A Few Current Events in Israel

Just a short diary covering a few news stories from Israel, 2 good, 2 bad.

I'll start with the negative news:

1. Interior Ministry: West Bank settler population grew by 6% in 2006 - Israel added almost 15,000 new settlers to the West Bank settlements last year, increasing their population to 268,379, not including those in East Jerusalem.  As Israel moves more and more radical settlers into the Occupied West Bank, peace moves farther and farther away.

2. Gov't razes 21 Bedouin homes built on state land in Negev - Inside Israel itself, the government continues its campaign of removing the Bedouin from their Negev desert homes, razing 21 more houses.  Israel has threatened to destroy thousands of homes, and it is not clear if or when this campaign will end.

Now, some much more positive news:

3. Meshal: Hamas accepts State of Israel is a reality - Hamas again recognizes the rather obvious existence of Israel.  The problem was not Israel's existence but the failure to establish a state for Palestinians, said Meshal, whose party leads the Palestinian government, says the story.  This announcement takes away one of the excuses for the two sides to avoid negotiations.

4. Labor MK Raleb Majadele to be appointed first Arab minister - For the first time in Israel's 59 year history, an Arab has been appointed to the cabinet.  This is a single appointment to a minor ministry, despite the fact that Arabs now make up at least 20% of Israel's population, but this is certainly a big step forward.  

•  im happy about the latter 2

  it would be nice to discuss good things happening.

  by howardx on Wed Jan 10, 2007 at 12:48:52 PM PDT

  •  Clap louder, and Tinkerbell won't die here either

    You sound a little like those who complain that the media isn't reporting all the good things that happen in Iraq.

    by horsewithnoname on Wed Jan 10, 2007 at 01:07:53 PM PDT

    •  guess what i think you sound like?

      pardon me for applauding any kind of positive news from the region.

      by howardx on Wed Jan 10, 2007 at 01:18:37 PM PDT

    •  Perhaps the poster meant that it would be nice

      if there were good news to talk about, i.e. that there were actually good things happening.

      by Geekesque on Wed Jan 10, 2007 at 01:18:56 PM PDT

•  The Meshal story is potentially of great

  significance. But Hamas, and not just one spokesperson (albeit an important spokesperson), will have to commit to recognizing and wanting to make an "end of conflict" peace settlement with Israel before it can be a partner in making peace.

  by another American on Wed Jan 10, 2007 at 12:54:23 PM PDT

  •  Agree!

    But this will never happen since the power wheel of Palestinian politics is wielded all the way from Syria to Iran to Helbollah.

    Get rid of that interference and then we will see real progress.

    by spinaltap on Wed Jan 10, 2007 at 01:00:52 PM PDT

    •  Sounds like Clean Break Plan!

      by mattes on Wed Jan 10, 2007 at 01:09:35 PM PDT

      •  unfortunately short lived.....

        Like a blade of grass that withers in the raging sun.

        The voice of reason will evaporate to be heard by very few.

        The issue is so complex and the remedy so confusing that only the hands of God almighty knocking their heads together will solve it.....even then it would be short lived.

        by spinaltap on Wed Jan 10, 2007 at 01:17:02 PM PDT

  •  I used to think that, until Israel kept on

    putting more settlers into the occupied territories.

    I just don't see any way forward that doesn't involve a freeze on settlement activity as a threshold matter.

    by Geekesque on Wed Jan 10, 2007 at 01:14:26 PM PDT

    •  Of course, settlements should be frozen and

      settlements that are illegal even under Israeli law should be removed at once. But I would not cut off my nose to spite my face. Efforts to encourage "end of conflict," final status negotiations should be encouraged.

      by another American on Wed Jan 10, 2007 at 01:17:56 PM PDT

      •  I don't see how the Palestinians could even begin

        to think that the Israelis are serious about peace, negotiations, and moving forward in good faith while those settlements continue to fill up.

        It's an easy give-away for the Israelis--a moratorium on settlers moving out of Israel in no way compromises its security or well-being.

        by Geekesque on Wed Jan 10, 2007 at 01:21:05 PM PDT

        •  Ah! Someone understands Hamas's stance.

          The Palestinians have been deceived so many times, that they are entirely skeptical about Israel's intentions. No only settlements, but obvious actions to secure the Jordan Valley tell them that Israel is just interested in "managed conflict," to use Jeff Halper's phrase.

          And this notion, that settlements "illegal even under Israeli law should be removed at once," doesn't say anything. Israel has been defying international law since 1967. All of the settlements are illegal no matter what Israeli law says. Israeli law does not have any recognition in the West Bank. There is therefore no legal basis for Israel to condone settlements on land it occupied militarily and which does not belong to it.

          by shergald on Wed Jan 10, 2007 at 02:08:34 PM PDT

          •  I have no sympathy for Hamas's stance.

            Rather, by not presenting a good faith initiative to reign in the settlements, the Israelis send the message to ordinary Palestinians that "you might as well vote for Hamas."

            by Geekesque on Wed Jan 10, 2007 at 03:07:21 PM PDT

    •  Israel is acting in good faith.

      Israel is acting in good faith.  Israel is undertaking a good faith defense of Israel.  She has that right.  As long as the Palestinians refuse to make peace with the mere idea of a sovereign Israel, as long as the Palestinians take the war to the civilian populace, Israel has a recognized right make war against the Palestinians.

      As to the tactics, would you prefer Israel deploy clouds of poison gas?  Bunker-busting bombs?  IEDs?  Firebombings?  Mongol-style slaughter of all men of fighting age?

      Extending the settlements is a comparatively benign tactic in attempting to ensure the safety of Israel.

      I just don't see any way forward that doesn't involve a Palestinian acceptance of a continued sovereign Israel.  

      by horsewithnoname on Wed Jan 10, 2007 at 01:30:26 PM PDT

      •  How on God's green earth does settlement

        expansion make Israel and its people safer?

        by Geekesque on Wed Jan 10, 2007 at 01:37:00 PM PDT

        •  Makes a bigger buffer zone

          Puts the would-be bombers that much farther away from established population centers.  

          It's a hell of a life; anyone moving into a settlement has got to know their new prime occupation is "target".  But Israel protects her established cities by moving the fight out to the settlements, and does that by establishing settlements.

          Having settlements also moves the window of debate.  As long as we are arguing about whether new settlements are legal, Israel need worry a little less about whether Tel Aviv is legal.

          by horsewithnoname on Wed Jan 10, 2007 at 01:42:18 PM PDT

          •  it's not a buffer zone if people are living in it

            by sunshineonthebay on Wed Jan 10, 2007 at 01:43:09 PM PDT

            •  with

              swimming pools and grass lawns..!!!

              by Euroliberal on Wed Jan 10, 2007 at 02:18:32 PM PDT

            •  I didn't say it was humane.

              It's a buffer against bombings in established cities.  I never claimed it was a Korea-style no-mans-land.

              by horsewithnoname on Wed Jan 10, 2007 at 02:28:47 PM PDT

              •  give it up with the buffer talk

                The settlements are a buffer, Golan Heights is a buffer, Shebaa Farms is a buffer, pa-lease.  Buffers are supposed to be built on YOUR OWN land, not the other guys'.

                by sunshineonthebay on Wed Jan 10, 2007 at 03:23:38 PM PDT

              •  The buffer zone's connected to the

                buffer zone
                  that's connected to the

                buffer zone
                that's connected to the

                buffer zone
                 that's connected to the

                                             ...   ...  ...

                                             An ever-widening circle,
                                             How far shall it go?

                by RAZE on Wed Jan 10, 2007 at 03:43:55 PM PDT

          •  By moving population centers into

            Palestinian territories?

            Fighting them over there instead of fighting them here?

            by Geekesque on Wed Jan 10, 2007 at 01:45:14 PM PDT

            •  Notice

              Notice that there isn't much serious discussion outside of the Arab League over whether Tel Aviv is legal, only discussion over whether this or that settlement is legal.  To that extent, I'd say it's working.

              by horsewithnoname on Wed Jan 10, 2007 at 01:52:28 PM PDT

              •  Oh for crying out loud.

                Tel Aviv's status is not in doubt, and hasn't been during my lifetime.

                by Geekesque on Wed Jan 10, 2007 at 03:05:39 PM PDT

                •  Tell that to those

                  who would push Israel into the sea.

                  by horsewithnoname on Wed Jan 10, 2007 at 03:46:45 PM PDT

                  •  which sea?

                    Would that be the Dead Sea or the Med?

                    Seriously, this push into the sea stuff is so 1970s.

                    by sunshineonthebay on Wed Jan 10, 2007 at 03:53:57 PM PDT

          •  If it's Israel within the Green Line that's being

            buffered, then the settlements are irrelevant. To the contrary, they only present more convenient targets.

            by another American on Wed Jan 10, 2007 at 01:51:18 PM PDT

            •  That may be the point.

              Israel loses fewer people to a bomber in a settlement than she does to a bomber in a core city.  In a settlement, the population density is lower.  Providing a more convenient target may well be the entire strategic point of having the settlements.

              by horsewithnoname on Wed Jan 10, 2007 at 02:16:20 PM PDT

              •  the settlements are full of crazies!

                Israel put them out there because she dosent want them

                by npbeachfun on Thu Jan 11, 2007 at 08:14:51 AM PDT

          •  They made rockets?

            To go over that Wall and Pass the "buffer zone"

            by npbeachfun on Thu Jan 11, 2007 at 08:09:31 AM PDT

        •  it doesn't

          Which is why most Israelis are against it.

          by sunshineonthebay on Wed Jan 10, 2007 at 01:44:33 PM PDT

      •  here we go again

        Another it's-all-the-other-guy's-fault post.  Sigh.

        by sunshineonthebay on Wed Jan 10, 2007 at 01:37:47 PM PDT

        •  It was good enough for the US

          When Al-Qaida declared that the US had no right to exist, and made acts of war on the US, that was justification enough for the US to invade Afghanistan and depose the Afghani government.  Does a sovereign Israel warrant less right of preservation than a sovereign US?

          by horsewithnoname on Wed Jan 10, 2007 at 01:44:47 PM PDT

          •  not good-enough for me

            Perhaps good-enough for Bush.
            Besides, that's not the same thing as building settlements.  Unless Americans are moving to Afghanistan and building homes there, sectioning off areas of the country that's off-limits to Afghanis it's apples and oranges.
            I'm not defending Bush's invasion of Afghanistan, just saying it's not the same thing.

            by sunshineonthebay on Wed Jan 10, 2007 at 01:52:26 PM PDT

            •  Puppet government

              I'd say deposing the local government and putting in your puppet government counts as sectioning off a rather large part of the country.  Like all of it.

              by horsewithnoname on Wed Jan 10, 2007 at 01:54:01 PM PDT

              •  Sheesh!

                Look, I'm a HUGE critic of Dubya, but really . . . Afghanistan? Al Qaeda did actually blow up about 2,900 people in New York, you know. (500 more than we lost at Pearl Harbor, which was not even a U.S. state at the time, and the Pearl Harbor losses were mostly military personnel.) And then the Taliban govt of Afghanistan wouldn't turn over the Al Qaedans. I think we had every right to go get them, and to take out the government supporting them.

                My main gripe with the USA in Afghanistan is that we FAILED to follow up with security in the countryside, roads, clinics, schools, jobs,  farm supports, etc. And now it's about to come back and bite us in the ass.

                In fact, a big reason I think we need to get our troops out of Iraq pronto is that we need to send a lot of them to Afghanistan, which is likely still salvageable if we get our asses in gear. But deteriorating quickly.

                by HeyMikey on Wed Jan 10, 2007 at 02:04:05 PM PDT

                •  And Palestinians do really blow up Israelis

                  I think you've just made my point.  Al-Qaida (or however it's spelled) really did wage war on the US, and we responded by waging war on their harboring Afghani state.  We had, and retain, wide international support of so doing.  Due to lack of physical proximity, we chose installation of a friendly government in place of physical occupation and annexation.

                  Hamas really does wage war on Israel, using declarations and methods that mirror those used by Al-Qaida.  Israel is responding by waging war on their harboring West Bank and Gaza Strip state, whatever its name is.  Israel enjoys wide, if qualified, international support for such action.  As Israel gains victories in its war, Israel is going the route of physical annexation.  This particular Israeli tactic enjoys rather less international support than some, but Israel is nonetheless within her rights to employ such tactics.

                  by horsewithnoname on Wed Jan 10, 2007 at 02:12:57 PM PDT

                  •  Rights vs. good ideas.

                    Israelis suffer unjustly at the hands of Palestinians.

                    Palestinians suffer unjustly at the hands of Israelis.

                    Everybody has the right to avenge their losses; the right to concede nothing until the other side concedes something first; the right to claim ownership of this or that bit of ground based on ancestral claims. But if everyone insists on his rights, the suffering and injustice will never stop.

                    by HeyMikey on Wed Jan 10, 2007 at 03:32:28 PM PDT

                •  I agree even if we had to take on Pakastain

                  by npbeachfun on Thu Jan 11, 2007 at 08:19:22 AM PDT

  •  Meshal is a tad bit more

    than just a "spokesman".

    by curmudgiana on Wed Jan 10, 2007 at 01:41:26 PM PDT

  •  and sadly

    the article talks about how Hamas was quick to say that their stance on Israel has never changed.

    by Doughnutman on Wed Jan 10, 2007 at 01:57:20 PM PDT

  •  OOPS. Hamas denies story.

    From Ha'aretz:

    Hamas denied Wednesday that its Damascus-based political leader Khaled Meshal told Reuters in an interview that his group would consider recognizing Israel once a Palestinian state is established. (Click here for the full interview)

    One hour after the Reuters interview was published, the Hamas government spokesman Ghazi Hamad told Haaretz that Meshal said, "Israel exists- and that?s a fact."

    However, Hamad maintained that Meshal did not say anything about recognizing Israel. "There was no change in our stance that Hamas does not
    recognize Israel," he said.

    Salah Bardawil, head of Hamas's parliamentary faction, told Haaretz that after checking with Meshal, it seems to be that his words were twisted and distorted.

    "He didn?t speak about any recognition of Israel, only a cease-fire with Israel," Bardawil said.

    by another American on Wed Jan 10, 2007 at 02:28:32 PM PDT

    •  Fascinating

      When Meshal offers recognition, he is "just one spokesperson" to you.  When a Hamas spokesperson denies it, he is "Hamas".

      by weasel on Wed Jan 10, 2007 at 02:36:59 PM PDT

      •  "the Hamas government spokesman"

        Also, I'm just quoting the Ha'aretz story. What's your problem?

        by another American on Wed Jan 10, 2007 at 06:01:20 PM PDT

•  Another important article from Ha'aretz the

  interview with  Mohammed Dahlan. Ha'aretz now believe Dahlan is Abu Mazen's (Mahmoud Abbas's) "heir apparent."

  Dahlan again mentions the rally that Fatah says was attended by some 250,000 people. Even if the numbers were smaller, it would still be a victory for the process Dahlan is leading, sometimes to the displeasure of the movement's veteran leaders.

  However, with the backing of Abbas, the young commanders previously sidelined by the older leadership have been appointed as grassroots leaders. Some of the best-known, whose names may mean nothing to Israelis, include Majid Abu Shimala, Suleiman Abu Mutlek, Maher Makdad, Abed al-Hakim Awad.

  by another American on Wed Jan 10, 2007 at 12:57:32 PM PDT

  •  i was just reading something about him earlier

    hamas called him a "putschist" who was working for his boss condoleeza rice.

    by howardx on Wed Jan 10, 2007 at 01:02:16 PM PDT

    •  Dahlan

      was Arafat's hitman.

      by curmudgiana on Wed Jan 10, 2007 at 01:43:12 PM PDT

•  More good news?

  Ehud Barak is going to run for Labour Party chair, and if he were to win, would become Defense Minister.

  As much talk as there's been over the last few days about Israel plotting a strike on Iran, if Barak were to become Defense Minister, I really can't see him signing off on attacking Iran like that.

  by GoldnI on Wed Jan 10, 2007 at 12:58:56 PM PDT

•  What do you mean by 'again'

  Hamas again recognizes the rather obvious existence of Israel.

  This is what Meshal said 6 months ago:

  Hamas may recognize agreements between the Palestinian Authority and Israel, and may even extend the period of calm and the cease-fire between Israel and the Palestinians, but it would not recognize Israel, Khaled Meshal, the chairman of Hamas political bureau, said in Moscow. (snip)

  "We believe that Israel has no right to exist," he added later in remarks to an Arab audience.

  He also said this, in your linked article:

  "As a Palestinian today I speak of a Palestinian and Arab demand for a state on 1967 borders. It is true that in reality there will be an entity or state called Israel on the rest of Palestinian land," said Meshal.

  "This is a reality but I won't deal with it in terms of recognizing or admitting it," he added.

  I won't even pretend I can make heads or tales out of this.

  by jhecht on Wed Jan 10, 2007 at 01:00:04 PM PDT

  •  You see these people speak in riddles!

    Never take a quote like "we will recognize Israels right to exist" for what it means, unfortunately the overiding agenda has never, and will never change.

    by spinaltap on Wed Jan 10, 2007 at 01:04:20 PM PDT

    •  Isn't what he really means by this

      "This is a reality but I won't deal with it in terms of recognizing or admitting it," he added.

      Is that he won't recognize or admit reality. Yet the Israel haters hang on his every word. Unbelievable the nonsense that hate can inspire you to believe.

      by jhecht on Wed Jan 10, 2007 at 01:18:27 PM PDT

•  An important story from Yediot re: Barghouti

  Barghouti: Hunger strike if Gaza violence continues.

  Palestinian legislator Marwan Barghouti, who is currently imprisoned in Israel, called on Wednesday for Fatah and Hamas to put an end to the factional violence in the Palestinian Authority.

  "The internal wars jeopardize the Palestinians’ national achievements, which were earned during decades of struggle and sacrifice," he said.

  Barghouti told the two organizations that he was speaking on behalf of all the Palestinian prisoners in Israeli jails and called on the Palestinian people to hold marches and demand a unity government.

  by another American on Wed Jan 10, 2007 at 01:07:56 PM PDT

•  I wonder how the diarist missed this?

  Israel's Olmert upbeat on Iran nukes amid China talks

  by jhecht on Wed Jan 10, 2007 at 01:13:04 PM PDT

  •  "upbeat"?

    Weird choice of word in the title!

    by sunshineonthebay on Wed Jan 10, 2007 at 01:25:02 PM PDT

  •  Saw it

    or one of the versions of it.  But honestly, what Israel says about what China thinks about something Iran has not admitted to, does it matter?  The US spent a year sending out press releases that the whole UN Security Counsel was on board with the anti-Iran campaign before they got any weak sanctions passed.  I'm not sure I can what Olmert (who can't remember the one rule of Israeli diplomacy: don't say we have nukes) claims about things he can't control.  China's statement in the article was bland even by diplomatic standards.  

    by weasel on Wed Jan 10, 2007 at 01:48:22 PM PDT

    •  he sort of admitted

      Didn't Olmert kind of admit to having nukes recently?
      But you're right, they're not going to get anywhere with China.  China depends on Iran's oil way too much to care.

      by sunshineonthebay on Wed Jan 10, 2007 at 01:50:21 PM PDT

    •  Lie Deny an Accuse Others

      by npbeachfun on Thu Jan 11, 2007 at 08:28:06 AM PDT

•  Distressing news from Hebron.

  Settler violence in Hebron continues "Abu-Aisha family presents additional footage of settlers assaulting family in Tel Rumeida neighborhood. Video shows boy unable to reach family home because of settlers"

  by another American on Wed Jan 10, 2007 at 01:15:59 PM PDT

  •  Now that the shit has hit the fan in public

    one of the settlers in this incident is going to be questioned.

    http://www.haaretz.com/...

    Olmert was Shocked! Shocked! to see such goings-on.

    by curmudgiana on Wed Jan 10, 2007 at 06:05:46 PM PDT

    •  Nothing will happen-

      There is no Justice in Israel

      But Im Shocked!
      They let them keep the Camra-

      by npbeachfun on Thu Jan 11, 2007 at 08:38:35 AM PDT

      •  They probably couldn't reach it

        to take it away.

        They were yelling for whoever had the camera to stop shooting it.

        by curmudgiana on Thu Jan 11, 2007 at 10:56:46 AM PDT

        •  Or hed didnt care-

          They shoot children in the head...

          Reports in the neck... nothing business as usual.

          Now we shoot reporters as well

          by npbeachfun on Thu Jan 11, 2007 at 11:48:38 AM PDT

•  this isn't a diary

  please delete and read the faq....

  heh

  by Keith Moon on Wed Jan 10, 2007 at 01:42:10 PM PDT

•  "Recognition" isn't really recognition.

  The first bit of good news is only a tiny step -- not the recognition of Israel's RIGHT to exist that Israel has been insisting on. From your link:

  Israel is a "reality" and "there will remain a state called Israel, this is a matter of fact," Meshal, who is considered Hamas' main power broker, said in an interview.

  The problem was not Israel's existence but the failure to establish a state for Palestinians, said Meshal, whose party leads the Palestinian government.

  Formal recognition of Israel could only be considered by Hamas once such a Palestinian state is established, said Meshal.

  Senior Hamas officials have already made similar statements over the past year, saying Israel's existence is an undeniable reality, but this is the first time that such statements are coming out of the group's Syria-based leadership.

  This is also the first time that a Hamas official has raised the possibility of full and official recognition of Israel in the future. To date the group's official position, which Meshal had repeatedly reiterated, was that Hamas will never recognize Israel.

  "The distant future will have its own circumstances and positions could be determined then," he said. Past concessions to Israel by Palestinian negotiators went unrewarded, he argued, and his Islamist group would drive hard bargains over key issues such as recognition.

  I personally think Israel should not insist on formal recognition as a precondition to negotiation. But that's a different post.

  by HeyMikey on Wed Jan 10, 2007 at 01:46:29 PM PDT

  •  All that Israel can rightly ask

    is that Hamas does not act against Israel's existence, whether or not it accepts that existence as a right.

    Not that any act of Hamas's can threaten Israel's existence.

    by curmudgiana on Wed Jan 10, 2007 at 01:51:13 PM PDT

  •  Moving goalposts

    I tried to keep this diary factual, and only mentioned Meshal's statement because so many use the lack of it as an excuse to avoid negotiations.

    Meshal said it perfectly:

    Formal recognition of Israel could only be considered by Hamas once such a Palestinian state is established, said Meshal.

    States refuse formal recognition of each other all the time.  The US only recognized China in, what, 1971?  Part of the final peace must be Palestinian recognition of Israel (and an exchange of ambassadors, presumably), but anyone who demands more as a precondition of negotiations isn't interest in negotiations, they are only interested in hurting the other side.

    by weasel on Wed Jan 10, 2007 at 01:53:18 PM PDT

    •  Also:

      Senior Hamas officials have already made similar statements over the past year, saying Israel's existence is an undeniable reality, but this is the first time that such statements are emanating from the group's Syria-based leadership.

      This is also the first time that a Hamas official has raised the possibility of full and official recognition of Israel in the future. To date the group's official position, which Meshal had repeatedly reiterated, was that Hamas will never recognize Israel.

      "The distant future will have its own circumstances and positions could be determined then," he said. Past concessions to Israel by Palestinian negotiators went unrewarded, he argued, and his Islamist group would drive hard bargains over key issues such as recognition.

      "For Israel to suck us into bargains in stages and in packages - this road constitutes an attempt to weaken the Palestinian position."
      ...

      Meshal said Hamas would defy the Western conditions and refuse to consider granting formal recognition to Israel until its demand for a Palestinian state was met.

      by curmudgiana on Wed Jan 10, 2007 at 01:55:07 PM PDT

    •  Not really a parralel!

      States refuse formal recognition of each other all the time.  The US only recognized China in, what, 1971?  

      The issue here is not just political, it is historical, religious and cultural.

      The religious one being the strongest of all, to Muslims the state of Israel is not just a cancer to be removed but an illegitimate entity that has no right to be there since they were rejected by Allah with he choosing of Muhammad.

      You cannot rationalise this issue froma political stand point, it is and always will be religious.

      Hence why nearly all muslim nations seek israels removal and wont recognize its existence.

      The issue of palestine and palestinian land tied in with Israel is the biggest piece of croc ever instigated upon the UN and the rest of us.

      But that is another issue.

      by spinaltap on Wed Jan 10, 2007 at 02:10:23 PM PDT

      •  can you expand

        on this?

        The issue of palestine and palestinian land tied in with Israel is the biggest piece of croc ever instigated upon the UN and the rest of us.

        by Euroliberal on Wed Jan 10, 2007 at 02:26:46 PM PDT

      •  quote from koran please

        Where do you come up with:
        "The religious one being the strongest of all, to Muslims the state of Israel is not just a cancer to be removed but an illegitimate entity that has no right to be there since they were rejected by Allah with he choosing of Muhammad."
        ???
        Rejected by Allah?  You have got to be kidding me.  I'm not muslim scholars, but from I remember from history classes muslims are ok with living alongside jews and christians in Jeruselum.  The problem is excluding non-jews, not excluding non-muslims.

        by sunshineonthebay on Wed Jan 10, 2007 at 02:49:54 PM PDT

        •  The Quran is but one, the Hadiths are another!

          Where do you come up with:
          "The religious one being the strongest of all, to Muslims the state of Israel is not just a cancer to be removed but an illegitimate entity that has no right to be there since they were rejected by Allah with he choosing of Muhammad."
          ???
          Rejected by Allah?  You have got to be kidding me.  I'm not muslim scholars, but from I remember from history classes muslims are ok with living alongside jews and christians in Jeruselum.  The problem is excluding non-jews, not excluding non-muslims.

          You would not understand the Quran, if you did not read the hadiths with it.

          Read the hadiths, but for your sakes I will provide some quotes when I get time later on tonight.

          by spinaltap on Wed Jan 10, 2007 at 08:02:40 PM PDT

    •  Olmert has many other red herrings up his sleeve.

      Israel has still never recognized the right of the Palestinian people to a sovereign state of its own, and no, bantustans do not count as a sovereign state. Why should Hamas budge? It is just a game and they know it. Settlement numbers for 2005 are what they are, and efforts to complete the confiscation and colonization of the Jordan Valley are well underway. The only difference at this point is that Israel is not bothering to hide its actions.

      by shergald on Wed Jan 10, 2007 at 02:18:58 PM PDT

      •  Israel accepted the Clinton Peace Parameters,

        which include as a principal part the creation of a sovereign Palestinian state without bantustans. Follow and read the link in my signature for the evidence.

        by another American on Wed Jan 10, 2007 at 02:24:03 PM PDT

        •  Barak said he didn't if that is what you mean

          by Israel. You are without a doubt a damned liar, and you know it.

          by shergald on Wed Jan 10, 2007 at 02:37:13 PM PDT

          •  aA provides links supporting his view,

            you provide none supporting yours. And then you call him a "damned liar."

            Troll-rated accordingly.

            by blueness on Wed Jan 10, 2007 at 02:44:11 PM PDT

            •  No need

              for a troll rating, even if Shergald's language was over the top.  Shergald has repeatedly posted Barak's comments, I believe in the very diary aA references.

              by weasel on Wed Jan 10, 2007 at 02:48:06 PM PDT

              •  shergald refers to a Charlie Rose interview in

                which Barak was talking about Taba, not the Clinton Peace Parameters. Moreover, as to Taba, Barak's was just quibbling over whether to call the Taba negotiations "official" or "unofficial."

                Here is what Ben-Ami says about Barak and Taba (page 274 of his book; links in my diary [see below]):

                Barak's attitude to Taba was genuinely expressed on two occasions. One was when he allowed me to open, in Taba, a secret channel with Abu-Ala [Ahmed Querei] in order to explore freely the possibility of bridging the gaps and come to a last-moment breakthrough. The second occasion was when he made a radical shift in his position and virtually agreed to the concept of equal swaps of land.

                Even if Barak prefers, presumably for political reasons, to call the negotiations "unofficial," the fact remains that they were led by his Foreign Minister, who Barak authorized to try to close a deal.

                by another American on Wed Jan 10, 2007 at 07:00:18 PM PDT

            •  yes and the internet would never lie-

              Except when it dose, that I have books-

              by npbeachfun on Thu Jan 11, 2007 at 08:48:25 AM PDT

          •  Personal attacks

            I have been trying to study what constitutes a personal attack and what is merely an expression of disagreement, by reading authorities such as this comment. I have to conclude that your cumulative retorts to another American, calling him not only a "damned liar" but also not very bright and an agent of propaganda organizations, go beyond disagreement and directly impugn his/her integrity.

            You have been tolerated with a great deal of leeway at this site, but you need to be reminded to curtail the personal invective (in which you set a standard that poisons the discussion in most of the diaries you write).

            If you want to have serious discussions and persuade people, you would be more effective if you just provided facts, or your version of them. You don't have to respond to every comment with which you disagree if your only response is ad hominem.

            On the other hand, if you simply want to press your point of view, stir up passions, and reject any expressions of a different point of view, then I would have to say you are not participating here in a constructive spirit.

            by word is bond on Thu Jan 11, 2007 at 10:31:00 AM PDT

        •  oh, pleaseeeeeee

          by npbeachfun on Thu Jan 11, 2007 at 08:46:06 AM PDT

•  im waiting for the inevitable

  "myth of the myth of the myth of the generous offer"

  by howardx on Wed Jan 10, 2007 at 02:29:25 PM PDT

•  Just a note: Arab in Israel != Israeli Arab

  I just wanted to note that there is in fact a difference between someone who is ethnically Arab and living in Israel and an Israeli Arab.

  "Arab" is an ethnicity and covers a wide swath of people.  In the Middle East, there are a number of people who are not ethnically Arab, but live in Arab countries and practice Islam (for example the Kurds), even as there are many ethnic Arabs who practice Christianity.

  In the case of Israel, there are three main groups that are ethnically Arab: Druze, Bedouin, and "Israeli Arab," with the latter group being a catchall for ethnic Arabs who are Israeli citizens and not a member of the first two groups.

  Druze practice their own religion, which is somewhat secretive and is often considered an offshoot of Islam.  Druze reside in several countries in the area, including Israel, Syria, and Lebanon.  Israeli Druze have mandatory conscription, like Jews, and there has been one Druze minister before.  Bedouin generally live in the Negev, and may volunteer for the army, but are not automatically drafted.

  I agree that it's quite important that this minister has been appointed, but I wanted to point out that he is not the first Arab to be appointed to an Israeli cabinet, but rather the first Israeli Arab (i.e. would be "Palestinian" had his family fled the country in '48 or lived in the West Bank or Gaza).

  by JLan on Thu Jan 11, 2007 at 06:19:09 AM PDT

  •  the Druze are about self knowledge

    by npbeachfun on Thu Jan 11, 2007 at 08:52:48 AM PDT