US backs PM: Israel is Jewish state

[oberliner]

WASHINGTON – The US State Department said Tuesday it supports Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in his demand that the Palestinians recognize Israel as a Jewish state.

"I'm not making any news here," State Department spokesman Philip Crowley told a press conference. "It is a state for the Jewish people. It is a state for other citizens of other faiths as well."

Netanyahu said Monday that Israel would agree to extend a freeze in West Bank settlement construction if the Palestinians recognize Israel as the nation state of the Jewish people.

"What Prime Minister Netanyahu said yesterday is, in essence a core demand of the Israeli government, which we support," Crowley said. "The recognition that Israel is a part of the region – acceptance by the region of the existence of the state of Israel as the homeland of the Jewish people – is what they want to see through this negotiation."

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3968575,00.html

[azurnoir]

1. do you feel this good news, something to cheer about?

if so why?

[PCIntern]

2. Jeez...

Let me ask you this question: does the fact that the Muslim religion's power in most if not all of the surrounding states give you a moments pause before you ask that question? Does it not matter that these states are generally ruled autocratically with distinct laws which prohibit behaviors which Muslims find objectionable, but that you (I suppose) and I do not?

Israel was founded as a Jewsih State. You're going to have to live with that, much as you have to live with the fact that Saudi Arabia, among others, holds its residents and visitors to a strict Muslim code of dress and deportment. However, I don't see a "Saudi Arabia/Freedom of Expression" forum here at DU.

[azurnoir]

3. Has nothing to do with who lives in Israel

but I'll bet your ok with America being declared a Christian country too huh?
Now if the Palestinians were asking for an Islamic State and to be recognized as such you might have a point but gee I don't think they are

[aquart]

4. They're not asking for an Islamic state?

Great. Let's build a synagogue in Gaza.

[azurnoir]

5. Be my guest let me know how that building project goes mkay? n

[oberliner]

9. I don't think it is really news but a reiteration of longstanding policy

I don't see any reason why asking the Palestinian side to "recognize Israel as the nation state of the Jewish people" ought to be a deal breaker, especially since Abbas has said that he does not care how Israel defines itself.

[azurnoir]

12. I believe Abbas has stated that

Israel can define it self any way it wants, it is not up to him to define Israel

[azurnoir]

6. Haaretz has a more detailed take on this

U.S.: We want clear path, not two-month delay of peace process deadlock

The United States doesn't want a two-month delay on peace process but rather achieve a clear path that allows Israel and the Palestinians to continue negotiations, the U.S. State Department said Tuesday in response to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's offer to extend the settlement freeze in return for Palestinian recognition of Israel as a Jewish state.

"We don't just want to push the can down the road two months," U.S. State Department Spokesman Philip J. Crowley said.

"We want to create a clear path that allows the parties to begin the arduous process of addressing the core issues one by one with the intention of reaching a successful negotiation within a year's time," he said.

Crowley also reemphasized the U.S. commitment to the recognition of Israel as a Jewish state and the Obama administration's backing of the issue as a core demand in negotiations.

"We recognize the special nature of the Israeli state. It is a state for the Jewish people," he said.p/i]


http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/u-s-we-want-clear-path-not-two-month-delay-of-peace-process-deadlock-1.318714

A tad more balanced IMO

[oberliner]

10. Headline isn't nearly as eye-catching

Especially since there was discussion here about the "state for the Jewish people" idea.

[azurnoir]

11. well no the headline isn't as eyecatching but the OP was based

on what Crowley said and this paints a more complete picture, frankly I was aghast at the US State department appearing to take sides so openly a move that could "screw the pooch" so to speak as far as being seen as fair or impartial goes, and that is what the YNet article implied IMO

[oberliner]

13. Obama: "Any agreement with the Palestinian people must preserve Israel's identity as a Jewish state"

Obama has spoken of the Palestinians recognizing Israel as a Jewish state since before he got elected.

The quote in the subject line is from June of 2008.

He also said:

"As president, I will work to help Israel achieve the goal of two states, a Jewish state of Israel and a Palestinian state, living side by side in peace and security"

[azurnoir]

14. Obama's word said nothing about requiring others to

formally recognize Israel as a State for Jews or the Jewish State nor do I believe the US has formally done this it is one thing to to use the phrase in a speech and one that occurred before Obama was President and a formal statement

[oberliner]

15. George Mitchell made a similar statement last year

Mitchell:

"I reiterated to the foreign minister that US policy favours, with respect to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, a two-state solution which will have a Palestinian state living in peace alongside the Jewish state of Israel."

[azurnoir]

16. still short of a formal statement and nothing about requiring

the Palestinians to do so

[oberliner]

18. What makes it short of a formal statement?

It seems pretty formal to me.

[azurnoir]

19. where was he, which FM and to who was he speaking when he said this

these "small" details are important eta and nada about requiring the Palestinians to recognize a Israel in any particular manner

[oberliner]

20. Statement by Special Envoy for Middle East Peace Senator George Mitchell

after meeting with Israeli Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman

American Embassy Tel Aviv, Press Section
Israeli Foreign Ministry, Jerusalem
April 16, 2009

MR. MITCHELL: Well, I want to thank the Foreign Minister for taking the time to meet with me this morning. I said to him that he is being overrun by Americans – there was a congressional delegation on the way out of his office as I walked in, and there will be many other American congressional delegations traveling this week, and in the coming weeks.

We had a good, full and candid discussion covering both the history of the process, going back to the 1990’s, and continuing to the present, and also looking into the future on what can be done to achieve our common objectives. I reiterated to the Foreign Minister that US policy favors – with the respect to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict – a two-state solution, which would have a Palestinian State living in peace alongside the Jewish State of Israel, and that we would look forward also to efforts to achieve a comprehensive peace throughout the region, and he described the efforts being made to make economic improvements and to get involved in other discussions with the Palestinians in the West Bank.

We agreed to meet again, and we look forward to exchanging ideas on future visits when we can compare the progress we are making as we seek to move forward.

Thank you all, very much.

http://jerusalem.usconsulate.gov/remarks160409.html

[azurnoir]

21. There is nothing that states the PLO must recognize Israel as

the Jewish state or a state for Jews, it is redundant as the PLO have already recognized Israel

[shira]

22. The problem is the PA recognizes Israel as it is today, but wants to leave open the possibility....

...that 1948 can be reversed and Israel can become yet another Arab state.

The wet dream of rejectionists and anti-zionists.

[azurnoir]

24. It would appear you and Yvet are on the same page

Lieberman: Palestinians may try to form autonomous Arab regions within Israel

Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman said Tuesday that the Palestinians' refusal to recognize Israel as a Jewish state raises concern that before reaching a peace deal, they would try to create autonomous Arab regions within Israel.

http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/lieberman-palestinians-may-try-to-form-autonomous-arab-regions-within-israel-1.318673

gosh I that makes him a liberal too

[shira]

26. WRT Lieberman, even a broken clock is right twice a day. Now tell me honestly....

...why has the Arab world, with the consent of the PA and Hamas, kept Palestinian refugees and their offspring locked up in camps the past 62 years?

For what exact reason?

You get one chance to get this right.

:)

[azurnoir]

27. Oh dear oh my lol

so where are the refugees supposed to go-Palestine?

[shira]

28. I'll be generous and give you one more shot.

What is the Arab world's motivation for keeping refugees and their offspring suffering in camps the past 62 years?

[azurnoir]

29. No just go with it I want to hear your theory

I'm guessing I already have, but what the heck

[shira]

30. Why can't you answer that question?

Since you think you know what I believe, go for it! Do tell!

[azurnoir]

31. You stated your beliefs in the phrasing of your "question"

which is why I have not answered it is really not a question at all but a political statement with a question mark at the end

albeit I "commend" you in your "concern" for Palestinians in the diaspora, one must wonder why are you so anxious that the diaspora be ended by them being made citizens of the countries they are exiled too rather than having their own country?

[shira]

32. But I want to know what YOU think has motivated Arab nations to hold Palestinian refugees

....and their descendants in camps the last 62 years.

You really don't have any idea?

:shrug:

[azurnoir]

33. when did you stop beating your wife/husband? n/t

[shira]

34. Okay, what do you think of these quotes?

To us, the refugees issue is the winning card which means the end of the Israeli state.
http://www.fateh.net/e_public/refugees.htm

... in demanding the return of the Palestinian refugees, the Arabs mean their return as masters, not slaves; or to put it quite clearly – the intention is the extermination of Israel.
Egyptian Foreign Minister, Muhammad Salah al-Din, Al-Misri, 11 October 1949

The return of all the refugees to their homes would be secured, thereby we should, on the one hand, eliminate the refugee problem, and on the other, create a large Arab majority that would serve as the most effective means of reviving the Arab character of Palestine, while forming a powerful fifth column for the day of revenge and reckoning.
Al-Ziyyad, April 6, 1950

Any discussion aimed at a solution of the Palestine problem which will not based on ensuring the refugees' right to annihilate Israel will be regarded as desecration of the Arab people and an act of treason.
Berlut al Massa (Lebanese daily), July 11-12, 1957

The Arab states do not want to solve the refugee problem. They want to keep it as an open sore, as an affront to the United Nations, and as a weapon agains Israel. Arab leaders do not give a damn whether Arab refugees live or die.
Ralph Galloway, Director UNRWA, 1958

If the refugees return to Israel, Israel will cease to exist.
Egypt’s President Nasser, Neue Zuercher Zeitung, September 1, 1960

Since 1948 Arab leaders have approached the Palestine problem in an irresponsible manner.... They have used the Palestine people for selfish political purposes. This is ridiculous and, I could say, even criminal.
Jordan's King Hussein, Associated Press interview, January 1960.

Now, what do you think the Arab nations primary motivation was/is in keeping Palestinian refugees and their descendants in camps the last 62 years?

:shrug:

[azurnoir]

35. your link doesn't work

but most of your quotes are dated to 50 years ago or more things have changed and I have a very honest question is what's really bothering here is the fact that if the outcome of the current negotiations is a Palestinian State the very real possibility that Israel will have the demographic bomb right next door, there could be as many or possibly more Palestinians living in what is now the West Bank as there are Jews in Israel is that whats got people so revved about this, to be honest I never thought of of till tonight

[shira]

36. So you believe Arab regimes' motivation for RoR has changed over the years...to what exactly?

As to the number of Palestinians living next door, who cares? You think Israelis are up all night counting the number of people in Egypt, Syria, and Jordan?

[azurnoir]

37. there are buffer zones and treaties and such between Israel

and all of the countries you mention I note you did not mention Lebanon though, as to RoR that is to be settled as part of the final negotiations is it not?

[shira]

38. You're still evading, why? n/t

[azurnoir]

39. No shira if your still on your original question I am not evading

your question is framed on a premise that already assumes guilt as a foregone conclusion I how ever do not you can keep wrapping yourself up in some paranoid little fantasy but that's all it is

[shira]

40. So since you don't believe those old quotes are valid anymore...

....what makes you think now the motivation to keep Palestinians suffering as refugees is any different?

Do you really believe Arab regimes are concerned about the refugees' collective rights to go back to within the 1948 borders? :shrug:

[azurnoir]

41. Those regimes as you call them offered Israel recognition 8 years ago

for a Palestinian State within the West Bank Israel refused which gives the impression Israel prefers the current state of affairs

[azurnoir]

42. Arab peace initiative

This is the official translation of the Saudi-proposed Arab peace initiative adopted at the annual Arab League Summit in Beirut in 2002.

The Council of the League of Arab States at the Summit Level, at its 14th Ordinary Session,

- Reaffirming the resolution taken in June 1996 at the Cairo Extra-Ordinary Arab Summit that a just and comprehensive peace in the Middle East is the strategic option of the Arab Countries, to be achieved in accordance with International Legality, and which would require a comparable commitment on the part of the Israeli Government.

- Having listened to the statement made by His Royal Highness Prince Abdullah bin Abdul Aziz, the Crown Prince of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia in which his Highness presented his Initiative, calling for full Israeli withdrawal from all the Arab territories occupied since June 1967, in implementation of Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338, reaffirmed by the Madrid Conference of 1991 and the land for peace principle, and Israel's acceptance of an independent Palestinian State, with East Jerusalem as its capital, in return for the establishment of normal relations in the context of a comprehensive peace with Israel.

- Emanating from the conviction of the Arab countries that a military solution to the conflict will not achieve peace or provide security for the parties, the council:

1. Requests Israel to reconsider its policies and declare that a just peace is its strategic option as well.

2. Further calls upon Israel to affirm:

a. Full Israeli withdrawal from all the territories occupied since 1967, including the Syrian Golan Heights to the lines of June 4, 1967 as well as the remaining occupied Lebanese territories in the south of Lebanon.

b. Achievement of a just solution to the Palestinian Refugee problem to be agreed upon in accordance with UN General Assembly Resolution 194.

c. The acceptance of the establishment of a Sovereign Independent Palestinian State on the Palestinian territories occupied since the 4th of June 1967 in the West Bank and Gaza strip, with East Jerusalem as its capital.

3. Consequently, the Arab Countries affirm the following:

a. Consider the Arab-Israeli conflict ended, and enter into a peace agreement with Israel, and provide security for all the states of the region.

b. Establish normal relations with Israel in the context of this comprehensive peace.

4. Assures the rejection of all forms of Palestinian patriation which conflict with the special circumstances of the Arab host countries.

5. Calls upon the Government of Israel and all Israelis to accept this initiative in order to safeguard the prospects for peace and stop the further shedding of blood, enabling the Arab Countries and Israel to live in peace and good neighborliness and provide future generations with security, stability, and prosperity.

6. Invites the International Community and all countries and Organizations to support this initiative.

7. Requests the Chairman of the Summit to form a special committee composed of some of its concerned member states and the Secretary General of the League of Arab States to pursue the necessary contacts to gain support for this initiative at all levels, particularly from the United Nations, the Security Council, the United States of America, the Russian Federation, the Muslim States and the European Union.


http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/1844214.stm

[shira]

43. Do you believe the prime motivation of Arab leadership is to protect the refugees' collective Right

....of Return?

:shrug:

If so, do you think that motivation is noble?

[azurnoir]

44. what does it say?

It's truly a pity that Israel extended it's middle finger at the UN when res 194 was adopted over 60 years ago

[shira]

45. You're still evading. I'm only asking what YOU believe the main motivation is behind...

...keeping Palestinians and their descendants in camps the past 62 years.

I guess you have no idea?

[azurnoir]

46. un resolution 194 n/t

[shira]

48. The Arab world rejected 194 originally because it called for refugees returning in peace...

No mention of Palestinians is made in 194, and remember that the total number of Jewish refugees from that period equalled the number of Palestinians.

So you believe keeping the Palestinians suffering in refugee camps lacking basic human rights the past 62 years (in comparison to Arabs not in those camps) has been noble and for the collective good?

[azurnoir]

50. No however Israel should have allowed the return of all refugee's

not just the that were of a select ethnic group

[Tripmann]

47. Yes yes, deflect from the rapist by concentrating on the treatment of the victims after the crime

[shira]

49. Why don't you try answering the question I've asked of Azurnoir many times? n/t

[Tripmann]

51. Because both me and Az know you M.O. intimately. And, as liberals, we don't facilitate you.

[shira]

52. Oh, I thought as a liberal you might criticize Arab nations for what they've done to Pal'n refugees

...the last 62 years.

:shrug:

Guess it's too much to expect you to criticize such extremely far Rightwing regimes.

[Tripmann]

53. Who made them refugees in the first place?? Ignore the rapist & deflect to the victims treatment

after the attack.

Disgusting.

[shira]

54. Mostly it was Arab leadership, but even if it was Israel how does that excuse Arab leadership...

....for what they have done to Palestian refugees and their descendants the past 62 years?

Do you believe no matter what Arab regimes do to Palestinians, they shouldn't be criticized? :shrug:

[Tripmann]

56. It doesn't. But coming from the person who excuses atrocities against palestinians its laughable.

[shira]

57. Looks like you're the one here excusing 62 years of atrocities against Palestinians but...

...you're welcome to prove me wrong.

What do you find objectionable about the way Palestinian refugees and their descendants have been treated by Arab leadership the past 62 years?

Anything at all?

[Tripmann]

58. I condemn all atrocities against the palestinians. You? Not so much.

[shira]

59. Well that's as non-specific and lame as you can be. Why not elaborate WRT refugees?

Can't do it, can you?

I'll wait for the specifics.

=====

I'm also against all atrocities committed against Palestinians. But I suspect such a statement isn't good enough for you. Why should yours be?

[Tripmann]

60. Love the faux concern for the plight of the palestinian refugees.

So sincere

:rofl:

[shira]

61. See, as I wrote, you can't criticize oppressors of Palestinians unless it's allegedly Israel.

In your words, it's now time to hang your head in shame. Wallow in filth. Disgusting. You're not fooling any liberals here...

:eyes:

But thanks for proving my point.

In fact, I'll remember in the future to sound as humanitarian as yourself. My catch-all phrase for everything shall be that I condemn all atrocities against all people of that region.

[Tripmann]

62. I criticise ALL opressors of the palestinians. You won't even criticise your beloved israel

when its dropping bombs on innocent palestinian women and children.

So we all know how concerned you REALLY are for the treatment of the refugees.

Its actually laughable that you attempt to insult the intelligence of your fellow DUers

[shira]

63. No, you criticize nothing if Arabs are the ones oppressing Palestinians. You've proven that.

Whether it's the way refugees are treated, Hamas deliberately using the Gazan population as a shield, or Lebanon denying basic human rights to refugees, etc...

Just a one-size-fits-all empty criticism of "all" harm done to Palestinians.

What's holding you back from being as specific and harsh with your criticism of Arab leadership as you are against Jewish leadership?

:shrug:

Try me out now, so I can respond with something you'd approve of....ask me if I condemn certain things Israel has done, okay?

[Tripmann]

64. What part of 'I criticise ALL opressors of palestinians' are you having trouble adsorbing??

[Tripmann]

66. Are you ready to do the same and criticise ALL opressors of the palestinian people??

[shira]

68. I condemn all acts of terror against all innocents. How's that? n/t

[Tripmann]

72. So you don't condemn the opression of palestinians. Just like you don't condemn the bombing of

innocent women and children.

In both cases, once its your side doing the opressing/bombing/<insert other crime against humanity here>.

Good one :applause:

[shira]

74. I condemn all acts of terror, oppression, atrocities against all people. What part of that...

...is difficult for you to understand?

[shira]

71. The part where you're very specific about Israeli actions but silent WRT Arab leadership...

...oppressing Palestinians.

[Tripmann]

73. I've condemned it 3 times on this thread alone. Do you condemn israels opression of palestinians?

[shira]

75. What in particular have you condemned? And again, I condemn...

...all acts of terror and oppression against innocent people.

Am I not being clear enough for you?

[Tripmann]

77. So you condemn israels opression of innocent palestinian people in gaza?

[shira]

79. We're both liberals so we both condemn all acts of oppression and terror against all innocents.

I've now answered you at least 3 times the same way, just as you answered me - with a blanket statement that covers all!

:)

Am I, like you, not being clear enough?

If so, explain please.

[Tripmann]

81. Are the palestinian women & children opressed by israel not innocent? Haven't seen you condemn that.

[shira]

82. I condemn all acts of terror and oppression against all innocents. What's unclear?

That means ALL innocents of any ethnicity or nationality, and no matter who the guilty party is I condemn all cruel acts and atrocities committed against innocents.

It's a blanket statement, just like yours.

Why isn't it good enough for you?

[Tripmann]

83. Its unclear whether or not you consider the palestinian women & chldren of gaza 'innocent'. Do you??

[oberliner]

84. Why are women more or less innocent than men?

Some women are capable of and responsible for violence and terror while many men are not.

Seems kind of sexist to suggest otherwise.

[Tripmann]

85. And how many gazan women exactly shot rockets at israel oberliner?

How many kids launched quassams for that matter? How many babies too young to even know what an israeli is needs to suffer for their actions?

Better israel oppress and collectively punish them all, right?

How about another OCL? Just drop the bombs on everyone and let God sort them out. Right?

[oberliner]

86. Women made up less than 8 percent of the casualties during OCL

Considering women make up a little less than 50 percent of the population, does that then suggest that the IDF did at least a fair job of attempting to minimize civilian casualties?

[azurnoir]

87. I am sure you can provide charts for that right

the only ones I found were locked up in a pay only site

[oberliner]

90. Charts? Locked up on a pay site? What the heck are you talking about?

Try Wikipedia.

[azurnoir]

92. Please post it wiki did not come up at all in my search n/t

[oberliner]

96. No problem

Here ya go:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_Gaza_War

[azurnoir]

98. I'll accept that albeit the page was edited within the last hour

eta all the charts save IDF's show noncombatants as making up at least half or more of all casualties

[Tripmann]

88. And did women fire 8% of the rockets at israel?How about the children that died in their arms? Filth

[oberliner]

91. None as far as I know

The fact that any innocent civilians were killed, especially children, is absolutely heartbreaking.

[Tripmann]

95. Exactly. So innocent women and kids were killed disproportionately in the retaliation by israel.

So is 8% dead acceptable when they're innocent women?

[oberliner]

97. I am sure innocent men were killed too - why are they less innocent than women?

That is the differentiation you are making that I am not understanding.

Also some of the older children (16, 17) were themselves involved in the fighting.

[Tripmann]

107. Are you seriously having this conversation with me?

What percentage of the women killed were innocent? What percentage of the children who drew their last breaths in terror were innocent?

Even though ONLY 8% killed were women, that is still 121 women. Plus almost 300 children.

How would you feel if people constantly referenced the holocaust quoting '33% of jews were murdered' rather than 'Over 6 million jews were murdered'

Easy to rattle off percentages isn't it oberliner. Much easier than picturing 121 women and 288 children lying in pieces under the rubble.

[oberliner]

111. Is it really necessary to bring up the Holocaust?

It seems not at all relevant to this conversation.

My only point is that men can be innocent - not sure why picturing a man lying in pieces under the rubble is somehow not as disturbing as a woman.

The majority of the casualties were adult men.

[Tripmann]

113. By the way,85% of those kiled in OCL were non-combatants (while we're talking percentages)

Oh, and I brought up the holocaust example just to show how disturbing it is to talk in percentages when you're dealing with the killing of innocent people. 33% dead means 67% still alive, but 6 million innocent people murdered is 6 million people murdered.

[oberliner]

114. Not according to B'tselem or the Palestinian Center for Human Rights

They identify the percentage of non-combatants killed in the conflict at 55 and 65 percent respectively.

The IDF disputes those figures, and claims that only about 25 percent of those killed were non-combatants.

Do you consider all war or conflict-related deaths to be murder?

[Tripmann]

115. Nope. However, a regional superpower bombing the people they have imprisoned, in built up areas,

knowing that they will kill hundreds of innocent people, I do indeed class as murder. My conscience would not allow me to do otherwise.

[oberliner]

116. What actions (if any) ought to have been taken to prevent rocket fire against Israel?

Do you believe that Israel had a responsibility to protect its citizens from such attacks?

[Tripmann]

117. I always find not imprisoning and opressing people is a good way of preventing rocket fire.

Lets paraphrase your question. "What actions (if any) should the abusive owner take to prevent the dogs he beats and starves from biting him."

See?

The 'poor israel the victim' bullshit doesn't wash anymore oberliner. Israel wasn't busy delivering toys to the gaza childrens orphanage one day when the crazy muslims started shooting rockets.

In the period of rocket fire between hamas seizing control of gaza and the start of OCL, the thousands of rockets that were such a threat to israel killed less than 10 people. In the same period over 380 gazans died from israeli shelling. So can the one sided crap please if we're going to have an adult discussion.

[oberliner]

118. Rocket fire was constant before the seige of Gaza and after the withdrawal of all Gaza settlements

In 2005, all Israeli settlements were removed from Gaza.

There was also no siege on Gaza after the withdrawal was completed yet there was still rocket fire during this time.

Rocket fire was also prominent during the time when there was an open border between Israel and Gaza with freedom of movement between the two.

In fact, some of the deadliest attacks emanating from Gaza against Israel took place in 2004 - specifically the rocket attack that killed two small children, aged 2 and 4.

Hamas proudly took credit for that particular act of child-murdering.

[Tripmann]

119. Yet you fail to mention HUNDREDS of dead gazan children. Or are they just collateral damage?

You count two dead israeli kids and mention their ages, but when 120 gazan women are killed you quote percentages.

I don't have a dog in this fight oberliner. I'm neither jewish or muslim, Israeli or Palestinian.

Y'see I don't differentiate between a dead child, whether its death is 'proudly took credit' for by hamas, or excused away by an israeli official.

[oberliner]

120. I'm just trying to get a sense of what you think Israel ought to have done

I agree with you that the invasion of Gaza was wrong and that the fact that so many innocent civilians were killed is horrible.

I am just wondering what action, if any, you think Israel could have done instead that would have eliminated the rocket fire.

Removing the settlements obviously did not have a positive impact on such attacks, nor were the attacks less when there was no siege.

Was there a way that Israel could have prevented Hamas (and other groups) from launching rocket attacks against Israeli civilians without resorting to military action?

[Tripmann]

121. Like I said, "what should the abusive dog owner do to make sure his animals don't bite back?"

[oberliner]

122. You are comparing the Palestinian people to an abused dog?

I completely reject the idea that the relationship between Israelis and Palestinians is analogous to that of an abusive dog owner and a dog.

First and foremost, the Palestinian people are human beings, not animals, and they are not in any way "owned" by Israel.

The Palestinian people are capable of making choices. Thus far the leadership of Hamas have chosen not to reject violence, not to accept Israel's right to exist, and not to accept previously reached agreements.

I think you very much diminish the humanity of the Palestinian people by ascribing them the role of "dog" (a particularly offensive choice) in your example.

Would you be willing to speak to the situation without using such analogies?

[Tripmann]

123. The gazans are dehumanised, caged and opressed by israel, LIKE abused animals.

Thats not the same as calling them animals. But we both know that.

Love how you comment on the dog part of the analogy while ignoring the abuser part.

[oberliner]

129. Israel withdrew all settlements and military presence from Gaza in 2005

Shortly thereafter, there were rocket attacks from Gaza against Israeli civilians.

How were Gazans being caged and oppressed by Israel at that time when Israel was not even present in Gaza and crossings between Gaza/Egypt and Gaza/Israel were open and goods moved freely to and from the territory?

[Tripmann]

136. Israel still controlled the egyptian border crossing, gazan airspace and sea areas, & goods movement

But we both know that.

Anybody confused about who to believe can check the following Israeli website.....

http://www.btselem.org/english/Gaza_Strip/Gaza_Status.asp

[oberliner]

138. No argument here

However, there was no siege. Gazans were able to leave Gaza. And Israeli settlements were gone.

Anyway, all this is beside the point. I am trying to get some kind of response from you with respect to what Israel ought to have done (if anything) in response to the rocket attacks.

If Israel did not control the border crossings, airspace, sea areas and goods movement, do you think that there would have been no rocket attacks?

[Tripmann]

139. Its a BS question. Israels treatment of gazans & hamas rocket attacks cannot be addressed seperately

From my analogy, its no better than the owner who beats and starves his dogs lamenting about what he can do to stop his animals lashing out at him.

Poor abusive guy. Poor israel.

[oberliner]

140. What should Israel do with respect to Gaza?

What steps can Israel take with respect to Gaza that would end this abusive relationship?

[Tripmann]

141. Talk to hamas. Plain and simple. Israel has already discussed the release of gilad shalit

with hamas. HAmas approached israel after the takeover of gaza for talks but were ignored. They control gaza and almost all the rockets. You want the rockets to stop, yuo talk to hamas.

In my country the british government was holding low level talks in secret with the IRA for years before the peace process even officially got underway. The official line was "the british government does not talk to terrorists", but they were doing it nonetheless.

The end result was peace.

[oberliner]

143. Would that not undermine talks with the PA?

How would Abbas and Fayyad take it if the Israelis negotiated separately with Hamas with respect to the core issues?

[Tripmann]

145. Theres no reason why israel could not negotiate behind closed doors pending the conclusion of the

current talks. For all you know they already are. And if George Mitchell has anything to do with it I'd be surprised if they weren't.

[azurnoir]

99. when you add in children it comes to 1/4- 1/3 not 8% n/t

[azurnoir]

67. with regard to Lebanon

this is a snip from an article written by a Palestinian currently living there

The Arab world is rife with hypocrisy when it comes to the Palestinian issue. Arab leaders frequently and rightly cite the chronic human rights violations in which Israel engages, but fail to address the marginalisation of Palestinians within their own societies. Historically, Lebanese citizens have declared that naturalising Palestinians will act as a disincentive to their eventual repatriation and the exercise of their inviolable right of return. But this is a specious and cynical misrepresentation of the issue.

First, many diaspora Palestinians who have been naturalised in foreign countries, including myself, still seek to return to Palestine. Second, an individual ought to have the right to lead a complete and fulfilling life in his/her country of birth, irrespective of national or racial identity; it is not up to the Arab leaders to safeguard the Palestinian right of return against the prospect of a meaningful life lived outside Palestine.

More plausibly, Lebanon's miserable record regarding the human rights of Palestinian refugees (and others) is a result of the country's sectarian structure. Lebanon has never been a cohesive political entity and remains divided by sectarian allegiances. Most Lebanese citizens are members of one of three communities: the Sunni community, the Shia community and the Christian community (each of which is further subdivided into competing forces). The country is less divided today than it was in 1991, in the aftermath of the 15-year-long civil war, but it remains fractured.

In this context, it matters that the Palestinian refugees in Lebanon are mostly Sunni Muslims. There is a fear that if Palestinians are integrated, they will upset the delicate confessional balance that prevails here. It is therefore difficult to see how Lebanon will undertake to improve the lives of the refugees before the Lebanese solve their own sectarian problems.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/jun/24/middleeast-palestinian-territories

[azurnoir]

65. well she seems really concerned that the refugee's are happy right where they are n/t

[shira]

69. Are you as cynical WRT Israeli liberal Jews like Oz and Strenger too, WRT Palestinians/Refugees? n/t

[azurnoir]

76. No n/t

[azurnoir]

78. I was too brusque in my first reply so I will explain

it seems to me that you spend a great deal of time placing blame and very little on the IMO obvious solution which is a Palestinian state. Have the Arabs treated the Palestinians badly yes, but then again a good deal of the countries involved are none too stable themselves, in Iraq and particularly Kuwait the Palestinians were unfairly scapegoated because Saddam supported them. That being said it should be pointed out that Syria and Jordan are not treating another group of "forgotten" refugees, those being Iraqi refugees who have been shoved down "the memory hole" any better, in fact in the case of Jordan it has treated Palestinians relatively well in comparison to this

Current Humanitarian Situation
Refugees International has observed extreme vulnerabilities among the hundreds of thousands of Iraqi refugees living in Syria, Jordan, and other parts of the region, as well as the millions of internally displaced persons within Iraq. Most refugees have not been granted legal status and thus live in limbo, often without access to basic services and work opportunities. Many persons displaced within the country have no access to assistance, basic levels of protection, or any hope of return to their original homes.

While the Government of Iraq is well situated to generate significant revenue from its oil reserves, it will take years if not decades before these resources reach the most vulnerable. Currently the Government of Iraq lacks both the capacity and the political will to use its resources to address humanitarian needs. At the same time the continued lack of security makes it nearly impossible for UN international staff to access the populations in most need of assistance. Local NGOs often have the best connections and access but are often not directly funded by international donors.

Though there have been some returns of both internally displaced and refugees, the majority have not been able to access their original homes and properties. Their properties have been occupied or destroyed. Ongoing violence, especially in the central provinces, coupled with a lack of jobs, basic social services, and opportunities, makes voluntary return impossible for most. While Refugees International hopes that Iraqis will be able to return to their homes in the future, the necessary conditions for returns to take place in safety and dignity still do not exist. Local integration of IDPs may be a solution for some and should be actively considered by the Government of Iraq.

http://www.refugeesinternational.org/where-we-work/middle-east/iraq

so it may be as much if not more about nationalism, xenophobia, and last but not least monetary and other resources being in short supply for common folk in those countries than it supposedly is about destroying Israel

[shira]

80. So in your opinion, it's not really worthwhile to advocate for Pal'n refugees in other countries?

Whatever happens to them happens?

:shrug:

What about Palestinians (whether refugees or not) within Gaza and the West Bank and how their government treats them? If you feel it's better to concentrate on a future Palestinian state, then why not advocate for better conditions now within those areas so that once a Pal'n state is established, the groundwork is set for better individual human rights in those territories?

Or are you just concerned about collective Palestinian rights?

[azurnoir]

89. So a Palestinian State should be back burnered until they know how to "act right "is it ?

its good that the Palestinians have an advocate such as yourself

[shira]

100. I'm not saying that at all, now can you answer me please? n/t

[azurnoir]

93. or alternately we should focus on individual Palestinian rights

rather than the whole or collective as you put it could we call that the Hans Brinker approach?

[shira]

101. It appears you're for Palestinians' collective right to a state, but could care less how they're

...treated within that state once they have one. I mean, it's not as though you have anything to say now about the way they're treated by anyone aside from Israel. Land trumps individual human rights AFAIK based on what I've seen from you.

[azurnoir]

102. I have said nothing of the sort but thanks for revealing

that your real concern is about Israel not Palestinians , why who'd have ever guessed that

[shira]

103. And how exactly was this revealed to you? n/t

[azurnoir]

104. The fallacious nature of your comment

It appears you're for Palestinians' collective right to a state, but could care less how they're

...treated within that state once they have one. I mean, it's not as though you have anything to say now about the way they're treated by anyone aside from Israel. Land trumps individual human rights AFAIK based on what I've seen from you.

when in fact I had said quite a bit pertaining to how Arabs treat Palestinians admit it your upset because I showed that Iraqi refugees are treated no better in the same countries

eta were you even aware that Syria and Jordan had been left to clean up the mess we created in Iraq? Does it bother you where's the outrage?

[shira]

105. Nothing fallacious about it. You're upset because you've been exposed...

You wrote earlier, that criticizing the PA or Hamas now for how they treat Palestinians is to 'demonize' them and delegitimize (abort) a future Palestinian state.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=124&topic_id=335107&mesg_id=335143

Palestinian human rights should be 'on hold' according to you. They should wait it out, suck it up for maybe another few more decades....

:eyes:

Same for Palestinian refugees elsewhere, though I don't know why you're against criticizing for example, the Lebanese government - which wouldn't be delegitimized, no preemptive political abortions, etc...

Hamas, the PLO, Lebanon, etc... can do whatever they want to Palestinians and you'll remain silent. And there's no reason to suspect once a Palestinian state is established, you'll suddenly advocate for Palestinian basic human rights by criticizing their Arab leadership.

You're as 'concerned' for human rights as any extreme Rightwinger obsessed with Blacks or Muslims.

[azurnoir]

106. very fallacious. why didn't you post the entire sentance?

was it too long for you

Yes demonize, defame, slander, and sliming the PLO do seem quite
important to you why is that are you attempting to delegitimize a Palestinian State before it's even born by preforming a political abortion of sorts as to the camps do you not think a State being declared would change the status of refugee's although I did note in my Google search the sudden "concern" for these people at sites such as Pajama's Media

you accuse and slander but you can not even be honest when doing it can you?

and this

You're as 'concerned' for human rights as any extreme Rightwinger obsessed with Blacks or Muslims.

the one who seems obsessed here is you, I give you another example of Arab refugee's being treated in much the same manner as Palestinian refugee's in the same countries and for how mwny posts all you seem to be able to do rant and level false accusations.

[shira]

108. There's nothing taken out of context. You're for putting Palestinian human rights on hold...

...they should just suck it up and endure for a few more decades until a Palestinian state comes about. Until then, Arab regimes can do anything they want against Palestinians.

And then maybe, just maybe once there's a state you'll start criticizing their Arab leadership and advocate for their basic civil rights.

Until then, demonize slander and slime Israel, pretending it's for the right reasons.

That's your position in a nutshell.

[azurnoir]

109. your pretty secure that it will be decades before the Palestinians

have a state I am not I think it be much sooner than that it's that simple

[shira]

110. People thought a state was imminent 20 years ago when Oslo started....

...but 2 decades later we're no closer.

What if it goes on for a couple more decades, then what?

Palestinians must suck it up under Arab regimes in your view? You'll start to advocate for them once there's a state?

[azurnoir]

112. I never t hought that Oslo would succeed

so you believe Israel can keep the occupation going forever is that it? If the Palestinians do not have their own state soon it will make a one state almost inevitable something I at least do not want to see happen

[shira]

126. Again, what if the conflict goes on another 2 decades? Then what?

I want it to end as soon as possible too but if it doesn't, does that mean in your view that Palestinians should wait it out, suck it up, and not rely on support like yourself to make their lives better under Arab rule? Another 10 years, 50 years?

:shrug:

[azurnoir]

127. the conflict will not go on another 20 years n/t

[shira]

128. How do you know? n/t

[azurnoir]

131. it is quickly reaching what could be called critical mass

how much longer can the settlements continue to expand, how much longer will the Palestinians put up with the situation, the Palestinians will declare a state and then what?

As to the refugee's in other Arab countries who has the political capital to pressure them, the US not too likely Syria and Jordan are already hosting the refugees we created in Iraq, Lebanon our capital there is all but spent, Egypt?

The world has changed and grown smaller and people more aware, in the US especially Israel support is waning if only by bits but now the other side can tell the story as never before why else is Israel employing people to pose as simple commenters on the net a fact that has been made widely known

[oberliner]

132. Israel is not employing people to "pose as simple commenters on the net"

That is a preposterous claim.

[azurnoir]

135. Really guess you missed it-

Thought-police is here

Rona Kuperboim slams Foreign Ministry’s plan to hire pro-Israel talkbackers

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3744516,00.ht...

<snip>

"The Foreign Ministry unveiled a new plan this week: Paying talkbackers to post pro-Israel responses on websites worldwide. A total of NIS 600,000 (roughly $150,000) will be earmarked to the establishment of an “Internet warfare” squad.

The Foreign Ministry intends to hire young people who speak at least one language and who study communication, political science, or law – or alternately, Israelis with military experience gained at units dealing with information analysis.

Beyond the fact that these job requirements reveal a basic lack of understanding in respect to the dynamics of the online discourse – the project’s manager argued that “adults don’t know how to blog” – they are not too relevant either. An effective talkbacker does not need a law degree or military experience. He merely needs to care about the subject he writes about.

The sad truth is that had Israeli citizens believed that their State is doing the right thing, they would have made sure to explain it out of their own accord. Without being paid.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=124&topic_id=280933

[oberliner]

137. Totally bogus

A year-old article from Ynet?

This is obviously BS.

[azurnoir]

142. so ynets not reliable ok n/t

[oberliner]

144. Ynet is generally reliable but this is just an op-ed piece

And its a year old. Has this so-called plan been implemented? Where would a person go to sign up for this "job" if it actually exists?

[azurnoir]

146. there have been many op-eds about the loyalty oath does that mean it doesn't exist?

here is another link

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3744516,00.html

[oberliner]

147. One thing has nothing to do with the other

I am talking about the paying people to post nonsense.

[shira]

133. Israel will never agree to RoR, so even if a state is declared and accepted what do you think...

...will happen to all those refugees?

:shrug:

[azurnoir]

134. thats why a Palestinian state is needed n/t

[oberliner]

23. It was posted in response to your being "aghast" at Crowley's comments

My argument is that the US has been saying the same thing he said today for quite some time so this is not anything new.

[pnorman]

7. "It is a state for the Jewish people. It is a state for other citizens of other faiths as well."

That's not really what's implied in the OP's header.

As opposed as most here to theocratic states ANYWHERE, I feel that it's a very good place to start! With the exception of Turkey, and "possibly" Lebanon, all the other nations in that area are unequivocally theocratic, with many of them MURDEROUSLY so!

[oberliner]

8. Israel is asking for Palestinians to recognize Israel as the nation state of the Jewish people

In this statement (not the part you quoted, but later on), the US calls for "acceptance by the region of the existence of the state of Israel as the homeland of the Jewish people."

Is there a major difference between those two?

In neither case is a theocratic state or anything like it being suggested.

[azurnoir]

25. I quoted the complete statement IMO the Ynet article is misleading

because it is based only on a snip. George Mitchell's statement was made in April of 2009 almost 18 months ago well before the current talks, for a US official to make such a one sided statement as Ynet makes Crowley's appear to be in the middle of negotiations could impair the US's ability to be seen as being impartial and seriously jeopardize the continuation of these negotiations

eta posted as a response to #23

[pnorman]

17. Are we really at cross purposes?

What the PM said wasn't too far from our own "The USA is a Christian Nation", but no, he didn't come out for a theocratic state. In all likelihood, he was prevented by political imperatives to be any more "secularist". I still say that it's a good starting point to begin talks!

Almost all of the founders of the modern state of Israel were socialists, and of course SECULARISTS. It's my personal hope that Israel return to its roots, at least partially. It may be a looong while for another opportunity to open up, and if Israel and the PA have ANY sense at all, they'd GO FOR IT!

[legin]

55. The problem we have

Is that we are under-equiped educationaly to deal with what is going on here.

We all have some idea about what it takes to make a deal, what sort of concepts are involved. There are loads of self-help books and manuals devoted to the subject.

There is not nearly as much literature on 'NOT making a deal'.

For instance any textbook on the subject would have to have as a major chapter 'making a deal fall through and not getting the blame for it'.

[provis99]

70. if Israel is officially Jewish, then criticizing Israel is anti-semitic.

The two will be considered one and the same.

[azurnoir]

94. the cherry on the sundae n/t

[ProgressiveMajority]

124. Thats the idea! n/t

[txaslftist]

125. man bites dog...

Of course we back the hardest-right position. Have we publicly stated that we support the loyalty oath yet?

[Donald Ian Rankin]

130. A shame, but in no way a surprise.

It does raise questions as to how the US can possibly be an honest broker, though.