Israeli Tape Shows Militants Using Vehicles Marked "UN"

Einherjar wrote:

Yes I am pleasantly surprised. Usually I'm made out to be some sort of neo nazi in the majority of answers to my posts.

I like this forum.

Edit: WOW, I saw that. What happened to chef?

Yeah, me too.

I'm feeling very seasonal. Call it fall fever.

0 Replies

who is chef?

0 Replies

My old avatar. He's on vacation.

0 Replies

Einherjar wrote:

India was dealing with the British, who were hopelessly outnumbered. The British didn't have the manpower to control India without Indian assistance. This is not the case in Palestine. There is no reason to belive that non violent resistance is going to achieve more in Palestine than it has done in Tibet.

There is. The primary reason is the number of civilian peace movements in Israel, for example, including extreme left wingers. And physical labor in Israel prior to the last intifada was largely operated by the Palestinians. It's not accidental that most of them admit now that the intifada was a grave mistake.

On the other hand, I suggest you to find a good historic example when violent resistance resulted a prosperous and peaceful state.

Einherjar wrote:

(A Gush Shalom presentation) A side note - if it translates to a smiley, it loses its hyperlink properties...

A nice presentation, thanks. But,

A. They manipulate figures - starting by marking all the territories as 22% which means that they have that Hamas's opinion that the Palestinians must have it all.
B. They don't explain what is temporary Israeli control, even though I believe it had defined timeframe.
C. They forget to mention that instead of the areas taken by the settlements, the Palestinians compensated with other territories.
D. The reason for rejection was not at all territorial, which means that Arafat was more or less satisfied with the territories. Or wasn't considering acceptance at all.

Einherjar wrote:

Galilite wrote:
But for me, the main fault of the Palestinian politicians is that they use war to bargain
What would you have them bargain with?

Any kind of negotiations implies contradictions to be solved. This is why they are called "negotiations".

Now, when two sides sit down to negotiate, it usually means that they overcame the hostility stage and will try to solve their contradictions together.

Einherjar wrote:

Everyone wants peace, the only question is on what terms.

Egypt wanted peace - and it has it now. Jordan wanted peace - and it has it now.

Einherjar wrote:

I forgot to answer this in my last post:

Galilite wrote:
"Stolen"? Could you please recreate the events showing how exactly Gaza was "stolen"?
Israeli troops came driving along in humvees ant took control.

This is a little bit like saying, "What brought you here?" - "A plane".

Einherjar wrote:

It is a timeline, timelines doesn't go in depth. The Irgun attack is mentioned because it is an outstanding example of Jewish atrocities, and because it marked the beginning of the flow of refugees, not because it was the only incident. Do you contest that hundreds of thousands of palestinian refugees were fleing Israel prior to the declarations of war?

Timelines mention key events. Which is why it looks inconsistent.

Yes, I deny it; I say the refugees started to flow after the war began. I never heard other claims, read in Wikipedia again.

Einherjar wrote:

The antisemite allegation, I was wondering when that would be made. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and consider this a bad joke.

Einherjar, I don't think you're an antisemite. I even don't think that most of those who blame Israel in all the thinkable and unthinkable sins are antisemite. I say the problem here is Europe's colonial complexes and the lawyer morality I mentioned already.

However, it looks like Holocaust denial and revisionism is not rare in Europe nowadays so I wasn't sure.

By the way: to change the text color, use "color" tag, not "code".

Einherjar wrote:

They did conduct ethnic cleansing. They may have believed that their actions would not lead to war. And as for the Holocaust, that sort of traumatic experience doesn't necessarily make people less militant.

You mean, those European Jews 99% of whom never held firearms in their hands, were militants? Try moving to another country, preferably with zero possessions, starve a little while, get beaten. Analyse your thoughts afterwards. I say the only thing you'ld want is quiet life.

Galilite wrote:

Israeli incursions in 1967?!
Einherjar wrote:
There was something going on.

Or again, maybe not.

Einherjar wrote:

The whole episode started out with, I think it was Syria, moving forces to the Israeli border to draw Israeli forces away from some inner hostilities....
I know I didn't mention this in my previous post, but this was actually the one war I didn't blame Israel alone for.

Appreciate that.

Einherjar wrote:

Galilite wrote:
In the next years (after Fatahland was destroyed) Israel was only occupying Southern Lebanon.
Yes, International pressure forced Israel to withdraw from northern lebanon

Had little to do with the international pressure. Arafat was defeated so there was nothing to do.

By the way, there is one important aspect which most people miss: the pressure within Israel plays much more important role than the international one.

Einherjar wrote:

Which I'm not altogether happy with, but the palestinians on the west bank enjoyed much better conditions under Jordan than they do under Israel.

And just how do you know?

Only because Israel is closely watched doesn't mean that everything is quiet elsewhere. Do you know how many "Darfurs" Arab world had and has? How Syria (in charge for the human rights... what a joke!) ran over demonstrations with tanks? And nobody pays attention.

Einherjar wrote:

I understand they even got citizenship, (the ones in the west bank, not the ones from gaza).

Yes, they do.

Einherjar wrote:

I never stated anything was perfect, and as far as I understand we're only discussing the Israeli/palestinian conflict. And no, i've never been to the middle east.

Well, it's a pity. It is very enlightening; things don't work here the way they do in Europe. Being in an army or working in the mass media also helps to understand how these institutes work.

Einherjar wrote:

Galilite wrote:
You might want to find out who are Druses and why do they live in the mountains, why Jordan has difficult relationships with the rest of the Arab world, what kind of relationship is between bedouins and other Arabs, how Lebanon developed, why bedouins, Druses and Cherkess immediately joined forces with the Israelis when the Independence War began.
Or you could just tell me. I'm not sure however what this has to do with Israel.

It's too long to go into details (and the post is too long already), but in general - every new culture that appeared here encountered hostility. There have been ongoing animosity between the Muslim Arab majority and Druses, bedouins, Christian Arabs, Maronites, Cherkess and others, which makes all the Europe's bloody history pale in comparison. As Voltaire put it in his Candide when he told about Middle East, "What was happening there was hell on earth yet no one was forgetting to pray 5 times a day".

It only shows that this kind of problems were natural for the Middle East and Israel is not the one who brought it here, it just gets noticed more.

Einherjar wrote:

I understand you have a law that enables a collection of good ole boys to determine who gets to live in their neighborhood on basis of ethnicity. And that most, if not all, the good neighborhoods are Jewish only. That these good neighborhoods get more funding for schools and such than poor arab neighborhoods. That would pass for racism where I am from.

Have no idea where you picked this, I suspect from the same source that told about grain / food supplies from Palestine. Of course it's not true. There are cities on the north where I live - Haifa, Acre where mixed neighborhoods are majority. Although in most cases people don't intermingle - social connections, financial status, etc. - but I believe it's not unique to Israel.

Einherjar wrote:

Galilite wrote:
I say that a peaceful protest would yield better results. Remember Mahathma Ghandi?

And I say that this would lead to no more progress than it has in Tibet. Remember Dalai Lama?

First and foremost, Dalai Lama is not a politician. Second, Communists are less responsive in this case. Israel, on the other hand, was able to let go parts that were larger than the rest of it.

Einherjar wrote:

Galilite wrote:
Einherjar wrote:
Although the Russians (particularly their leaders) are as a whole to blame for the conflict.
Mostly, but not completely.
I'm closer to completely myself.

I still claim, that no matter what they did to you, if you shoot young kids with machine gun and make them drink their own urine, you're guilty, not someone else.

Do you mean that if the Jews slaughtered German kids back in 40s it would be justified? You know, this way it is possible to justify any crime.

Einherjar wrote:

I should probably have excluded the arab world.

But Israel's settlement policy and attempts to annex palestinian territory would have resulted in sanctions had they been perpetrated by any other nation. When compared to other nations which committed similar crimes in the same period of time, Israel have consistently come out with fewer repercussions.

Sanctions are usually applied for geopolitical reasons, not because someone doesn't like someone else.

Israel gets its oil and most of the natural gas from Egypt. Palestine gets the water and the electricity from Israel. No one ever mentioned cutting off someone else yet.

Einherjar wrote:

Heck, Israel is one of the prime recipients of funds from the Western world.

No. This is closer to truth that grain export, but also very very far. Look here:
Economic aid - recipient per GDP
Economic aid - recipient per capita

As you can see, even filthy rich Bahrain gets twice more, West Bank gets three times, Lebanon 9 times (!). And this is per capita - per GDP it's even more.

Einherjar wrote:

Galilite wrote:
when people who thought that Israel is a size of France country
who?

Those intellectuals who answered the polls.

Einherjar wrote:

As for the Hudna, the palestinians have shown themselves able to organise a cessation of hostilities from their side, and they have negotiated for permanent treaties. Hamas' rhetorics are not representative of the palestinian popular oppinion.

According to their own opinion polls, they were. It was a lose-lose situation, but I prefer losing staying alive. And as you could read, hudna serves only to rebuild the forces.

Einherjar wrote:

Well they were a net exporter of agricultural products. The grain thing has probably originated during translation to Norwegian. We hav this term, "cornchamber" for areas which export food.

Except for that source, can you point elsewhere? Because as I recall, Judea was extremely poor province.

Grapes, apples that grow here are not of top quality. Since April to October there are no rains at all. Stuff that Israel exports to Europe is grown in greenhouses and even with modern technologies the agriculture is not very profitable.

Einherjar wrote:

The refugee problem would have been solved. Nice artïcle by the way.

Thanks.

Einherjar wrote:

Galilite wrote:
It matters because the symbol of the Palestinian fight for freedom was born and raised in Egypt...
I still don't see how Arafats biography should cause me to reasess the entire conflict.

Maybe because he is the symbol. How would it look if Putin came to Norway and started to rant, for example, about the status of Norsk language?

Einherjar wrote:

And I would argue that the pursuit of ethnic cleansing was abandoned when the state of Israel got proper control of the sionist militias. Probably to avoid an international outcry. Once the Israeli arabs had gotten Israeli citizenship there was no going back.

That war was a survival war, not a media war. No one cared about outcries back then... again, it was child's play in comparison to what France did back then in Algeria or Vietnam.

Einherjar wrote:

Galilite wrote:
Jordan gives them citizenship. And there's Palestinian authority.
Does jordan accept new refugees now? I didn't know that.

There are no new refugees now.

Einherjar wrote:

As for the Palestinian authority, I understand that it is the Israeli's who give construction permits, and that these are rather reluctant to give them to anyone but Israeli settlers.

No, I believe it's not that way. Areas are allocated for settlements, which become Israeli, other areas are not under Israeli control.

Einherjar wrote:

Galilite wrote:
Trust. Provocations.

Give it a shot, worst case scenario you get a couple of months without suicide bombs going off.

After Oslo agreements in 1993, Hamas committed a few large suicide bombings (10 - 30 dead in each one).

After each explosion, sporadic rightwing demonstrations were starting. In each one of them they were carrying huge slogans saying, "The victims of the peace process". I was thinking they were exaggerating back then. Now I don't think so.

On the other hand, as the statistics show, suicide bombings do disappear after offensives.

This is a painful subject which many people work on, try researching before giving such advices.

Einherjar wrote:

I couldn't find one, but I think something does exist. The doucument says reaffirm, not establish, and the US sited something in connection with the first gulf war. I'm not sure though. Anyway, the UN is founded upon a series of principle, one of wich is that of autonomous nation states with borders determined by demographics, and that kind of hints in the same direction.

I'll take your word on that.

Einherjar wrote:

After the Independence war, the jewish populations in nearby arab countries were forced to flee as retribution for the palestinian refugees who were being denied the right return.

I don't understand why you said this. You think these Jews were guilty, huh? Hint: they had nothing to do with Israel.

Einherjar wrote:

au1929, your article has a lot of opinion mixed in with the facts.

But at least it shows well the geography.

Einherjar wrote:

I am under impression that the demographic situation was crafted with the intension of securing key teritory for the Israeli's. I would consider a complete withdrawal to the 67 borders an option.

But it's not continuous there as well.

Einherjar wrote:

Galilite wrote:
Yes, settlements are a problem. The solution to it is feasible though.
Taking the extremists out of them right?

The same thing they are doing now: compensations and dismantling them.

Einherjar wrote:

Phew, that was a long post

Yes. You don't have to reply immediately - I can't guarantee I'll reply immediately either. As the business week in Israel is shifted, Sunday is a business day... Maybe we should break it in parts.

0 Replies

FreeDuck wrote:

Just wanted to say this is one of the most polite discussions I've seen on this topic, and it is a hot topic! I'm done with the point by point as it makes me tired and it's all been said, but I'm enjoying reading the other posts as the posters are better informed than I am.

I must agree.
Now I have to rest. Reading five pages of English is tiresome...

0 Replies

New York Times
October 7, 2004
Israeli Aide Hints That Gaza Exit Would Freeze Peace Plan
By GREG MYRE

AZA, Oct. 6 - Israel's proposed withdrawal from the Gaza Strip is intended to put the issue of Palestinian statehood on indefinite hold, a close aide to Prime Minister Ariel Sharon said in an interview that was published Wednesday and immediately stirred controversy.

The comments by the aide, Dov Weissglas, who frequently handles delicate diplomatic contacts with the Bush administration, drew sharp criticism from the Palestinians. Mr. Sharon's office quickly put out a statement saying the prime minister was committed to the Middle East peace plan, known as the road map, which envisions Palestinian statehood sooner rather than later.

The State Department said it had sought clarification from the Israeli government and accepted Mr. Sharon's statement that he was supportive of the road map.

Mr. Sharon has himself dropped many hints that he is less than enthusiastic about the road map, which would require many concessions from Israel. In a recent newspaper interview, Mr. Sharon said Israel was not following the peace plan, which stalled amid violence shortly after it was introduced in June 2003.

Still, Mr. Weissglas's published remarks were unusually blunt. He described the planned withdrawal of Israeli settlers from Gaza and a part of the West Bank as a substitute for the road map, not a means of reviving the moribund peace process, as the Bush administration has stated.

"The significance of our disengagement plan is the freezing of the peace process," Mr. Weissglas was quoted as saying in Haaretz, a liberal daily often critical of Mr. Sharon's government. "It supplies the formaldehyde necessary so there is no political process with Palestinians."

"When you freeze the process, you prevent the establishment of a Palestinian state," Mr. Weissglas added. "Effectively, this whole package called a Palestinian state, with all it entails, has been removed indefinitely from our agenda."

In the interview, Mr. Weissglas also said the Israeli position had the "authority and permission" of the White House and Congress.

Until recently, Mr. Weissglas had been the prime minister's chief of staff and continues to serve as a senior adviser.

In Washington, Adam Ereli, a State Department spokesman, said, "Our understanding is that Israel is committed to the road map and to the president's two-state vision."

"Based on Israel's declared policy, we see no cause to doubt it," he said.

Palestinians contend that Mr. Sharon is not serious about holding negotiations, and they seized on Mr. Weissglas' remarks.

"I believe he has revealed the true intentions of Sharon," Saeb Erekat, the chief Palestinian negotiator, told Reuters.

The Palestinians are demanding that the Gaza withdrawal be part of a comprehensive peace effort. But they say that Mr. Sharon is using it in a bid to consolidate Israel's control on the much larger settlements in the West Bank.

The statement from Mr. Sharon's office said the prime minister "supports the road map, which is the only plan that will enable progress toward a lasting political settlement."

Meanwhile, six Palestinians and a farm worker from Thailand were killed in violence throughout Gaza on Wednesday, Palestinian hospitals and the Israeli military said.

Israeli forces shot dead two gunmen from the militant group Hamas who infiltrated the greenhouses at the Kfar Darom settlement in southern Gaza, the military said. A third attacker died when his explosive went off, and the Thai worker was killed during the gun battle. In northern Gaza, Israeli tank fire killed a father and son in their hometown, Beit Lahiya, and a 15-year old boy died from gunshot wounds in another Israeli shooting, Palestinian medical officials and doctors said.

For more than three years, Hamas has been shooting crude rockets from northern Gaza, with most directed at the Israeli town of Sederot, just outside Gaza.

Israeli forces charged into northern Gaza on Sept. 28 after the latest upsurge in rocket fire. More than 70 Palestinians and 5 Israelis have been killed in the operation.

0 Replies

I just lost my entire reply to Galilite's post due to technical difficulties. Worse still, I dont think i am upp to answering it yet again right now.

Here is an interesting webpage I found while looking for refferences:

http://reference.allrefer.com/country-guide-study/israel/

I had one other good one, but I cant seem to find it anymore.

0 Replies

Einherjar wrote:

I just lost my entire reply to Galilite's post due to technical difficulties. Worse still, I dont think i am upp to answering it yet again right now.

No problem. The discussion was long enough...

Sorry for the effort though.

Einherjar wrote:

Here is an interesting webpage I found while looking for refferences:

http://reference.allrefer.com/country-guide-study/israel/

I had one other good one, but I cant seem to find it anymore.

Thanks - this seems pretty comprehensive one.

0 Replies

I'm going to break the discussion up like Galilite said, and try to answer a third of his post now.

Galilite wrote:

Einherjar wrote:
India was dealing with the British, who were hopelessly outnumbered. The British didn't have the manpower to control India without Indian assistance. This is not the case in Palestine. There is no reason to belive that non violent resistance is going to achieve more in Palestine than it has done in Tibet.
There is. The primary reason is the number of civilian peace movements in Israel, for example, including extreme left wingers. And physical labor in Israel prior to the last intifada was largely operated by the Palestinians. It's not accidental that most of them admit now that the intifada was a grave mistake.

On the other hand, I suggest you to find a good historic example when violent resistance resulted a prosperous and peaceful state.

USA, Ireland, France under WWII.

Galilite wrote:

Einherjar wrote:
(A Gush Shalom presentation) A side note - if it translates to a smiley, it loses its hyperlink properties...

A nice presentation, thanks. But,

A. They manipulate figures - starting by marking all the territories as 22% which means that they have that Hamas's opinion that the Palestinians must have it all.

Unless the figures are dead wrong, I don't see the problem. I didn't pick this source for neutrality, I picked it for the fancy map.

B. They don't explain what is temporary Israeli control, even though I believe it had defined timeframe.

Yes they do, try shifting petween page two and three in the presentation.

I don't think there was any specified expirationdate for Israeli temporary controll, and in fact, I've got a (partisan) source that says there wasn't. If there was such an expirationdate, I assume you'll be able to find it.

C. They forget to mention that instead of the areas taken by the settlements, the Palestinians compensated with other territories.

If you're talking about the coridor to the mediteranian, I don't think that was ever really offered. If you are talking about something else, please post a source.

D. The reason for rejection was not at all territorial, which means that Arafat was more or less satisfied with the territories. Or wasn't considering acceptance at all.

The stated reason was the right to return, but Arafat would surely have sacrificed that in exchange for land, don't you think?

It would be nice to see a source that backs your oppinion that the palestinians were offered land on the Israeli side of the 67 border, and that the temporary controll zones had an expiration date.

Galilite wrote:

Einherjar wrote:
Galilite wrote:
But for me, the main fault of the Palestinian politicians is that they use war to bargain
What would you have them bargain with?
Any kind of negotiations implies contradictions to be solved. This is why they are called "negotiations".

Now, when two sides sit down to negotiate, it usually means that they overcame the hostility stage and will try to solve their contradictions together.

I assert that a cesation of violence is all the palestinians have to offer the Israeli's that they can not take for themselves. If the palestinians can not bargain with this, what incentive does Israel have to give up anything?

Galilite wrote:

Einherjar wrote:
Everyone wants peace, the only question is on what terms.
Egypt wanted peace - and it has it now. Jordan wanted peace - and it has it now.

You say Israel wants peace, but they are not officially at peace with Syria. This because there is a disagreement over the terms of such a peace. Syria wants peace along the old borders, Israel refuses to give up the Golan Hights. Heck even Hitler wanted peace when he invaded France, and once the Vichy were instated, "the French" agreed to his terms, and there was peace. Everyone wants peace, only the terms differ.

Quote:

Einherjar wrote:
I forgot to answer this in my last post:

Galilite wrote:
"Stolen"? Could you please recreate the events showing how exactly Gaza was "stolen"?
Israeli troops came driving along in humvees ant took control.
This is a little bit like saying, "What brought you here?" - "A plane".

I think we've been over the 67 war. I just don't see how that changes anything with respect to what land belongs to whom.

That's about one third.

When I answer the other thirds, should I start new threads?

0 Replies

Einherjar wrote:

Galilite wrote:
On the other hand, I suggest you to find a good historic example when violent resistance resulted a prosperous and peaceful state.
USA, Ireland, France under WWII.

France is a little out of key - it had statehood waaay before WWII, Ireland was far from prosperous decades after its creation. And I'm not sure about USA either.

Here we're talking about people who never had an experience of ruling a country. And they (as well as left wing Israelis who put those in charge) have an erroneous opinion that revolutionaries make good politicians.

Einherjar wrote:

The stated reason was the right to return, but Arafat would surely have sacrificed that in exchange for land, don't you think?

No! Because he didn't even mention it when they asked him why he turned the offer down.

And, in any case, any negotiations means bargaining, that is, giving a bad offer, then getting it improved until it satisfies both sides. Arafat offered nothing, he just walked away.

Einherjar wrote:

It would be nice to see a source that backs your oppinion that the palestinians were offered land on the Israeli side of the 67 border, and that the temporary controll zones had an expiration date.

Surprisingly, I couldn't find details of that offer. I found Israeli and Palestinian sources (including the one with that quote about cafeterias for prisoners) which interpreted it all differently, so I don't quote them.

Either both sides look bad here, or it's a routine to keep such things in secret?

What I found is here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Camp_David_2000_Summit

Wikipedia wrote:

The final proposal proffered by Barak would have meant Israeli annexation of 10% of the West Bank (largely encompassing current settlement blocs) in exchange for a much smaller swathe of land in the Negev desert.

By "Negev desert" they mean Jordanian valley here.

Einherjar wrote:

I assert that a cesation of violence is all the palestinians have to offer the Israeli's that they can not take for themselves. If the palestinians can not bargain with this, what incentive does Israel have to give up anything?

50 years of struggle, perhaps?

Einherjar wrote:

You say Israel wants peace, but they are not officially at peace with Syria. This because there is a disagreement over the terms of such a peace.

When Barak offered Assad to meet back in 1999, the latter didn't even arrive, sending his Foreign Minister instead. The latter refused to shake hands with Barak (!!!) and naturally, didn't apply any significant effort, while the current status quo is much more acceptable to Israel than Syria (Golan Heights are about 40 km from Damascus). Of course, it was meaningless to continue.

Einherjar wrote:

When I answer the other thirds, should I start new threads?

Err... better not. It was long enough to become "everything you wanted to know about Israeli Palestinian conflict but forgot to ask". I don't think there was a single aspect we overlooked. See, I tried to cut the unnecessary in this post.

0 Replies

Galilite wrote:

France is a little out of key - it had statehood waaay before WWII, Ireland was far from prosperous decades after its creation. And I'm not sure about USA either.

Do you consider any countries prosperous? Do you consider India, the result of civil disobedience prosperous?

Galilite wrote:

Here we're talking about people who never had an experience of ruling a country. And they (as well as left wing Israelis who put those in charge) have an erroneous opinion that revolutionaries make good politicians.

I'll agree that revolutionaries usually make lousy politicians, but claiming that no state prosperous state has ever or can ever result from violent uprising is an oversimplification. Although the french revolution saw lots of needles blodshed, France came to prosper once it stabilised again.

Galilite wrote:

Einherjar wrote:
The stated reason was the right to return, but Arafat would surely have sacrificed that in exchange for land, don't you think?
No! Because he didn't even mention it when they asked him why he turned the offer down.

When one turns down an offer one does not usually list all possible combinations which could have made the offer acceptable. Israel wasn't going to make any big territorial concessions, and Arafat knew it. Since he was ready to accept the deal if the right to return was respected, he considered that the reason for turning down the offer.

Galilite wrote:

And, in any case, any negotiations means bargaining, that is, giving a bad offer, then getting it improved until it satisfies both sides. Arafat offered nothing, he just walked away.

That was at least a PR blunder, and probably a blunder all together. He should have made a counteroffer, even though he didn't think an agreement with Barak was possible.

Galilite wrote:

Surprisingly, I couldn't find details of that offer. I found Israeli and Palestinian sources (including the one with that quote about cafeterias for prisoners) which interpreted it all differently, so I don't quote them.

The thing about Camp david is it was all of the record, which makes it hard to find the details of the various offers. Pro Israeli sources tend to just list the percentages and leave it at that, pro Palestinian sources, like this one, tend to launch innto a long list of greivances, and neutral sources seem to be virtually non-existent.

I found several sources with some sort of prisonquote. :wink:

Galilite wrote:

Wikipedia wrote:
The final proposal proffered by Barak would have meant Israeli annexation of 10% of the West Bank (largely encompassing current settlement blocs) in exchange for a much smaller swathe of land in the Negev desert.
By "Negev desert" they mean Jordanian valley here.

It doesn't sound very lush...
Is the Jordanian valley inside the 67 borders of Israel???

Galilite wrote:

Einherjar wrote:
I assert that a cesation of violence is all the palestinians have to offer the Israeli's that they can not take for themselves. If the palestinians can not bargain with this, what incentive does Israel have to give up anything?
50 years of struggle, perhaps?

???? Besides peace, what do the palestinians have to offer Israel?

Galilite wrote:

When Barak offered Assad to meet back in 1999, the latter didn't even arrive, sending his Foreign Minister instead. The latter refused to shake hands with Barak (!!!) and naturally, didn't apply any significant effort, while the current status quo is much more acceptable to Israel than Syria (Golan Heights are about 40 km from Damascus). Of course, it was meaningless to continue.

If the terms of the peace were Syrian anexation of the northern half of Israel, Assad would have jumped at the idea. I only wanted to establish that everyone wants peace on their terms, and that the terms of peace is the only thing that is disputed.

Oh, and by the way, I've found the general statement about aquiring territory by force that the two UNresolutions reaffirms.

Go to Chapter I, Article 2, principle 4

0 Replies

Galilite wrote:

Einherjar wrote:
When I answer the other thirds, should I start new threads?
Err... better not. It was long enough to become "everything you wanted to know about Israeli Palestinian conflict but forgot to ask". I don't think there was a single aspect we overlooked. See, I tried to cut the unnecessary in this post.

Better not post new threads or better not answer the post?

0 Replies

Einherjar wrote:

Do you consider any countries prosperous? Do you consider India, the result of civil disobedience prosperous?

India has been advancing greatly since the time it was under the Brits, both socially and economically. It is still relatively poor now, but the growth since 1980 was 105%:

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/eco_gdp_gro_198

which I greatly associate with the fact that politicians rather than big mouthed revolutionaries were in charge for the transfer.

On the other hand, Ireland was among the poorest in Europe, and the stagnation went on for decades.

I said I wasn't sure about USA because I'm not sure what was their economy like 200 years ago.

Einherjar wrote:

I'll agree that revolutionaries usually make lousy politicians, but claiming that no state prosperous state has ever or can ever result from violent uprising is an oversimplification. Although the french revolution saw lots of needles blodshed, France came to prosper once it stabilised again.

Note that it took about century to stabilize even though France had some limited experience in democracy prior to the revolution. Of course, there are exceptions to every rule - I was referring to a general trend.

Einherjar wrote:

When one turns down an offer one does not usually list all possible combinations which could have made the offer acceptable. Israel wasn't going to make any big territorial concessions, and Arafat knew it. Since he was ready to accept the deal if the right to return was respected, he considered that the reason for turning down the offer.

We're both guessing here. But, if it was so unfair and egregious - I say it would be reasonable that he'ld at least mention it.

Einherjar wrote:

The thing about Camp David is it was all of the record, which makes it hard to find the details of the various offers. Pro Israeli sources tend to just list the percentages and leave it at that, pro Palestinian sources, like this one, tend to launch innto a long list of greivances, and neutral sources seem to be virtually non-existent.

Yes.

Einherjar wrote:

Galilite wrote:
By "Negev desert" they mean Jordanian valley here.
It doesn't sound very lush...
Is the Jordanian valley inside the 67 borders of Israel???

It's about the same lushness as the most of Israel. Galilee is a little different (but still not very green), and the Mediterranean beach is overcrowded, hot and humid. If that spot of Jordanian valley included access to Dead Sea, I'ld say it was not a bad option - it could be a nice tourist spot.

Yes, it is inside 67 borders AFAIK.

Einherjar wrote:

???? Besides peace, what do the palestinians have to offer Israel?

Again, absence of this struggle. Economical ties with the neighboring Arab countries.

Einherjar wrote:

If the terms of the peace were Syrian anexation of the northern half of Israel, Assad would have jumped at the idea.
I only wanted to establish that everyone wants peace on their terms, and that the terms of peace is the only thing that is disputed.

I understand your point. My point was that Israel is ready to negotiate whenever a partner is serious and can be trusted.

Einherjar wrote:

Oh, and by the way, I've found the general statement about aquiring territory by force that the two UN resolutions reaffirms.
Go to Chapter I, Article 2, principle 4

Oh. I didn't think there was something like this one.

Einherjar wrote:

Better not post new threads or better not answer the post?

Not answer the rest of that old long post. Hope you're not offended or something, it's just I'm not into discussions that last more than 3 days. It was interesting to talk to you though, really :-) .

0 Replies

Galilite wrote:

Not answer the rest of that old long post. Hope you're not offended or something, it's just I'm not into discussions that last more than 3 days. It was interesting to talk to you though, really

Alright, we can leave it at that then. Nice talking to you to.

And I'm not offended at all.

0 Replies

A question to the Israelis here:

Do you think Sharon's pull-out plan will pass in the Knesset?

0 Replies

Coming back to the original allegation of this thread:
the Israeli military yesterday - nearly a fortnight later - admitted it might have been mistaken when it accused a UN body of transporting a rocket for Palestinian militants in Gaza.
The military statement, released yesterday, came after an army inquiry. It said "the nature of the object loaded on the vehicle cannot be determined with certainty", and the charge that it was a Qassam rocket "was too unequivocal and made in haste".

0 Replies

Walter Hinteler wrote:

Coming back to the original allegation of this thread:
the Israeli military yesterday - nearly a fortnight later - admitted it might have been mistaken when it accused a UN body of transporting a rocket for Palestinian militants in Gaza.

I think there's an official statement of a joint UN-Israeli committee going to be published in a couple of weeks.

InfraBlue wrote:

Do you think Sharon's pull-out plan will pass in the Knesset?

It should. AFAIK, majority supports it, although there are protests from the right wing, of course.

However, Israeli politics is surrealistic at times so everything is possible. Particularly if there's a mega-bombing or something of the kind... hope it won't happen.

0 Replies

Galilite wrote:

I think there's an official statement of a joint UN-Israeli committee going to be published in a couple of weeks.

Quote:

Brigadier General Ruth Yaron told the Knesset's Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee on Tuesday that the misunderstanding has also been clarified to the UN.

"It is obvious today, after all the inquiries made into the question, that it wasn't a Qassam rocket," she said.

Source: Haaretz

0 Replies

Reply on an old thread...but pertinent

Either the UNIFIL is biased against Israel or really really stupid....In my eternally optimistic view of the UN and its perpetual blunderings, I vote for the latter....

Excerpt from recent Lori Lowenthal Marcus article...

Quote:

DURING THE RECENT month-long war between Hezbollah and Israel, U.N. "peacekeeping" forces made a startling contribution: They openly published daily real-time intelligence, of obvious usefulness to Hezbollah, on the location, equipment, and force structure of Israeli troops in Lebanon.

UNIFIL--the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon, a nearly 2,000-man blue-helmet contingent that has been present on the Lebanon-Israel border since 1978--is officially neutral. Yet, throughout the recent war, it posted on its website for all to see precise information about the movements of Israeli Defense Forces soldiers and the nature of their weaponry and materiel, even specifying the placement of IDF safety structures within hours of their construction. New information was sometimes only 30 minutes old when it was posted, and never more than 24 hours old.

Meanwhile, UNIFIL posted not a single item of specific intelligence regarding Hezbollah forces. Statements on the order of Hezbollah "fired rockets in large numbers from various locations" and Hezbollah's rockets "were fired in significantly larger numbers from various locations" are as precise as its coverage of the other side ever got.

Source

Confirmed the report from this UN Web Site.

0 Replies

Israeli Tape Shows Militants Using Vehicles Marked "UN"

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know