Programs: UA 1K, IC RA, Marriott Silver, SPG Gold, ¤
Posts: 26,976
Quote:
Originally Posted by Loren Pechtel
Reality check: They have offered the 67 borders in exchange for a *TEMPORARY* truce. This is consistent with the Islamic ideology of making a temporary peace with an enemy that you can't conquer *NOW*.
What is your solution? What should Israel do?
And where exactly did you get your PhD in "Islamic ideology" (whatever that is)?
You're not rebutting his points at all, just bringing up red herrings. I guess you are conceding he's right.
There is not one serious point in the original post. Instead, there is this incoherent rehashing of last weeks hasbara talking points document. Like all official Israeli propaganda, everything listed therein is either lies, damn lies, or an obfuscation of the truth. I've addressed the lie of President Arafat rejecting an offer of 97% of occupied land. When the offer was made, Israel had already eaten up 85% of the land given to the Palestinians and btw, that is a charitable estimate. So, 97% X (100%-85%) would be the true amount of land on offer to President Arafat.
As for the overall thesis that people who criticize Israel don't care about Muslim or Israeli lives, I think many find it so offensive that it doesn't even warrant a response. I and many others are on record as stating we deplore all deaths from violence. The only person here I can think of who has outright refused to do this is the OP.
__________________
...
Last edited by PhlyingRPh; Nov 1, 09 at 4:22 pm.
Reason: correction to sentence structure
Something tells me if they had offered peace your criticism would still stand.
Let's face it: there is nothing the Palestinians can say that is a credible signal in this situation.
A signal for what? The problem with your argument is that land is all the Israelis have to give up. The Palestinians (and other Arab states) would still not have agreed to peace in "land for peace." On your other post where you say that the Palestinians have agreed to 1967 borders, Hamas has agreed to accept the 1967 borders for a 10-year hudna (or cease-fire). And then what? What happens if Hamas doesn't accept Israel's nationhood. What does Israel do other than retake Palestine? That would be very bloody indeed and few would want that.
That said, there are some posters on each side who are far too strident. Some who are pro-Israel don't seem to have much sympathy at all for the Palestinians. Some pro-Palestinian posters want Israel to go away--and some are downright anti-Semitic.
What happens if Hamas doesn't accept Israel's nationhood.
Two thoughts here:
1. There is no assurance that Hamas will remain in power for 10 years. Likewise, if a new government is in place that does accept Israel's nationhood, there is no assurance that Hamas would not regain power and reject it. If you want examples of a country backing out of international agreements based on a change in leadership, look no further than the US and Bush.
2. It seems reasonable to me that the UN could easily make a condition of acceptance of Palestinian statehood that they recognize Israel's statehood. Peace is a process, not an event.
Programs: UA 1K, IC RA, Marriott Silver, SPG Gold, ¤
Posts: 26,976
Quote:
Originally Posted by euslaner
A signal for what? The problem with your argument is that land is all the Israelis have to give up. The Palestinians (and other Arab states) would still not have agreed to peace in "land for peace." On your other post where you say that the Palestinians have agreed to 1967 borders, Hamas has agreed to accept the 1967 borders for a 10-year hudna (or cease-fire). And then what? What happens if Hamas doesn't accept Israel's nationhood. What does Israel do other than retake Palestine? That would be very bloody indeed and few would want that.
I think the argument here would have to be that if the 10 year truce was successful then the security dilemma both sides currently feel would be a bit ameliorated. If nothing else 10 years of peace (if it could happen) sounds pretty good right about now. I don't know that this would be a good option, but it is an option. Dov spoke as if it was never offered.
And that's really my biggest concern with this thread: Dov could has responded to my post with what you did: an honest assessment of the pros and cons of accepting Hamas' proposal. Instead he pretends like Hamas has never offered anything meaningful at all.
Quote:
Originally Posted by euslaner
That said, there are some posters on each side who are far too strident. Some who are pro-Israel don't seem to have much sympathy at all for the Palestinians. Some pro-Palestinian posters want Israel to go away--and some are downright anti-Semitic.
I think the argument here would have to be that if the 10 year truce was successful then the security dilemma both sides currently feel would be a bit ameliorated. If nothing else 10 years of peace (if it could happen) sounds pretty good right about now. I don't know that this would be a good option, but it is an option. Dov spoke as if it was never offered.
And that's really my biggest concern with this thread: Dov could has responded to my post with what you did: an honest assessment of the pros and cons of accepting Hamas' proposal. Instead he pretends like Hamas has never offered anything meaningful at all.
There is an old military expression: Where you stand depends upon where you sit. I just think that the Hamas offer shows insincerity. Dov thinks that it shows a direct threat to Israel's existence. Two variations on the same theme--I think that the offer is unrealistic. Dov thinks that it is well beyond that. If I were an Israeli, I might think along the same lines that he does.
A signal for what? The problem with your argument is that land is all the Israelis have to give up. The Palestinians (and other Arab states) would still not have agreed to peace in "land for peace." On your other post where you say that the Palestinians have agreed to 1967 borders, Hamas has agreed to accept the 1967 borders for a 10-year hudna (or cease-fire). And then what? What happens if Hamas doesn't accept Israel's nationhood. What does Israel do other than retake Palestine? That would be very bloody indeed and few would want that.
First of all, please tell me, what kind of idiot would agree to a 10 year truce under the circumstances mentioned? In other words, isn't it a moot point?
Quote:
Originally Posted by euslaner
That said, there are some posters on each side who are far too strident. Some who are pro-Israel don't seem to have much sympathy at all for the Palestinians. Some pro-Palestinian posters want Israel to go away--and some are downright anti-Semitic.
I consider you to be someone that has expressed no sympathy for Palestinians. The OP of this thread has refused to condemn violence against Palestinians, and I don't get any warm fuzzies from some of the other virulently anti-Palestinian posters here either. On the other hand, name one poster who has expressed concern for the Palestinians that has stated they would like Israel to (I'll use a stronger word than you did) be anihilated. Name one such poster who has not lamented the deaths of Israelis and Palestinians?
Programs: UA 1K, IC RA, Marriott Silver, SPG Gold, ¤
Posts: 26,976
Quote:
Originally Posted by euslaner
There is an old military expression: Where you stand depends upon where you sit. I just think that the Hamas offer shows insincerity. Dov thinks that it shows a direct threat to Israel's existence. Two variations on the same theme--I think that the offer is unrealistic. Dov thinks that it is well beyond that. If I were an Israeli, I might think along the same lines that he does.
Agreed, and a Palestinian would probably have a different viewpoint as well, not trusting Israel's side for a truce either.
That's the heart of the problem. And the solution isn't obvious.
I consider you to be someone that has expressed no sympathy for Palestinians. The OP of this thread has refused to condemn violence against Palestinians, and I don't get any warm fuzzies from some of the other virulently anti-Palestinian posters here either. On the other hand, name one poster who has expressed concern for the Palestinians that has stated they would like Israel to (I'll use a stronger word than you did) be anihilated. Name one such poster who has not lamented the deaths of Israelis and Palestinians?
If you don't think that I have expressed sympathy for the Palestinians, you haven't been reading any of my posts. I am not going to do your search work for you, but you can see any of my discussions here with typical.
As to lamenting the deaths of Israelis, can I find one poster who has not lamented attacks on them? Please show me a post where you have done so.
I think the argument here would have to be that if the 10 year truce was successful then the security dilemma both sides currently feel would be a bit ameliorated. If nothing else 10 years of peace (if it could happen) sounds pretty good right about now.
That is a very short-sighted view. A decade of peace, in which your sworn enemies are free to build up a military, does not sound good at all.
Quote:
Originally Posted by magiciansampras
Instead he pretends like Hamas has never offered anything meaningful at all.
That is because Hamas has not -- and neither has the PA.
Hamas' position, often repeated, is that it will only accept the destruction of Israel by "blood and fire". Yes, it is willling, in exchange for the opportunity to arm, equip, and train an army to wait 10 years for that -- but nothing else.
The PA has a different position. It is willing to see Israel, as a Jewish state, destroyed through negotiations. It wants a Palestinian state established now, along the lines of Israel's 1967 borders, but only in connection with the "right of return" of all Palestinians (and their children, grandchildren, and great-grandchildren) to Israel itself. In short, the eventual demographics would mean that their would be two Palestinian states and no Jewish state.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PhlyingRPh
There is not one serious point in the original post. Instead, there is this incoherent rehashing of last weeks hasbara talking points document. Like all official Israeli propaganda, everything listed therein is either lies, damn lies, or an obfuscation of the truth. I've addressed the lie of President Arafat rejecting an offer of 97% of occupied land. When the offer was made, Israel had already eaten up 85% of the land given to the Palestinians and btw, that is a charitable estimate. So, 97% X (100%-85%) would be the true amount of land on offer to President Arafat.
As for the overall thesis that people who criticize Israel don't care about Muslim or Israeli lives, I think many find it so offensive that it doesn't even warrant a response. I and many others are on record as stating we deplore all deaths from violence. The only person here I can think of who has outright refused to do this is the OP.
1. Of the original Palestinian mandate given by the League of Nations to the British, 80% of it is firmly in Arab hands. The British broke it off and established the country of Transjordan (today called "Jordan").
The Jewish community in Palestine was not thrilled with this but accepted it. Why? Because its goal was the eventual establishment of a Jewish state -- not to keep an Arab state from being established.
2. In 1947, the United Nations voted to partition that remaining 20% into two new states -- a Jewish one and an Arab one. Under the UN plan of that time, the Jewish state would be less than half of that land. Again, the Jewish community was not happy but accepted the UN decision. Again, the reason was it wanted to establish a Jewish state.
The Arab community (and the surrounding Arab states) did not accept it. Why? Because their goal was not to establish an Arab state but rather to stop a Jewish one from being created. The Palestinian Arab forces, backed by invading armies from Transjordan, Egypt, Lebanon, Syria, and Iraq fought to extinguish Israel in its infancy. They failed and the UN decided that Israel's official borders would be the ceasefire line at the end of that war. (Those are what today is known as the "pre-1967 borders".)
There was a large number (but very far from all) Arab Palestinians who left during the war. There was an even larger number of Jews from Arab countries who were forced out of their homes after the war and came to Israel.
The exchange of population was handled very differently by the two sides. Israel accepted the Jewish refugees and immediately started integrating them into Israeli society with, of course, full citizenship. Why? Because it helped build the Jewish state.
The Arab countries put the Palestinians into refugee camps, withheld citizenship from them and their descendants, and doomed them to lives of misery and poverty. Why? Because by keeping them in despair the Arab nations guaranteed that they would not settle for lives in their new countries but would instead aim to destroy the Jewish state so that they could return there.
Even those who lived fled to the West Bank and Gaza, which between 1948 and 1967 were under Arab control, were kept in these camps.
3. As far as PhlyingRPh's concern about violence is concerned, it can be clearly seen in his dismissal of 9/11 as a "self sacrifice operation" which killed only a few hundred people and which America deserved.
He has also, repeatedly, said that he would not condemn Arab violence because he is not an "Uncle Tom."
Quote:
Originally Posted by magiciansampras
How so? You don't truly believe that Israel will accept anything that Hamas, for instance, promises, right?
Sure it is a sad position, but it has nothing to do with responsibility. It has everything to do with credibility. Hamas has very little, according to Israel.
Actually, we believe that Hamas will keep its word. That is the problem. We have no doubt at all that it wants to destroy Israel by blood and fire and will use that 10 year truce to try to make it possible.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PhlyingRPh
Similarly, there is not much one can say to someone who thinks the main complaint of people who survived the most brutal and intense air attack of the century was the noise of the aircraft flying overhead.
No one ever said that. What I did say was that there were loud moans and complaints about the sonic booms -- including right here on Omni where there was a lengthy thread about them, and that was before the aerial attacks on Gaza. These flights were made when there was still hope in Israel that they would suffice to discourage Palestinian suicide attacks.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PhlyingRPh
The implication that everyone who rightly criticizes the most reactionary, racist and religiously bigoted government in the Middle East is antisemitic
No, those who rightly criticize the most reactionary, racist, and religiously bigoted government in the Middle East are not anti-Semites. Why would they be? They are condemning Iran and Saudi Arabia.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pbiflyer
Oh, I am sorry, You are indeed right. The way Israel is doing it is making it oh so safe. Funny, I don't have a bomb bunker in my house here in la lal land, but your grown up world does.
Yeah, Israel's way is working just great. Enjoy the next air raid siren.
Interestingly, I agree with you one one point -- it was Israeli policy which forced me to go to the bomb shelters for 6 weeks in 2006. (Well, I was supposed to go; most of the time I was typing away on my computer.)
That policy was one established by Israel's left wing government under then-Prime Minister Ehud Barak. He withdrew from South Lebanon without first reaching a peace treaty with Hizbollah. This allowed it to build up its forces in the region and to bring in enough rockets so it felt comfortable in opening the attack along the entire Israeli-Lebanese border.
Peace does not come from being weak -- it comes from making certain that a would-be enemy knows that you are strong.
Last edited by Pizzaman; Nov 1, 09 at 7:07 pm.
Reason: Personal Commentary
Peace does not come from being weak -- it comes from making certain that a would-be enemy knows that you are strong.
Now, there's the rub. What exactly is strength? Bombing women and children? When your enemies do it, you call it cowardice, but when Israel does it, you say it is a necessary part of war.
Israel's version of strength only seems to be creating more enemies.
