes an "apparently"...especially when there is an asterisk next the comment:

GAZA CITY, Gaza Strip: The Gaza Strip's Hamas rulers on Thursday made some rare criticism of Palestinian rocket fire on Israel, saying now is the wrong time for such attacks.

http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2009/03/12/news/ML-Israel-Palestinians.php
_____

one half comment and your already assuming their "changing their tune"...wow, that sure was quick and easy for hamas, doesnt take much to get some from the west to support them....

[shira]

6. i used to agree with you up until 2000-01

Camp David/Taba 2000 and Gaza 2005 changed my point of view.

If you had told me a decade ago back in 1999 that Israel were to offer and follow up on Taba 2001 and Gaza 2005, I'd have thought then that peace would have been a no-brainer by spring 2009. Unfortunately, fantasy lost out to reality and rather than believe in fairy tales, I sobered up.

You wrote "but I do believe the majority of Palestinians will be on board if that happens". But does that even matter when Hamas or Fatah is in charge and they make the decisions, not the majority of Palestinians?

[Idealism]

7. That is complete lie, shira

Gaza 2005, the self-described "formaldehyde" for Palestinians was not even remotely a meaningful gesture.

"The disengagement is actually formaldehyde. It supplies the amount of formaldehyde that's necessary so that there will not be a political process with the Palestinians." - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dov_Weissglass">Dov Weisglass in an http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=485929">interview with Haaretz, senior supervisor to Ariel Sharon

Taba was not rejected or stonewalled by Arafat either, another fallacy which you have been called on several times over.

European Union special paper on Taba that was agreed upon by all sides:

http://www.arts.mcgill.ca/MEPP/PRRN/papers/moratinos.html

UConn Professor Jeremy Pressman's take after interviewing all parties and citing articles:

http://belfercenter.ksg.harvard.edu/files/pressman.pdf

[shira]

15. again with your make-believe fantasy

Yes, everything Israel does is for nefarious, evil purposes. The Protocols of the Elders.....all that's true.

:eyes:

When they made peace with Egypt and Jordan, there were ulterior, sinister motives. Same for the pullouts from Lebanon and Gaza. Same for the BS peace accords that President Clinton called a very credible offer by Israel. Those Jews Zionists are clever aren't they, but we're onto their games now.

Newsflash:
You can make anything you want out of Israel's alleged motives. The facts are what they are and Gaza could have been the start of something great had Palestinian leadership chosen to do what's right by their people. You know this. As for Taba, why do you keep touting the EU paper when there's not one example in it that conflicts with Shlomo ben Ami's more complete analysis of the situation? Can you show just one example of Shlomo ben Ami misrepresenting CD/TABA?

http://www.weizmann.ac.il/home/comartin/israel/ben-ami.html

Here's your challenge. Find something wrong in Shlomo ben Ami's account. If you can't, just admit it for once.

[Idealism]

21. These two instances were more Israeli fault than Palestinian

Where have I said "everything is always Israel's fault?" When you resort to hyperbole, you lose.

I am sorry you disagree with Dov Weissglass, he was only Ariel Sharon's de facto chief of staff and head legal adviser, and thus knows much more about what happened at Taba than you do. You disagreeing with him doesn't change the fact that he did say these things, and the settlement production was increased in the more fertile West Bank even though they abandoned some arid land around Gaza. Militarily speaking, it was also too costly to keep the Gazan settlements.

The EU's special envoy to the peace process, Miguel Moratinos, and his aides were the only outsiders at the Taba Hotel. Moratinos interviewed the negotiators after every working group session and recorded their reports. During the six months after the Taba talks ended, he sent his document to both sides again and again for their comments. The version published here is the final version accepted by both sides last summer.

But Yossi Beilin, one of Israel's chief negotiators, did not hide his annoyance at the document's leak. He said the dry words do not convey the positive spirit that reigned in the hotel, nor do they accurately present either the understandings reached or the gaps that remain. Beilin pointed out that the document reflects both sides' desire to convince their own publics that they protected their peoples' interests. Moreover, he said, this is a midpoint document: It sums up where things stood at an arbitrary
point in time.

Beilin stressed that the Taba talks were not halted because they hit a crisis, but rather because of the Israeli election. At the time, the two sides were discussing arranging a Barak-Arafat meeting in an effort to close the gaps; they had also discussed continuing the talks the day after the election, independent of the outcome. Beilin himself continues to talk with the Palestinians about ways to solve the various issues that remain open. From his perspective, the basis for negotiations was, and remains, the proposals made by former U.S. president Bill Clinton.

http://www.arts.mcgill.ca/MEPP/PRRN/papers/moratinos.html

You continue to assert, incorrectly, that the Palestinians rejected Taba and stonewalled until the Israeli's were forced to call off all efforts. This is not true, as everyone agreed that the incoming Israeli government was at a cross-roads. The negotiations halted because of the uncertainty surrounding the new administration accepting to proposal of not. It turns out, they were rejecting it from before they even got to office.

Shlomo also incorrectly says the Palestinians offered no counter-proposal, and that they just flat out rejected everything without so much as a reason. This is patently false, as all sides agreed at the times. The Palestinians even brought their own maps to the discussions, how is it even possible, knowing this, that Shlomo thinks they offered no alternatives? He could say it wasn't acceptable to Israel and I would understand that perfectly well, but he chooses to lie and say that there was no offers made, blaming the Palestinians for the failure at Taba.

[shira]

31. you're saying Shlomo ben Ami lied, along with Dennis Ross and Bill Clinton

because of what Beilin asserts? That's one hell of an accusation. The EU paper doesn't call ben Ami's testimony into question, and it certainly NEVER implies ben Ami lied.

Now pay attention, because here's what Beilin is on the record saying:

"Barghouti told me that he wanted to continue the use of violence...he thought he could control the violence he unleashed and end the intifada in a few weeks.."

"The evidence that he was responsible for directing terrorist acts was overwhelming and his punishment was determined accordingly."

"In spite of the fact that Barghouti was responsible for the Second Intifada... we are nonetheless talking about the most important elected parliamentarian and the most pragmatic and influential on the Palestinian street. His arrest was a big mistake and an act of stupidity. .. not releasing him would be an even larger mistake."

You know who Barghouti was? The man Yossi Beilin says was responsible for the 2nd Intifada? He worked for Arafat. Here are Barghouti's own words in the London based Al Hayat (Sept 29, 2001)

"I knew that the end of September was the last period (of time) before the explosion, but when Sharon reached the al-Aqsa Mosque, this was the most appropriate moment for the outbreak of the intifada....The night prior to Sharon's visit, I participated in a panel on a local television station and I seized the opportunity to call on the public to go to the al-Aqsa Mosque in the morning, for it was not possible that Sharon would reach al-Haram al-Sharif just so, and walk away peacefully. I finished and went to al-Aqsa in the morning....We tried to create clashes without success because of the differences of opinion that emerged with others in the al-Aqsa compound at the time....After Sharon left, I remained for two hours in the presence of other people, we discussed the manner of response and how it was possible to react in all the cities (bilad) and not just in Jerusalem. We contacted all (the Palestinian) factions."

Now let's go back to ben Ami's interview:

Q: Are you suggesting that the intifada was a calculated move by the Palestinians to extricate them from their political and diplomatic hardships?

"No. I am not attributing that kind of Machiavellian scheme to them. But I remember that when we were at Camp David, Saeb Erekat said that we had until September 13. And I remember that when I visited Mohammed Dahlan and from his office spoke with Marwan Barghouti, he also said that if we didn't reach an agreement by the middle of September, it would not be good. There was a tone of threat in his words that I didn't like. So, when you look at the course of events and see that the violence erupted exactly two weeks after September 13 , it makes you think. One thing is certain: the intifada absolutely saved Arafat."

You still think ben Ami's lying? How could Barghouti, Erekat, and Dahlan know about the Intifada without Arafat knowing about it?

And here are those damning accusations I gave you previously:

Al-Faluji had made similar statements as early as December 2000. Raed Lafi, correspondent for the PA affiliated daily Al-Ayyam reported then that at a Gaza symposium Al-Faluji said: "The PA had begun to prepare for the outbreak of the current Intifada since the return from the Camp David negotiations, by request of President Yasser Arafat, who predicted the outbreak of the Intifada as a complementary stage to the Palestinian steadfastness in the negotiations, and not as a specific protest against Sharon's visit to Al-Haram Al-Qudsi ."

Al-Faluji continued: "The Intifada was no surprise for the Palestinian leadership. The leadership had invested all of its efforts in political and diplomatic channels in order to fix the flaws in the negotiations and the peace process, but to no avail. It encountered Israeli stubbornness and continuous renunciation of the rights... The PA instructed the political forces and factions to run all matters of the Intifada..."(3)

And a different source:

Al-Faluji's statement at the time were backed by Fatah Central Committee member, Sakhr Habash, who said in an interview with the PA daily Al-Hayat Al-Jadida: "In light of the information, analyzing the political positions following the Camp David summit, and in accordance with what brother Abu Ammar (Arafat) said, it became clear to the Fatah movement that the next stage necessitates preparation for confrontation, because Prime Minister Barak is not a partner who can respond to our people's aspirations. Based on these assessments, Fatah was more prepared than the other movements for this confrontation. In order to play the role given to it, the Fatah coordinated its administrative, civilian and sovereign apparatuses, and was not surprised by the outbreak of the current Intifada... The Fatah movement believed that the phenomenon of comprehensive struggle would appear at the final settlement stage..."(4)

Here's yet another source, just days before the Intifada erupted - showing there's absolutely no way Arafat didn't know what was happening under his own nose:

Another official publication of the Palestinian Authority, Al-Sabah, dated September 11, 2000 -- more than two weeks before the Sharon visit -- declared: "We will advance and declare a general Intifada for Jerusalem. The time for the Intifada has arrived, the time for Intifada has arrived, the time for Jihad has arrived."

And another Palestinian source pointing the finger at Arafat:

Arafat advisor Mamduh Nufal told the French Nouvel Observateur (March 1, 2001): "A few days before the Sharon visit to the Mosque, when Arafat requested that we be ready to initiate a clash, I supported mass demonstrations and opposed the use of firearms." Of course, Arafat ultimately adopted the use of firearms and bomb attacks against Israeli civilians and military personnel. On September 30, 2001, Nufal detailed in al-Ayyam that Arafat actually issued orders to field commanders for violent confrontations with Israel on September 28, 2000.

It's not just one source condemning Arafat, but many. From all directions.

You're wrong.

As for Gaza, you don't get it. No matter what Israel's intentions were, Gazan leaders had a choice to make at the time. They could either fall for this zionist "trap" you're implying, ratchet up attacks and therefore destroy any chance of a future and similar W.Bank withdrawal, as they did - or they could have "foiled" zionist plans, behaved in Palestinians best interests, start building a peaceful state, and then let the success of Gaza make the case for imminent W.Bank withdrawal. Really now, your conspiracy theory really makes the PA and the Palestinian voting public out to be stupid for their violent response to the 2005 pullout. How stupid could they be, falling once again for "zionist propaganda" - when they could have done something constructive with Gaza and put ENORMOUS PRESSURE on Israel to then withdraw soon from the W.Bank.

[Idealism]

32. So Israeli military intelligence lies, because your unnamed sources say so?

Glad you think you know more about the issues than Shin Bet et al.

Taba was not rejected by the Palestinians, but ended prematurely because of the Israeli elections. All sides know this, except for one of Israel's negotiators apparently.

So just to be clear, Israeli military intelligence lies AND the EU special envoy Martinos lied, and all the people who said that Martinos' accounts were accurate lied... and you accuse me of conspiracy theory? :eyes:

[shira]

33. the quotes are from Arafat's closest people

ignore at your own prerogative.

And no one you have quoted has called ben Ami's account into question. Only you have called him a liar.

[Idealism]

34. Odd how you trust Palestinian "quotes" now when it fits your worldview

But not unexpected from you.

From your own link to an interview with ben Ami:

Q: Didn't the Palestinians make a counterproposal?

"No. And that is the heart of the matter. Never, in the negotiations between us and the Palestinians, was there a Palestinian counterproposal. There never was and there never will be. So the Israeli negotiator always finds himself in a dilemma: Either I get up and walk out because these guys aren't ready to put forward proposals of their own, or I make another concession. In the end, even the most moderate negotiator reaches a point where he understands that there is no end to it."

He claims, incorrectly, AS I HAVE STATED TWO POSTS UP, that the Palestinians made no counter-offers. Quite the contrary, as they came with maps and willing negotiators, yet ben Ami chooses to ignore the maps and call the Palestinians "unwilling." If ANYTHING, his own Prime Minister was the most unwilling of the leaders to see an agreement at Taba. His popular support was falling and it was becoming more and more evident that he was not going to win the upcoming elections, so he called it off. Not to Arafat's credit, he acquiesced to Barak closing down the talks. That capitulation may have cost the Palestinians years of peace, but it was not Arafat who stonewalled these talks and so more of the blame (although it is SHARED) goes to Barak and ultimately the Israeli government. The negotiators on Israel's behalf were not given enough time and the Palestinians not given enough respect, thanks to Barak's selfishness. A tragedy, all around, as both sides felt that an agreement was perhaps just a few weeks off.

I don't know where ben Ami was when these things were happening, but he either was absent and wasn't told or he lied about the Palestinians not offering any counter-proposals:

1.1 West Bank

For the first time both sides presented their own maps over the West Bank. The maps served as a basis for the discussion on territory and settlements. The Israeli side presented two maps, and the Palestinian side engaged on this basis. The Palestinian side presented some illustrative maps detailing its understanding of Israeli interests in the West Bank.

4.2 Military capability of the state of Palestine

The Israeli side maintained that the state of Palestine would be non-militarized as per the Clinton proposals. The Palestinian side was prepared to accept limitation on its acquisition of arms, and be defined as a state with limited arms. The two sides have not yet agreed on the scope of arms limitations, but have begun exploring different options. Both sides agree that this issue has not been concluded.

Another partial impasse that didn't get worked out before the talks ended was Barak's initial complete refusal to negotiate on any part of Jerusalem, although there were hints that negotiators on both sides could work around that. It cost the negotiation days.

[shira]

36. juvenile......like when you accept Israeli quotes only when it fits your worldview

Are you aware of "Camp David: The Tragedy of Errors" by Agha and Malley? Do you know who Robert Malley is? He was also there negotiating opposite from ben Ami. Here's an eyewitness account by Malley himself:


"the Palestinians' principal failing is that from the beginning of the Camp David summit onward they were unable either to say yes to the American ideas or to present a cogent and specific counterproposal of their own."

"an irate Clinton (told) Arafat: 'If the Israelis can make compromises and you can't, I should go home. You have been here fourteen days and said no to everything.'"

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/14380


Even Mahmoud Abbas (Abu Mazin) was quoted:

"we made clear to the Americans that the Palestinian side is unable to make concessions on anything." He summed up Camp David as "a trap, from beginning to end....We did not miss an opportunity at all, but rather survived a trap that was laid for us."

http://www.memri.org/bin/articles.cgi?Area=sr&ID=SR01503

[Idealism]

42. What quotes have I "accepted" and not "accepted" from Israeli sources?

Got any citation for when I don't believe Israeli sources of any kind?

The EU paper was agreed upon by all sides. If Malley had a problem with it, why didn't he mention a word of it instead of agreeing with Morantinos when the EU envoy collaborated stories?

MEMRI has a history of incorrect translations, distortions, half-truths, et al. But incorrect quotes of Arabs doesn't bother you when it suits your world view. To you they are all extremists.

[shira]

43. the EU paper didn't get such a ringing endorsement from either camp

Read what they said about it; they generally had no huge issues with it. That doesn't mean it was spot-on accurate. So Robert Malley agrees with ben Ami's account. In fact, Mahmoud Abbas even admits that the PA wouldn't submit any counter-proposals. You can google those quotes from Malley and Abbas for more authenticity. The bottom line is you've been proven wrong. Again.

[Idealism]

44. The EU paper has not been criticized by either side. You are wrong.

The Morantino's paper was very specific in the proposals made, the maps, and the counter-offers. If there were none of these things, why are they specifically mentioned in such an short report?

You are delusional if you believe the Palestinians sat at Taba and just kept repeating "NO" for days on end.

Bottom line: you use dubious sources against proven ones. The EU has much much more credibility than MEMRI, sorry.

[shira]

45. The Agha/Malley report is dubious?

[shira]

46. why should the EU paper take precedence over Malley, ben Ami, and Ross?

It is described by both parties as a "relatively fair description". Also, for someone who claims to understand politics as you do, you need to realize that the EU and America at that time thought Arafat was the best chance for peace. He was their Palestinian "guy". They couldn't just bash him. This also explains Yossi Beilin, as Oslo was his baby, Arafat was his man, and he couldn't just destroy Arafat publicly. So the EU's report, being a "relatively fair" description shouldn't be expected to be a scathing indictment of Arafat, even if Arafat deserved all the blame. No one outside of Israel wanted to publicly discredit him and show that the whole peace process was a waste of time.

[IndianaGreen]

47. Dennis Ross? The warmongering neocon?

Only in Israel and among American Israel Firsters, would a PNAC-AIPAC pal of Dick Cheney and Scooter Libby like Dennis Rosen be seen as having any credibility.

[Idealism]

48. Oh bullocks. US funding for Israel means Barak was more "their guy" than Arafat.

All you have to look at are dollars, forget body counts which are also similarly skewed. Israel has almost always been US's "guy."

The EU report was not very long, yet it found time to mention several counter-proposals made by Palestinian negotiators and that they brought maps with them. What you should be asking yourself is why did ben Ami claim this to be false, when at the time he agreed it happened?

Scathing indictment of Arafat? He wasn't even there. Barak pulled the plug on Taba, everyone agrees except your revisionist history sources. Why can't you admit that?

[Name removed]

8. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

9. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Violet_Crumble]

12. That first line in the post is pretty nasty. You seem to have a problem with the Palestinian people.

Those "peace loving Palestinians" who only want to till their garden and grow their children, well, they are the ones who "democratically voted" in the mass murdering cult Hamas.

Well, apart from the blatantly obvious fact that Hamas isn't a cult, and mass-murder isn't something that Israel is innocent of either, that comment indicates a belief that most if not all Palestinians aren't interested in peace, which is a view usually expressed by frothing at the mouth conservative types. How would you like it if the same thing was said about Israelis? Like, 'Those "peace loving Israelis" who only want to till their garden and grow their children, well, they are the ones who "democratically voted" in a Likud/nutball extremist coalition"?

[ProgressiveMuslim]

26. *SIGH* The same "peace lovers" who supported the massacre of Gaza by 80%????

[Shaktimaan]

11. *sigh*

you wouldn't happen to have a source for all those "quotes" would you?

[Violet_Crumble]

13. The sources for all the quotes are in the post...

Maybe you were too busy sighing to notice them at the end of each quote?

[cali]

18. uh, no

at least some of those quotes have been discredited. And there is no link to any of them. The reason why is likely that virtually any site that the poster got them from, is a hate site.

[Violet_Crumble]

20. They are sources....

When it comes to references to books or very old reports, there are no links to them online, as they're in print and not on the web. I've got a bunch of books on the conflict, none of which are available online, and some of which I've referenced in my posts. I hope that when I post a quote from one of those books, there's not someone deciding I probably got it from a hate site...

Just curious, but which of those quotes have been discredited, and by who? I'm aware there's a need to be careful when it comes to quotes by leaders in the conflict on both sides (eg one that was being touted yesterday as being from Nasrallah is another case of a quote that's been discredited), and I like to find out about discredited quotes when they pop up...

[Shaktimaan]

29. yeah RIGHT!

I'm so sure that this person couldn't provide a link because all of those "quotes" were painstakingly culled from his/her vast library on Middle Eastern history, not cut and pasted wholesale from some anti-Zionist website. Riiiiiight! Because this person seemed to have such a deep grasp of the issues and has clearly seen those quotes (the ones that exist, anyway) within the context of their original, complete statements.

Because you always see quips from Ben Gurion where he's advocating the ethnic cleansing of Israel's Arab population that turn out to be completely accurate. Suuuuure.

Do I need to add: :sarcasm:

I mean, come on V! Are you for real here?

[Violet_Crumble]

37. I don't think you understand what a source is...

You think a source means a link to somewhere on the internet. A source is actually what I explained in my previous post. You think for some reason that you *know* what books someone else has read on the I/P conflict, and have some magical ability to be able to tell someone's level of knowledge of the issues. Okay, then. Test out those magical skills now and tell me what sort of library I have on the Middle East and my level of knowledge of the issues. I suspect you'll be wrong. btw, I googled the quotes and couldn't track down any website they'd come from, so I'd be interested to know how yr soooo sure they came from 'some anti-Zionist website...

Now here's a quote from Ben-Gurion that I'd like you to tell me if you think it's the real deal or not. And because you clearly don't like sources (y'now, those things in brackets after a quote saying where it came from), I'll give you a bit of a guessing game on where I got it from:

In a letter to his son in 1937, he wrote about how the partitioning of Palestine was where the state would start, not end: 'I am certain we will be able to settle in all the other parts of teh country, whether through agreement and mutual understanding with our Arab neighbours, or in another way.' and went on to say: 'erect a Jewish State at once, even if it is not in the whole land. The rest will come in the course of time. It must come."

On ethnic cleansing (though the term wasn't used back then and the term *transfer* was), why do you seem to think that it's something that Ben-Gurion would never have entertained? Transfer was a pretty common theme in Zionist thought back then, and in June 1938 at a Zionist meeting, he made his most explicit statement supporting transfer: 'I support compulsory transfer. I don't see in it anything immoral.' Throughout his career, Ben-Gurion dreamed of territorial expansion, and it wasn't confined to the Palestinians. In 1951, after the death of King Abdullah of Jordan, he wrote in his diary of how he hadn't just asked his military advisers to draw up a plan to capture the West Bank, but was considering approaching the British to permit Israel to capture the Sinai Peninsula and expel the Egyptian population. So anyone who's under the impression that Ben-Gurion was some moderate type along the lines of Rabin is either ignorant of the history of the region, or fooling themselves...

[ProgressiveMuslim]

14. Israeli settlement expansion has been a feature of every gov't -- labor, likud, kadima, unity...

since 1967.

What does it have to do with rockets?

[Violet_Crumble]

16. Very true...

And clearly it's got nothing to do with rockets, but I guess some folk have some weird automatic reflex and have to try to bring rockets into everything...

[Vegasaurus]

22. There is no expansion in Gaza

Israel is gone completely (but still responsible for the people, since they can't take care of themselves).

6000 rockets, most of them since Israel left.

The government of Gaza can't control them, and there is no settlement activity to blame the rockets on.

So, the rockets ARE the problem, because terrorism always trumps peace, at least to the militant Palestinians.

[ProgressiveMuslim]

25. I don't think Palestinians got the memo that they are no longer allowed *national* aspirations.

While the Zionistniks might favor the bantustanization of Palestine, whereby Gaza and the WB will be permanently separate, I don't think the PEOPLE of PALESINE have signed onto that notion.

Sorry to break it to you.

[Violet_Crumble]

38. There sure is settlement expansion in the West Bank...

I wish you'd take the time to read exchanges before posting. If you had, you'd notice that a poster was trying to claim that settlement expansion is due to rockets. As for 'terrorism always trumps peace', if you were so opposed to terrorism, you'd have voiced yr opposition to the terrorism carried out by Israeli settlers on Palestinian civilians, something that you've not once done...

[pelsar]

23. i'll explain .but you wont like it.....

its not the settlements.....they are in fact (ready for this....) a kind of non issue within israel these days......

We dont want to be stupid and find kassams and mortars landing on our major cities....as per whats happening from gaza. To prevent that we need the IDF to be able to "raid" when necessary, arrest and keep the various jihadniki on the defensive. When the settlements go, as in gaza, so too will the IDF.

Hamas is going for the westbank, no surprise there, the PA is not exactly a strong force, the IDF with cooperation with the PA keeps hamas under control, keeps shari law from creeping in to the westbank and all the other nasty stuff that comes with fanatical theocratic dictatorships. i admit some, like you, prefer that and the inevitable kassams on lsrael then the present situation....
__________

since reading the future and influencing foreign govts is hardly israels or the US strong points and stopping kassams and mortars is pretty much impossible....the idea is to avoid getting into such a situation in the first place....the expanding settlements are simply a by product of that, they are not the central issue.

sorry to burst the "its the settlements" thats the problem.....the problem is the kassams....

[ProgressiveMuslim]

24. What nonsense. The kassams are a recent response.

It's about colonial greed. It's about... Zionism.

[henank]

27. What nonsense. The kassams are a recent response

to Israeli capitulation. Israel withdrew from Gaza. The kassams only increased. They certainly never stopped.

Colonial greed? Could you please explain how WITHDRAWING from land is considered colonial greed. You have some cognitive dissonance going on there.

Furthermore, as Pelsar has pointed out time and time again - if the Palestinians want Israel to close down the settlements, the best way to PREVENT the Israelis from doing this is by continuing Kassam fire from Gaza. Why on earth should Israel take the risk of having its major cities come under rocket fire if the West Bank comes under Hamas rule? Have Hamas ever given Israel the slightest reason to think they might act peacefully after an Israeli withdrawal?

It is irrelevant what you think about the rightness or wrongness of Israel's settlements. Israel will only act with its own security in mind.

[ProgressiveMuslim]

28. It's nonsense to claim the settlements are about "security." They are about ZIonist greed. Period.

[Shaktimaan]

30. He was right...

you didn't like it.

[ProgressiveMuslim]

39. It's utter bullshit. There were no Kassams in '67. Face the truth.

Land greed is part and parcel of your liberation movement. Settlers are the face of Zionism.

How can you in all seriousness claim any connection between settlers and the johnny-come-lately rocket response?

[Violet_Crumble]

41. I'd say it's got to do with most folk disliking nonsense...

And it's complete nonsense to try to claim that the settlements are there as a security measure. They're not. Also it's ridiculous to claim that the settlements are no big deal. Sure they mightn't be a big deal to some Israeli or an American who aren't the people who are losing their land to settlement expansion, but the settlements sure are a big deal when it comes to any chances of a viable two-state solution. And you know what? It really is ironic to see some folk who either said nothing at all or tried to justify the killing of so many Palestian civilians in Gaza recently getting all worked up when it comes to rockets being fired into Israel.

[pelsar]

35. the "law of unintended consequences"

your friends found the perfect terror weapon.. small cheap rockets that can be fired, not aimed very well and are incredibly inconsistent......and then the "law of unintended consequences comes to play".

with the weapon came the decimation of the israeli left.... this one is up to the Palestinians to wipe out if they are interested.... one may claim that its small part of the Palestinians population, its just hamas, iJ etc, but this appears to be one thing that the IDF has few real defenses against.

so with the withdrawl of gaza we have further moral clarity....

• Proof that israel can and is willing to remove settlements
• A terror weapon used almost daily by the various Jihadnkim, with aid (partial/whole) aid from the gazan government
• A weapon that only the Palestinians (of gaza) themselves can stop, through their own political mechanisms
• Clarity that at this point in time the Palestinians as a society are not interested enough in stopping the kassams to do something about it (those in gaza)

• With the advent of the Kassams, and Grads, originating from areas where israel withdrew and there is a Palestinian govt operating...expansion of that idea to israelis is nothing less than then idiocy.

• Cooperation from the PA to keep hamas down in the westbank, there may be a value change going out there, where hamas is now the threat to their life style far more than israel (see iran for possible options)

____________

call it what you want, "a feel good weapon" but there are always consequences for ones actions.....and its kinda dumb to ignore them, pretend they dont exist and then complain when the consequences come into play.....

[ProgressiveMuslim]

40. My friends? Unlike you, I have no direct involvement in the implementation of the occupation

or in resisting it.

Moral clarity? Pelsar, you move your settlers out and create a big ghetto in which you starve the people who live there. Before you start waxing poetic about greenhouses, please remember that your country never gave the duly elected gov't one nanosecond to try to make a go of it.

I will say this: unlike your friends, mine will never go along passively with your attempts to erase them. I imagine that on some level, that smarts.

[Dick Dastardly]

50. As soon as Israel left Gaza Hamas increased its attacks. Hamas was not

elected at that point, had not seized power and there was no blockade either. The disengagement was in august 2005,Hamas was elected in may 2006, Hamas siezed power in june 2007 and the blockade began in september of 2007 well after the disengagement.

Aside from the false claim that Israel tried to starve the Palestinians, Israel gave plenty of time to make a go of it but was rewarded with increased attacks from the begining

[Swede]

49. This makes sense pelsar.

I can see no way out of it for a long time to come.

[Violet_Crumble]

17. Good article. Thanks for posting it...

I tend to think the main obstacle to the US taking an evenhanded approach to the conflict is more public opinion than anything. If public opinion supports evenhandedness, then wouldn't lobby groups like AIPAC lose all their power?