New Israeli Settlement [Archive]

Mycroft

27th December 2006, 09:23 PM

This is just a bad move on Israel's part and I really hope Olmert puts a halt to this.

Overall I tend to agree with you on this. As much reading as I've done on it, Israeli politics is still a mystery to me.

One irony I will point out, this action is taken by the supposed "doves" of Israeli politics. Sharon, continually vilified while in power, closed and consolidated settlements in the West Bank and oversaw the complete withdrawal of Gaza. It was Olmert who authorized this new expansion.

Edited to add:

Saeb Erekat, an aide to Abbas who attended the meeting, said the plans for new West Bank housing were a breach of the 2003 U.S.-backed "road map" peace plan.

Under that accord, Israel agreed to freeze settlement expansion while the Palestinians promised to crack down on militants. The accord broke down as neither side followed through.

To be fair to Israel, it's somewhat disingenuous to expect Israel and only Israel to abide by an agreement. It doesn’t make any sense to criticize Israel for not abiding by the roadmap so long as the Palestinians are not.

Any peace agreement has to be binding both ways or it’s not an agreement.

webfusion

27th December 2006, 09:37 PM

They will be building 100 new family home in a place where before there was only an army barracks.

It is common practice for civilian homes to be built at locations where the Army made a camp first. Much of Israel's development is based on this type of settlement activity (originally called the "Watertower and Stockade" formula). NAHAL is the Israeli term for the IDF branch which pioneered this method.

The article indicates Maskiot (http://www.cfoic.com/index.asp?mainpage=projfocus&id=420) has been such a ("NAHAL") settlement since 1981.
It is not a new project. They're just solidifying the existing one.

Olmert has other fish to fry.
He has many "illegal" settlements to deal with, also, and has not made one single indication of any intent to do so.

Olmert has to cope with the continuing barrages of Palestinian rockets flying into Sderot, as well. The people in Maskiot (and elsewhere on many other hilltops across the West Bank) see their presence as a proper response to the islamic terrorism that continues unabated.

a_unique_person

27th December 2006, 09:53 PM

That's what I can't understand. You do something that antagonises someone else. When they respond, you are justified in doing it even more? In what way is it a "proper" response?

Merko

27th December 2006, 10:20 PM

Overall I tend to agree with you on this. As much reading as I've done on it, Israeli politics is still a mystery to me.

One irony I will point out, this action is taken by the supposed "doves" of Israeli politics. Sharon, continually vilified while in power, closed and consolidated settlements in the West Bank and oversaw the complete withdrawal of Gaza. It was Olmert who authorized this new expansion.

It's no mystery to me. As much as I disliked Sharon, he had the political strength to drive a somewhat coherent agenda with at least a semblance of realism. But even with his extremely hawkish background, he was balancing on a very narrow edge indeed. Olmert is weak, and he knows it. The majority of Israeli voters, who are not only surrounded by enemies in the real world, but who have also been pounded by decades of political fear-mongering propaganda, have no tolerance for weakness. So Olmert feels that he needs to appease them. He needs to do this not despite of it being a provocation, but because it is a provocation. He has no plan for a lasting peace. But that matters less to the voters than the feeling that at least for the present, their leadership has strength.

To be fair to Israel, it's somewhat disingenuous to expect Israel and only Israel to abide by an agreement. It doesn’t make any sense to criticize Israel for not abiding by the roadmap so long as the Palestinians are not.

Sure, and the other way round. Not building new settlements is definitely something Israel can do without risking Israeli lives or whatever is the usual excuse for other Israeli breaches.

Mycroft

27th December 2006, 10:49 PM

Sure, and the other way round. Not building new settlements is definitely something Israel can do without risking Israeli lives or whatever is the usual excuse for other Israeli breaches.

Breach? Breach of what? The Road Map?

I can understand calling it a bad idea or counterproductive, that makes sense. But calling it a breach is nonsensical. In order to breach an agreement there has to be an agreement to breach. The roadmap was never an agreement, it was merely a proposal that never went anywhere.

Merko

27th December 2006, 11:03 PM

Breach? Breach of what? The Road Map?

Actually I was thinking of older agreements, but I can't find anything to back it up. Maybe Israel really never did commit to not taking all of Palestine, bit by bit, and driving the Palestinians into the sea? Well, if they never promised that, they should have.

steverino

27th December 2006, 11:42 PM

Actually I was thinking of older agreements, but I can't find anything to back it up. Maybe Israel really never did commit to not taking all of Palestine, bit by bit, and driving the Palestinians into the sea? Well, if they never promised that, they should have.

:confused: What are you smoking over there in Sweden? (Can I have some?;) )

Mycroft

27th December 2006, 11:49 PM

Actually I was thinking of older agreements, but I can't find anything to back it up. Maybe Israel really never did commit to not taking all of Palestine, bit by bit, and driving the Palestinians into the sea? Well, if they never promised that, they should have.

The issue is that Palestinians also have a role to play in creating peace, and that peace can not be created by Israel alone.

An agreement either binds both sides or it's not an agreement and it doesn't bind anyone.

steverino

27th December 2006, 11:59 PM

They will be building 100 new family home in a place where before there was only an army barracks and a defunct men's prep school. It's wedged in between the Golan Heights, Jordan and the West Bank.

Seriously, how do they work the financing on one of these puppies? I just might be able to swing the payments.

a_unique_person

28th December 2006, 02:38 AM

Typically, the price is very low as settlement in the West Bank is encouraged by subsidies by the state. Many settlers are really there purely for the cheap, subsidised housing.

webfusion

28th December 2006, 06:27 AM

That's what I can't understand. You do something that antagonises someone else. When they respond, you are justified in doing it even more? In what way is it a "proper" response?

Who is antagonizing who?

Israel is told by the palestinians:
"We are implementing a cease-fire, and will enforce it, so please withdraw your troops and refrain from any actions against gaza. The Qassems will be stopped, we promise."

In the past month, Israel has totally, 100%, not made one attempt to respond to the Qassems that are continuing to be fired at them. Even in the past 48 hours, while the IDF and government ministers are clamoring to "do something" to retaliate, or at least, target the launching teams as they are going into action, the Prime Minister of Israel has said -- "NO, we must hold back and do nothing. We are going to honor this cease-fire, even in the breach."

I ask for clarification of your post, a_u_p. Who is antagonizing who?

webfusion

28th December 2006, 06:33 AM

marksman

28th December 2006, 07:13 AM

To be fair to Israel, it's somewhat disingenuous to expect Israel and only Israel to abide by an agreement. It doesn’t make any sense to criticize Israel for not abiding by the roadmap so long as the Palestinians are not.
The Palestinians could fire a million rockets into Israel and it wouldn't justify building settlements in the West Bank. It would justify a lot of other responses, including outright war, but not the building of settlements.

Similarly (but not intending to equate the wrongs here), the Palestinians have no justification for firing rockets into Israel. none.

Any peace agreement has to be binding both ways or it’s not an agreement.
I agree (so to speak). There was never a real agreement not to build settlements. But I don't think settlements are in Israel's best interest.

I also disagree with Merkoi's contention that a majority of Israelis support the expanded settlements. I think most Israelis do not. This is one of the reasons I hate Parliamentary systems. A small minority of Israelies support expanding into the West Bank. And because a Parliamentary system gives disproprtionately large influence ot small minority groups, they get to make demands the majority might oppose, if only to keep the government coalition in place. In my personal opinion (and no, I have no cites), I think this is to placate a minority of Olmert's coallition goverment.

The plan, as stated by Olmert's aide is "He said Israel needs to keep the Jordan Valley, where Maskiot is located, as a security buffer against Islamic militants based in Iraq, Iran and elsewhere". The problem is that it's not a "security buffer" if civilians are living there. A buffer needs to be empty to be useful. With civilians inside, it's just moving the border.

steverino

28th December 2006, 12:05 PM

From AP (By LAURIE COPANS (http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/272651_mideast03.html)):

The future residents of Maskiot say their homes are being financed by right-leaning Jewish donors and the Israeli government and that they will be renting homes built by others.

:( I don't want to rent. I want to buy. Especially since the bonehead landlord may only offer a month-to-month lease.;)

Mycroft

28th December 2006, 01:07 PM

The Palestinians could fire a million rockets into Israel and it wouldn't justify building settlements in the West Bank. It would justify a lot of other responses, including outright war, but not the building of settlements.

I agree. I also agree that the action seems like a bad idea no matter how you slice it.

But realistically, the action isn't a response to anything the Palistinian-Arabs are doing. The decision seems to be a result of internal Israeli politics. I'm not trying to justify the action, I disagree with it too.

The distinction I make is for those such as Merko or AUP who portray this as an Israeli violation of the Roadmap or some other agreement. It can't be a violation if the agreement was never upheld to begin with. Portraying this as a violation of an agreement that the Palestinian-Arabs never upheld is biased and wrong.

a_unique_person

28th December 2006, 01:52 PM

From AP (By LAURIE COPANS (http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/272651_mideast03.html)):

The future residents of Maskiot say their homes are being financed by right-leaning Jewish donors and the Israeli government and that they will be renting homes built by others.

You got this story from AP? How do I even know these future residents exist?

steverino

28th December 2006, 02:14 PM

You got this story from AP? How do I even know these future residents exist?

BYRTFP.:D

Merko

28th December 2006, 04:54 PM

The issue is that Palestinians also have a role to play in creating peace, and that peace can not be created by Israel alone.

An agreement either binds both sides or it's not an agreement and it doesn't bind anyone.

Sure. But Israel agreeing not to confiscate more Palestinian land and not to displace more Palestinians seems to me like a basic precondition for any serious discussions to even start. Kind of like Hamas agreeing that Israel has a basic right to exist, and that Israeli civilians are not legitimate targets.

It seems very hard to imagine the other side engaging in serious peace talks, if you keep taking their territory meanwhile.

webfusion

28th December 2006, 08:05 PM

Mycroft

28th December 2006, 09:18 PM

Sure. But Israel agreeing not to confiscate more Palestinian land...

I see no evidence that any "Palestinian land" is being confiscated to build these buildings. Can you provide evidence?

...and not to displace more Palestinians...

And ditto with displaced Palestinians. Do you have evidence any Palestinian will be displaced to build these buildings?

...seems to me like a basic precondition for any serious discussions to even start. Kind of like Hamas agreeing that Israel has a basic right to exist, and that Israeli civilians are not legitimate targets.

You seem to be carrying a lot of preconceptions with you that may not be grounded in fact.

It seems very hard to imagine the other side engaging in serious peace talks, if you keep taking their territory meanwhile.

What makes it "their" territory?

steverino

28th December 2006, 09:24 PM

It's not "their" territory.
The land was captured from Jordan. In a war that was fought across a 1949 Rhodes Armistice line; certainly it was never a true 'border' by any stretch of the imagination.

The Palestinians have no inherent rights to these areas.
No palestinians were displaced from the hilltop at Maskiot.

Tell that to Jimmy "Apartheid" Carter. At the urging of the Usual Suspects on this forum, I plucked down a bunch of sheckles and bought his book. I just started, but his premise so far is that Israel took advantage of its peace Accord with Egypt and that once Egypt was not militarily in conflict with Israel, Israel moved in against the Accord Agreement and settled the West Bank even though Palestine honored its end of the bargain. Also he writes that when he first visited Israel and thought of the "displaced Palestinians" he connected it to the Indians once in his Georgia who were kicked out and suffered in the Trail of Tears. I'm only on page 25 or so. More later.

Mycroft

28th December 2006, 09:36 PM

Tell that to Jimmy "Apartheid" Carter. At the urging of the Usual Suspects on this forum, I plucked down a bunch of sheckles and bought his book. I just started, but his premise so far is that Israel took advantage of its peace Accord with Egypt and that once Egypt was not militarily in conflict with Israel, Israel moved in against the Accord Agreement and settled the West Bank even though Palestine honored its end of the bargain. Also he writes that when he first visited Israel and thought of the "displaced Palestinians" he connected it to the Indians once in his Georgia who were kicked out and suffered in the Trail of Tears. I'm only on page 25 or so. More later.
Public libraries are great for allowing you to read controversial books without needing to give money to the author.

It may still be possible for you to get your money back if you complain about the book, that way you can read it and still not send Jimmy Carter any money.

a_unique_person

28th December 2006, 09:45 PM

Mycroft

29th December 2006, 12:30 AM

What actual areas do they have any 'rights' to?

That's a good question. Can you think of any rational basis for which to answer it? I can think of two:

1) Any individual Palestinian-Arab has rights to whatever land he owns or has an ownership interest in.

2) Collectively, Palestinians have rights to whatever land they negotiate for in good faith with Israel, as part of a lasting peace agreement as per their responsibilities under UNSCR 242 which spells out the formula of land for peace.

jimtron

29th December 2006, 01:00 AM

The Palestinians have no inherent rights to these areas.
How do inherent rights to land work? Could you provide an example of a group that does have inherent rights to a particular area?

webfusion

29th December 2006, 06:31 AM

jimtron, my point is that the land in question is disputed property, having been an integral part of the Ottoman empire for centuries, and then under the control of the British Mandate for Palestine (including all of Jordan) and then Jordan came about as an independent nation, on 75% of the lands deemed part of the Jewish National Home during the San Remo Conference. Jordan's 'ownership' of all property West of the river (the so-called West Bank) was not recognized as legal, and in 1967, the Israelis threw them out of those areas. The palestinians are not the inherent "owners" of the land, and if they desire any recognition of a State on those lands, they have a really long way to go to convince me (and most other Israelis) that they deserve it.

steverino

29th December 2006, 09:53 AM

Public libraries are great for allowing you to read controversial books without needing to give money to the author.

It may still be possible for you to get your money back if you complain about the book, that way you can read it and still not send Jimmy Carter any money.

I know. Well, Elliott Bay Book Shop is a cool place, and plus they punched my card. Also, by buying it I sort of am forcing myself to read it in its entirety.

marksman

29th December 2006, 10:07 AM

How do inherent rights to land work? Could you provide an example of a group that does have inherent rights to a particular area?

You should probably address that to Merko, as he's the one who implied that Palestinians have such rights.

jimtron

29th December 2006, 11:07 AM

You should probably address that to Merko, as he's the one who implied that Palestinians have such rights.

The question stands to anyone (especially anyone who used the idea of "inherent land rights" while making a point). I'm curious in a general sense, not necessarily in regard to Palestinians, for an example of a people who have inherent land rights, or what "inherent land rights" means.

Pardalis

29th December 2006, 11:29 AM

I really don't understand. Isn't creating this new settlement putting these families in harm's way? It's expected that they will be targets for rocket fire from Palestinian extremists.

:confused:

Merko

29th December 2006, 11:38 AM

I see no evidence that any "Palestinian land" is being confiscated to build these buildings. Can you provide evidence?

The West Bank is part of Palestine.

And ditto with displaced Palestinians. Do you have evidence any Palestinian will be displaced to build these buildings?

I don't need it. Even in the extremely unlikely event that Israeli settlers would confiscate land that is so useless that the Palestinians did not use it (mind you, they are desperate for any land that can be even remotely useful), then they are still confiscating Palestinian land.

What makes it "their" territory?

I believe that the Palestinians should respect Israel's right to exist and have territory, but this request is only reasonable given an equal burden on Israel to respect the right of Palestinians to have their territory. While exact borders can and should be negotiated, no serious negotiations can be expected if either side continues to take territory commonly accepted as belonging to the other side.

But you think it would be perfectly fair if Hamas were to take some Israeli land, if they just had sufficient military force? Just because Hamas never formally agreed to the commonly accepted borders? And you think Israel should still be expected to enter negotiations, even though this was ongoing?

marksman

29th December 2006, 12:14 PM

I believe that the Palestinians should respect Israel's right to exist and have territory, but this request is only reasonable given an equal burden on Israel to respect the right of Palestinians to have their territory.
Hold on. The Palestinians don't have to respect the Israeli's rights to exist only if the Israeli's respect their right to undefined territory?

I think you are linking two things that aren't intuitively linkable.

I agree that Israel should not be settling Maskiot, but I don't think that their doing so provides a justification for Palestinians to kill Israelis.

If you didn't mean that, could you please clarify?

webfusion

29th December 2006, 12:45 PM

The West Bank is part of Palestine.

It is not. There was never a defined national entity called "Palestine" in modern times.

See: San Remo Conference, 1920.

In 1988, the PLO declared officially a "State of Palestine"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinian_State

The PLO envisages the establishment of a State of Palestine to include all or part of the West Bank, the Gaza Strip, and East Jerusalem (the Palestinian territories), living in peace with Israel.

So, some parts are going be part of this New Palestine, and some parts will remain under Israeli sovereignty. The Palestinians can stop their campaign of terror and start negotiating in good faith anytime they wish, to attain their State. Who is stopping them? Not the Israelis, that's for sure!
There is nothing that leads me to understand that the entire West Bank is automatically an entitlement to the palestinians. And certainly they have no case, if all they really want is to establish an armed-to-the-teeth hotbed of islamic terror which remains an active threat to the Israelis.

webfusion

29th December 2006, 12:54 PM

I really don't understand. Isn't creating this new settlement putting these families in harm's way? It's expected that they will be targets for rocket fire from Palestinian extremists.

:confused:

No.

There is currently terrorist rocket fire underway today, against Israeli towns which are not "settlements" on disputed lands --- the firing is aimed at Israel proper. (See:Qassems Continue to Hit Israel (http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/807294.html)
Three rockets were fired at Israel on Thursday, two of which landed near Ashkelon.

This new community of Maskiot is located in a very isolated point of the Jordan Rift Valley, and is not within range of any potential rocket fire that could originate from palestinian-populated areas.

steverino

29th December 2006, 01:50 PM

Then I am cool with getting a place there. There is rocket fire on Chicago's West Side, so I think I'll feel safe and cozy living on this settlement.

steverino

29th December 2006, 01:53 PM

It seems very hard to imagine the other side engaging in serious peace talks, if you keep taking their territory meanwhile. (emphasis mine.)

Consider it borrowing.

Merko

29th December 2006, 08:48 PM

Hold on. The Palestinians don't have to respect the Israeli's rights to exist only if the Israeli's respect their right to undefined territory?

The above sentence makes no sense. I assume you mean "The Palestinians have to respect the Israeli's rights to exist only if the Israeli's respect their right to undefined territory?"

This I agree with. We can't have different standards for Palestinians and Israeli. If we expect Palestinians to cease hostilities in order to make negotiations possible, we should ask no less of Israel. And no more, either.

I agree that Israel should not be settling Maskiot, but I don't think that their doing so provides a justification for Palestinians to kill Israelis.

Who is talking about justification? I think the Palestinians should stop attacking Israeli targets. I think Israel should stop attacking Palestinian targets. While Israel don't stop, I don't think they have any credibility to complain when the Palestinians don't stop their attacks. So I think we definitely need to realise that not only Hamas has to be pressurised here. Israel isn't capable either of moving towards peace of its own accord.

Confiscating land for permanent settlement is probably even worse than entering and leaving. Not that Israel doesn't also kill many more Palestinians than vice versa.

2) Collectively, Palestinians have rights to whatever land they negotiate for in good faith with Israel, as part of a lasting peace agreement as per their responsibilities under UNSCR 242 which spells out the formula of land for peace.

By the same reasoning, Israel only have the right to whatever land they negotiate for in good faith with the Palestinians, and the Palestinians would be free to attack all of Israel meanwhile.

That is not my position. And because I don't apply double standards, I don't think Israel can take Palestinian land either.

Merko

29th December 2006, 08:51 PM

Consider it borrowing.

I think mr Ahmadinejad might wish to borrow some of Israel. I guess you wouldn't mind?

Pardalis

29th December 2006, 09:05 PM

I believe that the Palestinians should respect Israel's right to exist and have territory, but this request is only reasonable given an equal burden on Israel to respect the right of Palestinians to have their territory.

Hold on. The Palestinians don't have to respect the Israeli's rights to exist only if the Israeli's respect their right to undefined territory?

The above sentence makes no sense. I assume you mean "The Palestinians have to respect the Israeli's rights to exist only if the Israeli's respect their right to undefined territory?"

This is giving me a splitting headache.

webfusion

30th December 2006, 06:07 AM

merko, as has already been pointed out to you, the palestinians do not "own" the West Bank. The entire area is filled with historical jewish connections, and the most obvious ones are right HERE: (Image Links)
http://www.bibleplaces.com/images/Hebron_Cave_of_Machpelah_tb_n112799_wr.jpg

and

http://preceptaustin.org/temple%20mount%20from%20above.jpg

As for the Gaza Strip, it was Egyptian territory prior to June 1967, and descendants of those Egyptian-arabs are today in full control of that sector.

Were you aware that in the years prior to 1956, Israel had a great problem with terrorist-fedayyin killing Israeli jews, using Gaza as a base of operations? In '56, the IDF captured Gaza from Egypt, and only after assurances that the terror attacks would not happen any more, they returned the Strip to Egyptian control.
In 1955, Egyptian President Gamal Abdel Nasser was importing arms from the Soviet bloc to build his arsenal for the confrontation with Israel. He announced on August 31, 1955:

"Egypt has decided to dispatch her heroes, the disciples of pharaoh and the sons of Islam and they will cleanse the Land of Israel....There will be no peace on Israel's border because we demand vengeance, and vengeance is Israel's death."

Here we are, in 2006, half a century later, and Gaza is again the source of terrorist attacks against Israelis. And the islamic-fundamentalist leaders of the arabs (from gaza to iran and beyond (http://www.memritv.org/Transcript.asp?P1=991)) make statements which are startlingly similar to those declared by Nasser.

Saddam's final words earlier today were reportedly, "Palestine is Arab."

In 1955, there were no Israeli settlements, such as Maskiot. The same holds true in 1967, when the State of Israel was about to be attacked in a war of total annihilation, yet no jews lived in gaza or the West Bank.
Can you explain it?

Darth Rotor

30th December 2006, 02:40 PM

:( I don't want to rent. I want to buy. Especially since the bonehead landlord may only offer a month-to-month lease.;)
Suggestion for the future home buyer:

Look at the floor plan. Is there a basement? If yes, good, if not, is there a bomb shelter on the property? If not, this design is not a poor one for that subdivision. :cool:

To accessorize your house, ensure you have a Kevlar jacket and a K-Pot. (US Army Helmet.)

DR

steverino

30th December 2006, 03:33 PM

webfusion

30th December 2006, 03:34 PM

Suggestion for the future home buyer:

Look at the floor plan. Is there a basement? If yes, good, if not, is there a bomb shelter on the property? If not, this design is not a poor one for that subdivision.

To accessorize your house, ensure you have a Kevlar jacket and a K-Pot. (US Army Helmet.)

Maskiot happens to be in a very isolated area, and the homes there are constructed just like other homes elsewhere that Israelis live in. Although you are trying to be funny, the reality is: Israeli settlers go about their daily routines without Kevlar vests, and without Kpots.
http://rafah.virtualactivism.net/newsphotos/05/september%2005/Israeli-settlement-1.jpg

BTW:
"If not, this design is (not) a poor one for that subdivision" ---- this sentence contains an extra (unnecessary) "not"

[/grammar police]

steverino

30th December 2006, 03:38 PM

BTW:
"If not, this design is (not) a poor one for that subdivision" ---- this sentence contains an extra (unnecessary) "not"[/grammar police]

Well Saddam's sentence carried no unnecessary "knots."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZIr4MXmKhZY

webfusion

30th December 2006, 03:51 PM

steverino

30th December 2006, 04:04 PM

Have you been to Israel, steverino? You have managed to remain flippant in this thread about your intentions of "moving" to Israel. Aliyah actually is a very important pillar of judaism. Not a joking matter.
I can assure you, from personal experience, that the people who are intending to establish their lives in Maskiot, after the eviction from their homes in Gaza (Shirat Hayam) would absolutely not welcome you into their community.

If you want to buy a home in Israel, I suggest you look HERE:
http://www.israelihomes.com/

I have mentioned this in other posts, but I spent a semester on Kibbutz Ein Hashofet, about a half hour drive south of Haifa, betwen Nazareth and Cesarea. I also kicked around the countryside, and Jerusalem, Eilat, etc. This was in '82, '83, just after the Sabra/Shantilla massacres. I thought Sharon was a dick. Anyway, to stay I would have had to join the army. My parents lost their first-born to drug-related stuff, and told me they didn't want to lose another. It was kind of a big deal. I was probably more naive than brave. Anyway, I would love to go back to visit, but not to live. Buy Israel Bonds and try the veal. I have to now go to my crappy service job, and I am actually terrified that you will find grammatical errors and I don't have time to correct this so Shalom and love- Steve

webfusion

30th December 2006, 04:20 PM

All of which would lead me to believe that you should have more empathy and not be making fun of a situation, that to these people, is a very serious matter of survival.

Anyway, to stay I would have had to join the army.

Are you sure? Who informed you of that? Did you speak to any IDF officers at the time?

Anyway, I would love to go back to visit, but not to live.

So, you are just trying to belittle these settlers and trying to be a joker in this thread.
OK.

Merko

30th December 2006, 04:31 PM

This is giving me a splitting headache.

If you think marksman's sentence made any sense (grammatically, I mean), feel free to explain it. I can't figure out what it's supposed to mean unless that 'don't' was a typo.

merko, as has already been pointed out to you, the palestinians do not "own" the West Bank.

That may be your opinion. And Hamas may believe that Israel does not "own" any land. However, I disagree. While exact borders certainly have to be negotiated, it is hard to think of something more provocative than this.

In 1955, there were no Israeli settlements, such as Maskiot. The same holds true in 1967, when the State of Israel was about to be attacked in a war of total annihilation, yet no jews lived in gaza or the West Bank.
Can you explain it?

I'm not sure what you mean by 'explain'. In 1967, decades (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Irgun_attacks_during_the_1930s) of Israeli terror (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lehi_%28group%29) and ethnic cleansing (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinian_exodus) of Palestinians had just passed. The Palestinians feared--rightly as history would show--that Israel would try to dispossess them also of those areas they still inhabited.

I don't think the wars against Israel were a justifiable intervention. The stated aims went much further than simply protecting Palestinians. However, the Israeli hardly behaved much better, and have not since.

steverino

30th December 2006, 04:52 PM

So, you are just trying to belittle these settlers and trying to be a joker in this thread. OK.

No. I am using humor to belittle those on this thread who are saying, "Look at this settlement. It shows you that the Israeli's are not to be trusted. "

They make a mountain of a molehill. And as I have argued ad nauseum here before, a Settlement can be dismantled, while a suicide bomber's victims will not come back to life. (Some here compare the "outrage" of these settlements with Palestinian agression.)

a_unique_person

30th December 2006, 06:29 PM

If it's a part of a strategy to make the West Bank into a seriers of unviable Bantustans, it's not a molehill.

webfusion

30th December 2006, 09:03 PM

That may be your opinion. And Hamas may believe that Israel does not "own" any land. However, I disagree. While exact borders certainly have to be negotiated, it is hard to think of something more provocative than this.

What I am seeing here is that your overall grasp of historical events regarding palestine is extremely distorted. Why do the borders have to be negotiated? Israel's government has little motivation to negotiate with the palestinians, under the current set of circumstances.

I'm not sure what you mean by 'explain'. In 1967, decades (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Irgun_attacks_during_the_1930s) of Israeli terror (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lehi_%28group%29) and ethnic cleansing (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinian_exodus) of Palestinians had just passed. The Palestinians feared--rightly as history would show--that Israel would try to dispossess them also of those areas they still inhabited.

The first sentence of this wiki article you linked to:
During the Great Uprising (1936-1939) of the Arabs in Palestine, ... more than 320 Jews were killed by Arab attacks.

Who was antagonizing who? The Arabs were making an concerted effort to ethnically cleanse the jews! (See: Hebron, 1929)
The Irgun ("Defense") seemed to be acting as a retaliatory body, more than anything else. Even today, what is the IDF doing? Retaliating against terrorists, and a lot of arabs are still dying as a result of being involved with this terror. It must be recalled that the arabs have chosen terror as a method of warfare, with the aim of destroying the fabric of society, from the bottom up. There must be a price to be paid for this, and that price may indeed be disproportionate.
(see: Lebanon and the war against the Hezbollah terrorists this past summer.
Israel does not occupy Lebanese lands. Yet, a war of terror and wanton destruction was initiated against Israel, by the Iranian-backed islamic terrorists, Hezbollah. In the cease-fire which was directed by the UN, the 2 kidnapped hostage soldiers, Wasserman and Regev, were to be released. They have not been, to this very day.)

For that matter, where is Cpl. Gilad Shalit?

I don't think the wars against Israel were a justifiable intervention. The stated aims went much further than simply protecting Palestinians. However, the Israelis hardly behaved much better, and have not since.

The Israelis have not "behaved much better" than the islamic terrorists and the arab states which seek to destroy her? That is your claim? Wow! I'm awed at your audacity to foist that load upon us here.

Darth Rotor

30th December 2006, 09:32 PM

Maskiot happens to be in a very isolated area, and the homes there are constructed just like other homes elsewhere that Israelis live in. Although you are trying to be funny, the reality is: Israeli settlers go about their daily routines without Kevlar vests, and without Kpots.
http://rafah.virtualactivism.net/newsphotos/05/september%2005/Israeli-settlement-1.jpg

BTW:
"If not, this design is (not) a poor one for that subdivision" ---- this sentence contains an extra (unnecessary) "not"

[/grammar police]
Whoops, I did indeed bugger up the double negative, good catch, my bad, that not did not belong. :(

I looked at the map, and I don't make the assumption that that area will remain peaceful for the long term. It might be just fine today.

Steve, if he wishes to buy the home, would want to be prepared for the long term. One need not wear a K Pot all day every day, just make sure to have one handy. You keep a spare tire in the car, in case you need it. :)

DR

webfusion

31st December 2006, 05:40 AM

E.J.Armstrong

31st December 2006, 09:46 AM

See www.torah.org/learning/integrity/landtheft1.html for helpful definitions on land theft.

None of the proponents for the theft of land has ever answered the question as to why, if the apartheid wall was only about safety, why was Palestinian land stolen to build it.

E.J.Armstrong

31st December 2006, 09:55 AM

Originally posted by webfusion

The Israelis have not "behaved much better" than the islamic terrorists and the arab states which seek to destroy her? That is your claim? Wow! I'm awed at your audacity to foist that load upon us here.

How does collective punishment of an entire body of people constitute behaving much better?
How does killing thousands of women and children constitute behaving much better?
How does assassinating untried people in ways that guaranteee that innocent children will die constitute behaving much better?
How does bulldozing the homes of innocent children constitiute behaving much better?
How does sowing cluster bombs so that innocent children are killed constitute behaving much better?
How does land theft on an enormous scale constitute behaving much better?
How does creating a effective prison camp in Gaza constitute behaving much better?
How does destroying the livliehoods of innocent people constitute behaving much better?

If this is your idea of behaving much better I wonder what your idea of behaving badly represents. I am amazed at your audacity in trying to foist that load on us here.

webfusion

31st December 2006, 11:36 AM

How does collective punishment of an entire body of people constitute behaving much better?

Not true.
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/807458.html

How does killing thousands of women and children constitute behaving much better?

War is hell. Especially if you are the one instigating it.

How does assassinating untried people in ways that guaranteee that innocent children will die constitute behaving much better?

Not true. Most targeted attacks are aimed precisely and have killed only the people they are aimed at.

How does bulldozing the homes of innocent children constitiute behaving much better?

Homes were bulldozed, for various reasons. Those homes are not owned by children. As you are certainly well aware, they are, by and large, owned by families of terrorists.

How does sowing cluster bombs so that innocent children are killed constitute behaving much better?

Sowing? They were dropped in a full-scale 21st century mini-war, during which missiles and bombs were flying in both directions. You can argue that certain specific types of munitions such as cluster-bomblets are horrible, but so are atomic bombs, which may also be considered a viable option in war.

Several Qassam rockets were fired from the Gaza Strip into Israel on Friday. One landed in a residential part of a kibbutz in the Sha'ar Hanegev Regional Council and damaged some of the houses.

Israel has not responded to any of these Qassem rockets over the past month. The IDF restraint in the face of these attacks is remarkable. These palestinian violations of a cease-fire are outrageous, to say the least. Thank goodness that these rockets are not killing innocent Israeli kids, which appears to be their intent.

How does land theft on an enormous scale constitute behaving much better?

The palestinians "own" nothing. The lands were never theirs to begin with.
Even the Ottoman titles are of dubious validity, since the entire land in dispute today was expropriated from the jews by conquests over the centuries, as you very well know, and the jews never recognized those invaders as "owning" the land. This is the basis for jewish law (halacha), which you certainly seem to be aware of, so I won't bother going into detail.

How does creating a effective prison camp in Gaza constitute behaving much better?

Prison camp? Not true. It is a camp for breeding terrorism.
In other developments, two members of Hamas's military wing were killed on Friday in an explosion in Gaza City, probably caused by the mishandling of explosives.
The two, Hussam al-Zamili, 23, and Mohammed al-Masri, 24, belonged to the section of the organization that is responsible for manufacturing weapons. A Hamas spokesman said that they were killed, and three others wounded, in the course of "their work."

How does destroying the livliehoods of innocent people constitute behaving much better?

Israel provides for the livelihoods of millions of arab-palestinians daily. Including tens of thousands who live in Gaza and enter Israel to work, because their own local economy is essentially FUBAR, since HAMAS ***hat terrorists are running things into the ground.

If this is your idea of behaving much better I wonder what your idea of behaving badly represents.

Keep wondering. Israel is perfectly capable of doing much, much worse when pushed against the wall! However, because of our moral fortitude and cultural values, the arab-palestinians (and the arab-lebanese, this past summer) have suffered minimally under the circumstances in wars thrust upon us by islamic terrorists who seem to be leading the way for innocent arab peoples.

I am amazed at your audacity in trying to foist that load on us here.

I await Merko's reply. It's his claim that Israel is morally equal to islamic jihadists.

steverino

31st December 2006, 01:03 PM

A few quickies:

It was just established that Steverino does not plan on buying a home or living in Israel. He was merely making conversation, and attempting to be a joker.

Israeli law also requires you to keep a reflective vest in your car, as well as an emergency triangle.

Dude. It's New Years. Lighten up. The Middle East crisis will not be solved by us on this forum, nor will our points be personaly considered by those who call the shots in Palestine or Israel. I think a joke is a joke, and it is valid to lighten things up on a forum. (Case in point, the website: cats that look like Hitler, but I digress)

As A_U_P wisely stated, and I paraphrase, this may just have to go in the "too difficult to solve" file.

webfusion

31st December 2006, 01:35 PM

You're welcome to keep making with the jokes, steverino, if that's your style.

Myself, my relatives and my friends will keep guard against the ascension of the islamic jihadi maniacs whose aim is to kill us. They will not prevail, of that I can assure you.
You see, steverino, while you declined to remain in Israel, I did the opposite and moved there. I am an Israeli, and proud of it. Nothing is too difficult for us to solve.

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/807105.html

(Case in point, the website: cats that look like Hitler, but I digress)

I call Godwin.

steverino

31st December 2006, 01:43 PM

You're welcome to keep making with the jokes, steverino, if that's your style.

OMG! It's your style too. Yesterday you made a joke here:

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=71486

POST #4

"What I want to see is a pig run a race against a camel.
Now, that would be exciting."

webfusion

31st December 2006, 01:48 PM

I often make jokes and provide some sarcasm here on JREF, where appropriate, and certainly not at the expense of my fellow countrymen who are trying to survive as best they can.
Your humor, IMO, is misplaced and misdirected.
So was the 'funny stuff' from DR.

Carry on.

steverino

31st December 2006, 01:55 PM

I often make jokes and provide some sarcasm here on JREF, where appropriate

Well I anxiously await more of your (un)fettered wit in '07 Web.

Shalom.

The Fool

31st December 2006, 02:25 PM

You see, steverino, while you declined to remain in Israel, I did the opposite and moved there. I am an Israeli, and proud of it. Nothing is too difficult for us to solve.

So does this make you a better man?... a better Jew? more patriotic? more richeous? ... braver?

Why the hell you choose to stoop to this sort of cheap trash is beyond me. I think you should apologise.

Darth Rotor

31st December 2006, 02:48 PM

A few quickies:

a) "Steve, if he wishes to buy the home, would want to be prepared for the long term." ----- It was just established that Steverino does not plan on buying a home or living in Israel. He was merely making conversation, and attempting to be a joker.

b) "I looked at the map, and I don't make the assumption that that area will remain peaceful for the long term." ---- On what do you base that?
http://www.geocities.com/m_yericho/jordan.htm
19 jewish communities are thriving in this area. Are you saying they all should have no expectation of long-term peace?

c) "One need not wear a K Pot all day every day, just make sure to have one handy." ---- No civilians are issued combat helmets anywhere in Israel.

d) "You keep a spare tire in the car, in case you need it."
Israeli law also requires you to keep a reflective vest in your car, as well as an emergency triangle. And how, exactly, does this relate to people living in their homes, and being safe and secure in the communities they have built?
http://palestinefacts.org/pf_1967to1991_4thgeneva.php
Web:

I hope you are wearing red carpet friendly clothes as you read this, for you have been declared a winner. You just won the "Sith Society Obtuse Poster of the Week" award. Congratulations. :D

*dons party hat, tosses confetti*

Your reward is a nickel, so you can rent either a clue or a sense of humor, whichever enables the light to go on inside that opaque brain housing group of yours.

The linkage between the K-Pot and spare tire is "you keep some things handy in case you need them, not because you expect to use them
everyday."

ETA: On second thought, I think I can find a local Texan to make a "Kill an Arab a day, just to stay proficient" T-shirt for you. I am guessing such a T-shirt be a fine addition to your wardrobe. Would you like one? I think you'd wear it well.

It could be lettered in either English, or Spanish, depending on the shop I take the idea to.

Now, tell me if I am joking, or not. Guess right, and the T-shirt can be yours. I'll even pay postage.

DR

marksman

31st December 2006, 04:58 PM

The above sentence makes no sense. I assume you mean "The Palestinians have to respect the Israeli's rights to exist only if the Israeli's respect their right to undefined territory?"
My apologies for the typo. The word "don't" was supposed to have been deleted.

This I agree with. We can't have different standards for Palestinians and Israeli.
But it is different standard. "Right to exist" means mass slaughter. "Respect their right to undefines territory" does not. It's totally different wrongs and totally different standards.

Your sentence indicates that if Israel violates Palestinian territory, then the Palestinians have the right to slaughter every Israeli they can kill. Hamas appears to agree with that view. Is that really your position?

If not, then you don't actually think that the Israelis' right to exist is predicated on their respecting Palestine's imagined borders. You, like most reasonable people. believe that the rights are not actually tied to one another, but that the consequence of their respective wrongs should be proportional to the violation itself.

In other words, Israel taking land does not justify murder and Palestinian murder doesn't justify Israel taking land.

If we expect Palestinians to cease hostilities in order to make negotiations possible, we should ask no less of Israel. And no more, either.
But I'm not asking about that. I'm asking about the inverse. If Palestine refuses to respect Israeli existence, does that give Israel the right to take their land? And if Israel takes some Palestinian land, does that give Palestine the right to kill all Israelis?

webfusion

31st December 2006, 05:14 PM

...if Israel violates Palestinian territory...

ALL of Israel is palestine territory, according to the islamic jihadis who control the palestinian government.

Working from that basic point, it is nonsensical to try making any differentiations about one settlement or another. Tel Aviv is the same as Maskiot, in their eyes. Israel has occupied their entire land - and "palestine" requires liberation from the jews.

What part of that is not understood by now?

webfusion

31st December 2006, 05:22 PM

...I think you should apologise.

I care not one iota about what you think. You are, IMO, a tiny speck in the vast dimension of worldwide anti-Israel propogandists who ignore the facts in favor of bashing my nation whenever possible.

Steverino is not inclined to do that, and is an obvious supporter of Israel, and I am not angry with him, just a bit disappointed that he chose to make fun of a serious question.

See ya around, TF.

The Fool

31st December 2006, 05:26 PM

I care not one iota about what you think.
I know....but don't let me get in the way of you scolding the less richeous Jews.

steverino

31st December 2006, 05:43 PM

I have seen evidence in many threads of THE FOOL being a righteus gentile.
Now, it is New Years. How about a big group hug?

Twilek

1st January 2007, 11:43 AM

[Grammar Police mode]'Righteous'[/Grammar Police mode]

webfusion

1st January 2007, 12:27 PM

as in -- "righteous indignation"

The Israeli government is now reportedly trying to halt the Maskiot project.
The people involved say: "The plan is legal and cannot be stopped." (http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1167467633674&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull) - Jordan Valley Regional Council head Dubi Tal, quoted in the Jerusalem POST today.

Merko

1st January 2007, 02:04 PM

Why do the borders have to be negotiated? Israel's government has little motivation to negotiate with the palestinians, under the current set of circumstances.

And Hamas has little motivation to negotiate with the Israeli. But ok, maybe we should just accept Hamas' proposed borders without negotiation then, because they don't want to negotiate. How reasonable...

The Irgun ("Defense") seemed to be acting as a retaliatory body, more than anything else.

So is Hamas.

Even today, what is the IDF doing? Retaliating against terrorists, and a lot of arabs are still dying as a result of being involved with this terror.

But Hamas and company are retaliating against Israel, and a lot of Israeli are still dying as a result of being involved with the Israeli terror.

It must be recalled that the arabs have chosen terror as a method of warfare, with the aim of destroying the fabric of society, from the bottom up. There must be a price to be paid for this, and that price may indeed be disproportionate.

Replace 'Arabs' with 'Israeli' and you have an exact carbon copy of Hamas idelogy there.

Israel does not occupy Lebanese lands. Yet, a war of terror and wanton destruction was initiated against Israel, by the Iranian-backed islamic terrorists, Hezbollah.

Eh, they attacked a border post. That was very wicked of them, absolutely condemnable, but it was not a 'war of terror and wanton destruction'.

The Israelis have not "behaved much better" than the islamic terrorists and the arab states which seek to destroy her? That is your claim? Wow! I'm awed at your audacity to foist that load upon us here.

They are killing many more Palestinians than vice versa, they are keeping Palestinians isolated in ghettos, while the reverse is not true, they are discriminating against Palestinian Israeli citizens, they have, as I have shown, been engaged in terror and ethnic cleansing, they keep taking Palestinian land by force, they keep destroying the property of Palestinians as collective punishment, et cetera. I am not interested in squabbling over which side may be worse than the other. I'm not interested in taking sides. There are different perspectives. However, Israel is clearly very, very, very far from being innocent. The same must of course also be said for the Palestinians.

Not true. Most targeted attacks are aimed precisely and have killed only the people they are aimed at.

The same goes for Hamas' attacks. Too bad most of their attacks (just like most of Israel's attacks) are untargeted and are overwhelmingly killing civilians.

Homes were bulldozed, for various reasons. Those homes are not owned by children.

Buses were bombed, for various reasons. Those buses are not owned by children.

You can argue that certain specific types of munitions such as cluster-bomblets are horrible, but so are atomic bombs, which may also be considered a viable option in war.

Same for suicide attacks.

Even the Ottoman titles are of dubious validity, since the entire land in dispute today was expropriated from the jews by conquests over the centuries, as you very well know, and the jews never recognized those invaders as "owning" the land.

You forget that the Jews expropriated it from the people who were there before! Just read the Bible to see what I mean. Maybe some surviving member of one of those tribes could pop up and lay claim to all of Israel. I'm sure the Israeli government would evacuate immediately!

Israel is perfectly capable of doing much, much worse when pushed against the wall!

So are Hamas. Stop pushing...

Your sentence indicates that if Israel violates Palestinian territory, then the Palestinians have the right to slaughter every Israeli they can kill.

It does not. If Israel violates Palestinian territory, then the Palestinians do not get the right to violate Israeli territory. However, Israel cannot credibly complain when they perform these violations themselves. Specifically, it has no credibility when Israel asks that Hamas recognise the right of Israel to exist (to "Respect their right to undefined territory" as you might put it) when Israel does not do the same for Palestine.

And if Israel takes some Palestinian land, does that give Palestine the right to kill all Israelis?
No. If the Palestinians kill some Israeli, does that give Israel the right to kill all Palestinians?

webfusion

1st January 2007, 02:13 PM

Merko is going directly to my "ignore" list, as of this minute.

He most assuredly deserves it.

steverino

1st January 2007, 02:14 PM

they keep destroying the property of Palestinians

I thought you said the Israeli's were reclaiming Palestinian land. Here you are saying that they are "destroying" the land. Why would these conniving Jew-bastards destroy what they have been stealing for 60 years?

webfusion

1st January 2007, 02:45 PM

Why would these conniving Jew-bastards destroy what they have been stealing for 60 years?

I know that you are being sarcastic, but still, is there a need for this term to be employed? It's pretty harsh, even in an attempt to make a point.

Also, I think you will find that the jewish/zionist invasion/land-stealing (as it is incorrectly defined by anti-zionist propogandists) and the beginning of the conflict in palestine started in the 1880's, which is considerably longer than 60 years.

If the settlements are the actual issue (and obviously, with the mounds of evidence at hand, they aren't), then the 1970's would be the target date we can refer to, after the Yom Kippur War.

(see: Gush Emunim, 1976 -- Sebastia)

steverino

1st January 2007, 03:05 PM

I know that you are being sarcastic, but still, is there a need for this term to be employed? It's pretty harsh, even in an attempt to make a point.

I appologize. Merko really has pissed me off in his above post, to accuse Israeli Jews of ethnic cleansing, and the whole litany of so-called Zionist abuses while ignoring your fine posts, and the truths they contain.

As I am Jewish I used those ugly terms to make a point much like a black might use the n-word in sarcastically describing a racial bigot's point of view.

Again, I have put Merko in a back-burner catagory and cannot dignify his litany with a response. While others who post here can be extremely critical of Zionism, most bring an educated, robust POV to the table worth examining. Even if we disagree, I believe that deep down they want what I want, which is peace, and a solution that is even-handed to all sides. I do not put Merko in this catagory.

Merko

1st January 2007, 03:56 PM

I thought you said the Israeli's were reclaiming Palestinian land. Here you are saying that they are "destroying" the land.

No I'm not. I'm saying they are destroying Palestinian property. Here is a website of an organisation that works to put an end to this:
http://www.icahd.org/eng/

Note how many very fine and respectable Israeli/Jews are putting a lot of work into this excellent effort towards a realistic peace.

If you cannot answer my arguments, then I'm sorry, but it seems to me you are immune to reason. You have decided that one side is good and the other side is pure evil, and then of course facts can be very disturbing.

Eos of the Eons

1st January 2007, 04:05 PM

Hey webfusion and steverino, I'm just wanting to thank you for your informative posts. With past fighting and current states of minds being so vastly far apart when it comes to palestinians and israelis, I can't ever think there will be peace.

Could you imagine the two populations living together as people do here in Canada every day? I don't care if a muslim is living in the house next to mine, and they don't seem to care that they have an atheist next to them (they don't know I'm a heathen, but I wonder if they would really care). At least I don't fear every day that they will kill me for my beliefs, or for thinking I'm taking up a bit of land they feel is theirs by some right. Heck, I don't even have to fear that a native population will suddenly try to gain what they figure was theirs decades ago. Maybe some would like to try, but I sure don't have to worry about being blown up every day because of past disputes over lands.

It saddens me that webfusion may be gone tomorrow because of a suicide bomb or other means. You have my deepest respect for trying to explain things.

steverino

1st January 2007, 09:38 PM

The Fool

1st January 2007, 09:59 PM

but to accuse Israeli Jews of committing genocide

Where? I'd like to take them up on that point as it is fairly easy to demonstrate that no Genocides have occured (to my knowledge)...who claimed this?

a_unique_person

2nd January 2007, 04:16 AM

Eons, I am flattered by your remarks. At this point in the forum, I feel there are two sides who argue here. One is the side that wants a two state solution to the Palestinian/Israeli problem, the other is the side of hate-bating. I feel that those who argue here for the dignity of the Palestinian child, or hard working parent caught in the middle, make valid points and also reflect much of the world's opinion. I personally feel Arafat let his people down and grabbed the cash. He could have been a Nelson Mandela. I am saying I get it that there are two sides to the coin, but to accuse Israeli Jews of committing genocide and making other tasteless untrue claims does not serve to progress the dilogue in any meaningful way.

I think that Arafat was not capable of being Nelson Mandela, but a genuine Nelson Mandela is so rare that does not surprise me. I am just guessing here, but just as Web Fusion has a personal interest in Israel/Palestine, so has Demon. It sounds like missiles weren't heading for him or people he knows personally, but other forms of violence were.

marksman

2nd January 2007, 08:40 AM

It does not. If Israel violates Palestinian territory, then the Palestinians do not get the right to violate Israeli territory.
Then why did you write (post 41) that you agreed with the sentence "The Palestinians have to respect the Israeli's rights to exist only if the Israeli's respect their right to undefined territory"

You are saying that if Israel does not respect their territorial rights, the Palestinians do not have to respect their right to exist. Do you agree with that or not?

However, Israel cannot credibly complain when they perform these violations themselves. Specifically, it has no credibility when Israel asks that Hamas recognise the right of Israel to exist (to "Respect their right to undefined territory" as you might put it) when Israel does not do the same for Palestine.
When does Israel not do that? Israel has consistently stated they recognize their right to exist. Isn't that why they withdrew from Gaza?

No. If the Palestinians kill some Israeli, does that give Israel the right to kill all Palestinians?
Pick an argument, Merko, and stick to it. In post 41, you agreed with my hypothetical statement that if Israelis violate a right, Palestinians can violate Israeli rights. Now you claim the reverse.

Merko

2nd January 2007, 10:48 AM

I think that Arafat was not capable of being Nelson Mandela, but a genuine Nelson Mandela is so rare that does not surprise me.

Nelson Mandela is no saint of non-violence either: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/African_National_Congress#Violent_political_resist ance

However, clearly Arafat failed miserably to work against corruption in the PLO.

Then why did you write (post 41) that you agreed with the sentence "The Palestinians have to respect the Israeli's rights to exist only if the Israeli's respect their right to undefined territory"

You are saying that if Israel does not respect their territorial rights, the Palestinians do not have to respect their right to exist. Do you agree with that or not?

I must apologise for not reading the quote properly. It should say "Israel's right to exist", not "the Israeli's right to exist". I read it as the former because that is the usual phrase and I expected an equivalency.

Additionally, I'm unsure what you mean by the word "have". No one "has" to do anything. I wish that the Palestinians respect Israel's right to exist. I wish that the Israeli respect Palestine's right to exist. I do not believe that asking for one of these things, while ignoring the other (or using terms like "undefined territory" to belittle it) has any credibility. I do not believe that the outside world should force one of these things, but not the other. It is the latter opinion I refer to as the Palestinians not "having" to do it unless the Israeli reciprocate.

When does Israel not do that? Israel has consistently stated they recognize their right to exist. Isn't that why they withdrew from Gaza?

They are moving in and out, in and out. This clearly shows that, in practice, they do not recognise their right to exist. The continous expropriation of Palestinian land emphasises this more clearly than anything else.

Darth Rotor

2nd January 2007, 11:23 AM

Why would these conniving Jew-bastards destroy what they have been stealing for 60 years?
I know that you are being sarcastic, but still, is there a need for this term to be employed? It's pretty harsh, even in an attempt to make a point.
Thin skin much, web?

Steve's sarcasm came across loud and clear, and it was a very effective tool in his reply. Would you also suggest that Richard Pryor wasn't allowed to entitle his second album "That N!gg3r's Crazy!" He did, and I bought it in 1974. I laughed until my ribs hurt.

Get over yourself.

DR

steverino

2nd January 2007, 11:30 AM

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

...A similar term with the same intent was used by the Nazi administration in Germany under Adolf Hitler. When an area under Nazi control had its entire Jewish population removed, whether by driving the population out, by deportation to Concentration Camps, and/or murder, the area was declared judenrein, (lit. "Jew Clean"): "cleansed of Jews".(cf. racial hygiene). (refer to Robert Brinkman aka b dub's novel "ethnic cleansing"

"...they have, as I have shown, (He means the Israeli Jews) been engaged in terror and ethnic cleansing,..."- Murky-Merko

THE FOOL- You are correct. I meant to quote Murky saying "ethnic cleansing" not "genocide." It is in some instances a synonym, in some instances not.

marksman

2nd January 2007, 11:59 AM

I must apologise for not reading the quote properly. It should say "Israel's right to exist", not "the Israeli's right to exist". I read it as the former because that is the usual phrase and I expected an equivalency.
Actually, you didn't just read that quote, you wrote it, in an attempt to rewrite a question I wrote very badly (and for which I apologized). Just saying. :P

I wish that the Palestinians respect Israel's right to exist. I wish that the Israeli respect Palestine's right to exist. I do not believe that asking for one of these things, while ignoring the other (or using terms like "undefined territory" to belittle it) has any credibility.
Well, the outside world should ask both to do it. The question then becomes what constitutes not recognizing their right to exist?

I started this thread as a criticism of Israel's decision to build a settlement in Maskiot, and I don't mean to defend their decision. But is building a settlement in the West Bank a denial of Palestine's right to exist? Maskiot isn't displacing any Palestinian homes, it isn't destroying Palestinian infrastructure and it isn't killing any Palestinians.

Is a border incursion the same as denying Palestine's right to exist? Even as the Maskiot plans were announced, Olmert was negotiating with Abbas to restart peace negotiations.

Merko, it appears we both agree that Israel's actions in Maskiot do not justify Palestinians trying to kill Israelis (and vice versa). But I really don't understand what you mean by Israel violating Palestine's right to exist.

They are moving in and out, in and out. This clearly shows that, in practice, they do not recognise their right to exist.
How so? All it illustrates to me is that Israel doesn't recognize the border that others do. That border being the 1967 border that no group of Palestinians has ever regonized (to my knowledge) as being legitimate.

I don't think we can define a recognition of Palestine's right to exist as being contingent on recognition of one's borders. Lots of nations have border disoutes and yet recognize one another's rights to exist.

steverino

2nd January 2007, 12:59 PM

But I really don't understand what you mean by Israel violating Palestine's right to exist.

None of us do, not even those here who scrutinize Israeli aggression. That is why he is a waste of time.

Merko

2nd January 2007, 01:27 PM

THE FOOL- You are correct. I meant to quote Murky saying "ethnic cleansing" not "genocide." It is in some instances a synonym, in some instances not.

It is never a synonym. Genocide is one way to achieve ethnic cleansing. The term ethnic cleansing only refers to the result, which is an ethnically 'clean' area, in effect an area where a certain ethnic group does not live.

I have not accused Israel of committing genocide, because Israel has never committed any genocide (though the Torah favourably describes several genocides commanded by Jahve and committed in ancient times, I do not confound ancient 'Israel' with the modern, and the veracity of these histories can of course be questioned).

Well, the outside world should ask both to do it. The question then becomes what constitutes not recognizing their right to exist?

If Palestine is to exist, it has to exist somewhere. When Israel decides to take more and more land that is commonly considered to be Palestinian, I don't think they acknowledge the right for any Palestine to exist. Note that the UN resolution that recognises Israel refers to a specific set of Israeli borders, and thus implicitely defines these areas as not belonging to Israel. If Ahmadinejad would change his tune saying that Israel is perfectly free to exist, but would at the same time start invading Israeli territory, then would we believe him? I would not. Note that he frequently spouts ideas that are never taken (or meant) seriously, such as that Israel should be moved to Europe for example.

I don't think we can define a recognition of Palestine's right to exist as being contingent on recognition of one's borders. Lots of nations have border disoutes and yet recognize one another's rights to exist.

I agree, however disputing a border is very different from actually expropriating and possessing land for permanent settlement. Israel has been doing this continuously, and although I doubt they would start a settlement in the midst of any major Palestinian city (except for Eastern Jerusalem, perhaps), there does not seem to be any part of Palestine that Israel considers off limit.

marksman

2nd January 2007, 03:02 PM

If Palestine is to exist, it has to exist somewhere. When Israel decides to take more and more land that is commonly considered to be Palestinian, I don't think they acknowledge the right for any Palestine to exist.
In which cae, you appear to be talking a different language than the rest of us. The right to exist as a nation state is different than the right to occupy any given amount of land.

Certainly, at some point, one nation has taken so much land that the nation ceases to exist (or becomes impossible to exist), but Israel hasn't come close to such a state.

Note that the UN resolution that recognises Israel refers to a specific set of Israeli borders, and thus implicitely defines these areas as not belonging to Israel.
That UN resolution recognizes the 1948 borders. Are you saying that Israel doesn't recognize Palestine's right to exist unless and until it retreats to the 1948 borders?! I don't know anybody who considers that a feasible solution.

I agree, however disputing a border is very different from actually expropriating and possessing land for permanent settlement.
That's exactly what a border dispute is! It's all a border dispute is: who gets to control, exploit and dwell on the disputed land.

Israel has been doing this continuously, and although I doubt they would start a settlement in the midst of any major Palestinian city (except for Eastern Jerusalem, perhaps), there does not seem to be any part of Palestine that Israel considers off limit.

Well, the Gaza Strip presently is considered off limits, at a minimum, as evidence by the fact they Israel actually removed settlements from the area.

Your argument would have more validity if Maskiot were not on the fringes of the West Bank. But as it stands, it's a classic border dispute, particularly since Palestine's borders have been undefined since the Arab nations (particularly Syria, Jordan and Egypt) rejected the UN resolution in 1948 and occupied Palestine themselves until 1967 when Israel drove them out. As far as I know, neither Hamas nor Fatah recognize either the 1948 or 1967 borders as legitimate political delineations for Palestine.

Again, I am not defending Israel's decision to settle on Maskiot. I support Israel unilaterally drawing a border if Palestine won't negotiate a border in good faith with Israel (which it has to date refused to do). But since I think a negotiated border is better than a unilateral one, in my opinion, naked land grabs like this one make a negotiated settlement even less likely.

steverino

2nd January 2007, 03:38 PM

In which cae, you appear to be talking a different language than the rest of us. The right to exist as a nation state is different than the right to occupy any given amount of land.

Certainly, at some point, one nation has taken so much land that the nation ceases to exist (or becomes impossible to exist), but Israel hasn't come close to such a state.

That UN resolution recognizes the 1948 borders. Are you saying that Israel doesn't recognize Palestine's right to exist unless and until it retreats to the 1948 borders?! I don't know anybody who considers that a feasible solution.

That's exactly what a border dispute is! It's all a border dispute is: who gets to control, exploit and dwell on the disputed land.

Well, the Gaza Strip presently is considered off limits, at a minimum, as evidence by the fact they Israel actually removed settlements from the area.

Your argument would have more validity if Maskiot were not on the fringes of the West Bank. But as it stands, it's a classic border dispute, particularly since Palestine's borders have been undefined since the Arab nations (particularly Syria, Jordan and Egypt) rejected the UN resolution in 1948 and occupied Palestine themselves until 1967 when Israel drove them out. As far as I know, neither Hamas nor Fatah recognize either the 1948 or 1967 borders as legitimate political delineations for Palestine.

Again, I am not defending Israel's decision to settle on Maskiot. I support Israel unilaterally drawing a border if Palestine won't negotiate a border in good faith with Israel (which it has to date refused to do). But since I think a negotiated border is better than a unilateral one, in my opinion, naked land grabs like this one make a negotiated settlement even less likely.

Again, wasting your time on this guy...Yull see.

Merko

3rd January 2007, 01:18 AM

Certainly, at some point, one nation has taken so much land that the nation ceases to exist (or becomes impossible to exist), but Israel hasn't come close to such a state.

This is where we disagree. To me, the important criterion is not that Israel has actually taken all of the land, but that it does not appear to respect any Palestinian borders: neither the 1948 ones, nor the 1967 ones, neither any borders Israel itself has suggested.

That UN resolution recognizes the 1948 borders. Are you saying that Israel doesn't recognize Palestine's right to exist unless and until it retreats to the 1948 borders?!

No. I don't think they have to retreat. I'm saying they should stop advancing. I think it would be a good show of intent to initiate a retreat (as Sharon did, although that now seems to be reversed), but I do not think it is realistic to ask for a full retreat or even a very considerable one until a mutual agreement is reached.

Well, the Gaza Strip presently is considered off limits, at a minimum, as evidence by the fact they Israel actually removed settlements from the area.

They did, which was a very good thing, a glimmering light of hope from the least expected source. However, if this is taken to mean that the Gaza strip - a tiny, crowded ghetto - is the "Palestine" whose existance Israel recognises the right of, then I think it is worthy of no more consideration than Ahmadinejads fantasies of Israel moving to Europe.

As far as I know, neither Hamas nor Fatah recognize either the 1948 or 1967 borders as legitimate political delineations for Palestine.

I believe the PLO does, though Hamas obviously do not acknowledge any Israeli borders.

marksman

3rd January 2007, 06:04 AM

This is where we disagree. To me, the important criterion is not that Israel has actually taken all of the land, but that it does not appear to respect any Palestinian borders: neither the 1948 ones, nor the 1967 ones, neither any borders Israel itself has suggested.
Nobody respected the 1948 borders, not Palestine, not Egypt, not Lebanon, not Syria, not Israel. Nobody. The 1967 borders are entirely arbitrary, the function of Israeli occupation after driving Jordan and Egypt out of the area. And when ISrael "suggests" a border, it's just that: a suggestion. A suggestion is not a promise, not a commitment, not a contract. It's a suggestion, usually contingent on something else like.... a cessation of Palestinian violence against Israel. When those contingencies fail to materialize it would be absurd to require Israel to adhere to a mere suggestion.

No. I don't think they have to retreat. I'm saying they should stop advancing.
And on that we agree. But to state that advancing is the same as not recognizing their right to exist at all is rank hyperbole.

I think it would be a good show of intent to initiate a retreat (as Sharon did, although that now seems to be reversed)
Is Israel settling Gaza again? If not, then your statement is clearly false.

They did, which was a very good thing, a glimmering light of hope from the least expected source.
Really? The least expected source of hope in the area is Israel? You get more hope from say... Hamas? Or Syria? Or Iran? Wow. That's a remarkable assertion.

However, if this is taken to mean that the Gaza strip - a tiny, crowded ghetto - is the "Palestine" whose existance Israel recognises the right of
If you take it to mean that you need to re-read since I never implied such a thing. Once again, a border dispute is not failing to recognize the other side's right to exist.

I believe the PLO does, though Hamas obviously do not acknowledge any Israeli borders.
You are wrong. The PLO has never stated what borders they find acceptable. They do not recognize the 1948 borders, the 1967 borders or any other borders of which I am aware.

You are criticizing Israel for failing to respect borders that nobody respects. It is a common error I often see. People assume the 1967 borders are going to become the final negotiated Israeli-Palestinian border and then criticize Israel for violating what they imagine will be the solution. But none of the actors in the area have ever said that or agreed to it.

Merko

3rd January 2007, 04:12 PM

Really? The least expected source of hope in the area is Israel?

Duh, not Israel, but Ariel Sharon, the well-known political hawk and accused war criminal (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ariel_sharon#Sabra_and_Shatila_massacre).

You are wrong. The PLO has never stated what borders they find acceptable. They do not recognize the 1948 borders, the 1967 borders or any other borders of which I am aware.

You may remember this story (http://www.aljazeera.com/me.asp?service_ID=11289) from last year. I think it is widely agreed that it was Hamas that backed down from this offer.

You are criticizing Israel for failing to respect borders that nobody respects. It is a common error I often see. People assume the 1967 borders are going to become the final negotiated Israeli-Palestinian border and then criticize Israel for violating what they imagine will be the solution. But none of the actors in the area have ever said that or agreed to it.

Look. For Hamas, it is clear, based on their rhetorics, that they don't recognise Israel's right to exist. For the PLO, it appears to me that they do. They do not confiscate Israeli land, for example. And they regularly make statements (like the one I linked to above) suggesting that they would agree, for example, to the 1967 borders. I think it would be much better if they signed a formal document (like the one that was suggested), so I'm not entirely happy with their position on this issue.

For Israel, I see no support for the theory that they accept the right of Palestine to exist, except maybe as a ghetto in the Gaza strip, or as a purely hypothetical construct with no actual physical location.

marksman

3rd January 2007, 04:58 PM

Duh, not Israel, but Ariel Sharon, the well-known political hawk and accused war criminal (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ariel_sharon#Sabra_and_Shatila_massacre).
Even so, you find a peace inititive less likely from Sharon than, say, Yassar Arafat or Hamas?

[quote]You may remember this story (http://www.aljazeera.com/me.asp?service_ID=11289) from last year.
I do. I remember the quote from the very linked article that said "ny agreement must be endorsed by the new PLC (the Palestinian Legislative Council) or put before a general referendum." Since those things never happened, Fatah never agreed to the 1967 borders.

At most, it was a proposal that Abbas wanted his party and Hamas to agree to. Hamas rejected it so Abbas never had to subject it to his own party's approval. It is no more a recognition of legitimate borders than Barak's 1999 peace offer was an Israeli recognition of Palestinian borders.

Neither Israel nor Palestine has ever actually recognized common borders.

For the PLO, it appears to me that they do. They do not confiscate Israeli land, for example.
Not for lack of trying!

And they regularly make statements (like the one I linked to above) suggesting that they would agree, for example, to the 1967 borders.
Regularly?! No. Abbas made the proposal once. I don't think he has ever repeated it and I don't think Fatah has ever accepted the 1967 borders in any other instance. (And didn't actually do it in this instance.)

For Israel, I see no support for the theory that they accept the right of Palestine to exist, except maybe as a ghetto in the Gaza strip, or as a purely hypothetical construct with no actual physical location.

But you're making this up with no support either way.

Israel has suggested as recently as last week thata permanent two-state solution was possible. (Article (http://www.cjp.org/content_display.html?ArticleID=205832)). Olmert's own peace plan, unilaterally imposed, would recognize a Palestinian state. (Article (http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull&cid=1143498845756)).

It is your biases that leads you to conclude that Israel seeks Palestine's destruction. You're discarding Israeli statements, and yet latching onto fleeting proposals by Abbas as if they are accepted Palesitnian policies.

Once again, I don't defend Israel's position in Maskiot, but to inflate that into a lack of recogniztion of Palestine's right to exist is absurd.

Merko

3rd January 2007, 05:23 PM

Even so, you find a peace inititive less likely from Sharon than, say, Yassar Arafat or Hamas?

Uh, Arafat is, and was, dead. Yes, I also considered a peace initiative from the Tooth Fairy less likely. Actually I did not intend a comparison with initiatives from Palestinians, but I'll try to answer your question anyway.
I think an initiative from Hamas would in fact have surprised me less, considering the extremely troublesome situation Hamas was (and is) in. Not because I have any high regards for their ideology or anything, but because there are very strong external reasons for them to negotiate some sort of peace. Meanwhile, Israel is the stronger part by far, and hawks such as Sharon would not, in my opinion, be expected to put any importance to showing any kind of 'good faith'. It can be argued that he wasn't, but I maintain that the initiative was a good one, even though it was largely symbolic.

I do. I remember the quote from the very linked article that said "ny agreement must be endorsed by the new PLC (the Palestinian Legislative Council) or put before a general referendum." Since those things never happened, Fatah never agreed to the 1967 borders.

Which is bad, but at least there is a proposal under discussion. So where is Olmert's proposed unilateral map?

Anyway, my point was never that the Palestinians recognise Israel's right to exist, which they obviously don't especially for Hamas, but that Israel cannot be said to seriously respect Palestines right to exist. Such respect should include a minimum of practice, which it does not when Israel not only enters Palestinian territory at will, destroying property, killing people, etc, but also confiscates Palestinian land for permanent settlement.

webfusion

3rd January 2007, 09:57 PM

Hey webfusion and steverino, I'm just wanting to thank you for your informative posts.

Just to clarify, I hold dual citizenship (US/Israeli) and am currently living in the Washington DC area. I hope to be able to move back to Israel within the next few years. I have no illusions that I will return to a land that has concluded a peaceful resolution to the conflict. The underlying problems are too complex.

Could you imagine the two populations living together as people do here in Canada every day?

To be honest, the palestinians are living side-by-side within Israel, and they do so without "seeming to care". There have indeed been episodes of major friction and violence, but in the main, the relationships are well-ordered and respectful.

(SEE: Abu Ghosh (http://www.answers.com/topic/abu-ghosh))

webfusion

3rd January 2007, 10:01 PM

Hey webfusion and steverino, I'm just wanting to thank you for your informative posts.

Just to clarify, I hold dual citizenship (US/Israeli) and am currently living in the Washington DC area. I hope to be able to move back to Israel within the next few years. I have no illusions that I will return to a land that has concluded a peaceful resolution to the conflict. Israel is apparently just going to have to continue with it's "master plan", which means: entering Palestinian territory at will, destroying property, killing people, etc, and also confiscating Palestinian land for permanent settlement. :jedi:

Could you imagine the two populations living together as people do here in Canada every day?

To be honest, the palestinians are living side-by-side within Israel, and they do so without "seeming to care". There have indeed been episodes of major friction and violence, but in the main, the relationships are well-ordered and respectful.

(SEE: Abu Ghosh (http://www.answers.com/topic/abu-ghosh))

Darth Rotor

4th January 2007, 07:01 AM

Duh, not Israel, but Ariel Sharon, the well-known political hawk and accused war criminal (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ariel_sharon#Sabra_and_Shatila_massacre).
Merko, what do accusations of war crimes have to do with Hamas' inability to come to the table with Israel based on their basic party platform: don't recognize the state of Israel. Sharon also pulled the Israelis out of Gaza. Sharon also led the counterattack in 1973 that surrounded the Egyptian 3rd Army in the Suez, which could have (and for my money, should have) been annihilated/slaughtered, but he didn't give that order. (Lots of political reasons for that, of course)

Try this on for size:

Merko, you are a plagiarist.

There you are now an accused plagiarist. So what?
For Israel, I see no support for the theory that they accept the right of Palestine to exist, except maybe as a ghetto in the Gaza strip, or as a purely hypothetical construct with no actual physical location.
I think you are making a mistake by characterizing "Israel" as a political monolith. There are, as noted in this and other threads, sectors of Israeli polity who strongly oppose increased West Bank settlements, review and restoration of some Pal lands, and a considerable trade of "land for peace" to the benefit of the Pals. As to the Ghetto on the Gaza strip, a ghetto is a state of mind, and the Pals wanted the Gaza strip. OK, they got it. There are donors, and there is tax revenue, available for economic development. (Yes, the Hamas/embargo is at present a major problem)

What are they doing with and for, Gaza? At the moment, they are fighting with each other . . . or at least the leadership is. That's a great way to build the first small bits of the Palestinian future, isn't it? Arguing and fighting over who gets to run "the Gaza ghetto?"

Cripps and Bloods for fifty, Alex. :p

DR

Cleon

4th January 2007, 07:47 AM

Merko, what do accusations of war crimes have to do with Hamas' inability to come to the table with Israel based on their basic party platform: don't recognize the state of Israel.

I find it really funny that people keep going on about how Hamas "won't recognize the state of Israel."

Here is what the Likud Party electoral platform (http://www.knesset.gov.il/elections/knesset15/elikud_m.htm) has to say:

The [Likud-controlled] Government of Israel flatly rejects the establishment of a Palestinian Arab state west of the Jordan river.

Until Sharon split and formed the Kadima party, of course, Likud was the conservative party of preference in Israel. (Now that Olmert has screwed half the pooches in the Levant, that will probably be the case again shortly.)

So Israel votes for a Party that won't recognize the legitimacy of a Palestinian state, we don't hear a peep. The Palestinians vote for a Party that won't recognize the legitimacy of Israel, and it becomes another talking point for Israel's cheerleading squad.

Double standards for fifty, Alex.

Snide comments aside, this is really indicative of the heart of the problem--the belief that one group of people (whether Jews, Muslims, Christians, or Druze) have some exclusive right to the land there. This is one of the longest continuously populated regions in the world--it has been the home to many ethnicities, religions, cultures, and governments over the millenia. The idea that either group has "more" of a right to be there is ludicrous on its face.

Darth Rotor

4th January 2007, 08:45 AM

I find it really funny that people keep going on about how Hamas "won't recognize the state of Israel."
I apprecitate the humor involved, but it's hard to negotiate with someone who does not recognize you at the table. (Recall the old joke about the US not recognizing Red China . . . hell, how could you miss it, it's huge! :D )

Until Sharon split and formed the Kadima party, of course, Likud was the conservative party of preference in Israel. (Now that Olmert has screwed half the pooches in the Levant, that will probably be the case again shortly.)
But Likud wasn't, and isn't, the only party that was ever "in power" in Israel, was it? ;) Some of the best Israel/Pal progress was when Labor was ascendant, right? So Israel votes --
Some of the Israeli electorate voted for this party, perhaps a plurality --
for a Party that won't recognize the legitimacy of a Palestinian state, we don't hear a peep.
I don't think that is precisely correct. The pre Hamas power bloc were recognized, it was the distinctly terrorist nature of Hamas that led to "we don't recognize you" much like the UK's long condemnation of the IRA.

In any case, who is this "we?" If you check out the rags and mags who cover Israeli politics, which is easy to do with internet these days, the "peeps" are not too hard to find, to include criticism of a variety of policies in Israel, by whichever government is in power.
The Palestinians vote for a Party that won't recognize the legitimacy of Israel, and it becomes another talking point for Israel's cheerleading squad.
Given the progress Arafat, and then Abbas and the Fatah party had made in moving the dialogue forward, with pain and foot dragging on all sides for over 20 years after Camp David, I can't see how an overtly active terrorist organization's arrival as a party to the talks can be seen as a step forward, except in very narrow circles. Me, I thought it was a rich irony that a nice democracy/election was brought to the Pals, with much applause in the UN and elsewhere, and the people voted their consciences: Hamas. Funny as hell.

Terrorists, like the hardcore Likudnicks, don't tend to compromise. Compromise is how you make a deal. A deal is what is necessary for a movement forward, or for resolution of this knotty little problem.
Double standards for fifty, Alex.
I suppose, this being politics. *shrugs* The death count in Congo for six years of civil war is somewhere between 1 and 4 million, a few orders of magnitude higher than for the Pals and Israelis. More double standards, Alex - hey, it's the Daily Double! Ding! Ding! Ding! :)
Snide comments aside, this is really indicative of the heart of the problem--the belief that one group of people (whether Jews, Muslims, Christians, or Druze) have some exclusive right to the land there. This is one of the longest continuously populated regions in the world--it has been the home to many ethnicities, religions, cultures, and governments over the millenia. The idea that either group has "more" of a right to be there is ludicrous on its face.
Well said.

*golf clap*

FWIW, I'd replace "ludicrous" with the term "the core political and symbolic problem."

DR

Cleon

4th January 2007, 09:22 AM

I apprecitate the humor involved, but it's hard to negotiate with someone who does not recognize you at the table. (Recall the old joke about the US not recognizing Red China . . . hell, how could you miss it, it's huge! :D )

But again...Why put the demand on the Palestinians without putting it on Israel?

But Likud wasn't, and isn't, the only party that was ever "in power" in Israel, was it? ;)

Under a parliamentary system like Israel's, as long as the party with a plurality is able to get enough support from smaller parties to get 50% + 1 of the votes, yes, it might as well be the only party that is "in power."

Some of the best Israel/Pal progress was when Labor was ascendant, right?
Some of the Israeli electorate voted for this party, perhaps a plurality --

And some of the Palestinian electorate voted for Hamas, perhaps a plurality.

I don't think that is precisely correct. The pre Hamas power bloc were recognized, it was the distinctly terrorist nature of Hamas that led to "we don't recognize you" much like the UK's long condemnation of the IRA.

So the issue is not that Hamas doesn't recognize Israel, it's the terrorist activities carried out by a wing of Hamas? If that's the problem, why pretend that the issue is one of Hamas' "recognition" of Israel?

It's interesting that you mention the IRA; the Brits eventually came to their senses and began negotiations with Sinn Fein. Now, if I were an Irish Republican I'd be royally pissed at some of the concessions SF has made (especially recently), but my point is that the violence has gone way, way down since the British realized that the Republican movement (whether "terrorist" or not) wasn't going away.

In any case, who is this "we?" If you check out the rags and mags who cover Israeli politics, which is easy to do with internet these days, the "peeps" are not too hard to find, to include criticism of a variety of policies in Israel, by whichever government is in power.

Oh, it's easy to find criticism of Israel. I do it often myself. The bit about "not a peep" is more about people who point to Hamas' charter not recognizing Israel and yet don't say a thing about Israeli parties (Likud is but one of them) that don't recognize the legitimacy of the Palestinians. What's good for the goose and all that.

Given the progress Arafat, and then Abbas and the Fatah party had made in moving the dialogue forward, with pain and foot dragging on all sides for over the 20 years after Camp David, I can't see how an overtly active terrorist organization's arrival as a party to the talks can be seen as a step forward, except in very narrow circles. (Me, I thought it was a rich irony that a nice democracy/election was brought to the Pals, with much applause in the UN and elsewhere, and the people voted their consciences: Hamas. Funny as hell. ) Terrorists, like the hardcore Likudnicks, don't tend to compromise. Compromise is how you make a deal. A deal is what is necessary for a movement forward, or for resolution of this knotty little problem.

Hamas is also a very large organization; if it was entirely and completely dedicated to terrorism, the death toll in Israel/Palestine would be much, much higher.

Hamas was elected not on the basis of terrorism, but on people's irritation at the snails-pace negotiation and the massive corruption of Fatah. In fact, their electoral list was "List for Change and Reform." (As opposed to "List for Blowing **** Up" or some such.)

I suppose, this being politics. *shrugs* The death count in Congo for six years of civil war is somewhere between 1 and 4 million, a few orders of magnitude higher than for the Pals and Israelis. More double standards, Alex - hey, it's the Daily Double! Ding! Ding! Ding! :)

I won't argue the fact that much of what has gone on in the African continent is truly, truly horrible, and some of the reports I've read from AI and HRW make the height of the Intifada seem like a day at Cedar Point.

But there is a difference. We don't funnel gazillions of dollars to one side of the Congolese civil war. Criticisms of one side of the war are not met with accusations of anti-semitism and support for terrorism. Also, the fighting in the Congo has not been a defining issue for the rest of Africa the way the Palestine-Israel conflict has become *the* central issue for Middle East politics.

Darth Rotor

4th January 2007, 09:44 AM

But again...Why put the demand on the Palestinians without putting it on Israel? Who is doing that? I don't. I also note that the UN calls on all parties to work through (pick the ****** detail) in its various resolutions on the topic.
Under a parliamentary system like Israel's, as long as the party with a plurality is able to get enough support from smaller parties to get 50% + 1 of the votes, yes, it might as well be the only party that is "in power."
Cleon, what time horizon are you looking at?
And some of the Palestinian electorate voted for Hamas, perhaps a plurality.
I think it was a majority.
RAMALLAH, West Bank, Jan. 26 -- The radical Islamic movement Hamas won a large majority in the new Palestinian parliament, according to official election results announced Thursday, trouncing the governing Fatah party in a contest that could dramatically reshape the Palestinians' relations with Israel and the rest of the world.

In Wednesday's voting, Hamas claimed 76 of the 132 parliamentary seats, giving the party at war with Israel the right to form the next cabinet under the Palestinian Authority's president, Mahmoud Abbas, the leader of Fatah
However, another site showed a PDF (http://electronicintifada.net/bytopic/416.shtml)with 44 % of the vote going to Hamas and 41% to Fatah, with the other dogs and cats accounting for the remainder. However, by your Likud rubric, it's much the same, right? ;)
So the issue is not that Hamas doesn't recognize Israel, it's the terrorist activities carried out by a wing of Hamas? If that's the problem, why pretend that the issue is one of Hamas' "recognition" of Israel?
Because that is what is the obstacle to negotiation. As you note in your IRA remarks, even with the violence, over time (decades) a way can be found, albeit a difficult one.

Hamas is also a very large organization; if it was entirely and completely dedicated to terrorism, the death toll in Israel/Palestine would be much, much higher.
Violent acts provide a kind of leverage that votes and meetings don't. See the Kosovo-Serbia bombing of 1999 as a fine illustration of how a lot of talk and negotiation has less impact than a series of violent acts. See also the Intafada as leverage.
Hamas was elected not on the basis of terrorism, but on people's irritation at the snails-pace negotiation and the massive corruption of Fatah. In fact, their electoral list was "List for Change and Reform." (As opposed to "List for Blowing **** Up" or some such.)
Political Fig Leaf is noted, and "impatience" is a two way street. Why do you think Likud, or its proxy, is in power in Israel? Lack of patience with the snail's pace of geese and ganders on the Pal side. ;)
But there is a difference. We don't funnel gazillions of dollars to one side of the Congolese civil war. Criticisms of one side of the war are not met with accusations of anti-semitism and support for terrorism. Also, the fighting in the Congo has not been a defining issue for the rest of Africa the way the Palestine-Israel conflict has become *the* central issue for Middle East politics.
No major argument there, though if you look around a bit, you'll find some rhetoric about racism as the motivation for UN/American/Western "indifference" to the plight of Africans (Rwanda leaps to mind, and now Darfur) and if you look a little further, you'll see the old CT on "AIDS as an engineered attempt to wipe black people out of Africa."

Me, I don't see any progress coming in my lifetime in the Holy Land, based on the point you made earlier: the concept of entitlement to a particular parcel of land. It seems to be a core belief, reminiscent of the sorts of national myths that Kaplan discussed in Balkan Ghosts.

DR

webfusion

4th January 2007, 09:48 AM

*snip* Hamas was elected not on the basis of terrorism.

http://www.pmw.org.il/tv-hamas.htm

This is true, in your own mind only, Cleon.
The realities of HAMAS election videos are much different.
I especially call everyone's attention to the "burning yellow star of david" and the symbolism of the holocaust it envokes.

Regarding the oft-repeated claim that Israel is not interested in establishing a Palestinian State:
Israel is currently (right now, at the present time, today) trying to establish a four-way summit meeting, with Egypt's help, that would offer new ideas for reviving negotiations on a permanent Israeli-Palestinian settlement and achieving a formula that would ensure the establishment of a Palestinian state.
http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/world/2007-01/04/content_774063.htm

Darth Rotor

4th January 2007, 10:00 AM

Regarding the oft-repeated claim that Israel is not interested in establishing a Palestinian State:
Israel is currently (right now, at the present time, today) trying to establish a four-way summit meeting, with Egypt's help, that would offer new ideas for reviving negotiations on a permanent Israeli-Palestinian settlement and achieving a formula that would ensure the establishment of a Palestinian state.
http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/world/2007-01/04/content_774063.htm

The link appears to be broken to chinadaily.com.cn

There was a lovely picture of a New Zealand landscape (http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/oper2413/tour48138/NZmilford.jpg) on the page, however.

DR

webfusion

4th January 2007, 10:28 AM

That link works fine for me.

The story of Olmert and Mubarak meeting today is on several mainstream wireservices ---
http://jta.org/page_view_breaking_story.asp?intid=6295

Cleon

4th January 2007, 10:41 AM

http://www.pmw.org.il/tv-hamas.htm

This is true, in your own mind only, Cleon.

Cherrypicked data noted. Note that the site does not discuss Hamas' electoral campaign in any detail; it just shows some video clips that show Hamas saying what the site wants them to say.

Regarding the oft-repeated claim that Israel is not interested in establishing a Palestinian State:

I did not say that. I pointed out that Likud's platform is explicitely against any such state, yet those like yourself who whine that Hamas won't recognize Israel's legitimacy have no problem with it.

Darth Rotor

4th January 2007, 10:44 AM

That link works fine for me.

The story of Olmert and Mubarak meeting today is on several mainstream wireservices ---
http://jta.org/page_view_breaking_story.asp?intid=6295
Somewhat under the radar, L A Times reported an interesting game of "balance of power" is being played in Gaza.

Israel escorts Egyptian arms delivery to Abbas (http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-mideast29dec29,0,3419730.story?coll=la-home-world)

U.S. consents to the shipment, intended to counter the militant Hamas movement.

The observations at the end of the article seem to be standard press fodder.
Hamas called the shipment an unwanted American and Israeli intervention in Palestinian affairs.

"These weapons will not affect Hamas' power, which comes from the people," said Ismail Radwan, a spokesman. "And our people are not going to be driven into a civil war that is going to benefit only the Zionist enemy."

Another risk for Israel is that the weapons will end up with Hamas, which is sworn to the Jewish state's destruction. After the Palestinian Authority was created by the Oslo peace accords in the 1990s, Israel authorized the arming of a 30,000-member Palestinian security force.

Many of those weapons ended up in the hands of militants who rose up against Israel in 2000 as talks on a final peace settlement broke down. Critics of this week's arms shipment cautioned that history could repeat itself.

"We have encountered these guns before," said Yiftah Ron-Tal, a former Israeli army general. "I would be very careful about providing Palestinians with weapons that could be pointed at us in the future."
The plot thickens, and the means for a bloodier civil war are made available on the chance that their effect will be deterrent, or so it seems.

DR

Cleon

4th January 2007, 11:23 AM

However, another site showed a PDF (http://electronicintifada.net/bytopic/416.shtml)with 44 % of the vote going to Hamas and 41% to Fatah, with the other dogs and cats accounting for the remainder. However, by your Likud rubric, it's much the same, right? ;)

Again, it's a question of what's good for the goose is good for the gander. If Likud's platform isn't a problem because they weren't voted for by all Israelis, then Hamas' platform shouldn't be a problem because they weren't voted for by all Palestinians.
Because that is what is the obstacle to negotiation. As you note in your IRA remarks, even with the violence, over time (decades) a way can be found, albeit a difficult one.

Why is it an obstacle to negotiation, if Likud's platform wasn't?

The question is semi-rhetorical. I think the issue is based largely on Israel's internal politics. Refusing to deal with Hamas is an "easy out" to avoid dealing with the situation. There is no logistical or physical reason to not negotiate with Hamas; nothing is preventing Israel from sitting down and talking to Hamas, any more than Likud's platform prevented the PA from doing business with Netanyahu. But it makes a lovely excuse to avoid dealing with the PA and puts off the whole "Palestinian state" thing.

Not necessarily out of ideology; Israel has come a long way in the past 20 years or so. The very idea of Palestinian self-rule, much less a state, wasn't even an option to be considered when I was growing up. (In fact, the very word "Palestinian" was considered treyf--we were supposed to refer to them as The Arabs.) I fully recognize that those who demand that Israel be a Jewish state from the river to the sea are, today, a minority in Israel's politics. But they are a powerful and well-funded minority, much like the fundamentalist Christians in the US.

By refusing to deal with the PA leadership, Olmert puts off having to negotiate for a state. Negotiating for a state would mean having to stir up a major hornet's nest; namely, the settlers and those who back them. Again, yes, it's a minority, but it's a powerful, well-funded minority that no politician wants to get TOO angry; especially considering that these people have, in recent history, used violence to get their point across.

Given that Olmert has managed to piss just about everyone off--left, right, and center--I think his refusal to deal with Hamas is more of a recognition of his own incompetence and a desire to save whatever is left of his political career. In essence, he's trying to put off dealing with the problem, hoping that his successor will take care of it--as well as deal with the political fallout.

No major argument there, though if you look around a bit, you'll find some rhetoric about racism as the motivation for UN/American/Western "indifference" to the plight of Africans (Rwanda leaps to mind, and now Darfur) and if you look a little further, you'll see the old CT on "AIDS as an engineered attempt to wipe black people out of Africa."

Well, sure, but you can find all sorts of interesting rhetoric out there. While I think it's obvious that racism plays more of a role in the US than we'd generally like to think, fundamentally the US, like any other country, acts primarily out of self-interest. Ideology is a very distant second. Which is why the Israelis are coming to accept the reality that the Palestinians aren't going anywhere--despite protestations like "the Palestinians have no claim to the land," reality has an irritating way of winning out over ideology.

webfusion

4th January 2007, 11:52 AM

Cleon insists:I did not say that. I pointed out that Likud's platform is explicitely against any such state, yet those like yourself who whine that Hamas won't recognize Israel's legitimacy have no problem with it.

Likud, (which is not in power), doesn't reject the idea of Palestinian Self-Rule, and explicitly says so in their Platform:
The Palestinians can run their lives freely in the framework of self-rule, but not as an independent and sovereign state. Thus, for example, in matters of foreign affairs, security, immigration and ecology, their activity shall be limited in accordance with imperatives of Israel's existence, security and national needs.

It is convenient for you to omit this part of their platform, because it offers a reasonable explanation as to why a "sovereign state" is not a good idea.

From a practical standpoint, it's not logical to seek a state that is a seperate and distinct entity from Israel. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that "New Palestine" (Gaza and the West Bank, jointly) cannot be sovereign in territory that is interwoven and connected to Israel, in almost every segment of life. Especially in regards to Jerusalem, and the Temple Mount in particular. Sovereignty over AlAqsa is the crux of palestinian demands, after all, correct? It makes them nuts to know that the jews have any claim whatsoever to that area!

I personally never "whined" about HAMAS recognizing Israel or not. As I see it, they do already recognize Israel, but intend to destroy it, as a matter of policy and islamic duty. The Israelis don't need to allow that plan to come to fruition.

By refusing to deal with the PA leadership, Olmert puts off having to negotiate for a state.

Olmert recently met with Abbas, the President of the Palestinian Authority, and is right now, as I type this, getting together with Mubarak to arrange further multi-lateral talks, at a summit.

Olmert is not refusing anything, and has indicated more than once a willingness to cede land to enable a peaceful resolution.

steverino

4th January 2007, 11:59 AM

It's interesting that you mention the IRA; the Brits eventually came to their senses and began negotiations with Sinn Fein. Now, if I were an Irish Republican I'd be royally pissed at some of the concessions SF has made (especially recently), but my point is that the violence has gone way, way down since the British realized that the Republican movement (whether "terrorist" or not) wasn't going away.

Just on the point of the IRA, I want to mention that a lot of Chicagoans of Irish background used to financially support the IRA until 9/11, and the whole terrorism thing fell out of fashion and funds dried up. (I used to be married to a Connolly.) I am sure Chicago is not the only American city (Boston, *cough*) with Irish-American citizens that pulled IRA support. Britain of course had more leverage after 9/11 in part for this reason.

Cleon

4th January 2007, 01:30 PM

Cleon insists:

Likud, (which is not in power), doesn't reject the idea of Palestinian Self-Rule, and explicitly says so in their Platform:

So?

It is convenient for you to omit this part of their platform, because it offers a reasonable explanation as to why a "sovereign state" is not a good idea.

Well, the fact that you don't recognize the legitimacy of the Palestinians is not exactly a shocker.

So on the basis of "recognition" alone, you demand that Palestinians recognize the legitimacy of Israel but feel no great need to recognize their own.

Which is why the violence continues.

From a practical standpoint, it's not logical to seek a state that is a seperate and distinct entity from Israel. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that "New Palestine" (Gaza and the West Bank, jointly) cannot be sovereign in territory that is interwoven and connected to Israel, in almost every segment of life. Especially in regards to Jerusalem, and the Temple Mount in particular. Sovereignty over AlAqsa is the crux of palestinian demands, after all, correct? It makes them nuts to know that the jews have any claim whatsoever to that area!

Contrary to your claim above (regarding why it's "convenient" for me to exclude Likud's gracious permission for limited Palestinian self-rule), the Likud platform says nothing about the above. In fact, I largely agree with you; however, when I use the above to support the idea of a democratic, secular state, I'm a terrorist-supporting anti-Semite because I don't uncritically support the Jewish State.

Cleon

4th January 2007, 01:33 PM

Just on the point of the IRA, I want to mention that a lot of Chicagoans of Irish background used to financially support the IRA until 9/11, and the whole terrorism thing fell out of fashion and funds dried up. (I used to be married to a Connolly.) I am sure Chicago is not the only American city (Boston, *cough*) with Irish-American citizens that pulled IRA support.

Sure. NYC has always been fertile ground, too.

Britain of course had more leverage after 9/11 in part for this reason.

Except for one tiny thing--that British negotiation with SF/IRA started long before 9/11. The main product of the negotiations, the Good Friday Agreement, was signed in 1998.

Darth Rotor

4th January 2007, 01:57 PM

So on the basis of "recognition" alone, you demand that Palestinians recognize the legitimacy of Israel but feel no great need to recognize their own.

Which is why the violence continues.

Not quite.

The violence continues because that is the policy decision of Pal leadership. Nothing Israel does forces the Pals to take any particular decision, nor any particular course of action. "The violence" is a course of action chosen by the Pals. It isn't their only option, though it seems to have been an effective one over the long haul, in terms of forcing some issues to the table at Oslo. It has also been counterproductive, in terms of reducing confidence among more liberal Israelis -- and among other interested parties -- that Pals can negotiate in good faith.

Likewise, "retaliation" is a course of action chosen by Israel, as are any number of other policy decisions -- such as providing arms to Fatah.

Bet the over on a bigger civil war / bloodletting in Gaza, Cleon, I think it's a mortal lock. ;)

DR

a_unique_person

5th January 2007, 05:17 AM

Not quite.

The violence continues because that is the policy decision of Pal leadership. Nothing Israel does forces the Pals to take any particular decision, nor any particular course of action. "The violence" is a course of action chosen by the Pals. It isn't their only option, though it seems to have been an effective one over the long haul, in terms of forcing some issues to the table at Oslo. It has also been counterproductive, in terms of reducing confidence among more liberal Israelis -- and among other interested parties -- that Pals can negotiate in good faith.

Likewise, "retaliation" is a course of action chosen by Israel, as are any number of other policy decisions -- such as providing arms to Fatah.

Bet the over on a bigger civil war / bloodletting in Gaza, Cleon, I think it's a mortal lock. ;)

DR

Military occupation is a form of violence.

Darth Rotor

5th January 2007, 06:18 AM

Military occupation is a form of violence.
Because you say so? I find that a curious idea, akin to policemen on patrol equalling police brutality.

When the soldiers start shooting, or butt stroking people, or swinging for the fences with knight sticks, then you are dealing with violence. Military occupation is a deterrent to violence. Martial law, paradoxically enough, often reduces the level of violence while bringing with it some well known, and undesirable, side effects. Reconstruction for fifty, Alex :p )

How about you stop posting falsehood? Or is this the problem: Humpty Dumpty ascendent in your brain housing group this morning/evening?

DR

a_unique_person

5th January 2007, 03:35 PM

I would have thought it self evident.

a_unique_person

5th January 2007, 03:36 PM

From living in Israel he has managed to learn that the first Zionist rule is to establish facts on the ground; the second rule is to ignore the protests of the world.

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/809723.html

webfusion

19th January 2007, 05:38 PM

Israeli Defense Minister calls for a halt to the construction of Maskiot. (http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/815526.html)

Taking into consideration the protests of the EU and the USA, Peretz has decided to prevent this new community from establishing itself.

webfusion

19th January 2007, 05:42 PM

marksman

19th January 2007, 06:04 PM

Good. It was a stupid approval that had few tangible benefits for Israel and many many drawbacks.

a_unique_person

19th January 2007, 10:53 PM

(Note: the article linked above has an accompanying photo, showing the desolation and total emptiness of this area)

Meanwhile, this action will likely just increase the pressure on Amir Peretz to resign. (http://www.virtualjerusalem.com/news.php?id=3553)

"Desolation"? What is wrong with just having empty space? Does man have to inhabit every spot on earth? Har Homa used to be a nice forest.

webfusion

20th January 2007, 01:18 AM

Har Homa used to be a nice forest.

Prime real estate is prime real estate.
You may wish to debate whether or not man's desire to live in these prime spots is justified, or the unsullied environment is a more valuable purpose.

In the case you mention:
Har Homa (known as "Abu Ghnaim") encompasses an area of approximately 2sq/km. and according to the land-use plan, approx 25% of that was retained as forested tracts, gardens, and panoramic tree-line roads, as well as preserving an exisiting Christian religious site (a monastery on the road from Jerusalem to Bethlehem).

It is not different than any other subdivision or town which arises in a place that was otherwise uninhabited (see: Las Vegas, NV).

I'm sure Las Vegas, as it expands into the raw desolate desert, is causing eco-damage. Yet, I wouldn't think that you could find much international support to condemn it, much less stop the expansion.
http://www.manhattanization.com/news/w-las-vegas-expansion.rub

Mycroft

20th January 2007, 01:27 AM

"Desolation"? What is wrong with just having empty space? Does man have to inhabit every spot on earth? Har Homa used to be a nice forest.

There is nothing at all wrong with empty spaces, however all those teeming thousands of Palestinian-Arabs that would have been "displaced" were an argument against this place.

Mycroft

20th January 2007, 01:33 AM

Prime real estate is prime real estate.
You may wish to debate whether or not man's desire to live in these prime spots is justified, or the unsullied environment is a more valuable purpose.

Well, it's not so much man's desire that's in question here. If it were a different type of man, nobody would bemoan the loss of empty space.

steverino

20th January 2007, 05:58 PM

What a long strange trip this thread has been. (I sure hope I get my down payment back for that Maskiot house.)

(Sorry webfusion.:D...I promise, no ,more jokes.)

gtc

20th January 2007, 08:13 PM

"Desolation"? What is wrong with just having empty space? Does man have to inhabit every spot on earth? Har Homa used to be a nice forest.

You don't live in Sydney do you?

webfusion

20th January 2007, 09:10 PM

This sector of Singapore used to be farmland -- in 1992.

http://www.arrakeen.ch/singfeb02/503%20%20Singapore%20river%20&%20Merlion.JPG

steverino

20th January 2007, 09:45 PM

This sector of Singapore used to be farmland -- in 1992.

http://firefly.blogsome.com/images/Skyline.jpg

I don't understand. I recognize couple of those buildings from my trip to Singapore in 1978.:confused:

webfusion

20th January 2007, 10:05 PM

Steverino, I linked to the wrong photo --- I've corrected that image, I think. I am not familiar with Singapore, but I know that the city/state is expanding always, and in the past decade has changed dramatically, with entire new districts springing up.

My point, however, is that this whole thing about Maskiot is nuts --- Israelis wish to erect 44 homes (for displaced people who evacuated from Gaza, where they had very nice lives) and there is an international outcry and a plethora of hoop-dee-doo.

The Fool

20th January 2007, 11:56 PM

steverino

21st January 2007, 10:56 AM

Webfusion: Thanks for clarifying with the photo.

The Fool: Yep. It seems that any action taken in the Holy Land is burdened with enormous symbolism, whether it is 44 houses, or 4,400.

a_unique_person

21st January 2007, 02:49 PM

The Fool: Yep. It seems that any action taken in the Holy Land is burdened with enormous symbolism, whether it is 44 houses, or 4,400.

I was just reading about the US embassy in Israel.

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/815940.html

Any action is right.

webfusion

21st January 2007, 07:56 PM

TF asks:
Would 44 homes built inside Israel cause much hoop-dee-doo?

1. Define "inside Israel" --

2. Jewish 'settlements' have been a bone of contention for the Arabs and caused much hoop-dee-doo since the 1920's and even before. (http://www.jafi.org.il/education/100/CONCEPTS/d2.html)
In April 1920, the Jewish settlements in Upper Galilee were attacked by Arabs. Tel Hai and other places were destroyed after a heroic defense in which Joseph Trumpeldor and others were killed. In May 1921 an outbreak of violence in Jaffa was followed by large scale attacks on Rehovot, Petah Tikva, and other places. 47 Jews were killed and 140 wounded.

There is no recognition of Israel whatsoever today by the government of the Palestinian Authority (HAMAS) so it makes no difference to them, from their view, if buildings go up in Maskiot or in Ramat Gan. (http://www.jewishinstlouis.org/content_display.html?ArticleID=186368)

The entire Zionist enterprise, from the bottom-up, and from the top-down, is a total abomination to these Arabs. There is no legitimacy to any community that Israel builds, not in Maskiot and not in Ma'alot, not in Har Homa and not in Haifa.

a_unique_person

21st January 2007, 08:15 PM

Move the goal posts, what?

webfusion

21st January 2007, 08:34 PM

Maskiot sits in a disputed area.

It could very well be considered, in some future deal with the palestinians, to be "inside Israel" --

The "goal posts" are going to be moved many times between now and then, and until the palestinians stop their terror, they'll never get to see the end of the game.

In another thread, you asked:
What are Israeli troops doing in Jenin (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2269813&postcount=126)

A Border Guard police force arrested Kahled al-Haj, a senior Hamas leader, along with his deputy, Thursday in the Jenin refugee camp.

Apparently, the IDF is busy crushing the operations of terrorists in this sector.
Seems reasonable to me.

What do you think the purpose of the IDF should be? To just sit on their thumbs?

webfusion

21st January 2007, 08:41 PM

Solana has decided that he's really upset with the Israelis for their continued building of the security barrier, and expansion of sxisting communities in and around Jerusalem.

Under the U.S.-backed road map, Israel was supposed to halt settlement construction in the West Bank. The Palestinians were also required to dismantle militant groups, a step they have yet to take.

That leaves an impasse, whereby Israel is doing what it feels is appropriate, so long as the palestinians refuse to play along with the game, as defined.
Goal posts? Good luck finding where they are.

a_unique_person

21st January 2007, 09:27 PM

Maskiot sits in a disputed area.

It could very well be considered, in some future deal with the palestinians, to be "inside Israel" --

The "goal posts" are going to be moved many times between now and then, and until the palestinians stop their terror, they'll never get to see the end of the game.

In another thread, you asked:

A Border Guard police force arrested Kahled al-Haj, a senior Hamas leader, along with his deputy, Thursday in the Jenin refugee camp.

Apparently, the IDF is busy crushing the operations of terrorists in this sector.
Seems reasonable to me.

What do you think the purpose of the IDF should be? To just sit on their thumbs?

There seem to be hundreds of senior people wanted by the IDF. How many do they have?

And why was he arrested? He was just released from jail, had no connections with the military wing, and was trying to broker peace deals.

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3351240,00.html