Skip to main content

As more and more Israelis and Palestinians come to the US on speaking tours, more and more Americans are learning the truth about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, the injustices, and the need to establish peace through real solutions. In this announcement from the Council for the National Interest, a group of Israeli and Palestinian women has come to the US to do just that.

This announcement was written by Terry Walz, CNI Staff and sent out on April 10, 2007 (reprinted here with CNI’s permission).

A group of Israeli and Palestinian women spoke of the need to speak the truth about the occupation of Palestine both in Israel and the US. The group, sponsored by Partners for Peace, a Washington-based organization, is touring selected Midwest cities under the name "Jerusalem Women Speak."

In advance of the tour, the group spoke yesterday at the Palestine Center in Washington about their daily lives and aspirations as the Israeli-Palestinian conflict remains deadlocked. The women included Amal Nassar, a Palestinian Christian from Bethlehem, Tal Dor, an Israeli Jew from Haifa, and Huda Abu Arqoub, a Palestinian Muslim from near Hebron. Each woman had a particular story to tell, shaped by their very different personal experiences. All felt that the real situation of the Palestinian people was habitually ignored not only in the West but especially in Israel.

Dor, whose parents emigrated from apartheid South Africa to Israel and works as an activist in Israel, spoke of her slow awakening to the human and political realities in her country - and to the similarities and differences of apartheid as practiced in South Africa and Israel. "We are fed myths and lies," she said, and that as a young person she felt the need to open the eyes of her countrymen to what the reality of the occupation is and to fight for a more just and equitable Israeli society. "I believe we have to speak about justice, equality, and ending the occupation. We cannot live at the expense of other peoples and speak about peace."

Abu Arqoub, who works as an educational consultant for the Ministry of Education of the Palestinian National Authority, felt the need to show the reality of the occupation by relating three stories from her acquaintances - a boy in Hebron who was arrested for playing in the street and helping a friend, a shopkeeper who was hit on the head by an Israeli soldier during a nonviolent protest, an old man who was arrested for trying to prevent the Israeli army from expelling him from the house his family lived in. These events are usually described as terrorist acts, and the reality behind the stories is never known.

For Nassar, the occupation has involved her family's tortured attempts to hold on to an olive grove that had been deeded to them in 1917 - before the founding of the state of Israel. The grove stands close to the many huge settlement blocs in and around Jerusalem, and has involved their family in constant court cases at their own expense, as bits of the land are seized for development purposes or the construction of Jews-only roads. Its 250 trees have been uprooted by settlers, an act of vandalism that prompted her family and other Palestinians to replant 400 new ones. To spread the word, the family has set of a nonprofit organization on the land called Tent of Nations which attempts to bring youths of all nations together for reconciliation and peace.

The women will be visiting Chicago and Evanston and in nine localities in Wisconsin before returning to Washington, DC during the period April 10-26. For a full schedule, see their itinerary at

http://www.partnersforpeace.org/...

Both Israelis and Palestinians want peace. Help them by attending any of these presentations.

Originally posted to Jackaloon on Tue Apr 10, 2007 at 02:01 PM PDT.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  So basically they're complaining about Israel (11+ / 0-)

    and they don't have anybody talking about what the Palestinian Authority can do to improve the peace process?

  •  Indeed (8+ / 0-)

    Good, convince Hamas to stop supporting ing attakcs and perhaps there can be a peace.

    It might help if they realized Israel did exist.

    •  Do you two have any new ideas? (4+ / 0-)

      Besides simply blaming others for this problem?

      •  Indeed (5+ / 0-)

        So... who would you suggest I place the blame on, the fluffy clouds in the sky? You can scream, rattle, protest, and sing for peace all you want.

        It doesn't seem to affect the hardline stance of Hamas.

        •  Obviously: (6+ / 0-)

          You are not contributing to the solution by blaming others. Didn't they ever tell you that in school?

          This is typical of some pro-Israel posters -- no new ideas, no way to break the logjam, just the same tired old politics as usual.

          If Israel is really sincere about wanting peace, then they should quit funding all those settlements put up by all those religious fanatics. Pelosi can go to the Middle East all she wants -- it doesn't seem to affect the hardline stance of the Israeli government against getting rid of any of the settlements.

          •  OK (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            redcardphreek, Keith Moon

            If there is to be a negation the Palestinian unity government must recognize Israel exists, renounce all , and then come to the negotiating tables.

            Until such time, how exactly are the Israelis suppose to negotiate with someone who doesn't even acknowledge they exist?

            •  There you go again. (6+ / 0-)

              Always blaming others and saying it is their fault instead of accepting responsibility for their part in the conflict.

              I'm not a fan of Hamas at all. But Israel is not sincere when they say that they want peace. They will not convince me that they are sincere until they decide that they want to dismantle every last settlement on Palestinian territory.

            •  Ummmm (9+ / 0-)

              Hamas did agree to negotiate with Israel, and respect priot agreements in Mecca.

              AND where would the "negotiating tables" be????

              Syria has been asking for negotiations for months, and where are the tables?

              Those who hear not the music-think the dancers mad

              by Eiron on Tue Apr 10, 2007 at 02:32:34 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  Again I will ask this (8+ / 0-)

              Will someone please tell me what Israel must be recognized by the Palestinians? Is it the partition?
              Is it the 1948 borders?
              Is it the 1966 borders?
              Is it he 1982 borders?
              Is it the 1999 borders?
              Or must the Palestinians recognize a state of ever changing borders? If they recognize the right of Israel to continuely expand its borders then aren't the recognizing their own end?
              Will someone please answer this. No one ever does.
              Please tell me how you can recognize a country without set borders? If the Palestinians were to recognize Isreal today must they also recognize the settlements that will be put up tommorrow?

              •  and again you'll get the same answer (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Keith Moon

                Border negotiations between two nations happen all the time. Let the Palestinians sit down at the table with Israel and negotiate as part of a comprehensive peace agreement, just as it did with Egypt. So the answer to your question,

                Please tell me how you can recognize a country without set borders?

                Imitate Egypt.

                •  But the Israelis refuse to meet.... (3+ / 0-)

                  ...with the palestinians until the recognize a state with ever changing borders.

                  •  get your facts straight (3+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    dvo, Keith Moon, Corwin Weber

                    The Israelis aren't going to negotiate with the Palestinian government until the Palestinians reaffirms its previous agreements -- which the Palestinian government agreed to, quite reasonably, with the understanding that the final borders would be the result of negotiations.

                    You still seem to believe, despite strong historical precedent, that the final map must come first. It doesn't have to. What has to come is an understanding that the final borders will be the subject of binding negotiations, just as it works between any bordering two states conducting a peace treaty. Just like it happens again and again in history.

                    •  Okay, lets just say for sh*ts and giggles.... (3+ / 0-)

                      .... Hamas recognizes Israel's right to exist as a state. Then Israel turns around and says, "Hey you guys, we have all these settlements built and a huge wall that digs deep into the West Bank. We think that we will keep all this land. If you disagree what are your options?"
                      Why can't anyone endorse the Geneva Accords/Initiative?

                    •  But why can't the final map come first? n/t (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      npbeachfun
                      •  Kindly explain to us.... (2+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        dvo, zemblan

                        ...why Israel should be expected to negotiate with a group who's stated purpose is the destruction of Israel?

                        Exactly what common ground do you think they're going to find?  Until Israel can reasonably expect to come to some sort of agreement that doesn't involve them being wiped off the map.... honestly I can't say I blame them for not being interested in 'negotiating.'

                        So you want to be friends?  Great.  Let's talk.  I can stab you repeatedly or I can shoot you.  Which would you prefer?

                        If those are the only two options I'm offering.... does anybody actually expect you to even acknowledge the discussion?

                        Yet, everybody seems to expect Israel to do exactly that.

                        •  There you go again. (8+ / 0-)

                          Making excuses and blaming others.

                          Kindly explain to us why we should believe that Israel is sincere when they say they want peace when they continue to fund massive settlements run by religious fanatics that steal land from the Palestinians.

                          So, you want to be friends? Then, why don't you get the fuck off my land and don't ever come back again.

                          •  To continue the analogy.... (0+ / 0-)

                            ...well if you'd keep your Klan buddies from using that section of land as a driveway into my property to take potshots at me, I wouldn't need to control it... and honestly I'd prefer not to be spending the time and money to keep it secure... so it's in both our best interests for you to talk to them.

                          •  I believe you are referring to .... (6+ / 0-)

                            ...the driveway that are the ILLEGAL SETTLEMENTS!

                          •  As opposed to the.... (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            zemblan

                            ...legal invasion of Israel?

                          •  Yet one can be ended by agreeing.... (0+ / 0-)

                            ...to not blow up noncoms from the other side.

                            I'm finding it difficult to muster a whole lot of sympathy for people who won't make such a basic concession.  For those who have to live with it?  Yes, on both sides.  For Hamas and their supporters who won't make the concession?  Not so much.

                          •  Are the settlements illegal... (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Rusty Pipes, anonymousredvest18

                            ...and is so shouldn't they be dismantled?

                          •  The legality is questionable... (0+ / 0-)

                            ...and any number have been dismantled.

                            Come to an agreement and gee, the settlers don't have a leg to stand on.

                            But it's so much more fun to blow shit up, right?

                          •  Then, if it is questionable: (4+ / 0-)

                            Then all of them should be dismantled.

                            Then, Hamas would not have a leg to stand on.

                          •  Unlike the Israelis.... (0+ / 0-)

                            ...since when has not having a leg to stand on ever stopped them?

                            This of course ignores the fact that the settlements are hardly the only leg Hamas tries to use.

                          •  Then: (3+ / 0-)

                            If that were to happen, then the Palestinian people would desert Hamas pretty quickly. If Israel were to do the right thing by getting rid of the settlers and the bulldozing and quit giving Hamas that kind of control over the policy towards Palestine.

                          •  But: (3+ / 0-)

                            Hamas does not have the kind of support that you say they do. They are in danger of losing the next election. Most Palestinians do not care for either Fatah or Hamas.

                            The problem is that Israel won't make basic concessions to the Palestinians like allowing them to live in their homes without the fear of being shot or bulldozed. It works both ways.

                          •  Israel has a history here. (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            dvo, Keith Moon

                            They have a history of shooting back.

                            Hamas and company have a history of shooting first.

                            The solution seems pretty simple here.  Quit shooting at the Israelis and gee, they quit shooting back.  I honestly don't understand what's so complicated about this.

                          •  They have to do their part. (3+ / 0-)

                            Israel has to do their part as well, by dismantling the settlements, stop bulldozing people's homes, and shooting people for no reason.

                            I honestly don't see what is so complicated about this.

                          •  If Israel wasn't facing constant attacks.... (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Keith Moon

                            ...from xenophobic homicidal maniacs, they might be just a bit less paranoid, don't you think?

                            As it is, their paranoia isn't exactly unjustified.

                          •  If Palestine was not facing constant attacks... (5+ / 0-)

                            ...from religious fanatics and trigger-happy soldiers ready to shoot at the slightest provocation, then maybe they would think more rationally about the situation.

                          •  Except that they aren't. (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Keith Moon, zemblan

                            They're facing living in a war zone.... and that war can be ended by the people who claim to represent them making one statement:  'Ok, we'll stop killing you.  Let's talk about this.'

                            The fact that they won't do this.... not some unreasonable demand like 'give us everything you have' or 'respect absolute authority on our part' or 'send us tribute' but just 'quit killing our children.'

                            It says a lot really.

                          •  It works the other way. (3+ / 0-)

                            How unreasonable is it to ask a country to quit stealing land, demolishing houses, or killing children?

                          •  Possibly less unreasonable.... (0+ / 0-)

                            ...than asking someone to quit using deliberately loaded and incorrect language.  But hey, this is the Internet.

                          •  Nothing incorrect about it. (2+ / 0-)

                            All this is factual.

                          •  Facutal apparently being a relative term here. (0+ / 0-)

                            Considering that the land you claim they're 'stealing' was either bought and paid for or taken after being used as a route for an unprovoked invasion attempt... the bulldozings are of areas suspected of being bases of operations for attacks on Israel, (psst.... those actually would be illegal, just sayin) and the shootings of children, while a problem, frequently turn out to be either a legitimate mistake, or frequently.... friendly fire.  (The various militant groups in the region would have a lot stronger argument about killings of Palestinian noncoms if they themselves didn't start shooting in populated areas.  Again, just sayin.)

                          •  Fine -- prove it: (3+ / 0-)

                            -- Prove that these were all invasion routes.
                            -- Prove that all of the examples that I gave you were bases of operations.
                            -- Prove that these instances were all examples of friendly fire.

                            You made the assertions; you provide the proof.

                          •  Never claimed that all of them were. (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            zemblan

                            Simply enough of them that the response is neither terribly surprising nor terribly unreasonable.

                            And none of it changes the fact that Hamas could end this tomorrow if they chose to, and not through any act that would be morally or ethically unreasonable to expect of them.

                          •  Then: (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Rusty Pipes, anonymousredvest18

                            The fact that so many people sign up for Hamas is not surprising at all, since Israel will not do the steps necessary to create peace in the region. Peacemaking does not involve refusing to take the necessary steps for peace and then blame the other side for it.

                            See, you are operating under a completely faulty premise. You think that if Hamas would just go away, everything would be just fine. You are trying to argue for an easy answer where there is none. Israel was building settlements and oppressing the Palestinian people well before Hamas was ever formed. If Hamas were to cave into Israel's demands without the underlying issues that led to their formation -- the settlers, the bulldozings, and the shooting of civilians -- being addressed, other groups would simply spring up in their place. And then the cycle of violence would just repeat itself all over again.

                            I realize that if Israel were to end the settlements, the bulldozings, and the shooting of civilians, that the problems would not be solved overnight. But it would be a step in the right direction. The polls that I have seen have shown that the Palestinians want a two-state solution. The result would be that people would tire of Hamas' radical ideology and would form moderate parties that would upend them in the next election -- either that or return Fatah to power.

                            Then, we need to get a Democrat elected -- as I told InStride, any Democrat would be able to bring the two sides to the table. Then, we would have to appoint someone of the caliber of Bill Richardson to be a broker for the region. If Richardson can persuade the North Koreans to give up their nukes, then we can surely find someone who can persuade the two sides to come to the table. Then, it would be several years of hard work and negotiations so that we could obtain a lasting peace between the two countries.

                            It is simply not as easy as Hamas giving up their tactics or their call for the destruction of Israel -- although any meaningful peace deal would involve that. It is hard work for a country like ours to engage the two sides in peace talks. And it must involve someone a lot better than Bush, which is why it is important to elect a Democrat next year.

                          •  Hamas giving up their tactics and call.... (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            zemblan

                            ...must preclude any discussion which was the original point that started this whole discussion.

                            There is no point whatsoever in trying to engage in negotiations with someone who's sole position is that they're going to kill you.  If you can't see this then you've been whacking yourself in the head with a blunt object repeatedly.  (Which, coincidentally, more or less describes my take on this entire thread.)  If they can agree that they're not going to kill you at least, then and only then can discussion proceed.  Are you getting this?  Honest question, because I'm honestly not sure you are.

                            They want to destroy Israel.  They're quite serious about it.  They've demonstrated this fact repeatedly.  Which part of 'we see no reason to negotiate with people who won't negotiate' aren't you getting here?

                          •  Israel must give up their tactics as well. (0+ / 0-)

                            Tactics that enflame the Palestinian people and drive them to violence.

                            It is no different than Iraq -- our policies in Iraq have been driving people into the recruiting offices of the insurgency as well as Sadr. Those people want to kill our troops in Iraq. Yet you know what the best solution is? Getting out of Iraq. Like our Democratic leaders have been calling for since last year.

                            The same applies here -- it is called being proactive. It is called proving to the Palestinian people that Israel is no longer out to steal their lands or bulldoze their homes.

                            What part of "quit blaming others" don't you understand?

                            And stopping the settlements and the bulldozing of people's homes does not require any kind of negotiations. You just do it -- without excuses or blaming others.

                          •  Put counterpunch down.... (0+ / 0-)

                            ...move away... from the keyboard.

                            I know that incidences of razing existing Palestinian homesteads have gotten a great deal of press, but you're mashing together two different issues.

                          •  More straw men. (0+ / 0-)

                            I haven't read Counterpunch in ages.

                            Get some sleep.

                            I recognize war propaganda when I see it, having dealt with it for the last seven years.

                            Put Bush down and move away from the keyboard. That's how you're coming across as right now.

                          •  To you, maybe. (0+ / 0-)

                            But then you're the one advocating the 'roll over and die' approach for Israel.  It'd be somewhat more respectable if you actually came right out and said it, but there it is.

                          •  There you go again. (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Rusty Pipes

                            That sounds like it is straight out of the pages of the Bush propaganda machine. Bush is always accusing those of us opposed to withdrawal from Iraq of wanting to cut and run.

                            Nobody's saying that Israel can't defend themselves. But what they are doing hardly constitutes self-defense.

                          •  Last time I checked... (6+ / 0-)

                            ..the Palestinians weren't bringing tanks into Israel. I also don't think that the Palestinians have Caterpillar bulldozer in order to create 'security buffer zones".
                            WHy won't you admit that the settlements are illegal. I will admit that violent struggle against civilians is illegal. There. The ball is in you court.

                          •  No, they're sending walking bombs instead. (0+ / 0-)

                            And targeting cafes instead of hard targets.

                            Again, tough to muster a whole lot of sympathy here.

                          •  And Israel is targeting homes for demolition. (4+ / 0-)

                            Hard to muster a whole lot of sympathy for their government here.

                          •  When those homes are being used..... (0+ / 0-)

                            ...as bases for illegal attacks and/or shields for attackers?  It's hard to muster a whole lot of condemnation.

                          •  22 unarmed civilians. (3+ / 0-)

                            That is simply too many.

                            Now, perhaps you can go through the link I provided and prove that each of these was involved in the harboring of terrorists or the manufacturing of weapons.

                            Even if you can prove that you were right in one case does not mean that this is correct all of the time or even much of the time.

                          •  22 unarmed civilians.... (0+ / 0-)

                            ...23 Israeli soldiers.

                          •  You gave me one example. (2+ / 0-)

                            I gave you many in which that was not the case.

                          •  I pulled up one quickly. (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            dvo, Keith Moon

                            If you honestly believe Hamas hasn't been using civilians as shields you need to quit drinking the kool-aid.

                          •  I never said they didn't. (3+ / 0-)

                            What I am saying is that more often than not, that turns out not to be the case.

                            Backed by the examples that I gave you.

                          •  IDF just got accused of using a child. (4+ / 0-)

                            It's easy to start a war, but very hard to stop one.

                            by mattes on Tue Apr 10, 2007 at 05:05:52 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Accused. (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            dvo, Keith Moon

                            They've been accused of a lot of things.  Once in a while, the accusations actually prove to be true.

                            Courtmartials usually follow.

                          •  Check Keith Moon's diaries. (0+ / 0-)

                            Not all Palestinians like Hamas. In fact, most of them despise Hamas and are looking for a third party that would be an alternative to the corrupt Fatah and the warmongering Hamas. In his latest diary, there is a moderate party already forming in Palestine.

                          •  Moderate party is good.... (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Keith Moon

                            ...but Hamas still has the power and the explosives.

                          •  Well: (0+ / 0-)

                            If Israel were to show that they were sincere about wanting peace, then that would reward the moderate elements.

                          •  Exactly how much more do you want them to do? (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Keith Moon

                            You're arguing against the historical fact that Israel has already given back territory to people who agree to stop shooting at them.

                          •  Gaza and the West Bank are the same n/t (0+ / 0-)
                          •  That was done by previous administrations. (0+ / 0-)

                            This administration is not sincere about wanting to give back territory. The construction of settlements and the bulldozing of houses is continuing. As soon as they stop that, then that will convince me.

                          •  Given that nobody's actually tried.... (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Keith Moon

                            ...how would you know?

                            The occupied territories are and will remain occupied for good reason.  If you want the occupation to stop, here's a thought.  Remove that reason.

                          •  I'm not defending Hamas. (0+ / 0-)

                            But people, no matter how much we do not agree with it, join Hamas for a reason. Now, here's a thought:

                            Remove that reason.

                          •  Given that the reason you're referring to.... (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Keith Moon

                            ...is generally based on propaganda, the only way to remove it is a complete lockdown on speech and shooting pretty much the entire leadership of Hamas.

                            You sure you want to go there?  Or would you rather endorse the idea that Hamas stop blowing shit up and actually talk to the Israelis like adults instead?

                          •  Nobody's advocating that. (0+ / 0-)

                            And I would never suggest otherwise. I'm not disagreeing with you.

                            What I'm saying is that Israel should treat the Palestinian people like adults and quit bulldozing their homes and stealing their land.

                            If you don't support that, then you are for perpetual war. And you can blame the other side all you want, but that will not change that basic fact.

                          •  If the Palestinian people.... (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Keith Moon

                            ...want to be treated like adults then they should start acting like adults.

                            Hitting your brother then complaining to mom when he hits back isn't acting like an adult.  Figuring out that you shouldn't be hitting him in the first place is.

                          •  Faulty analogy. (4+ / 0-)

                            That analogy would only be true if Israel were actually acting like the adults in this case. Which they are not.

                          •  Of course not..... (0+ / 0-)

                            ...because having the power to exterminate all organic life in the region and not using it even under extreme provocation is such an immature position.

                            They could wipe the region out completely.  Instead, they offer to talk, even after the offer gets thrown back in their faces repeatedly.

                          •  Then, you just contradicted yourself. (3+ / 0-)

                            On the one hand, you said that Hamas had the power to wipe out Israel. But on the other hand, you said that Israel has the power to wipe out all organic life in the region. Since that is the case, that means that Israel has nothing to fear from getting rid of the settlements, stopping the bulldozing, and stopping the shooting of children.

                          •  Actually.... (0+ / 0-)

                            ...I was referring to Israel in both cases.

                          •  Then, Israel has nothing to fear. (2+ / 0-)

                            So, they can get rid of the settlements, stop the bulldozing, and stop the shooting of children anytime they want to.

                          •  There's some kind of disconnect here. (0+ / 0-)

                            Because I honestly have no idea where you're getting this.

                            You're claiming immature responses.  I'm demonstrating that Israel has the power to turn the entire region into a glass parking lot... and hasn't done so.  For that matter hasn't even threatened to do so in spite of being heavily provoked.  This is a mature, measured response.

                          •  You proved my point for me. (2+ / 0-)

                            The fact that they have that power means that Hamas is not the threat to Israel's existance that you say they are. Which makes their policy of collective punishment and perpetual warfare even more ridiculous.

                          •  Hamas is not a threat to Israel's existance.... (0+ / 0-)

                            ...if Israel is willing to use atomic weapons on the whole region.

                            Personally, I'm kind of glad they're not willing to go that far.  Aren't you?

                          •  So, what are you arguing about? (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Rusty Pipes, anonymousredvest18

                            What is wrong, then, with pursuing a policy of peace through strength and empowering the moderates within Palestine and help them to win the next election?

                            That is the whole objective behind getting rid of the settlements and stopping the bulldozings.

                          •  Except that 'getting rid of the settlements....' (0+ / 0-)

                            ...and 'stopping the bulldozings' doesn't stop the attacks.

                            So why again should we expect Israel to do this?

                            Here's a thought.... why not stop the unjustified, cowardly and illegal in the first place attacks on Israel, and then we can talk about ending the quasi-legal settlements?

                          •  You're right. It wouldn't. (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            anonymousredvest18

                            But what I am saying is that it would weaken Hamas because fewer and fewer people would sign up for their ranks. If Hamas continued their policy of perpetual warfare, then they would go the way of the Bush administration and tank in the polls and the elections.

                            The goal here is to weaken Hamas by rewarding the moderate elements that Keith Moon says are forming.

                          •  Except that it doesn't weaken them.... (0+ / 0-)

                            ...and never has.  Why should we expect it to work now?

                          •  It's never been tried, for one thing. (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            anonymousredvest18

                            So, how would you know?

                            But unilateral peacemaking has been tried in other places. Like South Africa, for instance.

                            That's not an argument; that is war propaganda.

                          •  It has been tried.... (0+ / 0-)

                            ...and it worked so well for them in Gaza.

                          •  Because: (0+ / 0-)

                            They have not pulled out of the West Bank.

                          •  So nothing less than unconditional surrender.... (0+ / 0-)

                            ...on the part of Israel will satisfy you.

                            Thanks, good to know.

                          •  Well, I sure don't: (0+ / 0-)

                             title=

                            But my friend sure does.

                            Enjoy your straw men.

                          •  No straw men involved. (0+ / 0-)

                            You are openly advocating that Israel give up all territory it took as a buffer in exchange for....

                            Well nothing really.  Just the vague hope that Hamas will stop blowing up Israelis.

                            No more than a vague hope, but hey, that's all they need right?  I mean Hamas has such a great track record on that score... right?

                            Right?

                          •  Well, your ideas sure aren't working. (0+ / 0-)

                            Israel has tried a policy of perpetual warfare for the last 30 years. You support perpetual warfare in return for what? You are openly advocating that Israel continue their policy of perpetual warfare in return for what?

                            No more than a vague hope that Hamas will see who is boss, right? I mean, Israel has had such a great track record over the last 30 years of showing the Palestinians who is boss, right?

                            On the other hand, pursuing a peaceful solution has worked in Northern Ireland and in South Africa. I know there are risks involved. I know there are plenty on the other side who are hateful enough that they do not want any kind of peace whatsoever.

                            Peace is not going to come through perpetual warfare or showing people who is boss. Peace will come through the Palestinian people realizing that peace is a preferable alternative to what Hamas is offering. And the best way to create those conditions for peace is to take away the basis for Hamas' existance by ending the policy of bulldozing homes and eliminating the settlements.

                            In other words, if Israel is not bulldozing my neighbors homes anymore, and they are no longer stealing my lands, then why should I sign up for a group that is dedicated to their destruction anymore?

                          •  'My ideas...' (0+ / 0-)

                            ...are the only ones that have worked in the region in the past.  (Again.... remember Egypt and Jordan?)

                            Yours, on the other hand, have not.  (Remember Gaza?)

                          •  Big difference: (0+ / 0-)

                            Israel did not invade and occupy Egypt proper or Jordan.

                            And the reason they handed Sinai back was because Jimmy Carter locked up Begin and Sadat and wouldn't let them out until they had completed a deal. It's too bad that there is not that kind of leadership in the WH today.

                            Has Israel ever done anything wrong in your book?

                          •  Whether they were locked up or not.... (0+ / 0-)

                            ...isn't the issue.  The fact is that it has worked in the past.  Withdrawing without any concessions, which is what you're pushing for, has also been tried and hasn't worked.

                            Why is it that Israel is supposed to be interested in this tactic again?

                          •  Wrong. (0+ / 0-)

                            Because Israel never occupied Egypt (except for Sinai) and Jordan. So, there was not the kind of anger and rage against Israel like there is with the Palestinians.

                            I'm not suggesting that Israel has to end their occupation. I'm not even suggesting that they have to sit down at the negotiating table until the situation is ripe, as it is only a matter of time before Hamas collapses or they moderate their stance enough to bring Israel to the table.

                            What I am suggesting is that Israel find ways of preventing terrorist attacks and hunting down terrorism that do not involve settlers or bulldozers. They are simply taking the easy way out.

                            If you really want peace, then you don't pull crap that you know will piss off the other side. Ben Heine's diary was a classic example of that -- he went too far beause he knew or should have known that comparing Israel to the Nazis would not serve to help the peace process.

                            The same applies here. Israel is continuing to bulldoze down homes and steal land from the Palestinians through colonizing it through settlers knowing that it will inflame the Palestinian people and convince many of them to sign up for Hamas and buy into their holocaust denial crap and their anti-semitism.

                            So, once again, has Israel ever done anything wrong in your book?

                          •  Yes, they have. (0+ / 0-)

                            ...and courtmartials have followed.

                            Where is Hamas' self-policing?  Bloody nonexistant.

                            You keep insisting that land is somehow being 'stolen.'  The bulk of these settlements are either on abandoned land or land that these settlers are in fact returning to after having fled from it due to invasion... within their lifetimes or their parents'.

                            You just don't see it.

                          •  Don't play dumb. (0+ / 0-)

                            Answer the question -- has the Israeli government ever done anything wrong in your book?

                            And while you're at it, name one soldier who was convicted for going too far. My understanding is that many of these cases are whitewashed.

                            And you made a third factual error -- almost 40% of land that the settlers are on was land stolen from the Palestinians.

                            And why do you suppose the rest of this land was abandoned?

                          •  If you insist.... (0+ / 0-)

                            Gee.... odd how the Israelis self-police.

                            Interesting that Hamas can't seem to be bothered, no?

                            Incidentally, that report from Peace Now is highly questionable.... at best.

                            Just sayin.

                          •  And were these soldiers convicted? (0+ / 0-)

                            Or acquitted?

                            And were these the only six?

                            That does not say much about Israel's ability to self-police if they were.

                            And it's really interesting how you rant that Palestinian law is all about hating Jews and how they are all out to destroy them and then you turn around and resort to archaic laws from a failed Islamic state when expedient.

                            If Israel were really interested in keeping the peace, they would have made laws which would have allowed the people living on these lands to keep their homes. These laws CAMERA mentions, after all, were all based on the notion of feudalism, or the notion that people were living on land owned by the state or feudal lords and that they could yank the rug out from under them whenever they felt like it.

                            So, Israel is holding two standards for two sets of people -- one for the people on their side of the border and one for the people on the Palestinian side of the border. The fact that they are willing to use outdated dictatorial laws means that they are following a double standard.

                            It's only questionable if you use novel legal interpretations like CAMERA does that they would not even dream of making for the Israeli people.

                          •  So for it to be fair.... (0+ / 0-)

                            ...it has to be a kangroo court?  No verdict other than guilty is acceptable?

                            Funny idea of the whole 'rule of law' thing you have there....

                          •  Nice projection. (0+ / 0-)

                            So, nobody has been convicted at all for going too far, according to you. Nice kangaroo court system they got over in Israel for their soldiers.

                          •  So challenge the evidence. (0+ / 0-)

                            Do you have any evidence that the proceedings were corrupt?  Or is that a standard you only hold Israel to?

                          •  I'm just going by your answers. (0+ / 0-)

                            You can't produce any instances in which soldiers were actually convicted of the killing of civilians. Or of wrongfully bulldozing people's houses. Or killing people with bulldozers.

                            Even Bush does better than that.

                          •  And you can't provide any instances.... (0+ / 0-)

                            ...where it's been demonstrated that any such things were legally 'wrong.'

                            Propaganda is one thing, law is quite another.  Should we convict every accused Israeli soldier regardless of the evidence?  Should we reject all acquitals just because they're not a guilty verdict?  Let's face it.... there's a long history of accusations from the Palestinians that later turn out to have been either largely or entirely unfounded.

                            Do you uphold the idea of the rule of law or not?

                          •  I do. (0+ / 0-)

                            Just not your version, in which Israel can whine about Islamists and then turn around and use archaic Islamic law from a failed state when it suits their purposes.

                            No, I do not think that we should convict every soldier regardless of the evidence, but what is happening is the exact opposite. Give them a fair trial. Give the victims a chance to testify. Give them equal weight. Yet, based on your own evidence, that is not happening.

                            So, based on what you have told me, Israel's government has never done anything wrong whatsoever. No wonder people are pissed enough at them to sign up for Hamas.

                          •  I see more dodging. (0+ / 0-)

                            Do you have any evidence that the accused were, in fact, guilty?  And acquited wrongly?

                            If not, you're blowing hot air.  If so, let's hear it.

                          •  Several arrests since 2001. (0+ / 0-)

                            Zero convictions.

                            That does not pass the smell test for me.

                          •  Well if you have.... (0+ / 0-)

                            ...some evidence that the juries are rigged.... let's hear it.

                          •  I don't know what happened. (0+ / 0-)

                            What I do know is that out of at least six arrests, there are zero convictions. And that does not pass the smell test.

                          •  So.... (0+ / 0-)

                            ...nothing more than paranoia then.  While I'm normally all in favor of this.... paranoia should have some basis.

                          •  You think Israel is perfect. (0+ / 0-)

                            You have implied as much. So, you need to provide the proof that their justice system is working for soldiers that committed human rights violations. There were 900+ Palestinian children who were shot and killed by Israeli soldiers. Name one soldier who was convicted for shooting a Palestinian child.

                          •  Name one jury.... (0+ / 0-)

                            ...that was rigged.

                            This whole 'rule of law' thing really is an all or nothing sort of thing.

                          •  Like I say: (0+ / 0-)

                            I don't know what goes on in those courtrooms. But it doesn't pass the smell test, since out of 900+ Palestinian children killed, zero soldiers were convicted.

                            You prove to me that is fair.

                          •  Given the history of allegations.... (0+ / 0-)

                            ...against Israel that later prove to be either exaggerated or completely false....  (proven by third parties, no less) is it really so tough to believe?  Would it be so tough to believe if it were anybody but Israel?

                          •  I would have said that about any other country. (0+ / 0-)
                          •  And: (0+ / 0-)

                            I see you haven't answered my other question.

                          •  Fine. (0+ / 0-)

                            You don't want to hear the answer, but here it is:

                            In other words, if Israel is not bulldozing my neighbors homes anymore, and they are no longer stealing my lands, then why should I sign up for a group that is dedicated to their destruction anymore?

                            Because you've been taught to hate jews all your life.

                            The fact that this is an ugly truth does not make it any less true.

                          •  So, you're saying all Palestinians are like that? (0+ / 0-)

                            Fine -- prove it.

                          •  Thank you so very much..... (0+ / 0-)

                            ...for putting words in my mouth.  But hey, what the fuck?

                            Let's look at what the Palestinians are being raised on, shall we?

                            This hatred is real, it's irrational, and it's violent.  And you, in your lovely American naievete, just can't see it.

                            From that link, by the way, since you seem to think Abbas is such a noble individual:

                            "Zionists were partners with the Nazis in the Holocaust." Mahmoud Abbas (Abu Mazen), President of the Palestinian National Authority, and former number 2 official in the PLO and architect of the Oslo Accords, authored and has refused to retract a book claiming that "the Zionist movement was a partner in the massacre of the Jews." The book is entitled The Other Side: The Secret Relationship Between Nazism and the Zionist Movement, and uses the statements of German Jewish Zionists who supported Hitler to suggest that they supported the Nazis, and thus the Holocaust. The book also claims that the Nazis may have really killed less than one million Jews, and that the rest were killed by Soviets.[24]

                            Open your eyes and quit looking for rationality among religious fanatics.

                          •  Thank you very much... (0+ / 0-)

                            ...for putting words in my mouth about Abbas. I said that Hamas was a terrorist group, that the PA was corrupt, and that the climate was there for a moderate party to emerge.

                            Actually, even though their leaders have conditioned them to hate the Jews like you describe, these results would shock you. 52% of Palestinians support the two-state solution. Another 23% support a binational Israel. That means that at least 75% of the Palestinian people want to see Israel continue their existance as a nation.

                            So, contrary to your false claim that all of the Palestinians would like to see the destruction of Israel as a state, which you later backed away from, the exact opposite is true. The Palestinian people are smart enough to see through the hate propaganda of their leaders.

                            So, in fact, most Palestinians are not like the religious fanatics that you describe. It is people in the minority, like the settlers and the religious fanatics that you describe, that are sabatoging the peace process. And the Israeli government refuses to do anything to stop their religious fanatics and they refuse to quit enabling Palestine's religious fanatics. And the 75%+ of both sides who do not share those fanatical views are the losers.

                            Open your eyes and quit looking for rationality among the religious fanatic settlers.

                          •  It's that minority that's the problem.... (0+ / 0-)

                            ...and the majority seems to be either unwilling or unable to control them.  Given that the majority voted this minority into power.... I'd have to suspect the former.

                            By the way, a binational state is the destruction of Israel, so your numbers aren't quite as rosy as you're making them out to be.  (Although it's not all gloom and doom, I'll admit.)

                          •  Says you. (0+ / 0-)

                            Why did they vote Hamas into power? Because they were sick and tired of the corruption of Fatah, not because they shared their hatred of Israel. So, the best way for a third party to emerge that would reflect the wishes of the Palestinian people is for Israel to get out of the way and let the political process take care of itself. Bulldozers and settlers do not encourage the formation of a moderate third party.

                          •  Neither do rockets and suicide bombings. (0+ / 0-)

                            Strangely enough I don't hear a better idea coming from you.

                          •  Yet.... (0+ / 0-)

                            ...the only suggestion you have is one that will weaken Israel's position without doing a damned thing to stop them.

                            Not a great position to endorse for someone who claims to be looking for a solution, really.

                          •  Nope. (0+ / 0-)

                            40 years of perpetual warfare has weakened Israel's position. Not really in a good position to be in for a government who claims to be looking for peace, really.

                          •  Their position.... (0+ / 0-)

                            ...is better than it would be otherwise.

                            But hey, you go on and keep pushing for Israel to roll over and give Hamas everything they want and get nothing in return.  Maybe that'll salve your torn senstivities.

                          •  Then: (0+ / 0-)

                            I guess we'll be talking about this problem 40 years from now.

                          •  Hopefully.... (0+ / 0-)

                            ...someone who represents Palestine will have come to their senses by then.

                          •  Hopefully... (0+ / 0-)

                            ...someone who represents Israel will have come to their senses as well.

                          •  That didn't work out so well last time.... (0+ / 0-)

                            ...but that seems to be a common thread in discussions like these.

                            If the Palestinians had accepted the agreement Clinton had brokered we wouldn't even be having this conversation.

                          •  Blaming others does not work so well either. (0+ / 0-)
                          •  And avoiding responsibility..... (0+ / 0-)

                            ...just makes things worse.

                            Arafat could have ended this years ago.  So could Hamas.  The offer was on the table and they walked away from it.

                          •  So why again should we expect Israel to do this? (4+ / 0-)

                            Here's a thought.... why not stop the unjustified, cowardly and illegal in the first place attacks on Israel, and then we can talk about ending the quasi-legal settlements?

                            The settlements are illegal in the first place. Why can't Israel go first? Hamas has many reasons for existing. But how do you resist if you have no cause? If there are no settlements, then one of the causes that empowers Hamas is removed. If the point is to be rid of Hamas, why hold on to the thing that's supposedly going to be dismantled anyway? If I sincerely wanted to weaken an enemy, this is one thing I would definately do. And another thing I would do is pour money into moderates' campaigns, though not to create puppets. Palestinians deserve the real deal and not some U.S./U.K./Israeli puppet.

                            Oh, and um, killing Palestinian children who throw rocks at tanks is pretty fucking cowardly as well. Oh! And so is using human shields to do house searches. Yeah, pretty fucking cowardly.

                            The greatest trick the devil ever pulled was convincing the world She didn't exist.

                            by callmecassandra on Tue Apr 10, 2007 at 05:45:23 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  And you would recommend.... what again exactly? (0+ / 0-)

                            I'm getting pretty sick of this.  All of you, listen up, because I'm getting pretty damn tired of repeating myself.

                            Exactly what would you suggest they do differently?

                            It's not your children that are being murdered for being jews.

                            It's not your country that's being bombed repeatedly.

                            It's not your society that is surrounded by people who want to kill you for having been born to jewish parents.

                            It's not your country that's been facing invasion since its inception.

                            It's not you that's currently outnumbered several dozen to one by people who are more than willing to butcher children on both sides to push their bigoted agenda.

                            So exactly what would you like them to do?  I've asked the question repeatedly and have yet to get an actual answer besides 'just pull back to the borders!  The ones that nobody can seem to agree on but they must be there somewhere... oh and don't do anything when yet another restaurant full of kids gets blown up by some maniac.  Otherwise you're an evil nazi oppressor!'

                            Put up or shut up.  If you have a better idea, I'm listening.  Bear in mind that Israel is there, has a right to be there, and isn't going away.  So suggestions of 'don't hit back,' 'roll over and die you zionist oppressor' or 'go back to wherever you came from' (ironic, that last one) are going to be summarily ignored.

                            I'm not hopeful that any of you knee-jerk wannabe 'antizionists' are going to come up with anything even remotely rational, but hey... a man can dream, right?

                          •  I'm sure you just skimmed over what I said, (3+ / 0-)

                            so I'll repeat.

                            ISRAEL SHOULD DISMANTLE THE SETTLEMENTS.

                            So what the hell is the relevance of your post?

                            Israel has an opportunity to take the wind out Hamas' sails by dismantling the settlements and while this is no sacrifice as Israel shouldn't have erected them in the first place, it does show good faith.

                            And yet Israel does not. Israel doing all that it can also means putting a freeze on settlements. Instead, Israel continues to expand. Rationalize the necessity of these settlements, please. It's the point you've been avoiding all this time.

                            Oh, one more thing. You've falsely accused so many people, so many times of hate that it has lost it's sting where you're concerend. Mighty fine job on your part to trivialize racism and bigotry.

                            The greatest trick the devil ever pulled was convincing the world She didn't exist.

                            by callmecassandra on Tue Apr 10, 2007 at 08:48:54 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  What possible reason do they have.... (0+ / 0-)

                            ...to disband them?

                            They get attacked either way, so why stop?  It's not like stopping is going to end the attacks.  So it doesn't do any good.

                            Now answer the question.

                          •  That is just like Bush administration crap. (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            londonbear, Rusty Pipes

                            "Fight them over there so we don't fight them over here."

                            Good god.

                            These settlers are fanatics and killers. They will not rest until they have all of Israel under their control. They think that the whole land of Palestine is their God-given birthright and that the needs and the wants of the Palestinian people do not matter. They are fucking racists and they think that the Palestinians are less than human.

                            By supporting these hatemongers, you support perpetual warfare. As does Hamas. As does Olmert by looking the other way. And nobody benefits.

                            They have the same kind of hatred for the Palestinians that the Janjaweed do for the villagers in Darfur or that Imus does for Blacks. Or that a lot of 911 conspiracy theorists have for the Jews. The common theme here is hate, and I am not going to stand silent while my taxpayer dollars go to pay for the propagation of that hate.

                          •  Hyperbole much? (0+ / 0-)

                            In Israel's case it's 'fight them over here or... fight them over here.  Because talking apparently doesn't interest them.'

                            You have to remember that Israel is a hell of a lot closer to the people that want to kill them than we are.

                            Range is a wonderful luxury.  One they don't happen to have.

                          •  That is simply not true. (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            mattes, Rusty Pipes

                            There are people within the government that are willing and able to talk to Israel. Not all of Hamas' people are that committed to the destruction of Israel. There are plenty even within that group who want to talk with Israel. And Abbas has always wanted to talk with Israel.

                            The fact of the matter is that Israel was bulldozing people's homes and letting religious fanatics steal the land of the Palestinians well before Hamas was ever formed. The reason Hamas got to be as powerful as they are now is because of the rage and hopelessness that people felt as they saw their lands and their homes being taken away from them on a daily basis.

                            Israel likes to make a big show about talking. But actually concluding a peace treaty does not interest them because they continue to add on to their current settlements and they continue to bulldoze people's homes.

                            It's Israel's fault that Hamas ever formed in the first place.

                          •  Here is the fundamental problem: (0+ / 0-)

                            The reason Hamas got to be as powerful as they are now is because of the rage and hopelessness that people felt as they saw their lands and their homes being taken away from them on a daily basis.

                            No, the reason Hamas got to be as powerful as they are is because the locals have been conditioned to hate jews.

                            Sometimes it really is that simple.  This is one of those times.

                            But it's so much more fun to blame Israel, isn't it.  I mean, if they hadn't forced pretty much every nation in the region to invade them this never would have happened, they're sneaky that way....

                          •  Why? (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            mattes

                            People don't act like that for no reason. There is a reason. Take away that reason.

                            And it works the other way as well. These settlers are being conditioned to hate Palestinians.

                            But it's so much more fun to blame others, isn't it?

                          •  Have you ever cracked a history book.... (0+ / 0-)

                            ...in your entire life?

                            I have neither the time, the space here, nor the inclination to write you a history book describing world antisemitism.  If you're so blind that you don't see it, nothing I say will demonstrate it to you.

                            The fact that you can't see this irrational hatred that exists in the Middle East, has existed in Europe for over two millenia, and has been a fundamental part of jewish history for longer than anybody can actually document specifically will continue to prevent you from seeing the basic problem here.

                            You just don't get it.  They really do hate jews just for being jews.  Until you get it, you'll never be able to view the situation rationally.

                          •  I'm not denying that fact. (0+ / 0-)

                            I'm saying that it is happening the other way around as well. Hate is hate no matter who is doing it.

                          •  Yet.... (0+ / 0-)

                            ...you only see the hate of a small group of settlers.  (Many of whom have good reason to feel hatred toward the Palestinians, but that's beside the point.)

                            What you don't see is the fundamental, irrational, long running hatred of a group of people because of their religion or ethnicity practiced by the Palestinians.  You're even now still trying to find some rational justification for their actions.

                            It isn't there.  It isn't that they're pissed off about the settlements, and even if it was that would hardly be justification for their actions.  They really do hate jews for being jews, and that hatred, unlike the hatred coming from the settlers, is both widespread and socially encouraged.

                            Until you can see this, you'll never come to an answer that doesn't involve the eventual destruction of Israel, whether that's your intent or not.

                          •  No, I am not trying to find that. (0+ / 0-)

                            I am demanding that you prove your assertion that all Palestinians feel this kind of hatred that you say that they do towards Israel. You made the assertion; you provide the proof.

                            And this sort of hatred that the settlers have towards the Palestinians is widely encouraged by the government -- they continue to fund the construction of new buildings within the settlements. The settlers really do hate the Palestinians for being Palestinians and think that all of Greater Israel should be part of Israel.

                          •  I've never said all.... (0+ / 0-)

                            ...nor does it have to be all to turn into a bloodbath.

                          •  You said: (0+ / 0-)

                            What you don't see is the fundamental, irrational, long running hatred of a group of people because of their religion or ethnicity practiced by the Palestinians.

                            Not Hamas. The Palestinians.

                            There is a huge difference between saying that the Palestinian people have that kind of hate and saying that Hamas has that kind of hate. So, I take it you take back that remark.

                            But what is true is that Israel's government is encouraging a bloodbath by continuing to fund construction on settlements.

                          •  One side is encouraging people to live.... (0+ / 0-)

                            ...the other is training them to kill.

                            Again, this is not a complicated decision here.

                          •  Wrong again. (0+ / 0-)

                            Israel could encourage the 75% of the Palestinian people who do not share the views of Hamas on the destruction of Israel to take action by getting rid of the settlements and end their policy of bulldozing homes. One side is encouraging people to kill, the other side is enabling them. It's not that complicated.

                          •  Once again.... (0+ / 0-)

                            ...you ignore the fact that they already tried that.

                            All it encouraged was for Hamas to keep doing what they already had been doing.

                            This isn't exactly an improvement.

                          •  No, they did not try that. (0+ / 0-)

                            They are still occupying the West Bank. That would be like reversing the policy to say that torture half the time is OK instead of all of the time.

                          •  Gaza was evacuated. (0+ / 0-)

                            Gaza remained a base for attacks.  Now.... if evacuations were a workable solution... would it not stand to reason that evacuating Gaza would stop the attacks from Gaza at least?  After all, they've got what they want... yet for some reason that's not good enough for them, nor apparently for you.

                            You want complete surrender of all territory held with no concessions in return.  This is not acceptable.

                          •  Straw man. (0+ / 0-)

                            Nobody's advocating that. What I'm advocating is that Israel find ways to stop attacks that don't involve bulldozing or settlers.

                          •  Yet the one you're endorsing..... (0+ / 0-)

                            ...has been tried and has failed.  You keep trying to dance around that.

                            If you don't advocate them giving up all territory regardless of concessions... why even bring up the West Bank?  If pulling out had helped, don't you think withdrawal from the West Bank would have followed?

                            It's easy to make a blanket statement that the settlements should be torn down.... much more difficult to come to terms with the history of the region and accept that Israel needs a reason to do so.

                            You're not giving them one.

                            Yes yes, I know.  Hamas will lose support yadda yadda.  Problem is... the situation we're discussing clearly shows that that in fact is not what happens when Israel pulls out of territory.  But you insist that it needs to happen anyway.  Myself, I have to wonder why?

                          •  No, it has not been tried. (0+ / 0-)

                            Only the Gaza Strip was withdrawn from. Israel continues to occupy the West Bank. And if Israel were sincere about pulling out of the West Bank, they would have done so a long time ago.

                            If Israel had pulled out of the West Bank like they did Gaza, then you would have a case. But right now, you do not have a case at all.

                            But you want a reason for Israel to pull out of the West Bank? How about this? You want your children and grandchildren to be wrestling with this problem 30-50 years from now? Then keep advocating perpetual warfare and keep claiming that Israel has done no wrong. That is a form of political insanity for the Israeli government -- keep trying the same failed politics as usual even though it has been a complete and total failure.

                            It's quite easy to blame others. But it is a lot more difficult to come to terms with what must be done to resolve this conflict. But it is something that has to be done if you don't want your children and grandchildren to have to deal with this problem.

                          •  You're deliberately ignoring the point. (0+ / 0-)

                            And you're dancing around the issue.  If withdrawal worked, why didn't it work in Gaza?  Because they didn't give up all territory without concessions?

                            This isn't exactly a ringing endorsement for Palestinian reasonability.

                          •  Actually, it is working. (0+ / 0-)

                            In 2002, the number of suicide attacks was 60. Last year, the number was two.

                            Not only that, they are foiling a lot more attacks now than they were when they were occupying Gaza. And on top of that, the number of attempted suicide attacks dropped in half since 2004. So, not only is it working, it suggests that if Israel were to pull out of the West Bank, the number of terrorist attacks and attempted terrorist attacks would drop even more.

                          •  Of course..... (0+ / 0-)

                            ...the increased security and checkpoints have had nothing to do with this.

                            Never that.

                            Psst... you might want check and see when Hamas was elected.  Just sayin.

                          •  Actually: (0+ / 0-)

                            I'm all for improved security and checkpoints.

                            And Hamas won in January. So, guess how many terrorist attacks happened in Israel in 2006. Just sayin'.

                          •  *coughs delicately* (0+ / 0-)

                            Yes.... January.... of what year again?

                            Your entire argument is that withdrawing and dismantling settlements weakens Hamas.

                            Do you not find it odd that the Hamas government was elected.... less than a year after the pullout from Gaza?

                            If that's weakening them, I'd hate to see what you'd consider strengthening them to be.

                          •  Think of a supernova: (0+ / 0-)

                            It becomes one of the brightest stars in the sky and then fades away into nothing. Hamas is finished.

                            Unless they adapt and recognize Israel. Their choice.

                            Just like Nixon would be a year after his landslide victory.

                          •  Hamas is finished for much the same reason... (0+ / 0-)

                            ...Bush is.  People are finally starting to wake up.

                            But it's disingenious to claim that withdrawals from territory do anything at all to weaken them.  It hasn't in the past, there's no reason to believe it will in the future.  Their stubborn refusal to talk eventually will, but it will rack up an enormous body count in the meantime.

                            Pulling out of territory only gives them propaganda fodder.

                          •  Nope. (0+ / 0-)

                            It props them up.

                            Just like our staying in Iraq props up the terrorists there as Feingold has pointed out over and over again.

                            And I'm not even suggesting pulling out. Just ending the policy of bulldozers and settlers. That is what is keeping the lines to Hamas' recruiting centers long.

                          •  But we keep coming back to the problem.... (0+ / 0-)

                            ...that even a complete withdrawal just made them stronger.

                          •  Fallen into despair? (0+ / 0-)

                            Your post was non-responsive, really. Far beneath your intelligence and childish. The 'possible' reason is that this land doesn't belong to Israel anyway. Another reason, is that it will kick a leg out from underneath terrorist groups who use these settlements as one of various way to recruit and keep power. Hamas stands due to Palestinian support. How do you fight with no cause? Help Palestinians not rely on Hamas, but you don't do this by stealing land, stealing resources, stealing revenue, and destroying the quality of life.

                            They get attacked either way, so why stop?

                            No this will not solve everything. You're an adult. I hope. You know damn well the "Israel has the right to existence" acknowledgment and "renouncing violence" isn't going to end it in 24 hours.

                            Tell you what. When Israel is able to control the violence of every Jew and Jewish settler against Arabs within Israel and in the OPTs, then we can have the same expectations of Palestinians.  Because if Israel can't control their own with the resources Israel has (and Israel can't - no nation can), then don't expect Palestinians to be able to do what Israel can not with the limited and absent resources Palestinians now possess (or don't possess). Peace occurs over decades, not weeks. Violence is reduced bit by bit, not all at once. And there's a lot of 'infrastructural' and economic building to do before Palestinians can be effective.

                            Now. What necessitates the settlements? You want me to answer for you?

                            You know, it's tragically hysterical when people tout Israel's innocence and law-abiding ways when Israel justifies illegal actions and war crimes. And you can't even stomach defending these actions, a credit to you, btw. But your weakness is that you can't criticize either. But you give a good try, a lousy try, of rationalizing and justifying. Doesn't help Israel at all. Btw, your lousy inability to effectively rationalize Israel's bad acts is another credit to you.

                            The greatest trick the devil ever pulled was convincing the world She didn't exist.

                            by callmecassandra on Wed Apr 11, 2007 at 12:28:26 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  I could write out a long, drawn out response.... (0+ / 0-)

                            ...but fuck it really.

                            Israel is in the occupied territories.  They're going to stay in the occupied territories until they can have some assurance that the occupied territories will no longer be used as a base of operations for unjustified, unprovoked, bigoted attacks against their children.  I'm not willing to condemn them for this.  You, on the other hand, apparently are, and are unwilling to condemn Hamas for the attacks they're responding to.

                            Posession is nine tenths of the law.  Israel has that posession.  If the Palestinians didn't want to lose that territory, possibly they should have considered this before they invaded in the first place.  (This being the big pink elephant in the middle of the room that not one of you appeasers wants to discuss.)

                            Honestly, the more I talk to you maniacs the more I feel like the actual solution is to line up the leadership of Hamas and deal with the situation with a double tap to the back of the head.  Hopefully they'll eventually end up being more reasonable than the knee-jerk 'Israel is teh evil' crowd that likes to think of themselves as leftists in the west.

                            It'd be ironic as all fuck as well.

                          •  Aww.... (0+ / 0-)

                            Is that you trying to 'man-up'?

                            Honestly, the more I talk to you maniacs the more I feel like the actual solution is to line up the leadership of Hamas and deal with the situation with a double tap to the back of the head.

                            You ain't got the stomach for that either, son. You come off as, well, cartoonish. Hey, you ever murdered anyone? And um, "actual solution" rings a familiar bell to me, hypocrite. I can only imagine how you would respond if someone made the same suggestion regarding Jewish leaders of Israel or Jewish neo-conservatives. You know, an "actual solution".

                            If the Palestinians didn't want to lose that territory, possibly they should have considered this before they invaded in the first place.

                            I'm sure if there was a reversal of fortune, your attitude would change. Arabs invading to confiscate land that Jews had cultivated and tended for generations, and in some cases, centuries. I'm sure you support reparations for Jews expelled from Arab nations - I do as well. And it wouldn't even matter to you that the UN mandated it. Jews would be fighting for self-determination. Jews would be resisting occupation. Jews would have reason and right to use any means necessary for independence. These would be your justifications as these are surely the justifications used by Palestinians.

                            This remark was weak as are all your remarks on this matter. You can't effectively justify the settlements. You can't effectively rationalize it. You're lousy at it. Most people, with common sense, will acknowledge at the least that the settlements are inexcusable and does nothing to secure Israel or Jews.

                            You, on the other hand, apparently are, and are unwilling to condemn Hamas for the attacks they're responding to.

                            Never a good idea to assume. It's polite to ask. But we weren't talking about Hamas' crimes. We were talking about the settlements which has nothing to do with Hamas' crimes unless you're using the 'security' reason for the settlements which is absolutely laughable and transforms Jewish settlers into human shields for the state of Israel. Now, that ain't what you're saying is it?

                            The greatest trick the devil ever pulled was convincing the world She didn't exist.

                            by callmecassandra on Wed Apr 11, 2007 at 01:07:35 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Exactly what color is the sky.... (0+ / 0-)

                            ...in your universe anyway?  I'm just idly curious, you understand.

                            You ain't got the stomach for that either, son. You come off as, well, cartoonish. Hey, you ever murdered anyone? And um, "actual solution" rings a familiar bell to me, hypocrite. I can only imagine how you would respond if someone made the same suggestion regarding Jewish leaders of Israel or Jewish neo-conservatives. You know, an "actual solution".

                            Even the jewish neocons aren't targeting cafes, so over here we have an orange.  And emphasizing 'actual solution...'  Nice try.... really.  Trying to make this a 'jews are nazis' bit.  Your buddies at counterpunch would be proud of you.... if you'd managed to actually pull it off.

                            This remark was weak as are all your remarks on this matter. You can't effectively justify the settlements. You can't effectively rationalize it. You're lousy at it. Most people, with common sense, will acknowledge at the least that the settlements are inexcusable and does nothing to secure Israel or Jews.

                            Except that the existance of the occupied territories and the checkpoints is in fact stopping the bombings.

                            If you want the occupation to go away?  It's simple.  Stop the bombings in some other way.

                            You apologists seem to want to make Israel out to be some power hungry evil empire that's gobbling up land just for the hell of it and that gets off on torturing Palestinians.  Their goal is much simpler than that.  They're tired of being bombed.  This is the one thing they've tried that actually has worked.  Guess what?  They're going to continue to do it until something else works at least as well.  Now, something that would work better is if the militants in the region would... oh, I don't know.... take a lesson from the IRA and put down the fucking bombs?

                            But where's the fun in that?  No no no.... can't have that... it's so much more fun to blow shit up.

                            Never a good idea to assume. It's polite to ask. But we weren't talking about Hamas' crimes. We were talking about the settlements which has nothing to do with Hamas' crimes unless you're using the 'security' reason for the settlements which is absolutely laughable and transforms Jewish settlers into human shields for the state of Israel. Now, that ain't what you're saying is it?

                            Of course not.  It's never about Hamas.  It's always about Israel, I forgot.

                            Because if it was about Hamas, you might have to do something unpleasant... like... oh, I dunno.... admit that they're a bunch of murderous thugs that you'd be ranting against if they were attacking anybody but jews?

                            Noooo.... never that... of course not.

                          •  So you've never murdered anyone? (0+ / 0-)

                            But you don't have a problem demanding someone do what you could not and would not. Heh...

                            Even the jewish neocons aren't targeting cafes, so over here we have an orange.  And emphasizing 'actual solution...'  Nice try.... really.  Trying to make this a 'jews are nazis' bit.  Your buddies at counterpunch would be proud of you.... if you'd managed to actually pull it off.

                            Aren't targeting cafes? Do you come with a laugh track? And perhaps you shouldn't provide an idea with much bravado (um, that would be your fake-ass defiance of law and order) that rings familiar to the final solution. And "actual solution" does bring that to mind.

                            Except that the existance of the occupied territories and the checkpoints is in fact stopping the bombings.

                            The existence of the occupied territories? You mean the existence of illegal settelments in the occupied territories. Also, we weren't talking about checkpoints were we? I believe we were discussing Israel using Jews as human shields.

                            You apologists seem to want to make Israel out to be some power hungry evil empire that's gobbling up land just for the hell of it and that gets off on torturing Palestinians.

                            You apologists seem to think Israel is a pure and moral state instead of just another run-of-the-mill, land grabbing, standard colonist state ran by power seeking politicians who rarely tend to the citizens' needs and interests and their greedy patrons armed with nuclear power and afflicted with a penchant for brutality against the "other". Same story, different nation...

                            Because if it was about Hamas, you might have to do something unpleasant... like... oh, I dunno.... admit that they're a bunch of murderous thugs that you'd be ranting against if they were attacking anybody but jews?

                            Again with the assumptions. And again, it's not about Hamas' crimes, but the crime of the settlements and Israel's lack of sincerity and good faith. Freezing the settlements would be a meaningful act of good faith. Doing so helps weaken Hamas - that is, if you really want to weaken of Hamas. Otherwise, you're just looking for an excuse to prolong a conflict to give cover to steal more and more and more with the impudence and brutality characteristic of all colonist powers. Oh and if you want my thoughts on Hamas, how about asking for once? It's not difficult to do. A few keystrokes and there you go...

                            So, the necessity of the settlements is to stop the bombings? Then that would make Jews human shields for the state of Israel. But I thought Israel was civilized. I thought Israel would never use people, especially their own, as human shields. How does this click with civilization?

                            One more thing: Do Palestinians have the right to fight for self-determination?

                            The greatest trick the devil ever pulled was convincing the world She didn't exist.

                            by callmecassandra on Wed Apr 11, 2007 at 11:27:15 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  It's never about Hamas with you people. (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Shane Hensinger

                            It's 'all Israel bad all the time' and ignore the dead jews.  After all, who cares about them, right?

                            But you don't have a problem demanding someone do what you could not and would not. Heh...

                            I don't have a problem with capital punishment of cold blooded murderers.

                            Aren't targeting cafes? Do you come with a laugh track? And perhaps you shouldn't provide an idea with much bravado (um, that would be your fake-ass defiance of law and order) that rings familiar to the final solution. And "actual solution" does bring that to mind.

                            Let's see some of these cafes full of children that the Israelis are blowing up.

                            When civilian targets are hit, it's because there's intel that terrorists are there.  Don't want civilians hit?  Don't hide behind them, shoot at Israel, and expect them to not shoot back.  They've tried that, it didn't work out so well for them.

                            And the comparison to the 'final solution' is all yours dearie... says much more about you than it does about anyone else here.

                            The existence of the occupied territories? You mean the existence of illegal settelments in the occupied territories. Also, we weren't talking about checkpoints were we? I believe we were discussing Israel using Jews as human shields.

                            Except you're the one who's claiming their illegal... might be nice if you could, gee, I dunno.... cite an actual law being broken?

                            That'd take work tho.

                            You apologists seem to think Israel is a pure and moral state instead of just another run-of-the-mill, land grabbing, standard colonist state ran by power seeking politicians who rarely tend to the citizens' needs and interests and their greedy patrons armed with nuclear power and afflicted with a penchant for brutality against the "other". Same story, different nation...

                            Actually what I think is that Israel is the one nation in the region where I wouldn't be executed for my religious beliefs, the one nation in the region that actually has a universal franchise, (and one of the few that has a franchise at all....) and that doesn't treat women and ethnic minorities like domesticated animals at best.

                            The rest of your diatribe aside, the decision of where my loyalties are here is a pretty easy one.

                            Again with the assumptions. And again, it's not about Hamas' crimes, but the crime of the settlements and Israel's lack of sincerity and good faith.

                            Because it's never about Hamas with you people.  It's never about children minding their own business being blown up in their own neighborhoods by some religious fanatic who has decided he hates jews enough to kill as many of them as possible... and of course hard targets would be too difficult to hit, and wouldn't frighten enough people.  Can't have that.  Restaurants are so much better for that.

                            Doing so helps weaken Hamas - that is, if you really want to weaken of Hamas.

                            And there's the point you can't seem to get through your naieve little head.

                            Doing so has never weakened Hamas or any similar organization in this conflict.

                            So, the necessity of the settlements is to stop the bombings? Then that would make Jews human shields for the state of Israel. But I thought Israel was civilized. I thought Israel would never use people, especially their own, as human shields. How does this click with civilization?

                            It makes the territories themselves a 'shield' if you want to call it that.  A buffer zone.  It's tougher to move explosives into Israel proper due to greater distance and a military presence.

                            This military presence is actually pretty expensive and trust me, Israel would much rather be spending those resources on something else.  But of course, my bad, I forgot that Israel is an imperialistic warmongering state that gets off on torturing Palestinian babies.... so yeah they must want to waste a ton of money on the occupied territories.  My bad.

                            One more thing: Do Palestinians have the right to fight for self-determination?

                            Fight?  Arguably.  Murder?  No.

                            Where exactly are they 'fighting?'  (Psst... fighting implies that you're targeting someone that can actually fight back.  This is what distinguishes it from murder.)

                          •  Nope. (0+ / 0-)

                            I don't have a problem with capital punishment of cold blooded murderers.

                            That's murder. See, if you line up Hamas leadership and shoot them in back of the head without benefit of trial, that's murder. Sounds like a few Arab states in the region.

                            And the comparison to the 'final solution' is all yours dearie...

                            No, your support of an "actual solution", murder that is, to further an agenda, to solve a "problem" requires a black heart. Sounds rather familiar. But you're all talk anyway, aren't you Bravado?

                            When civilian targets are hit, it's because there's intel that terrorists are there.

                            When missiles are fired into residential/civilian areas with full knowledge of this fact, then it's intentional killing of civilians. On it's very face, this is true. But what you're attempting to do is assign value and rationalization as if it would accepted by the Palestinians, human rights activists and organizations or the sane.

                            And so you fail to recognize that Palestinian children murdered by Israel's criminal actions does no more to help the peace process than suicide bombings and rocket attacks by terrorist groups. I know you'd liked to think otherwise, but in the real world, there's a thing called cause/effect. It's two way. Not one way.

                            And how f'cking stupid is it to fire missiles, missiles to get at one person with the knowledge that you'll kill dozens of innocents?

                            Actually what I think is that Israel is the one nation in the region where I wouldn't be executed for my religious beliefs...

                            Yeah, it sucks to be a Palestinian under an Israeli occupation.

                            Except you're the one who's claiming their illegal...

                            You know, I've been hearing this rumor from the UN, AI, HRW, Europe, even the U.S. that the settlements are illegal. But I could be wrong. Why don't you give me a link that shows they're legal?

                            It's never about children minding their own business being blown up in their own neighborhoods

                            I'm still waiting on that question.

                            Doing so has never weakened Hamas or any similar organization in this conflict.

                            Oh, my bad. When did Israel dismantle all the settlements in the West Bank? You know, I've been busy so I might have missed the breaking story. Fill me in won't you?

                            But of course, my bad, I forgot that Israel is an imperialistic warmongering state that gets off on torturing Palestinian babies.... so yeah they must want to waste a ton of money on the occupied territories.

                            The first fourteen words are true. 'Bout time you caught on and then you go and ruining it with follow-up lies.

                            Fight?  Arguably.  Murder?  No.

                            Where exactly are they 'fighting?'  (Psst... fighting implies that you're targeting someone that can actually fight back.  This is what distinguishes it from murder.)

                            I wonder your response if Jews suffered similar circumstances as Palestinians. I wonder if you would agree that all civilian deaths from Jewish resistance is murder.

                            Oh and settlements are barriers, huh? Human shields and whatnot? I won't be hearing anymore from you about how moral and civilized Israel is compared to other states?

                            The greatest trick the devil ever pulled was convincing the world She didn't exist.

                            by callmecassandra on Wed Apr 11, 2007 at 02:08:59 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Where do I begin? (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Shane Hensinger

                            That's murder. See, if you line up Hamas leadership and shoot them in back of the head without benefit of trial, that's murder. Sounds like a few Arab states in the region.

                            Odd... I don't seem to recall typing anything about 'without benefit of trial.'

                            Given that Hamas has repeatedly bragged about how many Israelis they've killed in their attacks, the result of a trial is sort of a foregone conclusion, but I don't recall having advocated skipping the process.

                            No, your support of an "actual solution", murder that is, to further an agenda, to solve a "problem" requires a black heart. Sounds rather familiar. But you're all talk anyway, aren't you Bravado?

                            My actual support goes to a two state solution, but in order for that to happen the bombings have to stop.  Increasingly, it's looking like for that to happen Hamas needs to be an unpleasant historical citation.

                            Oh and by the way... the repeated attempts to slight my masculinity?  Yeah... not so effective.  In fact you come off as more of a right wing troll than anything else.  Same tactics.  Just sayin.  :)

                            When missiles are fired into residential/civilian areas with full knowledge of this fact, then it's intentional killing of civilians. On it's very face, this is true. But what you're attempting to do is assign value and rationalization as if it would accepted by the Palestinians, human rights activists and organizations or the sane.

                            And when those missiles are being fired at people who are themselves attacking?  It becomes unfortunate, but the alternative is unthinkable.

                            It sucks.  It really does.  But I'll reserve the blame for the people who are setting up the situation in the first place.... and that would be Hamas, not Israel.

                            And so you fail to recognize that Palestinian children murdered by Israel's criminal actions does no more to help the peace process than suicide bombings and rocket attacks by terrorist groups. I know you'd liked to think otherwise, but in the real world, there's a thing called cause/effect. It's two way. Not one way.

                            I realize it full well... I just also realize that not doing it is just as ineffective.  The difference is that one tactic is ineffective and ends up with a number of noncom deaths, (which are avoided where possible) and the other is ineffective and causes a much larger number of noncom deaths.  (That would be the Israeli children blown apart by bombers who now no longer have to hide.)

                            The fact that this is an unfortunate situation does not make it any less true.

                            And how f'cking stupid is it to fire missiles, missiles to get at one person with the knowledge that you'll kill dozens of innocents?

                            Somewhat less stupid than standing by and allowing hundreds, not dozens, of your own people to be murdered.

                            Yeah, it sucks to be a Palestinian under an Israeli occupation.

                            Not saying it doesn't.  

                            Try being an atheist in most muslim countries.

                            For that matter try being a woman, or for the past 70 years or so, a jew.

                            You know, I've been hearing this rumor from the UN, AI, HRW, Europe, even the U.S. that the settlements are illegal. But I could be wrong. Why don't you give me a link that shows they're legal?

                            Yet none of them seem to be able to cite clear legal precedent.... and neither do you.

                            The UN, AI and HRW all tend to have a bit of knee-jerk anti-Israel sentiment.  In their defense, they usually retract their statements when the investigations are finished.... (back to Jenin, as an example.)

                            Oh, my bad. When did Israel dismantle all the settlements in the West Bank? You know, I've been busy so I might have missed the breaking story. Fill me in won't you?

                            Odd how you ignore the fact that while the West Bank wasn't evacuated.... Gaza was.  Strangely enough the attacks didn't even slow down.

                            Ah but of course, as has been noted.... the West Bank was still occupied.  So back to the fact that you're endorsing nothing less than total surrender of territory in exchange for.... well nothing really.

                            But hey, it'd make you feel better, now wouldn't it.

                            The first fourteen words are true. 'Bout time you caught on and then you go and ruining it with follow-up lies.

                            At least now we know where you're coming from here.... and how tight your grip on reality is.

                            I wonder your response if Jews suffered similar circumstances as Palestinians. I wonder if you would agree that all civilian deaths from Jewish resistance is murder.

                            You seem to be suffering from a fundamental misconception here... one that's all too common.

                            'One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.'  Would you say this was a fair assessment of your position?

                            Oh and settlements are barriers, huh? Human shields and whatnot? I won't be hearing anymore from you about how moral and civilized Israel is compared to other states?

                            A stretch of territory patrolled by soldiers is a barrier yes.  It's difficult to move weapons through such an area without getting caught and arrested.  This seems to be the general complaint about the whole thing from the various militant groups.  (Including, but not limited to Hamas.)

                          •  Actually, (0+ / 0-)

                            Oh and by the way... the repeated attempts to slight my masculinity?  Yeah... not so effective.  In fact you come off as more of a right wing troll than anything else.  Same tactics.  Just sayin.  :)

                            it wasn't my intention to slight your masculinity. Do you think bravery and courage belong only to men? No, I'm attacking your fake show of defiance in support of tactics you really can't stomach. You come off as artificial. Again, it's to your credit.

                            And when those missiles are being fired at people who are themselves attacking?  It becomes unfortunate, but the alternative is unthinkable.

                            There's a big difference between getting caught in the cross-fire and bombing homes and intersections and beaches with impunity, without a moment hesitation to civilian casuality. And no one has convinced me that care was taken in many of these instances. Also, if the mistakes happen from bad intel, then that blame damn well falls on Israel. And if you make it your responsiblity to take a life, whatever mistakes you make along the way are yours and yours alone to bear.

                            I realize it full well... I just also realize that not doing it is just as ineffective.
                            (snip)
                            Somewhat less stupid than standing by and allowing hundreds, not dozens, of your own people to be murdered.

                            Here's your problem. Solutions are not all either/or. Why fire into homes where children sleep? How about not firing into intersections or into crowds? Why fire missiles at ambulances? Do you realize how barbaric and inhumane that is? When Israel fires on these ambulances, are they barrelling towards a checkpoint or in open field towards some settlement? And unless anyone can show that the ambulances were an immediate threat to Israel proper and her citizens or even the settlements, it remains barbaric and inhumane and there is absolutely no justification that can cleanse it. None. And how about not bulldozing homes and leaving people to sleep in tents? How about not starving people by preventing food from entering Gaza?

                            Or, how about freezing the settlements? Why do they need to contine, Corwin? What possible reason do they need to continue? It does not help. At all.

                            And you keep missing the point. It's not about Hamas. It's not about impressing Hamas. It's not about winning over Hamas. It's about winning over the Palestinians, convincing them of Israel's good faith. There are moderate Palestinian parties that are ignored by Israel, the U.S. and U.K. Why the hell isn't money being poured into their campaigns? Why isn't Israel bypassing Hamas and take it direct to the people? So many opportunities that wouldn't cost near as much as one month long military excursion into Gaza. A friggin' waste.

                            Can you explain what Israel loses by freezing the settlements? What's the sacrifice when Israel will still patrol the area?

                            And Gaza. Israel retains sovereignty over Gaza. So in what way was it given over to the Palestinians? In what way are Palestinians free of Israel in Gaza? Answer: They're not and never were.

                            So, the settlements aren't legal? You see, if there's a choice between believing you and believing the UN, AI, HRW and the U.S., you'll lose. Every time and each time.

                            'One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.'  Would you say this was a fair assessment of your position?

                            If this is indeed a misconception, I have not a doubt that you'll share it were the situation reversed. You know it and I know it...

                            You know, you're not so bad. Biased, very biased for sure. But at least you were more realistic in this post than any of your previous posts...

                            And I thank you for not accusing me of hate in this last post or making suggestions that I support terrorism. Well, except for this:

                            So back to the fact that you're endorsing nothing less than total surrender of territory in exchange for.... well nothing really. But hey, it'd make you feel better, now wouldn't it.

                            But I forgive you. The important thing is that you tried...!

                            The greatest trick the devil ever pulled was convincing the world She didn't exist.

                            by callmecassandra on Wed Apr 11, 2007 at 06:23:20 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Differences.... (0+ / 0-)

                            There's a big difference between getting caught in the cross-fire and bombing homes and intersections and beaches with impunity, without a moment hesitation to civilian casuality. And no one has convinced me that care was taken in many of these instances. Also, if the mistakes happen from bad intel, then that blame damn well falls on Israel. And if you make it your responsiblity to take a life, whatever mistakes you make along the way are yours and yours alone to bear.

                            And there's an even bigger difference between all of these and deliberately targeting noncoms because you know body count frightens people.

                            Again, I know where my sympathies lie.

                            You know, you're not so bad. Biased, very biased for sure. But at least you were more realistic in this post than any of your previous posts...

                            Yes, I'm biased towards people who aren't brutal savages who deliberately target children and then whine to the UN when the stronger party they poked pokes back.  I don't have a problem with this.

                            This could end so easily and so well by Hamas just growing the hell up and talking.  It worked for the IRA.  (And I had my doubts that it would at the time.)

                          •  Deliberate attacks against civilians. (0+ / 0-)

                            And there's an even bigger difference between all of these and deliberately targeting noncoms because you know body count frightens people.

                            There's really no difference between deliberate and intentional, you know.

                            Yes, I'm biased towards...

                            Oh, no. I wasn't talking about bias between innocents and criminals. But you knew that, didn't you?

                            The greatest trick the devil ever pulled was convincing the world She didn't exist.

                            by callmecassandra on Wed Apr 11, 2007 at 07:31:20 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Yes, I did know that. (0+ / 0-)

                            This does not in fact change the answer.

                          •  People should be honest about their biases. (0+ / 0-)

                            And stop pretending to be what they're not: impartial.

                            No worries. Neither am I.

                            The greatest trick the devil ever pulled was convincing the world She didn't exist.

                            by callmecassandra on Wed Apr 11, 2007 at 07:56:04 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Impartiality is a worthy goal. (0+ / 0-)

                            ...what I am in this case is fair.  Do I have biases toward Israel?  Sure.  I'd be crazy not to.  Do I give the other side a fair shake?  Yes.  I don't expect any more of the Palestinians than I do of the Israelis.

                            However.... I've been disappointed repeatedly.

                          •  As am I...n/t (0+ / 0-)

                            The greatest trick the devil ever pulled was convincing the world She didn't exist.

                            by callmecassandra on Wed Apr 11, 2007 at 09:54:22 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  For you: (3+ / 0-)

                            Israel doesn't want peace
                            http://www.dailykos.com/...

                            It's easy to start a war, but very hard to stop one.

                            by mattes on Tue Apr 10, 2007 at 05:02:23 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Wow.... an anti-Israel response from Mattes. (0+ / 0-)

                            I'm stunned.  Really.  Look.

                            :|

                            See?

                          •  Written by an Israeli. (2+ / 0-)

                            It's easy to start a war, but very hard to stop one.

                            by mattes on Tue Apr 10, 2007 at 05:36:07 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  And cited by two of our 'problem children.' (0+ / 0-)

                            You two will cite anything that seems to back up your position, regardless of its accuracy or relevance.

                          •  Ad Hominem n/t (0+ / 0-)

                            Evenhanded Democrats, because "the role of honest broker must once again be played by Washington"

                            by Rusty Pipes on Wed Apr 11, 2007 at 11:22:07 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                        •  I can respond in a similar fashion.... (3+ / 0-)

                          Why should the Palestinians be expected to negotiate with a state whose stated purpose is to(some argue for transfer) annex more and more of Palestine therefore destroying Palestine.
                          Exactly what common ground do you think they're going to find? Until the Palestinians can reasonably expect to come to some sort of agreement that doesn't involve them being wiped off the map(to be fair palestine is not on the map).......Honsetly I can't say I blame them for not being interested in 'negotiating.'
                          So you wnat to be friends? Great. Let's talk. I can stab you repeatedly or I can steal your land. Which would you prefer?
                          If those are the only two options I;m offering,,,does anybody actually expect you to even acknowledge the discusssion?
                          Yet, everybody seems to expect Palestine(the by far weaker of the two) to do exactly that.

                    •  Ya the peace process was going... (3+ / 0-)

                      ..just great before the election of Hamas. Nothing but constant peace talks. I mean they were really getting somewhere.

                      •  Actually, they were (2+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        Keith Moon, Corwin Weber

                        until Arafat walked away from it all, including the democratic, economically viable Palestinians state he would have gotten.

                        •  What about Taba? (4+ / 0-)

                          Even Shlomo Ben Ami has said it was the Israelis that walked away from Taba due to domestic political pressure. It was also Ben-AMi that said he too, if he was a palestinian, would have rejected the Camp David proposal. Not really a ringing endorsement of the supposed generous offer from Israel. What a generous offer it was. All settlements are illegal and Israel said it might dismantle half of them. Wow. What a generous offer.

                        •  There you go again. (3+ / 0-)

                          Always blaming others.

                          That was not so much a matter of Arafat being to blame so much as it was the lack of leadership from the Bush administration. They did not care jack shit about peace between Israel and Palestine.

                          If Al Gore had assumed his rightful place in the US Presidency, then we would not be having all these discussions about who is to blame. The fact of the matter is that all of the Democratic candidates would do a good job of bringing people to the table to negotiate.

                          •  As much as I agree with you... (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            suicide blonde

                            .. on some issues, I disagree that the Dems would do any better. I guess I really don't have much faith in the democrats these days.

                          •  To be fair: (3+ / 0-)

                            We were the ones who had brought Netenyahu and Barak on the one hand and Arafat on the other to the brink of a deal. The Republicans never did that, and Bush II never tried to build on the work of Clinton. So, they may infuriate me with their knee-jerk pandering to Israel, but they would still do better on this issue than Bush would.

                          •  FIne I will give you that one... (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Eternal Hope, litho

                            ..for sure but wasn't it the first Bush administration that refused to fund the settlements? Weren't the Israelis nervous about James Baker and the rest? I seem to remember that settlement expansion took off again under Clinton.
                            I of course, think that Bush Jr. is nuts. I believe that he hopes that the Second Coming Of Jesus 2.0 is right around the corner. What better an ally for Israel than someone who thinks all Jews either accept Jesus or perish in the End TImes, eh?

                          •  Whatever Bush I or II believes, (5+ / 0-)

                            both are well aware of what the Christian Zionists -- who are a key component of the Republican base -- believe.  Bush I lost reelection in part because he alienated that base and Bush II has not taken any big risks publicly to anger them.  On one of the few occasions early in his presidency when he criticized Sharon over the settlements, the Christian Zionists quickly slapped him back into line.  Even if he allows Condi to pursue limited I/P diplomacy, he will not take any risks for it personally.  

                            Whether Bush II believes in anything beyond his own priviledge is a question for another day.

                            Evenhanded Democrats, because "the role of honest broker must once again be played by Washington"

                            by Rusty Pipes on Tue Apr 10, 2007 at 03:57:04 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                        •  Arafat "walked" away in 2000... (0+ / 0-)

                          ..and Hamas was elected in 2005.

                •  And for Israel's part: (0+ / 0-)

                  They can imitate South Africa. Get rid of the settlements like they did with Apartheid.

                  It works both ways.

                •  But borders are off limits.... (4+ / 0-)

                  ...until the rest is hammered out, i thought, just like Jerusalem, refuggees and other. SO first the Palestinians must recognize Israel's right to annex their land and recognize all the illegal settlements before the issue of borders are mentioned. I believe that is how it is supposed to work.
                  I thought that Abu Mazen was asking Condee for some meat, like future borders and such, so that he could go back and show people what their state may look like if the peace process was to work. I don't really see any progress on that front.

                  •  easy on the straw, there, scarecrow (2+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    Keith Moon, Corwin Weber

                    SO first the Palestinians must recognize Israel's right to annex their land and recognize all the illegal settlements before the issue of borders are mentioned. I believe that is how it is supposed to work

                    There are so many straw men here it looks like an audition for The Wizard of Oz.

                    •  I don't understand what nation.... (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      fugue

                      ...would recognize another nation that is slowly annexing their land?

                      •  get some regional history (2+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        Keith Moon, Corwin Weber

                        Israel captured the Sinai peninsula, fair and square, in a war it didn't start. Sinai -- heard of it? Some certain sentimental value in Judaism, do you think? But Israel walked away from it as part of the Camp David Accord.

                        Egypt and Israel sat down, saying -- and this is the point you're struggling so valiantly against recognizing -- that it's not necessary to know every last inch of the border beforehand, as long as they knew the general shape of it, and that the rest would be negotiated as part of the comprehensive peace agreement.

                        You keep implying that this is impossible.

                        You keep ignoring that it happened.

                        •  Two things.... (3+ / 0-)
                          1. THe Palestinians believe that the general shape of Palestine will be three to four pieces of land that aren't connected. That is not what any sane people would want for a nation. THe Israelis have rejected the Geneva Accords which tried to nail down some specifics. Do you believe that a just settlement will include the removal of all settlers in the West Bank? Please answer that for me, I would like to know what you envision.
                          1. Maybe my history is garbage but was the Sinai captured in 67? If so, was the 67 war a pre-emptive war? Was Israel being attacked or did they think/know that an attack was imminent? Is preventitive war legal under international law, I really don't know.
                        •  Also I personally believe that ... (2+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          Eternal Hope, anonymousredvest18

                          ...the SInai and the Israel were both orginally inhabited by Homo Erectus prior to the age of mysticism.

                        •  fair and square? (3+ / 0-)

                          Well I suppose if Hezbollah and Hamas finally start lobing biochemical weapons using suicide bomber. It's also fair and square eh?

                          Afterall, they are trying to get the "occupied" territory.

              •  You are not going to get an answer from them... (2+ / 0-)

                Ever...

                The greatest trick the devil ever pulled was convincing the world She didn't exist.

                by callmecassandra on Tue Apr 10, 2007 at 05:34:47 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

          •  Let's Blame the UN. n/t (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            InStride, redcardphreek

            "My case is alter'd, I must work for my living." Moll Cut-Purse, The Roaring Girl - 1612, England's First Actress

            by theRoaringGirl on Tue Apr 10, 2007 at 02:22:40 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  I assume you noticed Gaza (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Cecrops Tangaroa, redcardphreek

            or did you buy the line that nothing changed?

  •  Without commenting on the substance (5+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    dvo, redcardphreek, Keith Moon, Eric S, Joffan

    since when is it acceptable to write diary after diary without any original content?  See the FAQ:

    Diaries should be substantive. A good guideline is that if you don't have at least three solid paragraphs to write about your subject, you should probably post a comment in an open thread, or in a recent diary or front-page post that covers a topic relevant to what you wish to write about.

    Even if you are posting copyright information with permission, you are still not writing a diary.  At best, this is a link in an open thread.  And the diarist is a repeat offender.

    Seriously, if the authors of these articles want to post here, more power to them.  But time after time, no.  Daily Kos is, at least as I understand it, not a news clipping service.

    A cartoon is worth a thousand words.

    by dhonig on Tue Apr 10, 2007 at 02:23:45 PM PDT

    •  Excuse me: (4+ / 0-)

      This was posted with permission of the author.

    •  Well (8+ / 0-)

      It is a call to a specific action.  That ugrades the "diaryblility" of the piece a bit.

      Thanks for your valiant efforts to protect copywrights and keep the diaries up to DKos standards, DH!
      Ever vigilant, eh?

      Those who hear not the music-think the dancers mad

      by Eiron on Tue Apr 10, 2007 at 02:27:36 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Hypocrit (7+ / 0-)

      You express extreme concern for the rules and indeed use this "diary police" cover as a tactic to undermine criticism of Israel by those who take other positions from you. Yet you seem to have conveniently forgotten rule 18

      1.  "Calling out" other site users by name in diary titles is prohibited. Diaries which "call out" another by name tend to needlessly inflame. If you feel compelled to address another user's comments or diaries in a diary of your own, please do so cautiously. Avoid ad hominems and stick with substantive, constructive criticism only.

      A diary accusing me of Nazism and misrepresenting what I wrote seems to be just that.

      Kneejerk reactions do not come from knees.

      by londonbear on Tue Apr 10, 2007 at 03:30:55 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  extreme concern indeed (8+ / 0-)

        complete with meta call-out diaries.

        Evenhanded Democrats, because "the role of honest broker must once again be played by Washington"

        by Rusty Pipes on Tue Apr 10, 2007 at 03:46:29 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Can you read? (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Red Sox

        if so, re-read the rule, and then look at the diary you linked.

        (A) I did not use your name anywhere, in the title or the diary.

        (B) I made no ad hominem attacks.

        (C) I stuck with substantive constructive criticism, constructive to Daily Kos as a whole, given that you called Kossacks 'worse than Nazis.' You added to that a classic anti-Semitic canard, and I pointed that out as well.  

        You, sir, have not a single leg to stand on.

        A cartoon is worth a thousand words.

        by dhonig on Tue Apr 10, 2007 at 07:55:25 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  More Londonbear, and why I wrote that diary (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Red Sox

         Well (0+ / 7-)

        The inescapable conclusion is that those who cannot bring themselves to condemn War Crimes and breaches of International Law by Israel see some form of Jewish exceptionalness, if you like inverted anti-semitism.

        That puts all of you in the same place as the KKK, the National Front in the UK and, yes, the Nazis who all claim a form of racial superiority for their own group. So what are you all doing on a "progressive" site? The hilarious thing is that you all probably have at one time or another complained about Bush's actions in Gitmo Bay, Abu Grahib and so on.

        Looks like all this is false and you really do believe that war crimes can be justified so long as it is the right people committing them. Shame on you all.

        Kneejerk reactions do not come from knees.

        by londonbear on Thu Mar 29, 2007 at 03:44:15 PM PDT

         Rubbish (1+ / 16-)

        The Darfur campaigns are nothing but a diversion organised by the Israeli government using the goodwill and natural concern of the overseas Jewish communities as their patsies. I will continue to point out the racism of the Israelis towards the black African Jewish tribes as long as the matter is brought up by anybody with a possible link to Israel.

        If the Israelis have disenfranchised overseas Jews from commenting on Darfur, it is the fault of the Sharon/Olmert governments.

        Kneejerk reactions do not come from knees.

        by londonbear on Wed Sep 06, 2006 at 12:24:48 PM PDT

        Search on your own for his references to "The Elders of Zion crowd," and more.

        Is this really the company you choose to keep?

        A cartoon is worth a thousand words.

        by dhonig on Tue Apr 10, 2007 at 08:06:03 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Seems to me (0+ / 0-)

          That you are one of several who can recall statements I make that you can take out of context and selectively quote from them at the drop of a hat. Every time of course failing to provide a link to the diary concerned so that it can be read in context. A number appear to do so. Is it because you keep a cache of these to enable you to make ad hominem attacks on those you wish to demonise as anti-semites purely in order to deter them from criticising the actions of the Israeli governments?

          I note you use another smear tactic, of alluding to something which people will not bother to fully follow up. My reference is actually to somebody who uses a reference to themself as an "Elder of Zion"  in their signature line, and who shares your extreme view of equating any criticism of Israeli policies with anti-semitism.

          You are also among those who uprate the most inane, irrelevant comment designed to divert attention from the principle topic of any Israeli-critical diary by one of several others in what appears to be a group of like minded. That you chose to write a diary which skirted round the rule by not naming me but linking to my diary is both against the spirit of the rule and highly cowardly as I only found it by accident.

          You also made reference to an update on it which I will again give you an answer to comment on. It was:

          I now invite them to make their position clear, either they concur or refuse to accept the following.

            1. Imposing collective punishments like the destruction of civilian infrastructure committed by the IDF is a War Crime.

            2. The unilateral annexation of occupied territories such as the Israel annexation of Eastern Jerusalem is illegal under international law.

          It appears that what I thought might be at least the basis of an agreement on a point of fact would be quite simple.

          These are based on the Fourth Geneva Convention" The first on Article 33 and 53

          Art. 33. No protected person may be punished for an offence he or she has not personally committed. Collective penalties and likewise all measures of intimidation or of terrorism are prohibited.

          Pillage is prohibited.

          Reprisals against protected persons and their propehttp://www.dailykos.com/comments/2007/4/10/165735/623/79#c79
          Daily Kos :: Comments Israeli and Palestinian Women Call for Speaking the Truthrty are prohibited.

          Art. 53. Any destruction by the Occupying Power of real or personal property belonging individually or collectively to private persons, or to the State, or to other public authorities, or to social or cooperative organizations, is prohibited, except where such destruction is rendered absolutely necessary by military operations.

          Article 47 prohibits the annexation of occupied territories.

          The settlements in the OPT are by the way illegal under Article 49, the relevant section being:

          The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies.

          That the pro-Israeli lobby denies these simple observations in mainly due to successive Israeli governments in denying the applicability of the Geneva Conventions for a variety of legalistic reasons. These are set forth in the Jewish Virtual Libarary which is also the link to the Conventions above!. Amongst others it include a theme constantly used on here.

          Israel rejects the interpretation of the Fourth Geneva Convention applying it to Israeli settlements in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, stating that those territories were captured in 1967 as a result of a defensive war against countries which had illegally occupied them since 1948.

          Strangely enough, the same contention  means that Israeli claims to any part of Jerusalem are similarly invalid:

          Israel entered the West Bank and Gaza Strip in the 1967 Six-Day War. Israeli legal experts traditionally resisted efforts to define the West Bank and Gaza Strip as "occupied" or falling under the main international treaties dealing with military occupation. Former Chief Justice of the Supreme Court Meir Shamgar wrote in the 1970s that there is no de jure applicability of the 1949 Fourth Geneva Convention regarding occupied territories to the case of the West Bank and Gaza Strip since the Convention "is based on the assumption that there had been a sovereign who was ousted and that he had been a legitimate sovereign."

          In fact, prior to 1967, Jordan had occupied the West Bank and Egypt had occupied the Gaza Strip; their presence in those territories was the result of their illegal invasion in 1948, in defiance of the UN Security Council. Jordan's 1950 annexation of the West Bank was recognized only by Great Britain (excluding the annexation of Jerusalem) and Pakistan, and rejected by the vast majority of the international community, including the Arab states

          This conveniently ignores the fact that the reason the British refused to acknowledge Jordan's claim to Jerusalem was based on the original UN resolution setting up two states, one predominantly Jewish and the other predominantly Arab with the UN retaining Jerusalem. This was in effect the final settlement of the land captured from the Ottoman Empire in WWI and which had been administered under a League of Nations Mandate by the British. The legal status of Jerusalem was to be decided by negotiation.

          Such selective readings of documents is of course key to many such claims with even definite and indefinite articles becoming prominent. Thus the right not to withdraw from any "occupied territories" is argued on the grounds that the English version merely refers to "occupied territories" not "the occupied territories" or "all" as the Russians wanted. This is despite the fact that the French version includes "les" and both languages have equal status at the UN. Incidentally, Alistair Cooke pointed out that the UN resolution did not define Israel as the  homeland for Jews but "a  homeland", a fact conveniently forgotten as it challenges the "right of return".

          The trouble with using legalistic arguments to weasel out of the applicability of the norms of International Law mean that it can come back to bite you. Much is made of the failure of the Palestinian Authority or Hamas not recognising the right of Israel to exist yet these very arguments deny the existence of Palestine.

          Kneejerk reactions do not come from knees.

          by londonbear on Wed Apr 11, 2007 at 03:55:12 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  I don't keep anything at hand (0+ / 0-)

            but I have the simple ability to search comments.

            A cartoon is worth a thousand words.

            by dhonig on Wed Apr 11, 2007 at 03:57:33 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Well I think we now realise your position (0+ / 0-)

              That the Geneva Conventions do not apply to the occupied territories as like Dore Gold in the above link you believe them to be "disputed territories".

              Since your silence is eloquent we cannot but conclude you believe the actions of the IDF to not be contrary to the Geneva Conventions and that they have the right to target and destroy civilian infrastructure (in these cases the Gaza power plant and the sewage works Beit Lahiya.

              Similarly you must presumably believe that the Israeli "settlements" on the West Bank and the annexation of East Jerusalem is quite legal.

              I am afraid this is a case where your non-repudiation must be take as total agreement with these positions. Or are you too afraid of making your own position on these matters clear so everyone can understand your views on Human Rights?

              Kneejerk reactions do not come from knees.

              by londonbear on Wed Apr 11, 2007 at 04:52:19 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  I have made my position clear repeatedly (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                zemblan

                and the only thing you can take from silence is my refusal, as previously noted, to do you the honor of responding to your demands.

                A cartoon is worth a thousand words.

                by dhonig on Wed Apr 11, 2007 at 06:30:14 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Well (0+ / 0-)

                  Since you clearly do not believe in International Law as the basis of relations between nations, why should we take any notice of any protestations about the actions of the Bush administration in Gitmo Bay, attacks by Palestinian militants on Israel or Israelis, abuse at Abu Grahib, Iran developing (or not) nuclear weapons or indeed anything else on a progressive blog site?

                  Kneejerk reactions do not come from knees.

                  by londonbear on Wed Apr 11, 2007 at 09:58:24 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site