Skip to main content

View Diary: Ask Senators For Balance In MidEast "Dear Colleague" Letter (Updated) (235 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Freeze? (6+ / 0-)

    How about discussing a two-year plan to EVACUATE all of the settlements positioned on illegitimate land-grabs? I'm not seeing a light at the end of the tunnel gameplan until there is no longer a valid reason for troops to be present to protect the settlers.  

    •  Because Israel will not (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      deaniac20

      engage in a brutal and bloody civil war to please the west.

      As God is my witness, I thought turkeys could fly. - Mr. Carlson

      by Karmafish on Mon Jul 27, 2009 at 09:37:54 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  You just acknowledged that the West Bank... (5+ / 0-)

        Settlements will NEVER be removed. Thanks.

        •  Stop with the hyperbole (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Karmafish, canadian gal

          That is not what he said. He is saying it can't be shotgunned - have some nuance bud.

          Pigs are not notably aerodynamic, are they?

          by volleyboy1 on Tue Jul 28, 2009 at 01:43:43 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  Most of them will not be. (0+ / 0-)

          There are something like 400,000 settlers.

          I doubt very much that Israel will remove them by force.

          As God is my witness, I thought turkeys could fly. - Mr. Carlson

          by Karmafish on Tue Jul 28, 2009 at 09:19:21 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  So exactly what's to negotiate again? n/t (5+ / 0-)
            •  So, you do not want negotiations? (0+ / 0-)

              You oppose even the possibility of peace?

              The fact is that Israel will not remove those settlers because the trauma of trying to do so will be too much for such a small country.

              What Israel can do, however, is negotiate its final borders and remove the IDF to behind those borders, with any settlers on the other side living under the authority of a Palestinian state.

              But if the Palestinian leadership is uninterested in negotiations than there will be no negotiations, no Palestinian state, and no peace.

              Is that your preference?

              You want them to fight on to the last Palestinian, do you?

              As God is my witness, I thought turkeys could fly. - Mr. Carlson

              by Karmafish on Tue Jul 28, 2009 at 09:37:11 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  I believe (3+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                corvo, Aunt Martha, Terra Mystica

                Corvo is opposed to

                You oppose even the possibility of peace? piece-by-piece.

                "It takes two to lie. One to lie, one to hear it." Homer Simpson

                by Euroliberal on Tue Jul 28, 2009 at 09:41:53 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

              •  but that's what's already happening: (3+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                zannie, Aunt Martha, Terra Mystica

                What Israel can do, however, is negotiate its final borders and remove the IDF to behind those borders, with any settlers on the other side living under the authority of a Palestinian state

                --except for the "Palestinian state" nonsense, which Israel isn't interested in either.  (If it were, that state would be given the right to defend itself, control its borders, control its airspace, etc.)

                •  That's precisely the kind of thing (0+ / 0-)

                  to be negotiated.

                  But if the Palestinian leadership is not interested in negotiations, and if there western supporters are not interested in negotiations, then there will be none.

                  I guess that you will bravely stand behind them as they fight on to the last man, eh?

                  As God is my witness, I thought turkeys could fly. - Mr. Carlson

                  by Karmafish on Tue Jul 28, 2009 at 10:00:01 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  When Israel's idea of negotiations (4+ / 0-)

                    is anything beside "We're the only side in a position to demand anything," negotiations will become a worthwhile endeavor.

                    Otherwise, negotiation is nothing but dictation of the terms of surrender by one side upon the other.

                    •  Thus you oppose peace. (0+ / 0-)

                      If you oppose negotiations then you oppose peace.

                      It's as simple as that.

                      As God is my witness, I thought turkeys could fly. - Mr. Carlson

                      by Karmafish on Tue Jul 28, 2009 at 10:07:14 AM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  while... (2+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        Karmafish, aggregatescience

                        i cannot speak for anyone - it is true that neither side should dictate terms to the other at this point. now - lets just get everyone to the table and then work out the particulars shall we?

                        "Democracy! Bah! When I hear that word I reach for my feather Boa!" - Allen Ginsberg

                        by canadian gal on Tue Jul 28, 2009 at 10:12:06 AM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                      •  No, I oppose surrender. (2+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        Aunt Martha, Terra Mystica

                        When Israel is serious about negotiations, I think that negotiations should by all means be pursued.

                      •  very simple indeed (3+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        corvo, Annalize5, Conure

                        you oppose peace because you refuse to negotiate the removal of any settlements.

                        It's as simple as that.

                        If you oppose negotiations then you oppose peace.

                        i'm done w/you here, you are worse than arguing w/a preteen. carry on w/your persistence in highjacking the thread.

                        •  More nonsense. (0+ / 0-)

                          I do not refuse to negotiate anything.

                          I am the one calling for no preconditions for sitting down, while you, and others, insist on preconditions.

                          You therefore stand in the way of any possible negotiated peace.

                          As God is my witness, I thought turkeys could fly. - Mr. Carlson

                          by Karmafish on Tue Jul 28, 2009 at 11:30:11 AM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                        •  zannie I don't think that is true (2+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          Karmafish, canadian gal

                          I know Karma - he is in favor of ending the occupation. I know this for a fact - I think we are all a little wound up including Karma.

                          I can tell you that no one except for one or two posters (Karma is not one) is for keeping the settlements expanding.

                          Everyone take a deep breath - Breathe IN - and..... OUT... In...... Out.

                          Let's start this thread again with calmer heads - we should be able to discuss this minus hyperbole on all sides.

                          Pigs are not notably aerodynamic, are they?

                          by volleyboy1 on Tue Jul 28, 2009 at 11:42:31 AM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  volley (0+ / 0-)

                            i was giving him a taste of his own medicine. those were his words in case you missed it:

                            Thus you oppose peace. (0+ / 0-)

                            If you oppose negotiations then you oppose peace.

                            It's as simple as that.

                            when he says it, it is so much less objectional don't you think?

                            as for

                            I can tell you that no one except for one or two posters (Karma is not one) is for keeping the settlements expanding.

                            well that is very interesting volley because he is certainly for letting them expand presently leading up to negotiations, and during negotiations. and in case you missed it he has already stated this:

                            Israel will not remove those settlers because the trauma of trying to do so will be too much for such a small country.

                            in my book not freezing growth means being pro growth w/the understanding no settlers will be removed ('too much for such a small country'). this is highly antagonistic to the entire process but of course you already know that.

                            it also sets lots of (facts on the ground) preconditions. it basically says israel is going into the negotiations with certain conditions it is inflexible about (like continuing to build away day after day expanding every single minute and all of that will end up in our favor because we won't be leaving we will only be negotiating the terms in which we stay hence no ethnic cleansing ESPECIALLY in EJ which cannot be negotiated!). now it is all well and good to say 'i am in favor of ending the occupation' but what exactly does that mean if every word out of your mouth is accusing your partner of opposing peace if you don't agree to the set conditions prior to negotiations? by israels standards it can just as easily say it is not occupying the WB or EJ, it is only allowing for enough 'security' to protect who is already there, for an interm period until everything has calmed down, like the next 20 years to be extended depending on facts on the ground.

                            anyway, so good of you to intercept wrt me using karmas words. my post was a snark, besides didn't i just tell him i was done with him?

                            ps, i look forward to you telling karma you know his words are not true, you know we don't oppose negotiations nor do we oppose peace. thanks!

                          •  Wow zannie I just read your two posts here (0+ / 0-)

                            I am gonna give you some volleyboy chill pills. Look I can see this whole thing got you fired up and I see you going guns blazing here but, hold your fire for a sec.

                            This comment that is getting you really pissed:

                            Israel will not remove those settlers because the trauma of trying to do so will be too much for such a small country.

                            can be read another way. I don't see Karma saying no removal of settlements here, what he is conveying is the government of Israel has followed this rationale. This is a common argument that removing the settlements will cause civil war. There is some truth to that.. it doesn't mean you don't do it but understand there are consequences to that action.

                            Now as far as my feelings. You know them - but, giving Obama a letter to take to the Israelis stressing normalization BFD. It gives him political cover. So what. I don't think that Obama should back off on the settlement freeze but, it has to be sold to the Israelis as something for them. No one negotiates out of the goodness of their hearts (well I do but that is a diff. story lol). Impress on the Israelis the economic costs, man-hours of the IDF, If Bibi is a fiscal conservative he should be looking at the settlers as a bad budget line item.

                            What is the harm in this approach? If Obama sticks to his guns on this - then let them phrase any which way as long as it leads to a settlement freeze. Look, Israel has the guns, money, and support of the American people but they don't have the feeling that they are totally secure. Let Obama coddle that feeling - it's diplomacy. His Cairo speech was brilliant - it went right to the heart of the matter and he gets the feelings on both sides.

                            Israel is not some cartoon state run by Snidely Whiplash - If they feel America is 100% in their corner they will be way more cooperative. I am telling you this because I know it.

                            As a suggestion, check out what the settlers argue and how they argue. Not from anti-Israel blogs but, from their blogs. There are some crazy ideas there but, wade through that and there is a rationale. Kind of a twisted rationale but a rationale.

                            I don't generally like the settlers, the ones I have interacted with (a fair amount) are self-righteous and generally faintly racist as well as judeo-centric. But there are other sides too. I am not trying to get you to like them - hell I don't even like them but, understanding them and their meme's is important.

                            Everyone tries to get me to look at the nuance of Hamas - ok, fine - look at the nuance of the Israeli right - both movements have more similarities than differences.

                            This has to be handled carefully that is the point he is making.

                            Plus Karma gets hot-headed and shoots off sometimes as I have seen you do and I know I do.

                            Pigs are not notably aerodynamic, are they?

                            by volleyboy1 on Tue Jul 28, 2009 at 03:42:07 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  ps (0+ / 0-)

                            i notice up(or down)thread you mentioned while you supported the president you wanted to give israel something to 'work' with. exuce my paraphrasing i am heading out the door.

                            i am just wondering how one can support 'working' with israel in the context of the topic (settlement freeze) and support the presidents proposals at the same time.

                            IOW, when one supports giving up one of the most valuable bargaining tools (normalization) without getting anything out of it (unless one consider the incredible 'gift' of israel allowing the WB to have any normal trade..) one essentially supports taking the cards right out of the presidents hand. it is diametrically opposed to supporting the president. it is going around the president and going directly to congress and asking them to basically screw over the presidents (and palestinians obviously) bargaining power by ignoring the settlement freeze.

                            at least that is how i see it. as for 'working' with israel..of course. but not if it means backing down on the settlement freeze. maybe they can come up w/something more doable and creative that does not involve cutting off the prez at the knees.

                            its a big pie. israel has already eaten over 3/4 of it. let's all guess how much more israel can eat between now and the finalization plan. no? well then stop easting the pie or there will be nothing left to negotiate except how to deal w/the starving people who got no pie because it was all eaten while people were deciding how to cut it up.

                            what? the appetite of israel is so large expecting it to curb its appetite during negotiation is a precondition! we need to work with the baby by feeding it more pie so it will know we love it.

                            there is something very rotten in denmark.

                      •  Fraud. (1+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        zannie

                        You don't want negotiations.  You want to put up demands that no group of people could or would ever meet.

                        Freedom and democracy and self-determination, unless you're an Arab.  That's the Israeli way.

                        "Words ought to be a little wild for they are the assault of thought on the unthinking." - John Maynard Keynes

                        by Drew J Jones on Tue Jul 28, 2009 at 03:00:42 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  Bullshit. (0+ / 0-)

                          More bullshit from Drew Jones.

                          You tell me what demands that I put up?

                          What are they?

                          Name 'em or the shut the fuck up.

                          As God is my witness, I thought turkeys could fly. - Mr. Carlson

                          by Karmafish on Tue Jul 28, 2009 at 03:14:36 PM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  The settlers. (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            zannie, callmecassandra

                            You're demanding negotiations over settlements on stolen land.

                            Now shut the fuck up.

                            "Words ought to be a little wild for they are the assault of thought on the unthinking." - John Maynard Keynes

                            by Drew J Jones on Tue Jul 28, 2009 at 03:17:34 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  I asked you (0+ / 0-)

                            what demands that I am making as a precondition for negotiations.

                            That is what you claimed.

                            So answer the question.

                            What demands am I making?

                            Name them.

                            Y'know, I do not believe for one second that you want peace, because if you did want peace you would favor negotiations, not seek to derail the possibility of discussions.

                            This makes you an enemy of both the Israelis and the Palestinians.

                            As God is my witness, I thought turkeys could fly. - Mr. Carlson

                            by Karmafish on Tue Jul 28, 2009 at 03:50:51 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

              •   So, you do not want negotiations? (4+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                corvo, Aunt Martha, Terra Mystica, Conure

                You oppose even the possibility of peace?

                The fact is that Israel will not remove those settlers because the trauma of trying to do so will be too much for such a small country.

                so according to you the fact is that israel will not participate in negotiating any removal of settlements.

                if the Israeli leadership is uninterested in negotiations than there will be no negotiations.

                Is that your preference?

                You want them to fight on to the last Israeli, do you?

                (how you like them apples, can you hear yourself)

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site