UN Study shows 39% of Israeli Settlements...

[DogOnPorch]

You never said otherwise either.

Thank you for supporting the only plan that will reduce Hamas' long-term influence and contribute to long-term peace and stability for Israelis and Palestinians - thank you for supporting the end of the Israeli occupation of Palestine.

So you support slavery? I didn't see you saying otherwise, either.

I support the destruction of Hamas. How that is accomplished isn't up to me.

---------------------------------------------

When I was a little bitty baby

My mama would rock me in the cradle

In them old cotton fields back home

It was down in Louisiana

Just a mile from Texarkana

In them old cotton fields back home--

---Leadbelly

Edited February 12, 2009 by DogOnPorch

[Rue]

Did "Greece" attempt to destroy this hypothetical Arab country recently?

------------------------------------

This here's Miss Bonnie Parker. I'm Clyde Barrow. We rob banks.

If Israel had intended to destroy Gaza then why is it still there. It is this kind of hyperbole and political rhetoric that becomes tiresome.

By the way there is no country. Teh alleged sovereign state of Palestine does not yet exist because Hamas and the P.A. can not agree on anything.

If Hamas was serious on forming a sovereign state in the Gaza and West Bank it would not cling to this idiocy of crying out as of today as we speak that the only solution is to give it all of Jordan, Israel as well as the West Bank and Gaza and turn that into a Muslim theocracy.

Of course you forget that right. The fact that Hamas has an open and continuing policy to wipe Israel off the map, oh let us just be selective about that right?

Rhetoric. Meaningless rhetoric.

[Rue]

If someone is genuinely interested in the complex series of international and domestic laws and treaties that attach to the land ownership issues and conflcits on the West Bank I have prepared a list of web-sites for you:

Here are two summaries of most of the laws and treaties:

http://www.fao.org/docrep/005/Y8999T/y8999t0f.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International...sraeli_conflict

Here is a bibliography of some of the many papers on the laws regarding land rights:

http://www.law.du.edu/latcrit/documents/es...ennedy_2007.pdf

Now for those who insist on trying to exploit the land rights conflict on the West Bank by using rhetoric to incite resentment against Israel and reduce this complex issue to the usual Israel is bad and evil and an international war criminal partisan exercise if they are interested there is another side of the arguement.

The official Israeli government position on settlements in the West Bank can be found at:

http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/Government/Law/L...INTERNATION.htm

http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/MFAArchive/2000_...bout%20the%20We

A summary of the legal arguement which states Israeli settlement on the West Bank is not illegal can be found at:

http://www.jcpa.org/brief/brief2-16.htm and http://www.acpr.org.il/madorim/0811-bikoret-mdannE.pdf

A politically neutral article explaining how Israeli domestic laws operate with land rights on the West Bank can be found at:

http://inscribe.iupress.org/doi/abs/10.297...journalCode=isr

I also recommend you looking at this NEUTRAL SYNOPSIS OF THE LAND DISPUTE ISSUES ON THE WEST BANK:

http://israelipalestinian.procon.org/viewa...?questionID=533.

Trying to discuss the complex conflict in regards to land ownership rights on the West Bank requires taking into consideration a very extensive series of competing and multi-layered legal doctrines.

I would contend engaging in political rhetoric to reduce them to rigid, simplistic, black and white labels to incite Israel evil Palestine victim sentiment is not productive nor does it do anything but misrepresent and distort the complexity of the dispute because of politically partisan agendas that wish to only present one version of interpretation of the conflict.

In an effort to confront the rhetoric and name calling and challenge people to debate and discuss these issues and keep their own political biases out of their examination of the legal doctrine, I encourage people when they do research on this topic to not simply pull an article you agree with out of context and assume the issue ends there.

Edited February 13, 2009 by Rue

[Rue]

In my personal opinion I believe Israel's continued expansion and settlement policies on the West Bank create major obstacles to achieving a full and comprehensive peace settlement with Palestinians. That is a personal political opinion. It is not a legal opinion.

The law as to who has the legal right to do what I would contend is so complex because of the overlapping domestic and international legal issues it defies a simple opinion. According to the law there are equal sets of rights that in an overall peace settlement would have to be balanced and the only way to balance them would be through negotiations to achieve compromise and trading off certain rights to be entitled to others.

Certain legal issues would entail exclusive interests (where only one side can enjoy the right, i.e., private ownership of land ), other issues would entail mutual interests ( rights that could exist simultaneously or be shared, i.e., access to water, access to work or free trade, security) and others would deal with rights that might be mixed interests (one side willing to trade away a right to get another, i.e., Israel gives up settlements on the West Bank in return for Palestinians relinquishing certain land rights within Israel).

I would also repeat as I have in many other posts, what Israel has done illegally on the West Bank according to international law is in governing Israeli citizens on the West Bank through its civilian government but at the same time governing Palestinians of the West Bank through its military administration and government.

Under international law anyone on the West Bank should be administered by the same military administration.

In regards to whether the actual settlements are illegal or not, there is considerable contraversy as to how to apply the 4th Geneva Convention among other international doctrines.

There is a repeated myth that Israel occupes the West Bank. A sovereign nation can't occupy something that is not a sovereign state or has never been an occupied state. That is a misuse of the international legal concept of occupation because most people use it in the layman sense, i.e., you are physically there, so you occupy it.

In fact the word is so misused certain NGO's now regularly engage in its misuse.

Since the West Bank was never a sovereign nation any land rights of Palestinians will flow from the interim agreements the Palestinian Authority signed with Israel or undistirbed and continuous use or occupation of land by private citizens.

While many start with the assumption the West Bank always belonged to Palestinians, that is a political concept, not a legal one. The right of a state to exist and obtain sovereignty of the land defined within its borders and for that matter ownership of land is established when in conflict or in the absence of legal title by uninterupted or uncontested possession or use of the land.

This is why for example in Canada's North numerous nations are now trying to asset the right to access the Northern portions of our country arguing Canada has never established continued use of such land.

What complicates matters on the West Bank is that technically the creation of Jordan was illegal although under international law it has become legal but the borders between Israel and Jordan have never been legally defined. Technically Jordan and Egypt although they have entered peace agreements with Israel do not recognize where its borders should be and so Jordan as much as Israel does not know where the borders with a sovereign nation on the West Bank should be.

Any negotiation as to land and sovereignty rights with the West Bank deals with not just Israel and Palestinians but Jordan. There are also Jews who have lived on the West Bank uninterupted since the Biblical days and some would not recognize any Israeli state due to their ultra-orthodox beliefs while others believe in the right of the State of Israel to exist and believe their uninterupted enjoyment of land on the West Bank gives them a right that should not be ignored.

Things are further complicated by internal land right disputes between Israeli Muslims and other Israelis that over-lap with the land rights issues on the West Bank and may have to be relinquished as part of an overall compromise to balance the collective legal rights of both Israelis and Palestinians.

[DogOnPorch]

Rue, dub was using a hypothetical situation where the Arab's role is reversed. My response re: Greece trying to destroy this "Arab country" was alluding to the Yom Kippur War/October War where Arab armies attempted to invade Israel...again.

If Hamas was serious on forming a sovereign state in the Gaza and West Bank it would not cling to this idiocy of crying out as of today as we speak that the only solution is to give it all of Jordan, Israel as well as the West Bank and Gaza and turn that into a Muslim theocracy.

Of course you forget that right. The fact that Hamas has an open and continuing policy to wipe Israel off the map, oh let us just be selective about that right?

Rhetoric. Meaningless rhetoric.

Rue...see my response just below your first post...I bet we have quite a lot of family history in common.

DogOnPorch: I support the destruction of Hamas. How that is accomplished isn't up to me.

Hamas and Hezbollah blow...each other.

----------------------------------

The dog that trots about finds a bone.

---Golda Meir

[Rue]

I apologize for my misunderstanding D on the Porch.

Further to the discussion;

Not withstanding the rhetoric that reduces any ownership of land on the West Bank by Israelis to automatically be illegal under international law the actual legal determination as to rightful legal ownership to the land will be a hell of a complex mess because:

1-since collective Palestinian legal rights to control land only arose in 1994 with the interim agreement arrived at by Israel and the Palestinian Authority whereby Israel transferred control of land ownership of 30% of the West Bank to the PA-the remaining 70% still is subject to confusion as to who will be deemed to own it;

2- prior to the above agreement and after Israel took occupation of the West Bank, Palestinians began selling their land on the West Bank to either the Israeli government or individual Israelis;

3- for example the Hemanuta Company, a subsidiary of the Jewish National Fund, began purchasing land from Palestinians on the West Bank in 1971 and sales to private Israelis started in 1979;

4- Hemanuta now claims it holds title to the land on where the Palestinian refugee camp of Deheisheh, near Bethlehem is situated exists as well as a large area between the town of Bethlehem and the settlement of Gilo;

5-prior to Israel’s occupation of the West Bank in 1967, Jordan had passed a law deeming any sale of West Bank land by a Palestinian to Israelis a crime punishable by death and from 1973-87 about 100 people were sentenced by Jordanian courts to death in absentia (they all left with their money to the U.S. or other countries);

6-the PLO and then the PA as well as the many individual Palestinian terror cells also declared/imposed their own death penalties for such sales, including land in Jerusalem;

7-once the Palestinian Authority came into effect in 1994, the PA took full control of registering land in the areas under its civil control according to Jordanian procedures and land records turned over by the Israelis however sale of Palestinian land on the West Bank to Israelis by Palestinians has continued since 1967;

8- for example the Bat-Hen Tshuva Group raised $35m from foreign Jews in autumn 1996 and purchase land on the West Bank, East Jerusalem and near Hebron and it paid

9-under Jordanian, Israeli and for that matter international law, land purchased by individual Israelis can be claimed by the state Israel;

10-complicating the above private transactions was a series of developments that arose in the early 1980’s whereby wide spread confusion as to which Palestinians owned what became wide-spread due to the lack of accurate title documents or suspected forged documents;

11-the Israeli government announced in the early 1980’s that any land on the West Bank not being cultivated by a Palestinian or did not have a legal deed was considered “state property”;

12-not withstanding the above following the Muslim law concept of wikala dawriyya which allows a land-owner to dispose of land to any agent, Israel looked the other way and allowed Palestinian landowners without proper title documentation to sell “unsellable” land to Israel or Israelis with many of these sales not being registered;

13- it appears many of these Wikala dawriyya documents were forged or used to sell the same piece of land more than once and one factor that fueled the use of forged land records were Palestinians trying to obtain visas to the US and who realized showing they owned property boosted their chances of getting a visa;

14- so in fact since 1967 there has been a continuous series of sales by private Palestinians to Israelis or the state of Israel which are not necessarily illegal or would be dismissed as illegal under international law-in fact boundary and inheritance disputes between Palestinians has also been exasperated by non-existent or questionable land sales and records;

15-under Jordanian, Israel and international law title to ownership will depend on a wide range of factors and international law does not have a concept that automatically deems private land sales transactions illegal-those engaged in rhetoric and say Israel illegally occupies the West Bank do so because they have no idea that Israelis did not just show up one day and squat, they came only after the land they are now situated on was paid for to Palestinians-that is something selectively ignored by those who think this matter is black and white or who will simply say if land was sold to an Israeli it is an illegal sale-that is not how international law works-if someone in fact did pay money to someone for land that payment is considered relevant in determining ownership it is not simply dismissed if nothing else the money paid for the land has to be paid back to the Israeli if the land is to be taken back;

16- further complicating the legal issue is the fact under international law land purchased by individual Israelis can be claimed by the state Israel under international law as forming part of its state.

This is why I have stated time and time again, to reduce the land rights disputes on the West Bank as to invading Israelis who just showed up and seized land and stayed there is an idiotic and simplistic misrepresentation of the complex series of non stop sales transactions that transferred land ownership.

If someone is to argue these transactions were illegal they would have to prove this-in anticipation of this Israel made a point of documenting the sale transactions and storing the documents in safe keeping and sent researchers to Turkey to trace back the sales transactions to make sure the owners who sold them had the legal right to sell what they did.

So Israel does in fact have a legal right to establish sovereignty over West Bank land because of these private transactions and it will be up to the Palestinian Authority or Amnesty International or Human Rights Watch or Higgly to prove otherwise. Quoting a Washington Post article or UN study may or may not be germaine to the determination of land title.

The PA is well aware of the above predicament and this is why it has a vested interest in having Israel trade off any land rights on the West Bank purchased legally in return for a peace settlement with Israel.

Not withstanding the extremist Jewish settlers and extremist terror elements on the West Bank the practical reality of the situation may yet dictate the need for a rational negotiated outcome in spite of those who want to yell and scream.

From a purely practical point of view Palestinians need somewhere to live and Israel can not indefinitely occupy the West Bank but not not consider it part of the state of Israel which is what it is doing.

Israel has never annexed or absorbed the West Bank because that would mean it would have to offer all West Bank Palestinians citizenship which it is not willing to do for obvious reasons.

I would suggest Likud's approach of this continued indefinite stalemate is just not going to wash and Netanyahu knows it and if he does become PM he will have to negotiate no different then Tzipi L. did despite any speeches he gave to the contrary for domestic consumption during the recent election in Israel.

It is a massive legal mess. A big quick sand pit.

Edited February 13, 2009 by Rue

[DogOnPorch]

I apologize for my misunderstanding D on the Porch.

No worries, my friend. I sent you a PM.

[myata]

Hi Rue,

no amount of legalistic mumbo jumbo can make kicking people out of their homes, and proclaiming it property of a foregn state, a legal business. By the way, ownership of land, and its political sovereignty are two hugely different things. Or half of Florida would be long declared a hopscotch of foreign countries. But of course everybody already knows that.. or at least suspects.. do they?

It appears that the chief idea here is the Step #3 (yes, from that (in)famous strategy, Grab-Hold-Make justifications).

[Oleg Bach]

Hi Rue,

no amount of legalistic mumbo jumbo can make kicking people out of their homes, and proclaiming it property of a foregn state, a legal business. By the way, ownership of land, and its political sovereignty are two hugely different things. Or half of Florida would be long declared a hopscotch of foreign countries. But of course everybody already knows that.. or at least suspects.. do they?

It appears that the chief idea here is the Step #3 (yes, from that (in)famous strategy, Grab-Hold-Make justifications).

I understand you have a very nice cottage - I would really like to live there and be moved in before spring so I could fish - so you don't mind getting out for a few years...I am special...I am a Christain ---superiour to you my pagan friend - and I have been choosen by God --- so get the hell off your land - coz' now baby - daddy has come home after 2000 years....and I want what's mine --- besides....I need to undermine buisness at the other end of the lake were the marina is ---- ESSO needs it shut down...

[Rue]

Hi Rue,

no amount of legalistic mumbo jumbo can make kicking people out of their homes, and proclaiming it property of a foregn state, a legal business. By the way, ownership of land, and its political sovereignty are two hugely different things. Or half of Florida would be long declared a hopscotch of foreign countries. But of course everybody already knows that.. or at least suspects.. do they?

It appears that the chief idea here is the Step #3 (yes, from that (in)famous strategy, Grab-Hold-Make justifications).

Hang on now. Let us once you and me put the emotion aside on this mess we are talking about.

Private purchase of land from Palestinians on the West Bank may or may not be legal. It will depend on each individual transaction and whether the person who sold the land had proper title to it in the first place and then whether they did so with full legal capacity. If yes to both counts, then it would be a legal purchase and transfer of ownership and no that is not mumbo jumbo it is how the law works and international law would have no choice but to recognize the land title of the person who legitimately has it.

That is why this mess is so complicated. Some of the sales may have been fraudulent, others legitimate and some may have been compelled through coercion. You and I do not know.

As for sovereignty, that notion deals with the right to be a state and promulgate laws. If for example a state came about on the West Bank, that nation could have the authority to unilaterally exprioriate lands for state security, use of public utilities, roads, railways, airports and government functions, but if it simply seized legall owned land of Israels and gave them to Palestinians yes those Israelis would have an international legal right to seek compensation and under domestic laws might have that right as well.

This is why for example within Israel proper, the Israeli Supreme Court for example has recognized the right of Israeli Muslims or Arabs who lost their land to expropriation the right to compensation.

Now in a black and white world, Palestine becomes a nation and all Israelis sent back to Israel with ze4ro compensation. However if that happens then Israeli Arabs who claim to be the descendants of Palestinians who chose to stay behind in Israel and become citizens what becomes of their right to compensation?

In a black and white world of partisan politics, some of us just see this from one perspective and say any Arab in the Middle East has rights, any Israeli Jew does not but in the real world of law, both parties are considered to have equally as legitimate and competing rights to private title ownership as well as the right to a sovereign state.

This is why I have stated its not an easy legal situation and no the law is not mumbo jumbo. That mumbo jumbo is the difference between violence and terror and civilized humans finding an orderly, peaceful way of assuring competing rights can be fairly balanced.

During talks as to a two party state solution, most parties conceded on both sides that if Jewish settlements were to be given back to the Palestinian Authority this would necessarily have to be related and traded off with the claims of Israeli Arabs to land within Israel proper.

In addition the rights of Israelis who were thrown out of the Arab League nations to compensation would also have to be relinquished.

It is a matter of saying the past can not be undone but the future can be commenced from a fresh start.

Terrorism and Muslim and Jewish extremists do not and have not helped the matter. They are the loud noise and violence that attracts everyone's attention and dominate the political scenarios but the fact remains the vast majority of Palestinians and Israelis just want to be able to live in peace and without violence. No one speaks for them because they do not make noise or attract attention-they just carry on day to day the best they can.

I am not interested in divisive rhetoric and name calling. I am not interested in extreme religious beliefs and those who believe in violence and terror.

I am interested in using the law and concepts of fairness to try create solutions so that two peoples can live side by side.

In that regard this conflict is no different then the one native peoples in Canada face when they try enforce their rights. Rhetoric and partisan politics often dominate the dialogue but it is the law and rational people dettaching from their emotion and trying to be balanced and fair that make the future possible without war or violence.

That is why in these discussions I counter the partisan talk when it is anti-Israeli but I also am not afraid to be fair and state, as in this case, no the current status quo on the West Bank is not a good thing-it is an obstacle to peace and it exasperates attempts to arrive at a peaceful settlement and yes Israeli policies on the West Bank have been questionable and I personally believe they have created a nightmare now for Israel.

Even if Israel wants to withdraw these settlers it will have a huge internal uprising on its hands which will divide its armed forces asked to go in and enforce the withdrawal and incite some of its right wing religious extremists-the same camp that called Rabin a traitor and consider Tzipi Levni and Ehud Barak fools.

On the Palestinian side of the spectrum the Palestinian Authority is a weak barely held together network of competing cells, many terrorist in agenda and many corupt. Mr. Abbas barely holds his office. He has little power and I would remind you he is not the peaceful moderate saint the media portrays him as being.

There are many obstacles involved in finding a fair solution but if we are to find one Myata let us once discuss this from a politically neutral perspective and call it what it is-a chaotic mess with no simple black and white explanations or solutions.

[myata]

Like, "my" state can expropriate land from "your" state, for security, roads, etc, and call it legal and justifiable? Right. Can "their" do the same, no? Why?

Or yes, they can (according to your own logic). If they can.

See Rue, this isn't about legalities, but what one one can (and cannot) do. Grab-Hold-Justify.

Hint: the recipe for the peace isn't a secret. It's out there. If there was one party genuinly interested in lasted peace, they would have accepted it without caveats and conditions. That's how everybody else would come to know that they are seriously and genuinly interested in lasting peace.

[JB Globe]

I support the destruction of Hamas. How that is accomplished isn't up to me.

I'd ask you why you're consistently vague when pressed for your position, but I have a feeling you'd refuse to answer, therefor, you leave me no choice but to draw my own conclusions.

Committing to a end, then refusing to commit to any means to that end. Therefor when a certain means works you can latch onto it as an example of why you were right, but if it fails you can say you never supported that means.

Essentially, your vagueness is an attempt to insulate yourself from being proven wrong.

I'm sure the answer you're going to give is "Well it's not my country, so who am I to tell Israelis what to do." Of course, you ARE telling them what to do, you're saying "destroy Hamas" you're just not wanting to say HOW exactly because of the reasons I mentioned above. And yes, saying "destroy Hamas" IS a position in and of itself, because the destruction of Hamas can only be accomplished through full-scale military action that directly targets the civilian population as well, because as we've seen, simply targeting Hamas targets doesn't work.

I mean really, accountability to one's own opinions shouldn't be such a radical concept.

[DogOnPorch]

I'd ask you why you're consistently vague when pressed for your position, but I have a feeling you'd refuse to answer, therefor, you leave me no choice but to draw my own conclusions.

Committing to a end, then refusing to commit to any means to that end. Therefor when a certain means works you can latch onto it as an example of why you were right, but if it fails you can say you never supported that means.

Essentially, your vagueness is an attempt to insulate yourself from being proven wrong.

I'm sure the answer you're going to give is "Well it's not my country, so who am I to tell Israelis what to do." Of course, you ARE telling them what to do, you're saying "destroy Hamas" you're just not wanting to say HOW exactly because of the reasons I mentioned above. And yes, saying "destroy Hamas" IS a position in and of itself, because the destruction of Hamas can only be accomplished through full-scale military action that directly targets the civilian population as well, because as we've seen, simply targeting Hamas targets doesn't work.

I mean really, accountability to one's own opinions shouldn't be such a radical concept.

Maybe you should grab a plane to the Holy Land yourself. Hamas need manpower and money. Perhaps you could provide both.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Nobody goes through life without a scar.

---Carol Burnett

[DogOnPorch]

Yunis Al-Astal, Hamas MP and cleric: "Allah has chosen you for Himself and for His religion, so that you will serve as the engine pulling this nation to the phase of succession, security, and consolidation of power, and even to conquests thorough da'wa and military conquests of the capitals of the entire world.

"Very soon, Allah willing, Rome will be conquered, just like Constantinople was, as was prophesized by our Prophet Muhammad.

"Today, Rome is the capital of the Catholics, or the Crusader capital, which has declared its hostility to Islam, and has planted the brothers of apes and pigs in Palestine in order to prevent the reawakening of Islam. This capital of theirs will be an advanced post for the Islamic conquests, which will spread through Europe in its entirety, and then will turn to the two Americas, and even Eastern Europe.

"I believe that our children, or our grandchildren, will inherit our jihad and our sacrifices, and, Allah willing, the commanders of the conquest will come from among them.

"Today, we instill these good tidings in their souls - and by means of the mosques and the Koran books, and the history of our Prophets, his companions, and the great leaders, we prepare them for the mission of saving humanity from the hellfire at whose brink they stand."

Sieg Heil!

-----------------------------

Die Straße frei

Den braunen Bataillonen

Die Straße frei

Dem Sturmabteilungsmann!

Edited February 15, 2009 by DogOnPorch

[JB Globe]

Maybe you should grab a plane to the Holy Land yourself. Hamas need manpower and money. Perhaps you could provide both.

So long as you engage in troll-like behaviour, I'm not going to bother with you anymore.

If you ever change your ways and start acting like an adult, let me know and then we can have a discussion like two human beings.

[Rue]

Like, "my" state can expropriate land from "your" state, for security, roads, etc, and call it legal and justifiable? Right. Can "their" do the same, no? Why?

Or yes, they can (according to your own logic). If they can.

See Rue, this isn't about legalities, but what one one can (and cannot) do. Grab-Hold-Justify.

Hint: the recipe for the peace isn't a secret. It's out there. If there was one party genuinly interested in lasted peace, they would have accepted it without caveats and conditions. That's how everybody else would come to know that they are seriously and genuinly interested in lasting peace.

Myata we respectfully are probably always going to disagree for obvious reasons but I will not engage you in the usual tit for tat on this one. At least I can do that.

What I am conceding as a well known supporter of Israel however is that the policies of the Israeli government on the West Bank have been flawed and they are an obstacle to peace. I have tried to explain the complexity of the legal problems in an apolitical way and in a manner most Israelis have been willing to speak about the same way-not to justify the mistakes but to acknowledge them.

I can onkly remind you time and time again in surveys the vast majority of Israelis are willing to trade land for peace.

Myata I have been on the West Bank and I know how toxic the situation is to Palestinians.

I am not trying to give you the usual one sided rhetoric on this matter. That is all I can do.

I have seen bad shit from the PLO and Palestinian extremists, now PA officials and their corupt shake downs of poor Palestinian farmers and extremist Jewish settlers and constant tension at the check-points that humiliate and incite further resentment.

Yes there is a lot of political anger to deal with and people to ask to stand down. I am not holding my breath. I know you disagree but I think Tzipi Levni had and has the balls to see the Israeli side through to peaceful negotiations. I am not sure if they kill Abbas before this is over but I hope not.

I also think and I know you won't agree that Netanyahu when the doors are closed and he does not have to sound bellicose for domestic consumption is not as extreme as the media would suggest he is although I personally am not and will never be a Likud supporter and will always be a Kadima Levni supporter.

I do not like his politics but beneath the beligerent and bellicose words is someone who is no idiot and will not allow any extremist Jewish or Muslim, Israeli or Palestinian dictate his policies but yes I concede trying to pull out Jewish settlers would be no easy political task.

My gut reaction is if it ever came to that Likud, Kadima, Labour would form a unity government to see that through but that is a long way off.

That legal mumbo jumbo I told you about, that believe it or not has to be sorted through and it can be.

Myata there was a time when the IDF and PLO worked together on the West Bank delivering medical supplies and water to local Palestinians. I witnessed it. It hasn't all been insanity and all I can do is forcus on the positive for now as naive as that sounds. The alternative just doesn't do anything but fuel name calling and hatred.

Edited February 16, 2009 by Rue

[Oleg Bach]

So long as you engage in troll-like behaviour, I'm not going to bother with you anymore.

If you ever change your ways and start acting like an adult, let me know and then we can have a discussion like two human beings.

There is cynical dry humor and then there is a lack of imagination and ameteur provocateurs who just like to engage for the thrill of a reaction.. You would think that he could have at least been entertaining some what?

[myata]

I can onkly remind you time and time again in surveys the vast majority of Israelis are willing to trade land for peace.

And I, frankly, find the whole formula in some respects, ridiculous, and in other - outrageous. How could one "trade" something that never belonged to them in the first place? Logically, one could either try to force their ways upon others, or agree upon something that is acceptable to both parties. What kind of strategy is "land for peace"?

Lets' see: the lands were never Israel's, and in the view of many many questions with the way the state was created, neither was the claim to peace. No, seriously, how could one (credibly) claim peaceful coexistence, if they just moved into somebody's house and kicked the previous owners out by force?

So are they really trying to find a working solution? Or simply get something (peace) for nothing (lands that aren't their to give)?

Yes there is a lot of political anger to deal with and people to ask to stand down. I am not holding my breath. I know you disagree but I think Tzipi Levni had and has the balls to see the Israeli side through to peaceful negotiations. I am not sure if they kill Abbas before this is over but I hope not.

Think in long terms, historic terms. Look e.g. at Northern Ireland. It took ten generations or so, to only start approaching resolution of a similar, albeit smaller in impact and ferocity, conflict. Each time Israel attmpts to build more settlements, expropriate more Palestinian lands, they reset the hands back to square one (i.e generation 0). With the attitude the parties show, I wouldn't hope on any of the living politicians to see resolution through peaceful negotiations. Hope I'm wrong.

[Oleg Bach]

And I, frankly, find the whole formula in some respects, ridiculous, and in other - outrageous. How could one "trade" something that never belonged to them in the first place? Logically, one could either try to force their ways upon others, or agree upon something that is acceptable to both parties. What kind of strategy is "land for peace"?

Lets' see: the lands were never Israel's, and in the view of many many questions with the way the state was created, neither was the claim to peace. No, seriously, how could one (credibly) claim peaceful coexistence, if they just moved into somebody's house and kicked the previous owners out by force?

So are they really trying to find a working solution? Or simply get something (peace) for nothing (lands that aren't their to give)?

Think in long terms, historic terms. Look e.g. at Northern Ireland. It took ten generations or so, to only start approaching resolution of a similar, albeit smaller in impact and ferocity, conflict. Each time Israel attmpts to build more settlements, expropriate more Palestinian lands, they reset the hands back to square one (i.e generation 0). With the attitude the parties show, I wouldn't hope on any of the living politicians to see resolution through peaceful negotiations. Hope I'm wrong.

Ireland is a good example of high level deception --- after all was said and done - it was found that the senior heads of the IRA...were well paid British provocateurs....this buisness is allowed by governments...as for the now deceased Canadian arms dealer that was allowed to operate unimpeded on Canadian soil - he not only stirred up trouble in the middle east - but - as a young man I sat at the bar and three Irish guys were there to do buisness...IRA I am sure - you would think that our intelligence community would have had the jump on these guys.

I surmise that the problem these days with the CIA and other such agencies - like ours who are dependant on the Americans..is the fact that they no longer have any good information comming in..because you can not have info with our informants...all of the informants are either dead - betrayed and bitter - and money is now rejected on principle---they burned all their bridges.

[DogOnPorch]

Ireland is a good example of high level deception --- after all was said and done - it was found that the senior heads of the IRA...were well paid British provocateurs....this buisness is allowed by governments...as for the now deceased Canadian arms dealer that was allowed to operate unimpeded on Canadian soil - he not only stirred up trouble in the middle east - but - as a young man I sat at the bar and three Irish guys were there to do buisness...IRA I am sure - you would think that our intelligence community would have had the jump on these guys.

I surmise that the problem these days with the CIA and other such agencies - like ours who are dependant on the Americans..is the fact that they no longer have any good information comming in..because you can not have info with our informants...all of the informants are either dead - betrayed and bitter - and money is now rejected on principle---they burned all their bridges.

Denis Donaldson is hardly all the senior heads of the IRA.

----------------------------------

All morons hate it when you call them a moron.

---J. D. Salinger

[Rue]

And I, frankly, find the whole formula in some respects, ridiculous, and in other - outrageous. How could one "trade" something that never belonged to them in the first place?

What makes you so sure you know who any land belongs to? See that is exactly the problem Myata. You allow your politics and of course emotional attachment to them as evidenced by words like "ridiculous" and "outrageous" blind you.

You simply assume there is a right and a wrong and that one set of people own the West Bank and the other does not. It is simple for you. Black and white so of course any formula that does not define land rights as black and white would appear "ridiculous" or "outrageous" to you.

I would suggest your perspective is coloured by your political and cultural biases. You ar deeply entrenched as to what is and what isn't.

I would suggest a native Canadian might using their cultural perspective find it "ridicoulous" that some of us humans continue to claim ANY land belongs to us.

In an ideal world I would agree with the aboriginal customs. This notion any human owns the earth or a portion of it is absurd. At best we reside on a tiny portion of it for a limited period of time until we expire. In that brief period of time we manage to make quite a mess of it.

The West Bank has historic meaning to Jews, Christians and Muslims just as the land within Israel and Jordan do.

Land rights contrary to what you believe don't just exist because you say they exist. The majority of people you feel should "own" the West Bank have no legal title to it and never will. At best they are dirt poor farmers being used by the Palestinian Authority as pawns in a political game.

As for the Jewish settlers, they claim no differently then the Palestinians they have an inalienable right to the same land based on the exact same reasons.

The "trading" you quickly dismiss is what civilized people do.

You want to thump and bang and scream and cling to tribalism no one will stop you.

I simply see two conflicted peoples and do not see black and white just grey.

I also think the very crux of the conflict flows from value processes such as yours that perceives the world as "mine" and "yours".

Myself I try look at things from a practical perspective. I live in a society that requires I purchase a home on a title to property based on a legal system that states the land is owned by some old lady n England with bad teeth and funny looking children. I deal with it.

While no doubt you will be blinded until you die in this war of "its mine!" I maintain the perspective that for most of us we barely have time to burp in the historic continuum before we become maggot food.

Excuse me if I pass on any more political rhetoric as to this issue.

Baboon pack wars over pissing rights gets monotonous after awhile.

[dub]

What makes you so sure you know who any land belongs to? See that is exactly the problem Myata. You allow your politics and of course emotional attachment to them as evidenced by words like "ridiculous" and "outrageous" blind you.

You simply assume there is a right and a wrong and that one set of people own the West Bank and the other does not. It is simple for you. Black and white so of course any formula that does not define land rights as black and white would appear "ridiculous" or "outrageous" to you.

I would suggest your perspective is coloured by your political and cultural biases. You ar deeply entrenched as to what is and what isn't.

I would suggest a native Canadian might using their cultural perspective find it "ridicoulous" that some of us humans continue to claim ANY land belongs to us.

In an ideal world I would agree with the aboriginal customs. This notion any human owns the earth or a portion of it is absurd. At best we reside on a tiny portion of it for a limited period of time until we expire. In that brief period of time we manage to make quite a mess of it.

The West Bank has historic meaning to Jews, Christians and Muslims just as the land within Israel and Jordan do.

Land rights contrary to what you believe don't just exist because you say they exist. The majority of people you feel should "own" the West Bank have no legal title to it and never will. At best they are dirt poor farmers being used by the Palestinian Authority as pawns in a political game.

As for the Jewish settlers, they claim no differently then the Palestinians they have an inalienable right to the same land based on the exact same reasons.

The "trading" you quickly dismiss is what civilized people do.

You want to thump and bang and scream and cling to tribalism no one will stop you.

I simply see two conflicted peoples and do not see black and white just grey.

I also think the very crux of the conflict flows from value processes such as yours that perceives the world as "mine" and "yours".

Myself I try look at things from a practical perspective. I live in a society that requires I purchase a home on a title to property based on a legal system that states the land is owned by some old lady n England with bad teeth and funny looking children. I deal with it.

While no doubt you will be blinded until you die in this war of "its mine!" I maintain the perspective that for most of us we barely have time to burp in the historic continuum before we become maggot food.

Excuse me if I pass on any more political rhetoric as to this issue.

Baboon pack wars over pissing rights gets monotonous after awhile.

c'mon rue. i like you but you're being very unreasonable with this argument. if i walked into your home and declared it my home, is it right or wrong? who does the home belong to? where are you going to go?

borders were drawn when israel was created. in 1967, another border was drawn, giving even more land to israel, yet israel continues to annex more land by expanding the settlements. as according to the rules we've created for ourselves, israel's annexation of land is illegal. that is absolute.

the only for any progress to happen here is for jews and palestinians to acknowledge and condemn the wrong doings being done by their own people. meaning that the palestinians should condemn and not try to justify any type of attacks in israel and you should condemn and not try to justify the settlements and the brutal occupation.

[DogOnPorch]

c'mon rue. i like you but you're being very unreasonable with this argument. if i walked into your home and declared it my home, is it right or wrong? who does the home belong to? where are you going to go?

borders were drawn when israel was created. in 1967, another border was drawn, giving even more land to israel, yet israel continues to annex more land by expanding the settlements. as according to the rules we've created for ourselves, israel's annexation of land is illegal. that is absolute.

the only for any progress to happen here is for jews and palestinians to acknowledge and condemn the wrong doings being done by their own people. meaning that the palestinians should condemn and not try to justify any type of attacks in israel and you should condemn and not try to justify the settlements and the brutal occupation.

The Arab-Israeli Wars and the actions of the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem must be taken into account, as well, rather than made into a non-issue. There are valid reasons for Israel fearing invasion.

-----------------------------------------------------------------

Itsafakea

[dub]

The Arab-Israeli Wars and the actions of the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem must be taken into account, as well, rather than made into a non-issue. There are valid reasons for Israel fearing invasion.

how did you go from illegal settlements to the grand mufti? diversion much?

[DogOnPorch]

how did you go from illegal settlements to the grand mufti? diversion much?

See...there you go again. Selective history. Remove the bits that do not fit with your POV.

-------------------------------------------

Kermit: Come to think of it...your nose does look a bit reddish.

Sweetums: Radish!!??