15
   

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

 
 
FreeDuck
 
  1  
Reply Fri 17 Apr, 2009 07:26 am
@Advocate,
Advocate wrote:

NO ISRAELI LEADER IS AFRAID OF REACHING AN AGREEMENT WITH THE PALS.

No, but they are afraid of reaching a just agreement that would yield a viable, connected Palestinian state.
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Fri 17 Apr, 2009 08:01 am
@FreeDuck,
Moreover, the current government of Israel is not at all welcoming of any dialogue and decidedly unwilling to concede anything, including their continuing expansion of settlements in the West Bank.
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Fri 17 Apr, 2009 08:25 am
A balanced view giving both perspectives. Note that the Palestinian perspective does not include ongoing assaults and threats, actual and implied, by their leadership against Israel.

Quote:
Tuesday, 3 March 2009

Challenge of Israeli settlements

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/45527000/jpg/_45527232_1.jpg
Settlements are built on Arab land occupied by Israel during the 1967 war

By Katya Adler
BBC News, Jerusalem

Israel's Prime Minister designate, Benjamin Netanyahu, will not openly commit to a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. But the US insists it's the only way forward, and Hillary Clinton is visiting the region for the first time as secretary of state.

"I feel like a stranger in my own land. I can't go for a long walk. I have to sneak around. Otherwise I'm stopped by Israeli soldiers or threatened by Israeli settlers."

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/45527000/jpg/_45527238_3.jpg
This is no longer occupation, this is colonisation. Israel has no right to this land --Raja Shehadeh

Raja Shehadeh is an award-winning author. A Palestinian mourning the erosion and theft, as he sees it, of his birthplace, the West Bank.

He took me to a stunning viewpoint over the rough, rolling hills outside the Palestinian town of Ramallah. A nature-lover, Mr Shehadeh pointed out the beautiful spring flowers all around us, as well as the Jewish settlements.

"Every Palestinian town here is surrounded by these settlements," he tells me. "The hills here have been chopped and flattened by them. They are an assault on one's sense of beauty and of belonging in the land."

More and more Israelis have moved to the West Bank and East Jerusalem since 1967 when Israel captured and occupied the territory. This is illegal under international law. Palestinians say it makes peace here impossible.

"The only consistent policy Israeli governments have had over the last 40 years is not seeking peace and building settlements in the Palestinian territories," says Mr Shehadeh.

"This is no longer occupation, this is colonisation. Israel has no right to this land. God is not in the business of real estate. If Israel wants peace, it cannot be on this land."

Hilltop fortresses

So what is a Jewish settlement? The name can be rather misleading. It might suggest something temporary, ad hoc maybe. But when you're in them, or look at them from neighbouring Palestinian villages, you get the impression they are being built to remain, at least for the foreseeable future.

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/45528000/gif/_45528127_w_bank_efrat_map226.gif
Detailed UN map of West Bank Barrier
Obstacles to peace: Borders and settlements


Take Efrat, close to the Palestinian town of Bethlehem. Typically for a settlement it's made up of rows of modern-looking white houses with red roofs.

Also typically it's built on a hilltop. Settlers say that's important for security reasons. Settlements tend to be surrounded by a buffer zone - land Palestinians therefore can't farm.

Settlements are also usually serviced by roads Palestinians aren't allowed to use.

Many Jewish settlements are getting bigger. Nine thousand people live in Efrat now. The community plans, if it can, to expand to 30,000.

Already, the number of Jewish settlers living in the West Bank and East Jerusalem - land Palestinians say is theirs and must be part of their future state - is close to half a million .

The Israeli human rights group Peace Now says Israel's government has construction plans to double settler numbers in the West Bank, an allegation the Israeli housing ministry denies.

'Not about land'

I was invited to visit a school in Efrat settlement. Pupils Ari Ehrlich, Matan Dansker and Yadin Gellman were born there.

They are a couple of years away from serving in Israel's army where they may well end up manning one of the many Israeli checkpoints controlling Palestinian movement within the West Bank.

Young settlers Matan, Ari and Gellman do not expect to have to leave Efrat

Do they accept the international community's land-for-peace proposal? Would they give up their homes for peace with the Palestinians?

"Clearly I don't want to leave my house," says Ari. "But if there was a guarantee of peace, I'd go." The other two agree.

"But it's not about land anymore," insists Matan. "Palestinians can have land for peace. We've tried it before, like when Israel left Gaza. It doesn't work. When you see what a Hamas leader wants, he's not interested in Efrat, in my school or my house. His problem is me being an Israeli. A Jew. It's not about land, it's about destroying us."

"Anyway," says Yadin, "even if we move out of the settlements. That won't be it. They'll ask for more. That won't be the end of the story."

The boys show me their school map, used in schools across Israel. The West Bank is not marked as a separate territory.

Ari, Matan and Yadin say Israel still views the land as its own. Except for the Palestinian towns there.

They tell me they all hope for peace in their lifetime. In the meantime, they'll stay put in their houses and school. Buildings they know international law deems illegal.

Fragmented territory

The proposed two state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict envisages a country called Palestine existing alongside Israel - but many think the existence of Jewish settlements and their infrastructure make a viable Palestinian state impossible.

"The three areas - Gaza, the West Bank and East Jerusalem are separated," says Allegra Pacheco of the United Nations' Humanitarian Office in the Palestinian Territories.

"Israel controls East Jerusalem and large parts of the West Bank. There's a wall dividing East Jerusalem from the West Bank, preventing most Palestinians from accessing the best schools, the best hospitals or going to pray in mosques or churches there.

"More and more East Jerusalem land is being set aside for Jewish settlers. Then, within the West Bank there are more than 600 physical obstacles placed by Israel blocking Palestinian movement.

"Israeli settlers occupy 60% of the land there and they are scattered all over the places. This further fragments the territory and very much undermines the economy and prospects for improvement in the Palestinian situation."

Israel says this can change with peace. Regarding settlements, checkpoints, the West Bank barrier, it insists what goes up, can come down. But Palestinians focus on what they call facts on the ground. They're not optimistic.

Clearly, settlements are not the only stumbling block to peace between Israelis and Palestinians but even the United States, Israel's greatest ally, has been critical of settlements for a long time.

In the absence of a peace deal, international agreements require Israel to freeze settlement construction.

Yet, during the Bush administration the settler population grew considerably.

Barack Obama says he wants to pursue peace here "aggressively". But his secretary of state will have to tackle the settler issue with actions, not just words, to really make a difference.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7919832.stm
Foofie
 
  1  
Reply Fri 17 Apr, 2009 08:28 am
I am so happy that our President Obama is going to solve the problem in his first four years, according to the beginning of the thread's quoted article.

Projecting into the future, I can see African-American children in the 22nd century going to Parochial schools (as many do now in urban centers) and discussing the merits of asking for intercession from Saint Obama.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Fri 17 Apr, 2009 11:49 am
@Foxfyre,
Foxie, Thank you for posting that article that presumably provides fair comments from both sides of this conflict. Do you now trust BBC? If you believe this article, why is it that most of you argued about the mistreatment of Palestinians were challenged by most of you? Were they treated with equal legal rights? Do you believe all Palestinians deserve to be treated as terrorists? Are the multiple killings of innocent Palestinians justified? Are you saying the life of a Jew is more precious?

Please tell me.
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Fri 17 Apr, 2009 12:43 pm
@cicerone imposter,
All I believe is that the Israelis cannot justify putting their own innocent men, women, and children at higher risk due to the intention of the Palestinian leadership to injure, maim, and murder them. And since there is no way to distinguish a 'good' Palestinian from a 'bad' Palestinian, the Israelis are justified in doing whatever they must to protect their own citizens.

If Palestine would agree to peace, would offiically denounce any intention to exterminate the Israelis or drive Israel out of the Middle East in return for the Israelis vacating all of the conquered territory on the West Bank, I would expect that Israel would agree to that. Until then, I do not see that Israel has any moral imperative to do so.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Fri 17 Apr, 2009 12:54 pm
@Foxfyre,
Foxie, Thank you for your response.

Here's my opinion about this issue: Israelis will never find peace if they continue to restrict legal rights and movement of Palestinians in their own country. I pose this question to you; how would you feel if our country restricted property rights and free movement in this country? You will continue to live in peace after your home is taken away without any compensation, and you are restricted by our government free movement? Will they be justified because they "fear" you will be a terrorist? How would they know you are not? It's more likely you will become a terrorist, because I think I would become a terrorist if my home was taken away, and they took away my freedom of movement.

I have nothing to lose by killing as many people as I can when I commit a suicide bomb in a crowded place. I've lost everything already.





ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Fri 17 Apr, 2009 01:25 pm
@cicerone imposter,
My answers are in red
CICERONE IMPOSTER: Do you now trust BBC?

I believe this BBC article.

If you believe this article, why is it that most of you argued about the mistreatment of Palestinians were challenged by most of you?

I have believed that the Israelis stole some of the land the UN gave the PAs (i.e. Palestinian Arabs) in reaction to some of the PAs trying to murder them. The Israelis responded to the murder of Jews by the PAs by murdering more PAs than the number of Jews murdered

Were they treated with equal legal rights?

NO! The PAs forfeited their equal rights to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness by their violation of those same rights of the Israelis. Did the Israelis over react to the murderous attacks of the PAs. As a non-resident of Israel and one who has not suffered any family or other people I love being murdered by the PAs, I'd say, YES, the Israelis have over reacted!

But not having ever experienced what the Israelis have repeatedly experienced--murders by the PAs of those they love--I can sympathize with the over reactions by the Israelis.


Do you believe all Palestinians deserve to be treated as terrorists?

As long as the PAs continue to fail to hold accountable the few PAs among them who murder Israelis, I am unable to sympathize with the price they are paying for that failure.

Are the multiple killings of innocent Palestinians justified?

NO! They are not justified, but they are definitely understandable.

Are you saying the life of a Jew is more precious?

NO! The PAs have had among them ever since 1948, those PAs who have repeatedly initiated the murders of Israelis. The Israelis have repeatedly traded land to the PAs in return for the PAs stopping those murders. Despite agreeing to stop those murders in exchange for that land, the PAs did not stop those murderers. In reaction the Israelis have taken back some of that land, and attempted to murder the PAs trying to murder them..

Those who fail to hold accountable those among them who initiate the murder of others, fail to respect the lives of those who are murdered, and they therefore earn the risk of whatever retaliation they may suffer.

The PAs have not even tried to stop the PAs among them who have initiated the murder of Israeli Jews. Therefore, they should expect the Israelis to retaliate by trying to murder those murdering PAs, and expect the imperfect human Israelis to kill non-initating murderers in the same neighborhoods.

0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Fri 17 Apr, 2009 01:25 pm
@cicerone imposter,
That's right. As long as there are organized Palestinian terrorists trained, funded, and motivated by the Palestinian leadership, all Palestinians are suspect. You can't tell just bylooking whether a person intends to live peacefully with others or intends disruption, sabotage, murder, mayhem.

It will require the Palestinian leadership denouncing disruption, sabotage, murder, mayhem, recognizing Israel as a nation with a right to exist, removing inflammatory language from their constitutions/manifestos/websites and making a good faith effort to make it stick before any peace will happen.

Once they do that, then if Israel does not become a friend and model neighbor to the Palestinians, I will be squarely on the Palestinian side. As long as it is the Palestinians who are doing whatever they can to murder Israelis, I will remain on the Israeli side of the conflict.
0 Replies
 
Advocate
 
  1  
Reply Fri 17 Apr, 2009 01:38 pm
@FreeDuck,
There probably is a little fear by Israel that the new state would be a terrorist one, which could easily lob missiles at Jerusalem and Tel Aviv. Just look at Hamas, which has adopted shariah, and is sworn to destroy Israel.
Advocate
 
  1  
Reply Fri 17 Apr, 2009 01:40 pm
@georgeob1,
It is funny you say that when, so far, the Pals do not accept the existence of the Israeli state, or show it on any map. As you know, but will not admit, the Pals were offered everything at Camp David, and Arafat walked away, saying he didn't want to be murdered by his fellow Pals.
mysteryman
 
  1  
Reply Fri 17 Apr, 2009 01:43 pm
@cicerone imposter,
That is a false comparison.
There has NEVER been a country called Palestine.
There was a region called Palestine, but it consisted of everything between Lebanon and Egypt, and between Saudi Arabia and the Med sea.

0 Replies
 
Advocate
 
  1  
Reply Fri 17 Apr, 2009 01:45 pm
@cicerone imposter,
I didn't realize that the Pals had "their own country." They live in a territory that also houses some Jews, who the Arabs will not tolerate. Why is this?
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Fri 17 Apr, 2009 02:11 pm
@Advocate,
You show your ignorance once again; Jerusalem is occupied by Jews, Muslims and Christians. Hamas is one small group, and doesn't represent all Palestinians. Since when does a small group represent the whole? Your brain is muddled.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Fri 17 Apr, 2009 02:13 pm
@Advocate,
You miss the whole point; citizens of one country should be able to enjoy all the legal protections and freedoms of one country. Palestinians are not treated equally.
mysteryman
 
  1  
Reply Fri 17 Apr, 2009 02:16 pm
@cicerone imposter,
Quote:
You miss the whole point; citizens of one country should be able to enjoy all the legal protections and freedoms of one country


So then people that are not citizens should not be able to enjoy all the legal protections and freedoms of one country?
Is that what you are saying?
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Fri 17 Apr, 2009 02:23 pm
@cicerone imposter,
Speaking about terrorism, here's one from the FBI:

Quote:
During the past decade we have witnessed dramatic changes in the nature of the terrorist threat. In the 1990s, right-wing extremism overtook left-wing terrorism as the most dangerous domestic terrorist threat to the country. During the past several years, special interest extremism, as characterized by the Animal Liberation Front (ALF) and the Earth Liberation Front (ELF), has emerged as a serious terrorist threat. Generally, extremist groups engage in much activity that is protected by constitutional guarantees of free speech and assembly. Law enforcement becomes involved when the volatile talk of these groups transgresses into unlawful action. The FBI estimates that the ALF/ELF have committed more than 600 criminal acts in the United States since 1996, resulting in damages in excess of 43 million dollars.


Following your logic, we should have the justification to kill right-wingers, because they are a threat to our security and peace.
mysteryman
 
  1  
Reply Fri 17 Apr, 2009 02:27 pm
@cicerone imposter,
Are you willing to admit that you didnt do the work to find that article?

And did you notice that even it says that LEFT-WING TERRORISM was the bigger threat for years?

Quote:
During the past several years, special interest extremism, as characterized by the Animal Liberation Front (ALF) and the Earth Liberation Front (ELF), has emerged as a serious terrorist threat.


Hey look, those are liberal, left-wing groups, so that makes left-wing terrorists more dangerous.
0 Replies
 
mysteryman
 
  1  
Reply Fri 17 Apr, 2009 02:28 pm
@cicerone imposter,
Quote:
Following your logic, we should have the justification to kill right-wingers, because they are a threat to our security and peace.


Following your logic, we should have the justification to kill left-wingers, because they are a threat to our security and peace.
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Fri 17 Apr, 2009 04:55 pm
@Advocate,
Advocate wrote:

It is funny you say that when, so far, the Pals do not accept the existence of the Israeli state, or show it on any map. As you know, but will not admit, the Pals were offered everything at Camp David, and Arafat walked away, saying he didn't want to be murdered by his fellow Pals.


No, you are dead wrong here - and I think you know it. The Palestinians were offered less than 45% of the area of the West Bank at Camp David, and that broken up into about 16 disjoint cantonments, separated by limited access corridors connecting (illegal) Israeli settlements. The Israelis and the credulous American media portrayed it as 90% of the West Bank territory when, in fact it was merely 90% of what the Israelis considered as "negotiable". It was, instead a formula for the creation of Apartheidt and new Bantustands for a subject Palestinian people in the Middle East.

There was no possibility of the creation or operation of a functioning state under these circumstances - Israel claimed continuing control of air and water rights and complete physical control of all external borders, save only the Gaza border with Egypt. The "offer" contained nothing that was new, and instead would require that the Palestinians accept and ratify all of the illegal actions Israel has taken since 1967. There was never any possibility that any serious negotiator on the Palestinian side would accept this utterly one-sided offer.

The support of the American people and of our government for the increasingly racist and tribal government in Israel has been steadily waning for severaL years. We are likely to see a significant shift in American policy in the coming year. AIPAC will likely do its best to limit it, but the tide is decidely against them.
 

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 0.07 seconds on 04/28/2024 at 05:52:58