Ha! The joke’s on you! I don’t have any children! But seriously, there’s a lot of hatred of Israelis by Palestinians right now, and vice versa, much of it justified. If I were a Palestinian, I’d probably hate the Israelis. That’s not all going to magically go away just because some peace settlement is signed. It doesn’t mean the Palestinians are evil. It also doesn’t mean that a peace settlement can’t be signed…people make agreements all the time with people they don’t like and don’t trust. But it does mean that, even when there is some final peace, there’s still going to be mutual mistrust, there’s still going to be tension, there’s still going to problems. It will take time for the two groups to learn to trust each other, and for all the mutual bad feeling to go away.
Then perhaps. A silver light of “maybe” in the darkness of certainty.
But then, every gesture counts, doesn’t it? You have to gauge every action, every word by that one standard: does this promote peace, or does it not? These settlement actions, do they advance the prospect of peace? Can our allies on the other side, the Palestinians and others who work for peace, can they point at it and say “Look, see, they want peace too, they are willing to sacrifice for peace, they are sincere”?
If we are committed to peace, by what other standard can we measure our actions?
I don’t entirely understand what you’re asking. Could you try asking it again in a simpler way? I mean, I think I made it clear that I’m against further West Bank settlement.
I am only emphasizing that point, that every gesture must be measured. I fear this last gesture, which provoked this landslide of an avalanche of a train wreck, does not mean such exacting standards.
I’d be pleased to hear otherwise, that the Palestinians met this gesture with glad cries and hosannas, and were strongly reassured as to Israeli committment to peace. Can you offer any such happy news? It would make my day.
So why don’t you just say “I think the recent Israeli action is a bad idea because it decreases Palestinian trust in the Israeli desire for peace”, instead of all the flowery rhetorical questions?
Well, hell, I reckon you spit in a guy’s eye, he ain’t gonna trust you as much.
Better?
The “Occupied” didn’t get dropped from “Territories”; “Freed” did. “The Territories” is by far the most common term used for the area - it’s suitably neutral, it it fits the Israeli fondness for vague, politically-neutral euphemisms (like referring to the terrorist attacks starting in 2000 as “the Situation”). Other common terms are “the Bank” (for the West Bank) and “the Strip” for the Gaza Strip.
Very, very few Israelis refer to the Territories as “Palestine”, mainly because *they aren’t. * Maybe they should be at some date in the future, but as of now, the term “Palestine” technically refers only on the entire area of Israel and the Territories as it existed under the British prior to 1948.
“Israel proper” is my term. Most Israelis refer to it as “inside the Green Line.”
Real life is often messy like that. Fact is that there were powerful and understandable forces pushing the two sides together: namely, that they were under siege from common enemies. At times they cooperated, though that cooeration tended to be curtailed when the radicals committed another outrage. Also, there were allegations that the ‘legitimate’ proto-gov’t used the Hunting Season etc. as an excuse to get rid of purely political enemies.
The overall picture is clear though: although there were periods where they cooperated, over time the ‘legitimate’ proto-government subdued the radicals by force.
As to the historical paralell, the point is often framed as a moral one - as in, “no negotiations with terrorists”. Thus, no negotiations with “Palestinians” (meaning the proto-gov’t) until they renounce terrorism as a tactic.
Way I see it, the issue is more of a practical one - that no proto-state can afford to have its hotheads running out of control. It cannot gain legitimacy either internally or externally, it cannot obtain unity of purpose, with the hot-heads essentially calling the shots. The sad bifrucation of the proto-nation of Palestine between Hamas and the PLO is a sorry example of why.
The problem is basically an internal one - it is uncommon to say the least for states to be created by the negotiation process; more usually, for countries friendly and unfriendly alike to recognize a reality on the ground.
That is the dilemma here. Arguing about the Israeli actions is massivley to miss the point. Of course the Israelis are going to be hostile to Palestinian asperations - they are locked in a zero-sum-game when it comes to certain of them, like the status of Jerusalem, not to mention a nasty history of ethnic mutual violence lasting decades. It is completely unrealistic to believe that they will be friendly, remembering that Israel is a democracy and that public opinion is thus important. But no amount of gestures by Israel, hostile or friendly, can create a viable Palestinain pragmatic leadership, one with the vision to push beyond the ritual of protests and unrealistic demands and with the ruthelessness to take on the hot-heads and win, where none now exists. That has to come from within Palestine itself.
Until it does, this is what we will see, I predict: periods of diplomatic tension and condemnation of Israel by outsides, which will make no difference; periods of intesive terrorism by Palestinian hot-heads, which will call out periods of intensive anti-terrorism by Israelis, which will make things marginally harder for Israelis and immensely harder for Palestinians; followed by periods of calm and resuming negotiations, which will lead nowhere.
But peace has been made nonetheless in many such situations elsewhere in the world and in history. It does require a leadership in both countries ready to recognize that there can be no non-negotiables on either side.
Let’s not pretend that Israel does not have the strongest influence of all over the attitudes of the Palestinians toward them. By tightening the occupation and the blockades, by indiscriminate, even terroristic use of bulldozers, by expanding occupation in those lands that make it appear that Israel wants all of that land for themselves, they create a climate where *only *hotheads have credibility as leadership among the Palestinians. By refusing to let moderates get any victories that would let them look like anything but appeasers to “Abdul on the street”, by acting as if violence is the only language Israel understands, Israel helps ensure that violence is the only language in which it is spoken to.
Basically what we’ve seen since 1967, IOW, and you’re right. But if Israel continues to solidify its rarely-admitted claim to all of “Eretz Yisrael” as its own, any possibility of peace is finally foreclosed and the eventual result can only be tragic.
BTW, the Israelis’ answer to the US in the latest flap, as expressed via the PM they chose for themselves, is simply “Fuck you, we’re doing it anyway.” What can a reasonable person infer about what the Israeli people really want?
Cite.
:rolleyes:
Which had a greater impact on putting citizens under the PNA’s authority, arming PNA troops and getting as close as we’ve ever seen to a two state solution?
A) an extensive period of negotiation and promises that the PNA would respect Israel’s right to exist and would renounce violence, leading up to an offer for 97% of the Palestinians’ territorial demands?
B) The first and/or second Intifadas?
What ended the period of negotiations that had culminated with an offer for 97% of the Palestinians’ territorial demands?
A) Arafat’s refusal to continue negotiating?
B) Arafat’s refusal to continue negotiating, plus the PA’s act of deliberately fomenting and starting the Second Intifada which continued until roughly 2005?
C) Arafat’s refusal to continue negotiating, plus the PA’s act of deliberately fomenting and starting the Second Intifada which continued until roughly 2005, plus the Israeli electorate’s impression that any future negotiations that involved arming the PA forces and giving them freedom of movement would only result in even worse violence?
D) Arafat’s refusal to continue negotiating, plus the PA’s act of deliberately fomenting and starting the Second Intifada which continued until roughly 2005, plus the Israeli electorate’s impression that any future negotiations that involved arming the PA forces and giving them freedom of movement would only result in even worse violence, plus the fact that when Israel unilaterally left Gaza it was met with rocket and mortar barrages?
E) Arafat’s refusal to continue negotiating, plus the PA’s act of deliberately fomenting and starting the Second Intifada which continued until roughly 2005, plus the Israeli electorate’s impression that any future negotiations that involved arming the PA forces and giving them freedom of movement would only result in even worse violence, plus the fact that when Israel unilaterally left Gaza it was met with rocket and mortar barrages, and the election of Hamas, a genocidal, racist political party that rejected any and all previous agreements with Israel and declared that its only acceptable course of action would be to destroy Israel as a nation?
It’s “rarely admitted” because it doesn’t exist outside your claim.
Is your argument really, really, that Israel wants and plans on taking the entirety of the West Bank but they’re, what the laziest, most incompetent ethnic cleansers in the history of humanity? They decided to drive all the Palestinians into Jordan, but stopped for a nosh somewhere along the way and never got around to kicking them out?
Rhetoric is only useful when it sticks to the facts. While some extremists in Israel want all of “Judea and Samaria”, there is, factually, no Israel attempt to take them.
Destroying the homes of families of suspected “terrorists”, Second Intifadah. Again in the destruction of Gaza, continuing today. By extension, the construction of the “settlements”. But you know that, I’m sure.
As for your energetic dismissal of any thought that Israel can do anything to affect Palestinian behavior, we’ve been over that enough times by now. Once again, the situation is what it is. It isn’t unique; other such situations have been ultimately resolved and the lessons applied. One such lesson is that you cannot be prisoners of the past. You need to get unstuck.
You can start here :rolleyes:
But you know all that too, I’m sure.
Doesn’t the evidence of their actions suggest that? If not, then what is the reason for sponsoring the squatters?
Where the hell did you get that? :dubious: Come on now.
No, I really don’t think Israel has thought the strategy through completely, but is simply hoping they’ll just go away on their own somehow, or maybe just learn to be happy in their Bantustans.
Not when those “facts” are exactly what need to be left in the past.
The settlements don’t even exist? And you use the word “facts”?
No. Your claim was that the destruction was “indiscriminate”. Shall I take your changing the subject to mean that you cannot provide a cite for that? If your claim is that it’s indiscriminate in Gaza “even today”, provide a cite for that too. If your claim is that the construction of settlements involves indiscriminate bulldozing, cite that.
Unfortunately, you can’t claim I ‘already knew’ something that seems to bear no passing familiarity with the facts.
I have never said anything of the sort. If you claim I have, cite in. In another thread that you just read and responded to, I actually pointed out possible good faith measures. The entire point of a good faith measure is to influence behavior.
So give proof of your claim or retract it.
Your own cite refutes your earlier claim and shows it to be a factual mistake. Rather than a secret plan that they’ll eventually put into practice, all it shows is that the phrase refers to the historical geography of ancient Israel and that even Likud supports settlements in the West Bank, not ethnically cleansing it. Your own cite, likewise shows that Livni, counter to your claims, actually said that territory needed to be given up.
So, yet again, your own claim was that “Israel continues to solidify its rarely-admitted claim to all of “Eretz Yisrael” as its own,” It remains uncited and is argued against by the cite you just used.
First, show where there is any such “solidification” of claims over all of historical Israel. Second, show how it’s use actually shows that Israel claims all of that territory rather than as a rhetorical trope in reference to ancient Israel. Third, show that settlements are actually a slow motion form of ethnic cleansing that are part of some sort of sinister plan to take all of ancient Israel’s territory, along with this, please explain why Israel hasn’t done it yet and where it expects the Palestinians to go.
Do this with cites.
No, and a cite would be nice. “Taking some land in the West Bank” =/= “a secret plan to take all of the West Bank and either transport all the Palestinians to… somewhere, or just kill them all.”
Again, cite the proof for your claim.
Your own argument. That’s your own claim, that it was solidifying its territorial “claim” over “all” of the West Bank. You’ve argued that this is being done via settlements or that settlements somehow evince this intention (your argument isn’t clear on that point) This means that the Palestinians have to go somewhere. That makes it ethnic cleansing. So your argument is that the Israelis have, for decades now, had a secret claim that all of the West Bank is theirs, that requires ethnic cleansing to accomplish and is being put into motion via slow motion… but such claims fall apart as the Israelis would have to be the laziest, sloppiest ethnic cleansers in history.
So, again, cites for your claims would be nice.
So now your claim is not that Israel want to solidify any claim over the West Bank as its own territory, but will let the Palestinians continue to live there? Then, yet again, explain why they were offered contiguous territory in the West Bank, their own governing power in the PA, their own police force and an eventual sovereign state to boot. Provide an actual cite that what was offered to them was “bantustans”. While I’m at it, may we agree that your claim that “Israel” (which political parties, exactly?) thinks the Palestinians will just go away (through which border, exactly?) is something you simply cannot cite because not only is it physically impossible, but because there’s no evidence for it?
If not, cite that too.
I do use the word facts.
I might start with the fact that you just voiced a truly strange refutation to something nobody anywhere said. I could continue with the fact that of course the settlements exist, but that they’re rather obvious not part of your alleged Israel attempt to take all of the West Bank.
Unless, of course, we’re back to your claim that the Israelis have given that up and will let the Palestinians stay there (and have offered them full territorial integrity and their own government and police force, etc…) or you’re claiming that the Israelis expect the Palestinians to leave as if by magic… if not, then yet again, provide a cite for the non-fact that you’re claiming to be true, that Israel has some sort of plan to take all of the West Bank as its own territory.
The mere existence of the settlements (as I’ve pointed out several times ELvis, often on land that the Palestinians have no territorial claim over in the first place) hardly is evidence of a plan to take the entirety of the West Bank as Israeli territory.
Please provide cites that support your claims.
And I cited it, indulging your request.
No, every time. you’ve simply evaded the point, or tried to drown it out in yet another irrelevant history lecture.
You didn’t even read it, obviously. That, after claiming there’s no such thing, too. :rolleyes:
All right, show me where I said that, or retract that bit of nonsense. And right fucking now, if you please. NOW.
AS I FUCKING TOLD YOU :rolleyes:, I don’t think Israel has thought it through yet.
I will not provide “cites” for your own imagination. You need to provide quotes, quotes, for anything you’ve just claimed I’ve said, or there can be only one conclusion.
-Elvis, your post is a whole three posts above this. Anybody can read it and see that you did not “indulge” me with a cite as to “indiscriminate” bulldozer use, in fact, you provided no cite on that count at all.
-As for your claim that I’ve somehow “evaded” discussions of how Israel can influence Palestinian behavior, I’ll re-quote what I just said and that, for some reason, you just avoided addressing “In another thread that you just read and responded to, I actually pointed out possible good faith measures. The entire point of a good faith measure is to influence behavior. So give proof of your claim or retract it.”
-Your cite does indeed refute your claim, for the reasons I mentioned. including but not limited to Israeli politicians explicitly saying that they do not aim to keep all of the West Bank and the fact that your cite itself was a bait-and-switch that simply showed the use of the term “Eretz Israel” and not any sinister plan to take over the entire West Bank. That is, indeed, why I claimed that there is no such thing… because there is no such thing and I will count your choice not to cite any such thing as proof that you cannot. Your cite showing that the term “Eretz Israel” has been used does not, in fact, refute my correct and factual assertion that there is no plan, secret, quasi-secret, or otherwise, to eventually own all of the West Bank. There just is not. It’s a fact.
-As for your argument, I’ve explained your errors in logic and their implications already, and I’ve already quoted you as that foundation. You said that Israel was going to take the entire West Bank, that settlements were somehow evidence of that fact, and when I queried you as to whether or not you were serious or exaggerating for rhetorical purposes, your answer was “Doesn’t the evidence of their actions suggest that? If not, then what is the reason for sponsoring the squatters?”
That was, what, three or four posts up? Why are you demanding a cite for it? And again, that argument implicitly demands that by making all of the West Bank part of Israel the current Palestinian population would have to go somewhere, especially since your argument relies on the mere existence of settlements to make its claim, and West Bank Palestinian citizens do not live in the settlements. And as you’ve referred to it as a secret/covert plan to make all of the West Bank Israeli territory (remember, in your own words “its rarely-admitted claim to all of “Eretz Yisrael” as its own,”), then obviously Israel either plans to ethnically cleanse the West Bank or hope that the Palestinians vanish by magic. As we know that there’s no such thing as magic…
Your use of caps notwithstanding, I’m quite content in dismantling the non-logical foundations of your argument bit by bit.
-As I’ve also pointed out, and you neglected to respond to, not only did Israel not plan on “bantustans” or the Palestinians somehow fleeing across a border that Jordan wouldn’t let them through, Israel gave the PNA control over the supermajority of Palestinian citizens, let them arm their own police force and agreed to a negotiated strategy which would have seen a contiguous Palestinian state in West Bank territory. Again, I will take the fact that you choose not to provide a cite gainsaying this as a tacit admission that no such cite exists.
-I’ll also point out your argument’s irrational contradiction, in that you’ve now gone on record as claiming that there’s a quasi-secret and already decided course of action for Israel to take ownership of the entirety of the West Bank, but you also claim that it’s not been thought out, even though we’re talking more than 4 decades of history and one of the most hotly debated issues in Israeli society. To say nothing of the fact that your rhetoric obfuscates the difference between Israeli viewpoints and political parties and not even Likud fulfills the strawman role you’ve created of having any sort of plan to take ownership of the entirety of “Judea and Samaria”.
I await cites that I can at least sink my teeth into, or at least none that you offer which refute your own point. Please provide them. As is obvious, the mere fact that the phrase “Eretz Israel” is used by (some) Israelis politicians for rhetorical effect is not proof of your claim that they plan on making the entirety of the West Bank Israeli territory. At least, not any more than one would be justified in saying that “the war on poverty” in the United States means that our government plans on rolling tanks into decaying urban centers and opening fire.
In short, give proof or retract.
So, neither quote nor retraction, huh?
Bye.
Actually you’ll find I quoted you several times and went into quite a bit of detail to examine the logical underpinnings and ramifications of your claims. You’re free to address them at any point, but please do not claim I didn’t post what I just posted.
Speaking of not posting, you stated you provided a cite to back up your claim of “indiscriminate” bulldozing of houses. You have not done so. Please do.
Cites for the rest of your claims would be good too, such as Israel having a secret plan to make the entirety of the West Bank its territory that they seldom ‘admit to’, of what have you. Common sense would say that their not annexing it is a pretty good refutation, as was their willingness to part with roughly 94% of it for a future Palestinian state. You claim otherwise and claim that there mere use of the phrase “Eretz Israel” to refer to historic Israel means that Israel plans on taking the entire West Bank. A cite on that point too would be good.
Pretty much, any cites to back up any of your claims, really.
If your argument is “I don’t like the West Bank settlements even when they’re not built on land that the Palestinians have ever had a claim to.” that’s fine. However as we’ve already covered, your claim is:
Palestine doesn’t exist as a country.
Did you really need to resurrect this thread to respond to THAT statement?
If anyone else needs to post in this thread, please make it something substantive.
Oh, you’re no fun anymore.
Did you really have to zombify *this *thread?