Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
xnatex

Israel Vs Gaza

who will win?  

49 members have voted

  1. 1. who will win?

    • Israel
      15
    • Gaza
      0
    • Everybody loses
      34


Recommended Posts

False logic. I dont need to live through a nuclear war to know I dont want to live through a nuclear war :-)

That's a funny statement to make from a guy who claims to love rights and freedoms but wants to give Hamas control of 7 million people.

 

 

 

 

And I reference this as an example yet again of how not to operate - For example I have never ever said this statement - I want to "give Hamas control of 7 million people". He just made it up to shift discussoin away from a substantive human matter . . . .

 

 

Hilarious.

 

 

 

Of course what he wont say is that my love of freedom extends to protecting this persons right to speak - and I will defend that even if I dissagree with him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just one quick comment which may not have been clear (its difficult because some posters dont actually address issues in a specific manner and instead go off on tangents with out addressing the issue presented) - but any refernce s I have made to any notion of an 'apartheid' structure refers to the situation in the Occupied Territories - I am not talking about the situation within Israel (though racisim is prevalent in some parts).

 

I am afraid that one of the posters here is yet vagain showing his ability to reda something glancingly without actually reflecting on what they are reading ( I have noted this a couple of time in regards to quotes he has thrown up - he says they say one thing yet they actually say something very different - which he then ignores).

 

In line with this the poster posted this:

 

----

1. A Bantustan is a geographical region.

2. A Bantustan is a "self-governing" territory

3. A Bantustan contains a racially segregated society apart from the "host" nation.

4. A Bantustan contains people the "host" nation does not want in its own borders for racial reasons.

 

All of the above must be true in the context of the Bantustan model. Nothing Israel has ever proposed has ever been based on the above.

 

----

 

Trouble is, all 4 of these apply to Gaza and the West Bank :-)

That's where you're a liar. There's about 1.5 million people that are covered by (4) that are full citizens, with all rights inside Israel, and nobody of any consequence is talking about moving all of them into the West Bank or Gaza.

 

Furthermore, Israel isn't a "host" nation over the Palestinians. It is an occupying power. The Palestinians who are not citizens of Israel are not therefore segregated from a nation. They are merely in a stateless territory.

 

I provided links to Isreali Prime ministers and politicians talking about how this model was the best for Israell and how they admired aspects of the SA aprthaeid system.

No you haven't. You've provided links to people saying they've heard a mate say that an Israeli minister was admiring certain aspects of the system.

 

I provided my opinion - which deomnstrated knowledge, objectivity and understanding of the subtley and nuances of the political world in which we live. I have never ever taken a 'side'.

Wait, did you actually just say that?

 

Trouble is we have someone running around ranting basically calling anyone that he doesnt agree with (or more correctly who doesnt agree with him) an "idiot" and a "liar" and all the rest of it. Doesnt matter if your Jewish yourself, or have two PhD's, have written 12 books, are held in the highest regard academically, it doesst matter if you have addressed US Congress or the UN General Assembly and work at the highest diplomatic post possible. It doesnt matter that you have studied and dedicated years of your life to law, politcis and conflict studies. It doesnt matter if you are called upon to advise Prime Ministers. Etc, etc etc.

You're right. It doesn't matter.

 

Because here's the thing: when you're wrong, you're wrong - no matter what your credentials are and whose brown stains you have on your nose.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

:)

 

This thread is like the conflict in microcosm sometimes.

 

Didn't say I would not read it GFK, I will, or at least the parts I have not already seen, but, my rather extensive library contains amongst other things about two linear metres of books on the ME, from all aspects and that's apart from what I read on-line.

 

It also contains rather a lot on the nuclear conundrum. I would not wish a nuclear war upon anyone but feel the same as you, however I can and have walked both sides of the ground in the ME and have had my opinions formed by that so I find it difficult to see my logic as false.

 

However if you want a clear-eyed view of the situation in the ME you won't get it from the UN.

 

It is worth noting that Israeli authors who disagree on the policies of their nation are not uncommon, but they still live there in the main. Any Arab speaking out against Arab policies is very unlikely to have that freedom.

 

Cheers

 

 

I hear what your saying - and just on that I work daily at the moment with Palestinian and Israeli Jewish Phd Law students - and we all get on and its very cool - they are all 'educated' (in the sense that they are all trained in a methodology of analysis) which makes a difference :-) There are a number of exciting projects going on at the moment dealing with state and relationship building in the West Bank particularly ( to do with legal education which is my current research area) established through UNSW. I did provide evidence of some of this stuff and was unfortunately called a liar - depsite the evidence. Oh well. I did say to Tinbane that evidence (at least to have something to focus on and talk about) never matters with some people . . .

 

 

But ultimately I am interested in the actual building blocks of a society - its institutions for example and how they are constituted and who controls them and how. Secondly I am interested in comparing and contrasting - and seeking objectivity. At the end of the day what you need to interpret the world around you is a context or schema. The benefit of actually engaging with those members is simply to see directly how those instituions actually operate in practice. For example there is nothing intrinsically bad about a wall - except for the imagery it conveys - the wall is judged by how it affects people lives. I dont need to be at the wall to see this (modern technology yay). Furthermore If I was there then my opinion is weak anyway as I am not of that context and risk interpreting the situation from a preconcieved cultural context I bring with me.

 

So 'being there' especially when trying to be objective about the 'big picture' is not always the best things.

 

Oh and I accept totally that there is far more freedom in Israel. Israel is for all intents and purposes a modern 'democratic' society - its Basic Laws have regualraly been interported by the Israeli Supreme Court in a very liberal manner. Totally (it of course has its problems much like Australia - Pluralism can be difficult) . But again there is the question of those Palestinians . . . . and what the hell to do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And I reference this as an example yet again of how not to operate - For example I have never ever said this statement - I want to "give Hamas control of 7 million people". He just made it up to shift discussoin away from a substantive human matter . . . .

I've never said that you made that statement.

 

I merely said that this is what you want to happen. You're advocating a two state solution - this is what will happen.

 

If you don't want that to happen, stop pushing for a two state solution at this time and work to lay the groundwork for that not to happen. This would mean admitting that settlements are not a MAJOR problem and Hamas are. Because Israel has removed settlements in territories it occupied on two prior occasions. Hamas have never moderated.

 

Clearly, the problem is not the settlements since everyone with an IQ greater than Falk's and Chomsky's combined (and that'd include most of the world's population) can clearly see that Israel is willing to compromise and Hamas are not.

 

Since Hamas control most of the weapons, most of the Palestinian people and are the most popular, there's very good grounds to expect that in a two state solution they will ritually murder Fateh and other moderately crazy opposition parties and continue doing exactly what they did as soon as Israel made an unilateral commitment without a reciprocated commitment from the Palestinians.

 

Of course what he wont say is that my love of freedom extends to protecting this persons right to speak - and I will defend that even if I dissagree with him.

Again, a funny statement to make from someone who wants to hand over 7 million people to Hamas.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I provided links to Isreali Prime ministers and politicians talking about how this model was the best for Israell and how they admired aspects of the SA aprthaeid system.

No you haven't. You've provided links to people saying they've heard a mate say that an Israeli minister was admiring certain aspects of the system.

 

 

 

So now your calling the Prime Minister of another country a liar as well? Have you no shame? Everyone is a liar.

 

 

Trouble is mate you ignore everything anybody else puts up. Heres some bits from - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel_and_th...ote-Falk2011-48 - that you were too arrogant to read too.

 

Just for some balance.

 

----

 

According to former Italian Prime Minister Massimo d'Alema, former Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon had described to him "at length" that he felt the "bantustan model" was the most appropriate solution to the conflict in the West Bank.[205] The term “Bantustan” historically refers to the separate territorial areas designated as homelands under the South African apartheid State. Adam and Moodley explain that Israeli officials such as Sharon and Ehud Barak used the analogy "self-servingly in their exhortations and rationalizations" and that they have repeatedly deplored the occupation and seeming 'South Africanization', yet "have done everything to entrench it".[6]

 

Shulamit Aloni, who served as Minister for Education under Yitzhak Rabin, discussed Israeli practices in the West Bank in an article published in the Israeli daily Yediot Acharonot. Aloni wrote that "Jewish self-righteousness is taken for granted among ourselves to such an extent that we fail to see what’s right in front of our eyes. It’s simply inconceivable that the ultimate victims, the Jews, can carry out evil deeds. Nevertheless, the state of Israel practises its own, quite violent, form of Apartheid with the native Palestinian population. The US Jewish Establishment’s onslaught on former President Jimmy Carter is based on him daring to tell the truth which is known to all: through its army, the government of Israel practises a brutal form of Apartheid in the territory it occupies."[206]

 

Yossi Sarid, who served as environment minister under Yitzhak Rabin and Shimon Peres, writing in Haaretz stated that "the white Afrikaners, too, had reasons for their segregation policy; they, too, felt threatened — a great evil was at their door, and they were frightened, out to defend themselves. Unfortunately, however, all good reasons for apartheid are bad reasons; apartheid always has a reason, and it never has a justification. And what acts like apartheid, is run like apartheid and harasses like apartheid, is not a duck - it is apartheid."[9]

 

Jamal Zahalka, an Israeli-Arab member of the Knesset argued that an apartheid system has already taken shape in that the West Bank and Gaza Strip are separated into "cantons" and Palestinians are required to carry permits to travel between them.[207] Azmi Bishara, a former Knesset member, argued that the Palestinian situation had been caused by "colonialist apartheid."[208]

 

Michael Ben-Yair, attorney-general of Israel from 1993 to 1996 referred to Israel establishing "an apartheid regime in the occupied territories" in an essay published in Haaretz.[209]

 

Some Israelis have compared the separation plan to apartheid, such as political scientist, Meron Benvenisti,[140] and journalist, Amira Hass.[210] Ami Ayalon, a former admiral, claiming it "ha[d] some apartheid characteristics."[211]

 

A major 2002 study of Israeli settlement practices by the Israeli human rights organization B'Tselem concluded: "Israel has created in the Occupied Territories a regime of separation based on discrimination, applying two separate systems of law in the same area and basing the rights of individuals on their nationality. This regime is the only one of its kind in the world, and is reminiscent of distasteful regimes from the past, such as the apartheid regime in South Africa." A more recent B'Tselem publication on the road system Israel has established in the West Bank concluded that it "bears striking similarities to the racist Apartheid regime," and even "entails a greater degree of arbitrariness than was the case with the regime that existed in South Africa."[212]

 

Academic and political activist Uri Davis, an Israeli citizen who describes himself as "a Palestinian Hebrew national of Jewish origin, anti-Zionist, registered as Muslim and a citizen of an apartheid state — the State of Israel."[213] has written several books on the subject, including Israel: An Apartheid State in 1987.[38]

 

Daphna Golan-Agnon, co-founder of B'Tselem and founding director of Bat Shalom writes in her 2002 book Next Year in Jerusalem, "I'm not sure if the use of the term apartheid helps us to understand the discrimination against Palestinians in Israel or the oppression against Palestinians in the Occupied Territories. I'm not sure the discussion about how we are like or unlike South Africa helps move us forward to a solution. But the comparison reminds us that hundreds of laws do not make discrimination just and that the international community, the same international community we want to belong to, did not permit the perpetuation of apartheid. And it doesn't matter how we explain it and how many articles are written by Israeli scholars and lawyers—there are two groups living in this small piece of land, and one enjoys rights and liberty while the other does not."[214]

 

In October 2000, a group of Israeli Jews living in London signed a statement, initiated by Moshé Machover, describing Israel's policies in the occupied territories as apartheid.[215] In a later essay, Machover, co-founder of Matzpen, the Israeli Socialist Organization and professor of philosophy in London, warned against "an unthinking use of this misleading analogy between Israeli policy and that of the defunct apartheid regime in South Africa." Accepting that "the two have many features in common", Machover concluded that Zionism, which aimed to "eliminate, exterminate or expel" Palestinians, rather than to exploit them, "is far worse than apartheid. Apartheid can be reversed. Ethnic cleansing is immeasurably harder to reverse; at least not in the short or medium term."[216]

 

Retired Israeli judge and legal commentator for the daily Yedioth Ahronoth Boaz Okon wrote in June 2010 that events in Israel, when taken together, constituted apartheid and fascism. Okon used as examples segregated schools and streets, a "minute" proportion of Israeli Arabs employed in the civil service, censorship, limits on foreign workers having children in Israel and the monitoring of cell phones, email and Internet usage.[217]

 

 

 

Danny Rubinstein, a columnist at Ha'aretz reportedly likened Israel to apartheid South Africa during a United Nations conference at the European Parliament in Brussels on 30 August 2007, stating: "Israel today was an apartheid State with four different Palestinian groups: those in Gaza, East Jerusalem, the West Bank and Israeli Palestinians, each of which had a different status."[218]

 

In an article in Haaretz in October 2010, Israeli journalist and academic Zvi Bar'el wrote that "Israel's apartheid movement is coming out of the woodwork and is taking on a formal, legal shape. It is moving from voluntary apartheid, which hides its ugliness through justifications of "cultural differences" and "historic neglect" which only requires a little funding and a couple of more sewage pipes to make everything right — to a purposeful, open, obligatory apartheid, which no longer requires any justification."[219]

 

Israeli poet, author and journalist Yitzhak Laor wrote in 2009 that Israel had a form of apartheid with a supporting system "more ruthless" than that seen in South Africa. He argued that the "lie" of the system being temporary makes it harder to oppose, and that because the existing situation has the political support of Israeli voters the US government will not oppose it with conviction.[220]

 

Professor Daniel Blatman[221] of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem has said that the aim legislation passed in the Knesset around 2009-2011 was a gradual establishment of an apartheid state in Israel, and future separation of Jews and non-Jews "on a racial basis". He drew parallels to the establishment of the apartheid regime in South Africa, and also racial separation laws passed by the Nazis. According to Blatman in all cases, individual laws were argued for using reasoned arguments but the overall effect of the legislation was racist.[222] In 2011 Alon Liel, former director general of the ministry of foreign affairs of Israel, compared legislation under consideration in the Knesset to laws of apartheid-era South Africa. The legislation under consideration would, if passed, place limits on NGOs operating in Israel, in effect restricting funding from foreign sources to Israeli human rights groups. According to Liel, this legislation was reminiscent of the South African "Affected Organisations Act", and was aimed at organizations "fighting to preserve what remains of Israeli democracy".[223] In June 2012, Liel expressed his support for a cultural boycott of Israel, as a means of pressure to bring about "Palestinian independence, not an Israeli apartheid state".[224]

 

In August 2010, Israeli-born academic Ran Greenstein, based at the University of the Witwatersrand in Johannesburg, argued that Israel (referring to the single differentiated regime governing both pre-1967 and post-1967 territories) is a form of 'apartheid of a special type', displaying systematic exclusion of Palestinians on an ethnic - not racial - basis, and yet is different in some respects from the original South African model of apartheid. The differences have to do with the use of indigenous labor power by settlers (much more common in South Africa than in Israel), and the more rigid identity boundaries between groups in Israel. Consequently, this type of apartheid displays greater tendency towards physical exclusion of indigenous people (affecting to varying degrees Palestinian citizens, residents under occupation and refugees) than was the case for indigenous people under South African apartheid.[225]

 

Israeli writer Uri Avnery said in a 2012 interview that in his view, Israel was an apartheid state. He said apartheid was "full" in the occupied territories and "growing" inside Israel's borders. According to Avnery, if it goes on, it will be "incontestably" full

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh and I accept totally that there is far more freedom in Israel. Israel is for all intents and purposes a modern 'democratic' society - its Basic Laws have regualraly been interported by the Israeli Supreme Court in a very liberal manner. Totally (it of course has its problems much like Australia - Pluralism can be difficult) . But again there is the question of those Palestinians . . . . and what the hell to do.

Right so again my dear Emeritus Professor of Lying... given that Israel is a modern democratic society and the fact that non_Israeli Palestinians are not citizens of Israel, would it be fair to say that there is no apartheid whatsoever in any aspect of Israel, including in the occupation which is bound by the laws of the Fourth Geneva Convention to uphold the laws of the occupied peoples?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh and I accept totally that there is far more freedom in Israel. Israel is for all intents and purposes a modern 'democratic' society - its Basic Laws have regualraly been interported by the Israeli Supreme Court in a very liberal manner. Totally (it of course has its problems much like Australia - Pluralism can be difficult) . But again there is the question of those Palestinians . . . . and what the hell to do.

Right so again my dear Emeritus Professor of Lying... given that Israel is a modern democratic society and the fact that non_Israeli Palestinians are not citizens of Israel, would it be fair to say that there is no apartheid whatsoever in any aspect of Israel, including in the occupation which is bound by the laws of the Fourth Geneva Convention to uphold the laws of the occupied peoples?

 

 

Im sorry which part dont you agree with? No seriously. EVERYONE else is wrong and Isreals interpretation is correct?

 

The international community considers the establishment of Israeli settlements in the Israeli-occupied territories illegal under international law,[1][2][3][4][5] but Israel maintains that they are consistent with international law[6] because it does not agree that the Fourth Geneva Convention applies to the territories occupied in the 1967 Six-Day War, due to lack of a legal sovereign of these territories.[7] The United Nations Security Council, the United Nations General Assembly, the International Committee of the Red Cross, the International Court of Justice and the High Contracting Parties to the Convention have all affirmed that the Fourth Geneva Convention does apply.[8][9]

 

 

What you dont seem to get is that some of are hoping that a Palestinain state can emerge that has strong institutional building blocks that can resist extremisim and work in a spirit of cooperation with its neighbours. It is a realistic hope for peace and reason to prevail. All that is coming from your end is hate, anger, aggression, violence and vitriol. As they say, if your not part of the solution then your part ofd the problem.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So now your calling the Prime Minister of another country a liar as well? Have you no shame? Everyone is a liar.

I swear to god it's like arguing with a child. What the PM of the other country heard three or four years ago is hearsay.

 

What has been proposed is hard documentary evidence.

 

On the evidence that has been seen by a fuckload of people, vs the recollections of one man - there is no proposal for any Bantustan-like structures. There just aren't.

 

So either the Italian PM has a faulty recollection or Sharon is saying that he wants Bantustan while not offering Bantustan solutions.

 

Trouble is mate you ignore everything anybody else puts up. Heres some bits from - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel_and_th...ote-Falk2011-48 - that you were too arrogant to read too.

9/11 truthers and anti-semites are people I don't bother reading.

 

Shulamit Aloni, who served as Minister for Education under Yitzhak Rabin, discussed Israeli practices in the West Bank in an article published in the Israeli daily Yediot Acharonot. Aloni wrote that "Jewish self-righteousness is taken for granted among ourselves to such an extent that we fail to see what’s right in front of our eyes. It’s simply inconceivable that the ultimate victims, the Jews, can carry out evil deeds. Nevertheless, the state of Israel practises its own, quite violent, form of Apartheid with the native Palestinian population. The US Jewish Establishment’s onslaught on former President Jimmy Carter is based on him daring to tell the truth which is known to all: through its army, the government of Israel practises a brutal form of Apartheid in the territory it occupies."[206]

That's 1.

 

Yossi Sarid, who served as environment minister under Yitzhak Rabin and Shimon Peres, writing in Haaretz stated that "the white Afrikaners, too, had reasons for their segregation policy; they, too, felt threatened — a great evil was at their door, and they were frightened, out to defend themselves. Unfortunately, however, all good reasons for apartheid are bad reasons; apartheid always has a reason, and it never has a justification. And what acts like apartheid, is run like apartheid and harasses like apartheid, is not a duck - it is apartheid."[9]

The headline for the article you drew that from is:

There is no hint of similarity between South Africa and Israel, and only a sick mind could draw such shadowy connections between them; stilll, it is entirely clear why the word apartheid terrifies us so.

 

Jamal Zahalka, an Israeli-Arab member of the Knesset argued that an apartheid system has already taken shape in that the West Bank and Gaza Strip are separated into "cantons" and Palestinians are required to carry permits to travel between them.[207] Azmi Bishara, a former Knesset member, argued that the Palestinian situation had been caused by "colonialist apartheid."[208]

Needing permits to travel between two areas is not apartheid. For example, non-military Israelis need permits to go into Areas A and B.

 

When you cross foreign soil you need permits. There's no way of getting between Gaza and the West Bank without going through Israel unless you take a really circuitous route. Hence permits.

 

No apartheid there.

 

Azmi Bishara supports terrorists. You should look at his wiki profile. Lovely guy.

 

Michael Ben-Yair, attorney-general of Israel from 1993 to 1996 referred to Israel establishing "an apartheid regime in the occupied territories" in an essay published in Haaretz.[209]

That's two.

 

Some Israelis have compared the separation plan to apartheid, such as political scientist, Meron Benvenisti,[140] and journalist, Amira Hass.[210] Ami Ayalon, a former admiral, claiming it "ha[d] some apartheid characteristics."[211]

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

In rebutting allegations that Israel is an apartheid state

 

I've not had a look at the rest, but basically the same story:

1. All articles are from Ha'aretz

2. At least half of those who you say are saying Israel is apartheid, are actually saying something different.

 

But congratulations, out of the roughly 150,000 Israeli politicians from 1947-now, you've found a whole two that state Israel is an apartheid state.

 

Im sorry which part dont you agree with? No seriously. EVERYONE else is wrong and Isreals interpretation is correct?

Do you know how the law works?

 

Until it is tested in a court of law, international opinion is opinion.

 

For example, until recently the international opinion was that the naval blockade on Gaza was illegal. International opinion appears to have been wrong. The naval blockade was legal.

 

The international community considers the establishment of Israeli settlements in the Israeli-occupied territories illegal under international law,[1][2][3][4][5] but Israel maintains that they are consistent with international law[6] because it does not agree that the Fourth Geneva Convention applies to the territories occupied in the 1967 Six-Day War, due to lack of a legal sovereign of these territories.[7] The United Nations Security Council, the United Nations General Assembly, the International Committee of the Red Cross, the International Court of Justice and the High Contracting Parties to the Convention have all affirmed that the Fourth Geneva Convention does apply.[8][9]

Good. Israel withdraws tomorrow including all the stuff it gives the Palestinians.

 

Then what? Where are you going to find space for 5-7 million graves as the Palestinians literally hemorrhage because the settlements are their main source of income?

 

There are facts on the ground GFK that don't tend to lend themselves to unrealistic policy theoreticals. The Fourth Geneva Convention might apply, but if you want it to apply, what will be the consequences?

 

What you dont seem to get is that some of are hoping that a Palestinain state can emerge that has strong institutional building blocks that can resist extremisim and work in a spirit of cooperation with its neighbours.

Did the tooth fairy visit you too? Right after the flying pig and purple unicorn?

 

It is a realistic hope for peace and reason to prevail

No it's not. There is no hope. Zero.

 

I mean seriously... why are you not listening to what Hamas is saying? Are you hearing something I'm not?

 

There is no solution with Hamas as they are now. Don't even pretend that there is - it's an indefensible, dumb position.

 

---

 

Also GFK, remember the ruling on Turkey's occupation of North Cyprus? The EU court ruled that because of the length of the occupation, the refugees had no right of return because of facts on the ground after 35 years and that it would displace people who moved there in good faith from Turkey.

 

Those settlements are facts on the ground for 45 years in some cases and Israel can use the same argument Turkey did.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

False logic. I dont need to live through a nuclear war to know I dont want to live through a nuclear war :-)

That's a funny statement to make from a guy who claims to love rights and freedoms but wants to give Hamas control of 7 million people.

 

 

Worth watching.

 

Near four minutes of straw manning and strangeness.

 

I dunno bro.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

False logic. I dont need to live through a nuclear war to know I dont want to live through a nuclear war :-)

That's a funny statement to make from a guy who claims to love rights and freedoms but wants to give Hamas control of 7 million people.

 

 

Worth watching.

 

Near four minutes of straw manning and strangeness.

 

I dunno bro.

 

It's not straw manning - it's the hijacking of democracy by those with no interest in its purpose.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

:)

 

Think I'll pass on the clip, Ratti and my opinions tend to agree.

 

There certainly are some odd nations currently represented on the UNHRC though, some that could only be defined as anti-Semitic and more than one that I would have to wonder if the sitting member could find Gaza on a map - hardly surprising, and there are some countries that really bemuse me in terms of their own human rights record.

 

Cheers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What GFK fails to understand, is that after the Arabs lost the war, they went to Khartoum where they once again set in motion the wheels of Arab Rejectionism:

 

no peace with Israel, no recognition of Israel, no negotiations with it.

 

This happened in 1967. In 1964, before there were any settlements the PLO formed and started attacking Israel. In other words, any claims that Palestinians do their signature move (Allah Akbar a Jewish kindergarden) because of settlements is false.

 

So faced with the reality that even after losing, and being offered land for peace, the Arabs refused to negotiate - Israel started creating facts on the ground and building settlements.

 

It is these settlements that had a role in forcing Egypt to the negotiation table and it is these settlements that Israel removed in order to conclude peace.

 

What we saw on Thursday was another classic case of Arab Rejectionism, with the Palestinians choosing to define themselves as a state when any objective assessment shows that they are far from a state. So Israel's starting to create more facts on the ground.

 

It worked before. Maybe it'll work again.

 

Also just heard - Israel apparently started to call in debts owed by the PA (around a billion shekels) by withholding 450 million shekels in collected taxes. The PA won't have money to pay salaries.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmm,

 

The story has many sides.

 

I heard today Israel has called due on the power bill, which is sort of fair enough.

 

I really don't like the settlement approach though, very provocative and whilst I know many will volunteer to be part it places lives in danger.

 

Cheers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Excellent missing perspective about the facts on the ground in this E1 proposal.

 

There's nothing here about the illegalities, but it does point out a few misconceptions which I was not aware of - that it's going to be years before any building starts is an example.

 

http://blogs.timesofisrael.com/e1-is-a-mou...ot-a-statement/

 

Now bear in mind the following facts:

- If Ma'ale Adumim is not joined to Jerusalem and E1 is given to the Palestinians, then Israel will be a non-contiguous state.

- If Ma'ale Adumim is joined to Jerusalem, West Bank contiguity remains.

- There is a certain international expectation we can call "Everybody Knows" - it basically details what the Palestinian state is going to look like. Ma'ale Adumim, according to the Clinton Parameters(1) and the Annapolis Conference(2), is to be ceded to Israel in exchange for land.

- The Palestine Papers (authenticity disputed by Palestinians, authenticity not disputed by pretty much everyone else) clearly show that the Palestinians are not going to get a state with Ma'ale Adumim(3)

 

(2)

(1)

(3):

Rice: I don’t think that any Israeli leader is going to cede Ma’ale Adumim.

Qurei: Or any Palestinian leader.

Rice: Then you won’t have a state!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's a very severe problem Leo, type "Ma’ale Adumim" into Google and you get a lot of hits that do not reflect well on Israel.

 

Granted the full, truthful story is not reflected but it is what people will see and believe.

 

Cheers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's a very severe problem Leo, type "Ma’ale Adumim" into Google and you get a lot of hits that do not reflect well on Israel.

 

Granted the full, truthful story is not reflected but it is what people will see and believe.

 

Cheers

That's because emotional soundbites with no real basis favour the Palestinians.

 

Most people have not heard of all the accords signed between the two nations, which the Palestinians keep breaking.

 

Israel needs better PR.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

:)

 

As much as I love Israel a little less arrogance would be worth a ton of PR sometimes.

 

Cheers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

:)

 

As much as I love Israel a little less arrogance would be worth a ton of PR sometimes.

 

Cheers

I think it's a case of Israel honestly not knowing what to do.

 

Remember Abbas asked for a settlement freeze? Netanyahu gave him one with exception to building inside Jerusalem which will be annexed by Israel (as per Palestine Papers)

 

Abbas sat on his arse for 9 months of the settlement freeze. Then when warned by Netanyahu that building would commence within settlements again, he said Israel doesn't want peace.

 

Israel have no idea what to do:

1. Accords, agreements with Palestinians are worthless since the Palestinians break them at the earliest opportunity.

2. Wars with the Palestinians are inconclusive because the world has no idea what the fuck is going on in there and Israel is denied the right to do what any other country would

3. Settlements or no settlements, the Palestinians take every new freedom and turn it into a weapon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No argument with that, biting the hand that feeds seems taught to Palestinians at birth.

 

Cheers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i was just trawling through youtube and found a few gems from the jewish youth of isreal lol, hows the sense of entitlement on this idiot

 

 

"This is my land, god gave it to me!"

 

lol im sure he did mate

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yep. Assholes like this guy all vote for "The Jewish Home", a right-wing nationalist party represented by three seats in the 120-seat Knesset.

 

They are an exact parallel of the Christian Democratic Party here (from wiki about CDP): The party opposes abortion, euthanasia, pornography, homosexuality, adultery, incest, and Islam.

 

To top it off they also believe in creationism and God over constitution.

 

They are scary people.

 

The good news: they are a minority in Israel.

The bad news: the Islamist parallels of them are a majority in the Arab Middle East.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i was just trawling through youtube and found a few gems from the jewish youth of isreal lol, hows the sense of entitlement on this idiot

Proof that drunk assholes happen in every culture. (notice the bottle held prominently in the loudmouth's left hand)

 

Now, if you showed me a clip of a sober adult saying the same things, that would be something to be concerned about.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They are scary people.

 

The good news: they are a minority in Israel.

The bad news: the Islamist parallels of them are a majority in the Arab Middle East.

the easy thing to point out here is people would go to Israel for a holiday

 

You wouldn't go anywhere else in that area without a gun and a few mates around to stop you from getting kid napped. Unless you go to Dubai but thats miles away from there, Everyone should see Dubai imo. See what the Arabs can accomplish when they are not tied down by that crazy religion

Edited by xnatex

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You wouldn't go anywhere else in that area without a gun and a few mates around to stop you from getting kid napped. Unless you go to Dubai but thats miles away from there, Everyone should see Dubai imo. See what the Arabs can accomplish when they are not tied down by that crazy religion

Errr, they are pretty hardcore over there.

What they've "accomplished" has a lot more to do with our desire and willingness to buy oil at high prices without giving a shit what the producers do in their own country.

While the UAE has oil, it will be "mates" with the US.

Don't ever think that the UAE is a first world nation in the proper sense, no matter how many car races, rich people, or sky scrapers they have.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i was just trawling through youtube and found a few gems from the jewish youth of isreal lol, hows the sense of entitlement on this idiot

Proof that drunk assholes happen in every culture. (notice the bottle held prominently in the loudmouth's left hand)

 

Now, if you showed me a clip of a sober adult saying the same things, that would be something to be concerned about.

 

Oh they exist, and despite the best effort of the majority of Jews who are secular, atheist or reform - these assholes continue to breed.

 

It's a damned shame actually.

 

I've long been of the opinion that in any cause, the biggest assholes the moderates have to deal with are those from their own side. This is why I give full credit to Tony Abbott for destroying One Nation, and why I excoriate Labor for the Greens pact.

 

If you don't deal decisively with the radicals on your own side, they will take it as a sign of passive agreement and destroy you from the inside.

 

A very painful example can be seen in the Islamic world where the minority started ripping the moderate majority in the 1970s who remained apathetic. Now the moderates barely exist and the former minority is now a populist majority far behind the curve of freedom.

 

The sad thing is, America almost let that happen in a few states with Christian fundamentalist crusaders.

 

They are scary people.

 

The good news: they are a minority in Israel.

The bad news: the Islamist parallels of them are a majority in the Arab Middle East.

the easy thing to point out here is people would go to Israel for a holiday

 

You wouldn't go anywhere else in that area without a gun and a few mates around to stop you from getting kid napped. Unless you go to Dubai but thats miles away from there, Everyone should see Dubai imo. See what the Arabs can accomplish when they are not tied down by that crazy religion

 

I will never go to Dubai. That veneer of sophistication and western mimicry has not been created with any respect to human rights.

 

It was built with slave labour and I don't believe in slave labour, not in this day and age.

 

And this is what makes me different to GFK for example.

 

When I say I support gay rights I support them everywhere. When I say I support equal opportunity for women, I support them everywhere. When I say that liberal democracy is the best form of government, that is my view irrespective of colour, ethnicity or nationality.

 

With these beliefs, which I believe GFK to also hold, we wield the most powerful weapon in the world - the belief that all people should strive to be the freest and best that they can be.

 

The difference is that I won't overlook these for another ideal and GFK would. To him a Palestinian State is more important than the consequences of that state on the very people whose lives he claims to demand greater freedom for.

 

When Palestinians give themselves human rights and show the slightest interest in helping themselves in that area - that is when I will seek to help them. Not when the consequences of statehood is sharia law which will take civil rights back to 630AD.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×