Evolution of Dispossession

Evolution of Dispossession
How to Steal a Country?

Tuesday, November 27, 2007

Song and Dance, but no Show

Noam Chomsky's views on the Annapolis meeting today.

I am pessimistic about the outcome. A deadline has been reached that a deal will be done by the end of 2008, but Abbas is not the leader of the Palestinians, Haniyeh is despite the US's refusal to recognize the outcome of a free election.

I rather agree with Haniyeh on this issue that Abbas has no authority to make concessions.

We'll see how this develops, but it just seems to be another song and dance that lacks substance.

The Arab League proposals should be the basis for any negotiations, and Netanyahu can go to hell when he says that Olmert should not make any "one-sided concessions" to the Palestinians.

Make no mistake, the "one-sided concessions" that Netanyahu refers to are essentially Israel living up to its agreements, abiding by international law, Geneva conventions, and all the relevant UN resolutions.

13 comments:

wdporter said...

Of course you're pessimistic, who wouldn't be?

However, your naivety and lack of realism never ceases to astonish me. You mean to tell me that you think Israel should just go back to 1967 borders with no guarantees from Palestine for recognition, peace, etc?

Even the most progressive and enlightened Israeli Prime Minister would not and should not just stand up and say:

"Hey, here's the deal...we were wrong, and we're just going to turn over all the pre-1967 land, and if you start shooting mortars at us, we're just going to turn the other cheek. Really, no hard feelings."

Please. The deal has ALWAYS been land for Peace...and when Israel has given land in the past (go ahead and call Gaza "token" if you want), they have gotten LESS-not more-peace from Palestinians...regardless of who's in charge.

So saying that Netanyahu should "go to hell" for not demanding some guarantees in return from the "death to Israel" chanting Palestinians is not only asinine, it's just ignoring plain common sense.

Haniyeh may be right about Abbas not having the authority to negotiate, but do you honestly think Hamas could do a better job?

Don't we all need to inject a little realism into our world-views? Of course Israel shouldn't make any "one-sided concessions." Is anyone expecting Palestine to make "one-sided concessions?" Oh that's right, they're the innocent victims, and Israel is the evil oppressor.

Just pretend you're the Israeli Prime Minister...just for a second.

Would YOU just turn over the West Bank and most of Jerusalem...pull out everybody and say..."sorry?" And then go to Syria and say..."hey sorry, you can have the Golan Heights back, and if you shoot rockets down at us we'll be fine"?

With all that you've read, and all that you've studied on this issue, you've actually come to the conclusion that Hamas, Fatah, and the whole array of Palestinian leadership over the last 60 years hold NO responsibility for the situation at hand? And even more you believe that they currently hold NO accountability for the solution?

You can't possibly believe that. I mean really.

scottie said...

Before you use labels on me, Butch, you might want to actually read the Arab League proposals, and you might want to read the link to this post.

If you think I am naive on this issue, that's your opinion, but because I have read many books on this issue and you have not, by your own admission, I know the Palestinians have international law and UN resolutions on their side. So they should not make the concessions that Israel should make. Israel has already taken too much away from them. Israel should come into compliance.

But you know, I have said it all before on your site, and it is reactions like this from you especially which drove me away from your site (and your similar rude statements to my mom)


You continually use straw man arguments. That's all you know how to do, bottom line. You distort what I say, then attack that distortion.

We've been over this ground before.

Visit B'tselem :

In 2007, 497 Palestinians killed versus 10 Israelis killed. I am sure the Palestinian count is well over 500 now, as this data is a motnh old or so. Of the 500 dead Palestinians, about 100 were children. And the majority were children or teenagers.

Let's see you spin these numbers with a straw man argument.

wdporter said...

Sincerest apologies for the naivety comment, Scottie, but apparently my point was missed again.

I come to this site because I genuinely want your opinion on things not because I want to be looked down upon or insulted. I don't need to spin numbers because I agree with you on the numbers. But you didn't answer my comment (I've been guilty of such, so no problem there). Before we continue this discussion, let's get it all on the table:

1) Explain to me where in the above comment I "labeled" you.
2) Point out where the straw man argument is.
3) Explain to me how this:
"If you think I am naive on this issue, that's your opinion, but because I have read many books on this issue and you have not, by your own admission, I know the Palestinians have international law and UN resolutions on their side."
...is not a straw man argument.
4) do me the honor of answering this:

"With all that you've read, and all that you've studied on this issue, you've actually come to the conclusion that Hamas, Fatah, and the whole array of Palestinian leadership over the last 60 years hold NO responsibility for the situation at hand? And even more you believe that they currently hold NO accountability for the solution?"

Take care and make it a wonderful day.

scottie said...

"your naivety" does not invoke a label, me being naive?

I actually am very realistic about the situation. You are losing sight of this particular phase in the overall grand scheme of the so-called peace negotiations.

In 1948, Israel agreed to the terms set forth by the UN about the partition of Palestine. One of the things Israel agreed to is the status of Jerusalem as an international city, controlled neither by the Israeli state nor the Palestinian state. Israel has since incorporated Jerusalem into its own state. After 1967, the Arab part of Jerusalem, East Jerusalem, also fell under Israeli occupation. This is illegal. Israel agreed to one set of terms, then ignored them.

This is but one example.

In 1978, Israel agreed to withdraw to the 1967 June borders in its Camp David commitments. They received a peace from Egypt, which has never been violated by the Egyptians. However, Israel continues to violate the terms it agreed to. You can explain this away as being not realistic, but it's a major point.

The Oslo process did not solve the core issues : illegal settlements, right of return, and status of Jerusalem.

At Taba, the Israelis walked away. Of course, the blame for the failure was placed directly on the Palestinians.

Now for decades the Israelis claim they have no partner for peace. FALSE. Israel has either obstructed or not complied with every single peace treaty is has been a part of. SO let's turn to an unbiased mediating party, the UN. Israel remains the most egregious violator or UN resolutions, both in the SC and the GA. Another strike against Israel.
Let's turn to Geneva conventions. Countries are not allowed to build settlements on land conquered militarily. Israel has and does. The World Court said the Apartheid fence is illegal and must be torn down. Again, Israeli non-compliance. More and more strikes against Israel.

Look at the numbers from the human rights groups, the respected ones, not the ones that Dershowitz or his ilk try to use. 5,000 dead Palestinians to 1,000 dead Israelis since 2000. The vast number of deaths on both sides are innocent civilians.

I have never once rationalized Palestinian terrorism. But I also refuse to overlook Israeli terrorism, which is far more destructive.

All of Israel's claim to not have a partner for peace are bogus and contrived. They have rejected every single peace intiative.

Look at the best treaty Israel could sign. The Arab League proposals give security guarantees and FULL recognition of Israel by every single Arab nation if Israel would withdraw to the June 1967 borders and dismantle their settlements. I think the right of return could be negotiated.

Israel won't even discuss the proposals. 20 years ago the Israelis would have bent over backwards for the terms of the Arab League proposal.

So when I read articles from the mainstream entitled "Bush "hopes" for peace" I just laugh my ass off. If Bush really wanted peace, he would have it tomorrow. But he does not want to offend AIPAC by freezing aid to Israel. If Rice wanted peace for Israel, she would not have flown to Italy 2 summers ago to buy more time for Israel's destruction of Lebanon.

The bottom line is Israel wants land and not peace. Israel wants a Jewish majority and this is non-negotiable. Israel wants to do what it wants to do, and no country will interfere with her politics.

There are right now 10-11 millions Palestinians in the world. Over half of these are refugees or descendants of refugees from 48 and 67. They live in Jordan, Lebanon, Syria, Egypt, Baghdad, and where is the justice for them?

Your straw mans are :

1. golan heights and missiles ; never mentioned by me, introduced by you with no supporting evidence, and you reject the argument on a basis of that inclusion.

2. ive never said that the were blameless in the mess. you distort my comments on that and then process with your comments. in fact, the palestinians have made many mistakes as well. but weighing both sides, i choose to criticize the agitator.

last point, Israel disengaged from the Gaza. Those 9,000 went to the West Bank, and were paid handsomely for it, on the order of $250,000 per family (or person I can't remeber at the moment). Do you know who paid for that relocation? We did literally. Congress approved a supplemental bill authorizing extra aid.

So if you call this a concession of land I must laugh. They were reloacted to the West Bank so that Israel could focus on it. Look at the Gaza at the moment. Israel has laid siege to it. No goods coming in or out, poverty and starvation are rampant, but you see this as Israeli goodwill.

I must end for the moment as my rice is done, but we can continue this later.

wdporter said...

Allright...LOL. I'll give you naivety as a label. When I think label, I think NEOCON, Liberal, Right-wing nutjob, tree-hugger, conspiracy theorist...etc. But OK.

And I'll give you Golan Heights as well...you indeed did not bring it up.

But you do consistently leave Hamas et al blameless. By discussing a topic about two sides in a controversy and only citing the flaws in one side, you do indeed leave one side blameless. That is not a distortion, that is an observation.

I can take your abuse all day, and I can take your know-it-all approach, because as I've mentioned....I just love ya. You won't get any abuse from me. But I'm willing to take that abuse to help you (just occasionally) inject a little objectivity into this deal. So keep it coming. Fair enough?

On the rest, great points...and you're making my points. Even though Israel hasn't done the right thing over and over again...and that has been admitted by me on several occasions, the Palestinians almost always do the wrong thing in response.

And the current "elected representatives" of Palestine (Hamas) never acknowledged the validity of Camp David or Oslo, if I'm mistaken you're more than welcome to point me in the right direction there.

But my overall point remains:

If Israel has refused to give in on Jerusalem and West Bank in the past, what makes you think they're going to give in this time without SOMETHING else in return, or at least more convincing gestures of peace.

It is unrealistic (one might even say naive) to say someone should "go to hell" for positing that the other side in a peace negotiation should give a little as well. I mean come on. I'm not making a moral judgment here...it doesn't matter to me whether you are or not.

You're confusing moral obligations with reality, and even though you and I might disagree on degree of blame on each side, you can't ignore the simple fact that both sides have blown opportunities over the years. If you don't think that's the case, then your view on this is even more myopic than I thought.

I have no dog in this fight. Apparently, you do...I'm just trying to look at this thing objectively, which you would have to admit you have not...not in a long while.

By continually placing ALL of the blame on Israel as the oppressor you create a moral argument which is almost irrelevant in the real world.

If I was an Israeli negotiator, control of Jerusalem would be a non-starter for any conversation regarding a settlement. It doesn't matter to me whether Palestine "deserves" this or is "justified" in that. Even if Israelis had come in in 1947 with U.S. missiles blazing and TOOK Jerusalem by force and then started attacking Jordan and Syria completely unprovoked (none of which is CLOSE to true)...even if Israeli hitmen had come in every third Tuesday of the month between 1936 and 1968 and gathered up Palestinians and dragged them to Jordan and Lebanon, I would still not give up control of Jerusalem...ever (there is no substitute for Jerusalem, and no place more holy to Judaism then Jerusalem...it's deal-breaker. It's essential to Zionism and just because you're not a Zionist doesn't believe that Israelis can't be).

If I were a Palestinian negotiator, then my number one issues would be human rights and right of return. Even if my "Government", my representatives, my third cousin and my kid sister had strapped themselves up with nuclear suicide bombs and then blew up and poisoned enough Jews to make the whole "Holocaust" thing look like a Branch Davidian camp, I would not leave the table without right of return for Palestinian refugees, and complete cessation of human rights abuses.

In this case, BOTH sides will lose something...probably a lot. But they will gain, too. If either side keeps talking like you...well...all of us...have a tendency to talk, there will be continued strife and violence and pain and suffering.

And be careful substituting volume of knowledge for wisdom and moral superiority. I'll admit my gaps in knowledge if you admit your complete lack of objectivity.

:o)

scottie said...

Hamas is not a group of noble priests. I am not here to sing their praises. But they were elected fairly, and the Congress of our country imposed sanctions that really hurt the Palestinian people. Should the Palestinians love the US for this ?

Hamas also renounced violence for 18 months (before and after their elections) and did not orchestrate or plan any suicide attack within Israel. The crucial qualifier is that Hamas does not recognize Israel AS LONG AS IT CONTINUES ITS OCCUPATION OF PALESTINIAN LAND, and that does not mean historic Palestine.

Schlomo Ben Ami, a former foreign minister for Israel said in a debate with Finkelstein right after Hamas was elected that Israel should discuss issues with Hamas.

My comment on Netanyahu, who is a despicable human being, should not be used to tear down my other arguments. I have no respect for he who proclaims on September 12, 2001 that the attacks against the US the day before were "great for Israel"

The "SOMETHING" that Israel will get in return is no pittance. Full recognition of Israel from every Arab nation and security guarantees are huge bargaining chips.

I listened to an interesting interview between Matthew Rothschild and Jeff Halper (it is posted on this site) and Jeff Halper was discussing Oslo and Rabin, and he said something very interesting. Rabin knew that if the peace process used criteria like international law and UN resolutions that Israel would lose the fight. So the game-plan was power politics, the mighty sword. Ironically, he was killed by an extremist, Yigal Amir, for trying to establish a peace.

The Palestinians have made many mistakes. But objectively, having weighed the relevant history and politics, Israel has done much worse, and the US covers for Israel.

Did you see Chomsky's mention of private versus public policy of our administrations over the years?

Knowing what I know on this issue will not allow me to remain objective, but that does not mean I lost my ability to reason. You have your admission, but do not be deluded into buying into the sincerity of this admin's stated goal of peace. If it truly wanted peace between the Israelis and the Palestinians, it would happen tomorrow. But the political risks outweigh the rewards, and that's especially sad commentary given the already-dismal approval ratings.

I'm still clinging to the hope that the Israeli majority who want to dismantle the settlements in exhange for peace and recognition will overthrow their government, allow Palestinians to return, tear down the fence, and scrap the notion of an all-Jewish nation, and realize that a country with 50% Jewish population shared in peace with another semitic people is still a far cry better than what they have endured in their history.

This last paragraph is not born out of naivety, because I know how fanatical the Zionists are, but born out of hope.

wdporter said...

OK...I'm with you. A couple of points:

1) Repeatedly pointing out that Hamas was democratically elected is not productive, and a weak excuse. The Israeli Government is democratically elected as well, and that evidently has not acted as a decent enough excuse for them to be assholes.

2) "...The crucial qualifier is that Hamas does not recognize Israel AS LONG AS IT CONTINUES ITS OCCUPATION OF PALESTINIAN LAND, and that does not mean historic Palestine."
This is fundamentally and completely not true...we've gone over this before. Forgive me but the onus is on you on this one to show me that. This is fundamentally false. Hamas has not EVER even conditionally acknowledged the right for Israel to exist. Sorry.

3) "you have your admission...but" has to be the most heartfelt and sincere concession I've ever read. LOL. LMAO.

4) and nowhere in my discussion of this have I defended the current U.S. administration.

5) "scrap the notion of an all-Jewish nation." Well there you go. Palestine has a pretty solid vision of an all Muslim nation, but the idea of an all-Jewish nation is completely unfathomable? I agree it may be realistic, but do you see the fundamental double-standard there? We've been down this road as well, Zionist fanaticism is equally matched by anti-Zionist fanaticism. Either Israel has a right to exist or not, and if the U.N. is our "un-biased" arbiter, and the original UN resolutions mean anything, then an "All Jewish nation" is indeed their right. It's insanely disingenuous to say "pull back to the old borders" and in the same breath say "you really shouldn't have your own country at all anyway."

But you're right, Israel has taken a heavy-handed approach, and obviously that needs to change. Equally, the Palestinian people need to take responsibility as well and stop electing fanatical wacko regimes to lead their government.

The less wacko the Palestinian representatives, the less excuse Israel will continue to be so heavy handed. The history (as usual) is irrelevant.

Quick question: Don't you think that Abbas and Fatah has a better chance of negotiating a piece deal than Hamas, regardless of their "legitimacy?"

scottie said...

Article 6: "Hamas strives to raise the banner of God over every inch of Palestine, so followers of all religions can coexist in safety"

That kind of blows your argument out of the water, that Hamas works only for Muslims. 15% of Palestinians are Christians, so you might consider that point the next time you are in church with your Christian bible ;

thou shalt not steal .... but God's "chosen" can steal other people's land

thou shalt not kill ... except God's "chosen" when they are claiming other people's lands

thou shalt not lie .... Golda Meir "There is no such thing as a Palestinian" among hundreds of other Zionist propaganda lies

thou shalt not utter bullshit on a friend's blogsite ...

inserted for comical relief


i re-iterate a point that i made that hamas and fatah made a monumental breakthrough in july of 2006 to implicitly recognize israel ... and the breakthrough was upended by the capture of gilad shalit (which was precipitated by the idf kidnapping a palestinian doctor and his brother the previous day) and the assualt on the gaza, followed by the assualt on lebanon

but a nice article from the BBC which describes the evolution of hamas's intentions on recognizing israel can be found here :

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4686844.stm

while its original charter was very sharp and bellicose, it's rise to power through elections caused the group to work to ease the suffering of the palestinian people. you remember i told you that hamas had unilaterally rescinded attacks on israel for 18 months before the assualt on gaza by the israelis effectively ended that. no truce, this was something it did unilaterally .. with minimal coverage

hamas is no group of angels, no doubt about it. kind of makes you wonder why mossad would help to develop the group in the first place as a counterweight to the PLO ... love to hear your comeback on this one

Israel illegally invades Lebanon in 1982 and 3 years after this and after numerous UN resolutions are passed in the GA and scuttled in the SC by the US's veto power, Hezbollah is formed as a part of the Lebanese national resistance. No Israeli invasion, no Hezbollah.

Israel wanted to have a counterweight for the PLO, so the MOSSAD was instrumental in helping set up Hamas.

To close, you did not respond to the comments I made on the Jeff Halper interview (which is available for full discovery ~ 20 minutes long) in which he acknowledged that the Israeli Prime Minister knew that Israel had no leg to stand on if the basis and criteria for negotiations with the Palestinians were international law and UN resolutions. What does this imply?

wdporter said...

LOL...I'll be sure and remember you and Palestine the next time I go to church. I think I've made myself pretty clear in the past that my Christian faith has absolutely NO BEARING on my opinions in these matters. Assuming such would be the equivalent of me as a Christian calling you a heathen for NOT supporting Israel. It's just not relevant.

"Hamas strives to raise the banner of God over every inch of Palestine, so followers of all religions can coexist in safety"

This does not imply recognition of Israel so does not "blow my argument out of the water", and actually proves my point quite well. "Flag of God" means "Flag of Allah" and "living in safety" means living as subjects of Islamic rule and paying a tax for not being Muslim. Good effort, though.

Actually, the BBC article you post (and yes, an interesting article which further illustrates every one of my points) uses this particular quote as an illustration of the opposite of how you refer to it.

"Assaulting Lebanon" and "Assaulting Gaza" is a he said, she said about who attacked first (as are of course most of the conflicts since 1968), and I'm not convinced that Israel attacked without provocation. You most likely ARE convinced of that, so we should probably table that one. Is that OK?

How Hamas started and what Hamas became are not synonymous. What Hamas became was an extremist, theocratic, violent terrorist organization, and they continue in that vein (while taking great care of those under their purview--unless of course, they're a member of Fatah--which is not only a good idea, but a great way to maintain power). Reminding all that Hamas was started by the Mossad to counter Fatah is interesting, but irrelevant.

To further illustrate--every terrorist organization in IP (Jewish and Arabic) started with noble intentions to defend their own people from insurgents or oppressors. For a review on all the topics that we've agreed on in this department, see this post. Brings back sweet memories, huh?

As far as the 18 months...are you talking about the hudna? Again, I refer to the Lovey Dovey post:

"*In January of 2004, a 10 year truce (hudna) was offered by senior Hamas official Abdel Aziz al-Rantissi in exchange for Israel’s complete withdrawal to the 1967 borders.
* a 10-year Hudna is not a recognition of Israel’s right to exist."

And I'll add another one to conclude this point:

*Offering "no violence" for 18 months as an ultimatum to except a 10-year Hudna, is not a recognition of Israel's right to exist.

Can I add that to the list?

I did not watch the interview but will concede the simple point that Israel did not have a leg to stand on from an international law standpoint. What does that imply?

The same body that makes sure that Israel does not have a leg to stand on in the realm of International Law is the same body that essentially created Israel. Until Hamas genuinely acknowledges that Israel has a right to exist...permanently...and the unbiased body responsible for international law BACKS UP Israel's right to exist (at its original borders--obviously), then Israel understandably feels it has every right as a sovereign nation to tell International Law to "go to hell."

You want to talk history, though? Go back to the beginning. It's not really that complicated. One party (or parties) breaks "international law" (a newly created State being said Law) by attacking another party, and said party immediately responds by breaking international law by further expanding it's territory further for military gain.

I'm not convinced that one side holds more blame than the other from a moral standpoint. We can both bitch about "who started it" but since when has that ever REALLY meant anything when it came to war?

I get it though, man, really. The challenge is: one party typically has had the upper hand. If Arabs had taken control of IP in 1948 or 1967 or whenever...we'd be having a different conversation about Jewish oppression in modern Palestine. (And I PROMISE their oppression would be every bit as oppressive as Israel's...that scenario has actually played out a few times before) Which side would we come down on, then?

One of us would come down on the Israeli side because they'd have International Law (U.N. 242) on their side as a right to exist as a State...The other would come down on the Palestinian side because obviously Israel didn't have a right to exist, anyway. The latter would say International Law was irrelevant if said Law allowed the transplant of a populace to accommodate another.

We'd both be right, and we'd both be wrong. Eventually we would ditch the International Law talk and go back to a "moral" argument until we get tired of that and then would bring up International Law again.

And nothing has changed.

The only thing that would be different, and the only thing that really counts is who's ahead and who's not.

And Israel is in control. Why? U.S. support. Why? We all know the answer to that. The U.S. is a classic supporter of Zionism. You are not. AIPAC is, and the American public in general is. Why? Because suicide bombers get no respect (deservedly so) and democratic government's military attacking terrorist leaders in their homes is NOT looked down upon. This is probably not fair...but if you think about it, it's not that realistic.

Americans in general will never view those that strap on a bomb and cowardly kill others for their religion as noble. Never.

And before you start spouting numbers (which I have conceded all). The numbers are irrelevant. The methods are. The "respect for life" is. Right or wrong. Fair or unfair. That's the deal.

And AIPAC and the Jewish League ,etc. unfortunately have more say-so than you and Mr. Finklestein. OK. I get it.

However, it's useless to talk about Hamas' non-concessions or token gestures of temporary cessation of violence. They will never accept Israel as a state and neither of course will many like yourself who do not believe in Israel's right to exist. You've said it quite well before:

In your opinion, Israel should simply giving up its right to exist as a Jewish state (the definition of Zionism), and allow right of return of Palestinians to their homes and fly a unified flag.

In my humble opinion, I think Israel DOES have a right to exist as a Jewish state...not because my religion says so or the U.N. said so, but because....

...it does. Israel exists.

Yes, over the years, there have been many offers of peace, many peace talks, and actual treaties and roadmaps.

Many believe Israel has never truly accepted these proposals because they never truly believed that those offering it had either the power or the inclination to not attack again as soon as they had the chance (maybe because all of the "token" withdrawals result in violence).

Others believe that Israel has never taken these proposals because they simply want to keep the land (especially Jerusalem) they have taken.

Both of these are true.

I'm tired. Cheers.

scottie said...

"I get it though, man, really. The challenge is: one party typically has had the upper hand. If Arabs had taken control of IP in 1948 or 1967 or whenever...we'd be having a different conversation about Jewish oppression in modern Palestine. (And I PROMISE their oppression would be every bit as oppressive as Israel's...that scenario has actually played out a few times before) Which side would we come down on, then?"

I would support the sides of justice, and if it were arabs who used US tax dollars and an uber-strong arab lobby in the US to oppress indigenous jews in the region, i would be equally as passionate in their defense. get it?

"
And Israel is in control. Why? U.S. support. Why? We all know the answer to that. The U.S. is a classic supporter of Zionism. You are not. AIPAC is, and the American public in general is. Why? Because suicide bombers get no respect (deservedly so) and democratic government's military attacking terrorist leaders in their homes is NOT looked down upon. This is probably not fair...but if you think about it, it's not that realistic."

I see you have never visited B'Tselem and Human Rights Watch who discuss how the israeli miltary blows up entire buildings, with ratios typically like 8 : 1 militants to innocent civilians killed. more than 100 children killed by israel this year alone, which is more than the total number of israelis killed. an entire family on gaza slaughtered by israeli shelling, and these methods are ok with you? you cant be serious to say that the numbers are not important. let's say for example, that the US government killed only 5,000 native americans in its program of manifest destiny. rank this suffering with killing a million people. numbers do matter, even though the act is still vile and reprehensible, the death toll should be included in the measuring stick of the brutality of the occupation.

"And before you start spouting numbers (which I have conceded all). The numbers are irrelevant. The methods are. The "respect for life" is. Right or wrong. Fair or unfair. That's the deal."

Israel has shown a supreme lack of respect for non-israeli life. i cannot imagine anything more morally abhorrent than having rabbis and little girls write messages on missiles that israel sends into lebanon :

http://sabbah.biz/mt/archives/2006/07/17/photo-of-the-day-israeli-kids-sends-gifts-of-love-to-arab-kids/

there are more pictures and statements than what you see from this link.

"However, it's useless to talk about Hamas' non-concessions or token gestures of temporary cessation of violence. They will never accept Israel as a state and neither of course will many like yourself who do not believe in Israel's right to exist. You've said it quite well before:

In your opinion, Israel should simply giving up its right to exist as a Jewish state (the definition of Zionism), and allow right of return of Palestinians to their homes and fly a unified flag.

In my humble opinion, I think Israel DOES have a right to exist as a Jewish state...not because my religion says so or the U.N. said so, but because....

...it does. Israel exists.

Yes, over the years, there have been many offers of peace, many peace talks, and actual treaties and roadmaps.

Many believe Israel has never truly accepted these proposals because they never truly believed that those offering it had either the power or the inclination to not attack again as soon as they had the chance (maybe because all of the "token" withdrawals result in violence)."

These paragraphs are pure rubbish. In my many posts on Logipundit I was clear, to anyone who actually read what i wrote ; the injustice of 1948 and 1967 cannot be rectified by "un-doing" a jewish state currently, but israel should abide by international law, its treaty obligations, UN resolutions, geneva conventions, etc etc etc

for the long-term health of both israelis and palestinians, eventually the racist notion of an all-jewish state should be re-evaluated . the 2 state solution wont work, and israel cant really transfer the arabs and christians within israel proper, so a one-state solution is the best long-term solution.

in all your posts, you have NEVER addressed israel's refusal to deal with the arab league proposals. NEVER . there are security guarantess and full recognition of all arab league members. so you understand the implications ? if so, your comments should be tweaked accordingly.

how you can twist my words and spout out that garbage about me denying israel's right to exist, like some apocalyptic scenario is about to unfold,is beyond me.

it does exist, and i have said this many times, and it aint going anywhere. i'd like to see my government do a principled thing and stop obstructing the will of the entire world, force israeli compliance with every measure it has protected it against since the 70's, withhold all military aid until the occupation ends, stop publicly making an ass of itself by talking about nuclear free middle-easts when israel has them and the arab countries do not. then watch how the image of the US is somewhat repaired.

but thats not why one pursues these actions ; they are done because they are the right thing to do !

i cannot make it any more clear than that butch.

wdporter said...

Rubbish? Thanks for that. That really helps out.

1) I have conceded every human rights atrocity you have detailed. If you want to expound on these, please do; I believe it may probably need it. Starting with the VERY FIRST item on our list:

* Israel is guilty of human rights atrocities in Palestine
* Israel’s image in the international community would be greatly helped if it stopped :
-extra-judicial assassinations
-house demolitions
-collective punishment

2)Yes, I understand the implications of the Arab proposals, and are you saying since I haven't addressed Israel's lack of it in the past...that means I can't now? I'll say it again in a different way: One could posit that the reason that Israel didn't deal with these proposals is either a) because they don't trust the proposers, or b) they want to keep the land they have taken.

Both are true. What more do you want me to say? I'm not defending their not dealing with them. And even if I was it does not affect the validity of the rest of my points.

3)I do indeed read all of your posts. Are you saying it's IMPOSSIBLE to read all of your posts, study the same facts you've studied and not have different opinions? You're not that pompous, Scottie, really, go ahead and give that up if you don't mind.

4) your lack of comment on the Hamas quote and the hudna and the 18 months? Does that mean you concede the point that Hamas indeed has NEVER really allowed for the existence of Israel? Go ahead and give me another "you have my admission...but."

LOL...another note, we should shorten our comments so we're tackling one issue at a time. That was actually the whole point of the whole "Lovey Dovey" post, so we didn't miss each other's points. That post is still live and I can add to it anytime.

TTYL. BP.

scottie said...

I think we are in agreement on several sub-issues of the original post, and it seems we are each digging our own ideological trenches on the parts we are not agreement on, so I propose we take a pause in the fighting to collect our dead, bury them, and we can continue the battle at a later date.

Ron Paul won the Virginia GOP straw poll yesterday ! This is not the Dallas Fort Worth Tax Protester straw poll, but the Virginia GOP straw poll !!!!!! YAY !

wdporter said...

Scottie:

Nothing short of a breakthrough, my friend. I swear that my next reply was going to be to recommend exactly the same thing: a pause.

The breakthrough is not only that we both recognize our own ideologies, but that we both realized at the same time.

It's always a pleasure and always educational.

And go RON! There is noone that needs to stay present, vocal and active in this race more than Ron Paul.