15
   

ISRAEL - IRAN - SYRIA - HAMAS - HEZBOLLAH - WWWIII?

 
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Mon 23 Mar, 2009 08:00 pm
@Foofie,
It sounds like murder.
FreeDuck
 
  2  
Reply Tue 24 Mar, 2009 06:42 am
@Foxfyre,
Foxfyre wrote:

Nope. Because if they had done that, I do not believe there would be the ongoing conflict. Agreeing to a cease fire is not the same thing as offering Peace to Israel in a way that allows Israel to determine its own destiny. And continuing the hostilities is pretty convincing proof that no peace is intended. So I don't believe you have made a convincing case for your point of view about that.


Let's try this again. You said that:
Quote:
So far, since (1)the Palestinian leadership has thus far rejected all offers of peaceful solution, (2)has made no counter offers short of the extinction of Israel, (3)has refused to acknowledge Israel's right to exist, (4)and has continued the hostilities, I am therefore persuaded that Israel holds the more justifiable position.

I've given you the fact that the Palestinian leadership accepted the Oslo Accords (offer of a peaceful solution) and that they officially acknowledged Israel's right to exist, in writing, with witnesses. So that's 1 and 3 factually disproved. That leaves 2, which is kind of irrelevant since I've shown 1 to be false, and 4. As for 4, those that continued the hostilities after the accords were signed were not part of "the Palestinian leadership". They were independent groups. I believe I've gone a great deal farther than you have to make my case.
FreeDuck
 
  1  
Reply Tue 24 Mar, 2009 06:45 am
@Advocate,
Advocate wrote:

Your statement reminds me of a few years back when Arafat made some conciliatory statments regarding Israel. A few weeks later, he was taped giving a speech in Arabic to a Pal group saying that his statements were only a ploy to gain advantage. That is what Israel is dealing with.

Do you have dates and quotes, or is this just something you heard? Do you think it's possible that Israel also was hoping to gain some advantage, like establishing "facts on the ground" that would prevent a two state solution? Do you also remember the statements Ariel Sharon, war criminal and provoker of the second intifada, made regarding land that would never be given up because of its strategic necessity?
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Tue 24 Mar, 2009 07:05 am
@FreeDuck,
I think you are painting a much rosier picture of the Oslo Accords than what actually happened there. 1. Yassar Arafat did not acknowledge Israel's right to exist but did agree to certain diplomatic solutions though any solutions that would have ensured a path to peace for Israel and Palestine were I believe intentionally left out to be decided later--a later that never came. I watched Arafat from the time he became a national figure and for the many decades that he remained a national figure and generally what he said to foster world appreciation and acceptance and what he did were two separate things.

from wiki
Quote:
Since the start of the al-Aqsa Intifada, the Oslo Accords are viewed with increasing disfavor by both the Palestinian and Israeli public. In May 2000, seven years after the Oslo Accords and five months before the start of the al-Aqsa Intifada, a survey by the Tami Steinmetz Center for Peace Research at the University of Tel Aviv found that 39% of all Israelis supported the Accords and that 32% believed that the Accords would result in peace in the next few years.[19]. By contrast, the May 2004 survey found that 26% of all Israelis supported the Accords and 18% believed that the Accords would result in peace in the next few years. Many Palestinians believed that the Oslo Accords had turned the PLO leadership into a tool of the Israeli state in suppressing their own people. While benefiting a small elite, the conditions of most Palestinians worsened. This was seen as one of the causes for the al-Aqsa Intifada.


But you can read the Christian Science Monitor--decidedly pro-Palestinian and anti-Israel--and get one impression that essentially supports the position of those here on A2K who condemn Israel and sympathize with the Palestinians.

Or you can see it as Mort Zuckerman sees it which I believe is the far more realistic view: Excerpt:

Quote:
Reaffirming the Right of Israel to Exist in the Face of Hamas Attacks in Gaza
The only thing Hamas likes better than dead Israelis is dead Palestinians

By Mortimer Zuckerman
Posted January 15, 2009

What the world cannot remember the Israelis cannot forget. The Israelis know the Jewish nation has been one defeat away from extinction for 70 years. They know that every partition plan in the region, from the dawn of Zionism to the present day, has failed because of the Arab failure to accept the State of Israel. They know that the Palestinian leadership is virtually hopeless, wherein the people who are moderate are not effective and the people who are effective are not moderate.

Gaza Cease-Fire Talks in Cairo Floundering 21390159

Today the impossible Yasser Arafat has been replaced by the impotent Mahmoud Abbas. It was Abbas, president of the Palestinian Authority, who presided over the division of the Palestinians into Fatah and Hamas. Hamas doesn't want peace, and Fatah can't deliver it. Fatah is so weak that it cannot enforce the rule of law against terrorism or make compromises for fear of the radical Islamists. Indeed, without the support of the Israeli Defense Forces, even now it is under threat of being displaced by Hamas. Mahmoud Al-Zahar, a major Hamas leader, underlined Fatah's weakness when he said, "Fatah can't stop us from seizing control of those [West Bank] territories. It is only a matter of time."

Israel is so small it has no margin for error. A Hamas takeover of the West Bank would put Ben-Gurion Airport and major cities like Tel Aviv in the firing line, which would render Israel virtually uninhabitable. This is not guesswork. When Israel left the West Bank, it became a base for suicide bombers, ultimately forcing the Israelis to go back at great cost. They've since built a security fence, but a fence will not protect people from rockets. The rockets and mortars launched against Israel from Gaza have gained greater lethality, accuracy, and range, going from 20 kilometers before the truce to 40 after. And without the current operation, it is estimated that within two to three months new rockets supplied to Hamas by Iran and assembled in Gaza would have been able to hit Tel Aviv. One of them just reached the outskirts.

Acceptable response. Over 20 percent of the Israelis were vulnerable even before Tel Aviv came within range. No government could ignore these threats to its people. Yet Israel's belated response has been challenged as "disproportionate". This is ridiculous. In the first place, it was Hamas's intention that at least thousands of Israelis would die from its 7,000 rockets. Would it fit the doctrine of proportionality if Israel were to respond with 7,000 missiles against Gaza civilians? Or must it wait until the number of dead is piled high enough to justify a "proportioned" response. And what of the emotional trauma inflicted on the living? Men, women, and children have 15 seconds to reach a bunker, which they must do several times a day. They must live with the constant fear of death and maiming.

Would America sit back if, over three years, 7,000 rockets and missiles were launched at our citizens from Mexico or Canada? We would attack these missile sites and wipe them out. End of story. The "disproportionate" criticism is a cop-out. Hamas sought this battle. It was Hamas that broke the six-month truce organized by Egypt. Both Fatah and Egypt urged its continuance; the current violence would have been avoided, as Abbas stated, had Hamas not fired its missiles.

Tony Blair, now the special envoy of the Mideast quartet, concedes he understands the consequences now more than when he was prime minister of Britain: "I would hesitate to cede the West Bank to the Palestinians after the nightmare Israel has faced since the Gaza withdrawal." He recognizes that Hamas has sabotaged years of negotiation. "Land for peace," he warns, "is in itself not sufficient. Not less important is the character of the Palestinian state."

Hamas Prime Minister Ismail Haniya has made it clear what kind of state his Palestine would be. Hamas seeks nothing less than an Islamic state as its covenant describes: "To raise the banner of Allah over every inch of Palestine." To that end, Hamas has turned Gaza into a home for every brand of radical Islamist engaged in a holy war that sanctifies bloodshed, glorifies murder, and educates children to die as shahids "martyrs. There was to be no Israel alongside a Palestinian state. Over and over again Haniya has said that Hamas will never recognize Israel nor honor any of the existing agreements with the infidels. Its founder, Abdul Aziz Rantizi, is explicit: "We will not leave one Jew in Palestine."
More here:
http://www.usnews.com/articles/opinion/mzuckerman/2009/01/15/reaffirming-the-right-of-israel-to-exist-in-the-face-of-hamas-attacks-in-gaza.html




Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Tue 24 Mar, 2009 07:26 am
It seems that under a new deal - Ehud Barak looks set to keep his position as Defence Minister (according to a Labour Party's statement) - a Netanyahu government would respect all of Israel's international agreements, including accords envisaging Palestinian statehood.

(Source: various agencies, Euroepan and Israeli media)
FreeDuck
 
  2  
Reply Tue 24 Mar, 2009 07:32 am
@Foxfyre,
Foxfyre wrote:

I think you are painting a much rosier picture of the Oslo Accords than what actually happened there. 1. Yassar Arafat did not acknowledge Israel's right to exist

The facts say otherwise:
Quote:
September 9, 1993
Yitzhak Rabin
Prime Minister of Israel

Mr. Prime Minister,
The signing of the Declaration of Principles marks a new era...I would like to confirm the following PLO commitments: The PLO recognizes the right of the State of Israel to exist in peace and security. The PLO accepts United Nations Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338. The PLO commits itself...to a peaceful resolution of the conflict between the two sides and declares that all outstanding issues relating to permanent status will be resolved through negotiations...the PLO renounces the use of terrorism and other acts of violence and will assume responsibility over all PLO elements and personnel in order to assure their compliance, prevent violations and discipline violators...the PLO affirms that those articles of the Palestinian Covenant which deny Israel's right to exist, and the provisions of the Covenant which are inconsistent with the commitments of this letter are now inoperative and no longer valid. Consequently, the PLO undertakes to submit to the Palestinian National Council for formal approval the necessary changes in regard to the Palestinian Covenant.

Sincerely,
Yasser Arafat.
Chairman: The Palestine Liberation Organization.


Oslo has it's problems and it has certainly fallen apart since the second intifada, but it will do just fine to rebut your statement that the Palestinian leadership never acknowledged Israel's right to exist (again, whatever that means) and that they never agreed to any peace plan. It has been shown that they did, at least once. Please accept facts for what they are.
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Tue 24 Mar, 2009 07:36 am
I think at least most Israeli leaders and the vast majority of the Israeli people are perfectly willing to accept a Palestinian state that is not hellbent on destroying Israel.

I hope that everyone on this thread will read all of Zuckerman's piece though including the comments of those he quotes. I was a huge Condi Rice fan until she waffled re Israel at the UN and, while I still admire her, she lost a lot of points with me over that.

The solutions the pro-Palestinian folks here suggest would ensure that Israel will not survive. I know at least one or two have expressed that is inevitable anyway and the sooner the better. I sometimes wonder how many of the pro-Palestinian sympathizers feel that way even as they deny being anti-Israel?
0 Replies
 
FreeDuck
 
  1  
Reply Tue 24 Mar, 2009 07:37 am
@Foxfyre,
Foxfyre wrote:

But you can read the Christian Science Monitor--decidedly pro-Palestinian and anti-Israel--and get one impression that essentially supports the position of those here on A2K who condemn Israel and sympathize with the Palestinians.

Or you can see it as Mort Zuckerman sees it which I believe is the far more realistic view:

If you're going to qualify one, the Christian Science Monitor, as decidedly pro-Palestinian (based on what evidence?) then don't you think that fairness requires you to also qualify the other as decidedly pro-Israel?
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Tue 24 Mar, 2009 07:39 am
@FreeDuck,
Certainly Zuckerman defends Israel's right to defend itself. The CS Monitor does not. Did you read Zuckerman's piece. All of it? What do you think about it?
FreeDuck
 
  2  
Reply Tue 24 Mar, 2009 07:55 am
@Foxfyre,
Foxfyre wrote:

Certainly Zuckerman defends Israel's right to defend itself. The CS Monitor does not. Did you read Zuckerman's piece. All of it? What do you think about it?

Certainly one has clearly stated opinions (Zuckerman) and favors one party in the conflict while there is no evidence that the other(CS Monitor) has an agenda at all.

I read it. With a grain of salt.
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Tue 24 Mar, 2009 07:56 am
@Foxfyre,
I've read Zuckerman. I've read Kahn as well:
Quote:
The Middle East, with all its problems "from oil to terrorism to Iraq to Iran to the Palestinians " needs creative, imaginative ideas. This is what happens when governments change in a democracy. The old way had not changed the status quo positively. It is not clear that the new way will succeed " for example, dispatching George Mitchell to try and jump-start discussions with Syria and Lebanon. But Jewish leaders and the Jewish community need to understand that new approaches are not “bad” for Israel. Nor are they a demonstration of ill will on the part of the new government.

Source:
http://www.njjewishnews.com/njjn.com/030509/opedChangeHasCome.html wrote:
New Jersey Jewish News
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Tue 24 Mar, 2009 07:59 am
@FreeDuck,
I read everything I read with a grain of salt.

But what did you think about it? What quarrel do you have, if any, with Zuckerman's take on it and can you support such quarrel, if any, with anything other than Palestinian sympathy?
FreeDuck
 
  1  
Reply Tue 24 Mar, 2009 08:08 am
@Foxfyre,
Will you acknowledge that Palestinian leaders did indeed accept an offer of peace and acknowledge Israel's right to exist? Then I'll be happy to go along with your attempt to change the subject.
Advocate
 
  1  
Reply Tue 24 Mar, 2009 08:38 am
@Walter Hinteler,
It is pretty strange to say that "agreements" include "accords envisaging Palestinian statehood." That is a new kind of agreement, I guess.
0 Replies
 
Advocate
 
  1  
Reply Tue 24 Mar, 2009 08:45 am
Thanks to the Pals, the Oslo Accords are a dead issue. The Israeli Knesset adopted the Oslo accord within a week of its signing. However, the PLO Executive Committee met on Oct. 6, 1993 to consider ratification of the Oslo accord, but it failed to ratify the agreement.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  0  
Reply Tue 24 Mar, 2009 09:05 am
@FreeDuck,
No I will not acknowledge that the Palestinian leaders accepted an offer of peace. If they had, there would have been peace. Nor will I agree that Palestinian leaders have acknowledged Israel's right to exist. You won't find anything that says that. Arafat did negotiate the Oslo accord as far as it went, but would not include the provisions that would have allowed it to work. Arafat had the unique opportunity to broker a permanent and lasting peace and he did not. It did not help that he supported Saddam Hussein's invasion of Kuwait--that cost him a lot of western support--nor that he was suspected or identified as instigating new hostilities among Palestinian militants.

And I didn't change the subject.
FreeDuck
 
  2  
Reply Tue 24 Mar, 2009 09:16 am
@Foxfyre,
Foxfyre wrote:

No I will not acknowledge that the Palestinian leaders accepted an offer of peace. If they had, there would have been peace. Nor will I agree that Palestinian leaders have acknowledged Israel's right to exist. You won't find anything that says that.

That's false. I did find something that says that, and posted it. Twice. You refuse to acknowledge it.

If you won't acknowledge evidence that contradicts your statements then there is no point in debating.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Tue 24 Mar, 2009 10:26 am
@FreeDuck,
Here again is another example of Foxies' SOP; she's been contradicted and still refuses to acknowledge her own mistake by ignoring the very evidence that refutes her position.
0 Replies
 
McTag
 
  1  
Reply Tue 24 Mar, 2009 01:50 pm
@cicerone imposter,

There is plenty of information in today's Guardian newspaper about war crimes of the Israeli armed force in Gaza:

using civilians as human shields
bombarding hospitals
shooting at civilians
shooting medics
phosphorus shelling of civilians

plenty more at

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/mar/23/israel-gaza-war-crimes-guardian
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Tue 24 Mar, 2009 01:58 pm
@McTag,
McT, Thanks for posting that Guardian piece that poo-poos Foxie's contention about a) the Israelis do not intentionally kill innocents, and b) their morals are about as bad as the Nazis were to them is proven with evidence. There's no fall-back position for them, but they will keep denying the obvious.
 

Related Topics

Israel's Reality - Discussion by Miller
THE WAR IN GAZA - Discussion by Advocate
Israel's Shame - Discussion by BigEgo
Eye On Israel/Palestine - Discussion by IronLionZion
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.13 seconds on 11/18/2024 at 04:26:21