Bob

Aren't you always trashing the USA for its approach to the Israel-Arab conflict? Although hen you can find public pronouncements from politicians condemning Israeli actions, apparently that's a different story. Anyways, I respect James Baker and am well aware that official US-policy, for decades, has been opposed to Israeli construction in lands liberated during the Six-Day War. Why is the American official line on this issue valid, though? Just because that's the their position? Is the position valid simply by virtue that it's American? The truth remains, the vast majority of "settlers" (myself included) live in communities that are a part of Jerusalem. I, and about two hundred thousand other Jews, live in areas near Jerusalem that were under Jordanian occupation for about 20 years. We need these areas for many reasons, all of which are pretty much existential with respect to Jerusalem. They address security needs, population needs, business needs, infrastructure needs, and everything else in between. We're not going to restrict our construction in our capital to the jagged, indefensible, and wholly impractical lines in the sand that were the 1949 armistice lines. We're not going to build this city in a narrow corridor Westward. This has been going on since shortly after the conclusion of the Six-Day War. The USA has its position, and that's fine. It can do what it needs to for its own political ends, perhaps in order to try and appease the Arabs. An interesting aside, there have been conflicting statements from American leadership with respect to Jerusalem. There have been statements (and bills such as the Jerusalem Embassy Act) which conflict with some anti-settlement statements from current and previous administrations. The cries about settlement activity undermining the possibility of Palestinian independence also overlooks something very important - why was a Palestinian state not established between 1949 and 1967? For twenty years under Jordanian occupation we didn't hear a word about occupation, or see any moves towards actualizing a then largely non-existent Palestinian nationalism. Why is that? The territories liberated after the Six-Day War, "occupied territory", was used as launching pads for terrorism and war against the Jewish people for decades. You think we're going to relinquish these territories so that the Arabs/Muslims can shoot into our homes from their apartments as they did between 1949 and 1967? You keep acting like this conflict started in 1967. As far as negotiations go, you can still negotiate over "settled" land. As I said, the most well-known offer is Barak's offer at Taba for 97% of the West Bank. Negotiations have taken place many times since 1967, and settlements have been being built since then. Some settlements can be relinquished through negotiations. In recent years, however, the politicization of settlements has gained traction as a political excuse by the PA not to engage in negotiations, despite having engaged in negotiations in the past for many years during settlement construction. I'm still waiting for explanations as to how I'm an "racist" and an "extremist". Oh ya, apparently I also perceive myself as a victim - how's that, again?

So now you want to move the conversation to something else, entirely?

You're trying so hard to attack me, it's so infantile. Rather than address the clear message in my posts, you put words into my mouth and misrepresent my statements. I specifically stated that I was referring to the usage of these terms in a politicized manner by politicians, journalists, and the everyman in order to advance political agendas. Are you disputing this? Are you trying to tell me that these terms aren't used, more often than not, in a politicized manner? Are you telling us that the left doesn't try to use the term "peacekeeping" to obfuscate the true nature of military operations? If you want to talk to me, address what I've said, and stop trying so desperately to misrepresent my statements.

Stop being so particular. Replace "always" with "more often than not". Did I really need to clarify that? Are you that robotic? EDIT - With respect to the use of these terms in the media and other outlets of political discourse, they are almost always used in a politicized and misleading context. For example, leftist politicians who constantly call for a shift in Canada's role in the Afghanistan campaign towards "peacekeeping" and away from "offensive" operations.

No, I certainly didn't imply it. Not even close. Unlike you, I don't imply things. I don't make snide insinuations. I state my positions clearly. What I said was simple - that the terms I listed are more often than not politicized by the ignorant. Cut and dry. That's it, that's all. No need to try and read more into it. If you want to dispute it, go ahead. Feel free to even agree with me. What you shouldn't do, however, is put words into my mouth, which seems to be a habit of yours.

It drives me nuts, and I hear it all the time. Many Canadians who are completely ignorant of military history go on and on about Canada's glorious history as a "peacekeeping nation"... without knowing or appreciating what had to go into that reputation. Peacekeeping means doing what's necessary to keep the peace, which more often than not involved killing those who disrupt the peace in a war-zone. Sadly, leftist Canadians somehow cannot grasp this simple truth. They think the Canadian military's reputation is grounded in holding foreign babies for photo-ops and handing out candies. It's ridiculous. This is all rooted in some perverse aversion to killing the enemy. There's this prevalent mentality among leftists that killing is wrong, all the time, no matter what. Anyways, I'm sure you catch my drift. We're on the same page, here.

Sure they do, but they're also always used in a politicized manner by political hacks such as politicians, journalists, and internet forum ideologues. Also, did I even imply that these terms can't be used in a military context? Why are you stating the obvious?

I find the classifications "offensive", "defensive", "peace-keeping", "support", and other used military operations to be more often than not - political. Specifically, when I hear leftist Canadians going on about how Canada should only serve in a "defensive", "peace-keeping", or "support" capacity in a theatre of war, I can taste the politicization. I guess it's the gift of self-delusion through the creative use of semantics. "We're the GOOD guys! We only do *defensive* missions!" - As if killing the bad guys is something to avoid or be embarrassed about...

How exactly do settlements (the majority of which are communities of Jerusalem) undermine the PA? Please explain to me how they make a negotiated peace settlement impossible. Just a side note, you did state a moment ago that defining land based on race or religion is wrong, so why do you justify it in the case of the Arabs/Muslims? Beyond that, you're wrong, because national identities can be connected to things such as ethnicity (related to race), religion, and other related concepts. Beyond that, national identities are connected to land. In our case, Jewish national identity is inextricable from Israel. Still, you expose your own hypocrisy and/or lack of understanding by saying it's wrong for one group (the Jewish people), while it's right for the other group (the Arabs/Muslims that refer to themselves as Palestinians). I understand the Arab/Muslim side much better than you do. I also have a legitimate sympathy for their position, however that sympathy ends where their demands overlap ours. You're the one who regularly disrespects the affected parties with disparaging and callous statements, while always making a point to point the finger of blame at Israel and the Jewish people. How exactly am I a racist or extremist? I want a seemingly simple thing: Jewish independence and self-determination through Israel, and the normal things you'd expect in a state such as peace and security. I've also never claimed to be a victim. We've overcome adversity, and not used it as an excuse for underperfomance. The Jewish story may seem like a story of victimhood upon your superficial examination, but the truth is our story is one of overcoming. I can see you're beginning to get frustrated and desperate, with your responses becoming even more banal and insulting than usual. It's pretty sad. Look how long you'll argue without simply conceding that you're not equipped to participate in this debate. It's actually funny.

Although some settlements are certainly established without practical purposes, the vast majority of Jewish communities across the 1949 armistice-lines serve several essentials purposes. If the PA actually expects to have certain lands given to them as part of some peace agreement, then it should not make a difference whether or not there is construction on it with Jewish residents. If they believe they can make a legitimate claim to certain lands, then these lands will be ceded to them in a future peace deal - with or without settlements and with or without settlers. By screaming that settlement developments destroy the prospects of peace, they are indirectly conceding that settlements will never be relinquished as part of some final status agreement (ignoring the fact that Israel has withdrawn from settlements in the past). If anything, the PA is using the settlements issue as an excuse to not sit at the table and negotiate. Moreover, it is essential to understand that the PA cries wolf when construction takes place in lands that will never, ever, ever be relinquished for any reason. The neighbourhoods surrounding Jerusalem, primarily, are integral to the city and will never be severed. The PA knows this. We know this. Yet people like you do not, and the PA continues to cry about necessary construction that takes place to address natural growth in our capital. Basically, the PA is making demands it knows fully will not and cannot be met - for every imaginable reason: security, economics, social needs, and everything in between. Although the Israeli leadership isn't doing this, imagine that it set out a specific precondition for negotiations: recognition of Israel as a Jewish state. All Jews know that the Arabs and Muslim will NEVER acknowledge Jewish independence in Israel. They completely oppose Zionism and view every inch of Israel as Arab/Muslim land. We know that recognition of Jewish independence, although important symbolically and practically, goes against every fibre of the Arab narrative. This demand would mean one thing - no possibility of negotiations. The truth being, negotiations can and should continue even in the absence of Arab/Muslim recognition of inalienable Jewish national rights. Israeli leadership would be stupid to set out such a precondition for negotiations. But that is exactly what the PA is demanding in this situation - a cease of necessary and natural developments in Jewish communities as a precondition for negotiations. They're knowingly making an impossible demand. The PA knows this need cannot be met, yet it makes this demand for one reason: to play politics and portray Israel as the party that doesn't want peace. The government cannot and should not force Jerusalem to not build in its own communities. The "settlements" are vital communities and integral to the life of Jerusalem, with schools, hospitals, synagogues, apartments, businesses, governmental offices, civil infrastructure, and everything else. People like you refer to these places as "settlements" without having the faintest idea what these places are (for the most part) - Jewish communities with hundreds of thousands of residents in vital areas surrounding Jerusalem. They flip out over the most outrageous things. The restoration of a synagogue in the Jewish Quarter of the Old City, dating back hundreds of years and destroyed and desecrated by the Arabs during the Jordanian occupation of the Old City between 1949 and 1967, caused major riots and violence among the Arabs in Jerusalem. Imagine that, a restoration of a synagogue in the Jewish Quarter of the Old City - how offensive! According to many, the Old City is also "occupied territory) as it was occupied by Jordan before being liberated in the Six-Day War. I use this example because it was recent, back in March of last year. There are countless examples of Arab spin on Jewish developments in order to incite and provoke. This is the same game the PA is playing, and you have fallen for it hook, line, and sinker. The least the PA can do is sit down and negotiate. But they can't even do that. And according to your spin, they're making the right choice. Ridiculous. Lastly, I make these posts for those who might actually be interested in learning a thing or two about reality, rather than read your vapid rhetoric-filled posts. Don't think I didn't realize long ago that you are in no position to be speaking on these issues.

Definitely. I really don't know how to reply to his statement. But does anything really need to be said beyond your reply? When digging deeper and getting to fundamentals with TrueMetis, he will typically reveal himself for the ideologue he is.

It's relevant to their claimed fundamental grievances. The Palestinians commemorate the Nakba annually, in direct contrast to our celebration of the anniversary of Jewish independence. It's directly connected to core issues such as refugees and Jerusalem. The policies towards ensuring that Israel remains Jewish will be another point of conflict between the Jewish people and our enemies who wish to see us washed away. It's not irrelevant. That being said, negotiations should not be held up because of this lack of recognition. The truth is, we don't need anyone's recognition to actualize our fundamental rights. That Israeli leadership isn't demanding recognition of Jewish independence as a precondition for negotiations, though. We're not the ones derailing negotiations on a secondary-issue.

The PA may be more moderate than before, but that doesn't say much. The PA stills rejects the legitimacy of Jewish independence via statehood in Israel. There are endless examples of PA intransigence and incitement. They still name name streets after suicide-bombers. They still spread anti-Semitism through official channels (state-media, schools, public pronouncements). Abu Mazen's thesis in university was Holocaust-denial "light". Prominent personalities such as Saeb Erekat and Mustafa Barghouti still incite against Israel with deceitful rhetoric on a daily basis. You don't pay enough attention to have a valid opinion on the degree of "moderation" of the current PA leadership. They're certainly not moderate. Being more moderate than Arafat by not blatantly calling for intifadas every other day doesn't really impress us. Anyways, you're continuing with the typical lies about Israeli leadership being the obstacle to peace. Of course it's Israel, as the PA always operates in good will. And when the PA messes up, they can't be blamed because they're under "occupation". You also completely ignore the context of the occupation, forgetting that there was no occupation between 1949 and 1967, so why did we see hundreds of terrorist acts then? Do I even need to mention anti-Semitic murder-sprees from Arabs in the pre-Israel Palestine Mandate? The violence started close to a century before any occupation came around. It's tiring following you around and correcting all your lies and ignorance.

I can assure you there are similarities in the Jewish population, as well. You think Netanyahu can command the following of the majority of the Jewish population? Granted, we're certainly not terrorists and won't go around blowing up buses in rejection of the offers made by the Israeli leadership, but Israel doesn't have the leader it needs in Netanyahu - the leader that can command the following of his Jewish citizens. And as time goes on, the patience and the hopes among the Jewish population dwindle. We're becoming less and less willing to make sacrifices because we don't believe we will achieve true peace. We're very fragmented and angry. It's really tragic. In my mind, the Vegas odds on serious progress on final status issues are a million-to-one. I'm also not sure you can say Israel rejected the deal, as no deal was made. There are core issues that seemingly cannot be resolved. Temple Mount/Western Wall, settlements around Jerusalem, refugees, removal of Arab citizenship from Israel (transfer of Arab territories to Palestinian sovereignty), Hebron, Gaza, etc... Neither or of can reconcile, so the status quo continues (hopefully with improvements for the Jewish population). As far as security goes, even if the PA cannot guarantee security and compliance of the Palestinian population, a deal is still the best option is possible. We have agreements with Egypt and Jordan, despite popular public anti-Semitic opinion among the Arabs/Muslims. Even without popular support, an agreed to set of parameters is on our best interests.

What reduction in violence are you talking about? Jews are still being murdered because they're Jewish. Just because you don't read the news doesn't mean these things aren't happening. The threats we face are still huge, and any temporary reduction in violence is certainly not attributable to the PA's efforts in any significant manner. Slowly but surely, we are sealing them off from us through the security barrier. That alone has been the most successful tool in recent years to curb terrorism from within. I won't even get into the major threats we face through collusion between Palestinian terrorists in Judea and Samaria with their allies in Lebanon, Gaza, Syria, Iran, and other Arab-Muslim countries. You speak of these "settlements" as if they are isolated communities that can simply be "stopped". Of course they grow, there are people living there and families that have children. This is normal. What you also don't understand is that the vast majority of these "settlements" are parts of Jerusalem. Just because they are beyond ceasefire lines established 60 years ago doesn't mean they're not integral parts of our communities. When doing urban planning on a hillside or in a valley, you think we're going to stop along some ceasefire line and make urban planning even more of a nightmare than it already is in Jerusalem? This isn't the Ottawa-Valley, it's difficult to build here, and Jerusalem is a growing city with massive shortages of land available for development. There's already a housing crisis in here, and we're not going to make it worse because some Arabs say these hills belong to them. It's ridiculous to listen to people like you, thousands of miles away, speak about these "settlements" so passionately. You couldn't even name two settlements, let alone understand how integrated and essential they are to Jerusalem and our Jewish communities.

You're disputing this? Will you now show me where the PA demonstrated that it would recognize Jewish independence in Israel? Go ahead, show me the leaked documents from The Guardian or Al-Jazeera where Abu Mazen and his team of peace-makers stated their willingness to recognize Israel as the Jewish state. Prove me wrong.

Really? Which books have you read about Israel's negotiations with the Palestinians?

Thanks for that expert analysis, bud. Although your entire post is filled with silly editorializing, the most important mistake was the statement that the PA is willing to recognize Jewish independence and self-determination via Israel. The PA will never recognize Israel as a Jewish state and the legitimacy of the Zionist mission. Feel free to show us the allegedly leaked documents that demonstrate the PA's willingness to recognize Jewish national rights in Israel.

You're certainly not aware of any peace attempts. You've never read any of the details of the negotiations from any source. Why are you pretending otherwise? Why are you afraid to admit that you don't know much about this subject? Not being knowledgeable about the details of historical negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians doesn't make you a bad person, you know... Stop pretending, you and I both know you have no facts without running to Wikipedia. As far as "the world getting sick of all of us idiots", are you gonna pick up a gun and come pay us a visit? Or are you not a part of that world? Spare us the tough-guy talk. Nobody will force us to do anything. We're not the harmless Jews the world has gotten accustomed to, and we'll fight for our basic rights. And spare us the constant calls to "international law", which we all know is a synonym for anti-Semitic UN-politics advanced by the Arabs and their political allies. You think we're surprised that in a world where we compose a fraction of a percent of the total population our interests are neglected by "international institutions"? As usual, speaking with you a complete waste of time which immediately spirals into generalized anti-Israel rhetoric.

The "settlement" I live in, and all the major blocks around Jerusalem aren't up for negotiation for many reasons. They are essential to our security, population, business, and overall community. The 1949-armistice lines aren't borders, and if you actually knew the first thing about Jerusalem and walked through beautiful neighbourhoods ("settlements") which used to be no-man's-land, you'd realize how absurd those lines were. These are just things you can't understand unless you actually spend time looking at maps, as well as walking through the neighbourhoods. The bottom line, they're not going anywhere for many good reasons. If the recent "Palestine Papers" from Wikileaks are accurate, even the ridiculous PA has reconciled itself to some of these realities.

Depends on which settlements you're talking about. 97% of the West Bank was offered several times during several discussions. The most well-known example being Barak's offer at Taba. You're just speaking in broad generalities because you don't know any of the details and haven't done any research. As far as our capital, that ain't changing. That's something you'll most likely not see a resolution on. In the words of Aaron David Miller, the parties involved will not allow Jerusalem to be sliced up like a piece of salami, especially not the Temple Mount.

Depends which Israeli policy you're talking about. Nothing will stop us from building in our capital, but if the Arabs want looser security restrictions the answer is simple - stop terrorism.

I'm under the impression that the status quo is giving light sentences. Consider that Karla Homolka was released after twelve years. Granted, it was a plea deal. I have a feeling it'd be very easy to find many example of absurdly lenient sentencing - I have personal examples I can share, as well.

I specifically stated that I was talking about the most reprehensible criminals. You approve of people like Bernardo being eligible for parole after 25 years? Bear in mind, that many serious offences committed by repeat offenders are eligible for parole after less than 25 years. You're ok with that? I think people like Bernardo, at a minimum, should never be eligible for parole.

I didn't say that, did I? And you didn't answer the question...