jdobbin Posted July 19, 2009 Author Report Posted July 19, 2009 What's the "becauses" all about? Hamas wants to "push" Isreal with militant attacks; Isreal continuously pushes Palestinians with illegal settlements (see the latest example below). You act against one, but not the other. Why? Because Israel agreed to talks, two states and a process to reduce violence and remove settlements. Hamas has not done that. They are committed to remove Israelis from pre-1967 territory as well. Their objective is not to talk but to violently overthrow Israel and take all lands back. To do this, they are prepared to use children and women as weapons. And why have you suddenly switched away from "geographic" approach? Is it because you'd have to admit that the same "hopscotch" standard would have to be applied to both sides, equally? I.e. you'd have to admit that either attacks on Israel, outside of "focus" perfection area would have to be ignored (as they obviously were not) or your standards are obviously one sided? I have told you repeatedly that the process was to move from one area to the next. You don't like that approach even though all sides agreed to it save for Hamas. Israel moved out of Gaza but because Hamas used the recovered territory to launch attacks on Israel the process derailed. It is only now that Hamas is starting to talk about coming back to the table again. Ignored as obvious misrepresentation. Sorry you have to own that one sided approach to your criticism. The true meaning is not in the word, Dobbin, it's in the act. And the acts are terrorist. It isn't just a word. No, what you're always forgetting to answer is why you reaction to violations of peace agendas so strongly depends on which side perpetrates them. But you would not want to ever admit it, and that creates a cognitive dissonance that you're attempting to resolve with creative wordings, evasions, selective visions and other strategies that help you believe or pretend, who cares, to not see the reality as it is, but rather as you want to see it. You can't even admit that the use of suicide bombers is a terrorist attack. You can't even admit that that Hamas isn't even part of the peace process. I admit it, obviously. Now, has Isreal been a part of that process, I mean in a genuine sense and in good faith? Yes. And the other side is prepared no less, as their grossly disproportional responses and policies clearly show. The real quesion is not about which of the sides is better, but why are you prepared to compromise the true, genuine agenda of peace by ignoring gross violations by your friendly side. Think of Dobbin, as I'm going away for a few days, not please do not assume that this discussion is in any way over. The Israelis have come to the table to talk. They have made similar agreements in the past with other regional players such as Egypt and Jordan. Land has been exchanged for lasting peace as a result. The Oslo agreements were the start of a process of continuing talks and ending violence. You called them a success. The roadmap was set up to handle the main issues one step at a time. The first focus was Gaza. The Israelis left that territory. Hamas did not agree to the process and used the recovered territory to launch attacks. Until Hamas actually agrees to the process, they are an impediment to further progress. Quote
Jerry J. Fortin Posted July 19, 2009 Report Posted July 19, 2009 I think you really mean a rational basis and not a moral basis. I have read enough of the Bible to know that morality is often closer to emotionalism than rationalism. I will accept your correction gladly. My intent was to imply that this nation use discernment in reaching any conclusion, instead of jumping on the bandwagon of perceived popular support. Quote
benny Posted July 19, 2009 Report Posted July 19, 2009 Until Hamas actually agrees to the process, they are an impediment to further progress. The deadlock will be broken by Iran. Quote
jdobbin Posted July 19, 2009 Author Report Posted July 19, 2009 The deadlock will be broken by Iran. It already has to some extent. Syria has distanced itself from Iran and is trying to negotiate for the Golan. Quote
benny Posted July 19, 2009 Report Posted July 19, 2009 It already has to some extent.Syria has distanced itself from Iran and is trying to negotiate for the Golan. Imagine when Iran will become a bit more explicit about its nuclear activities. Quote
DogOnPorch Posted July 19, 2009 Report Posted July 19, 2009 It already has to some extent.Syria has distanced itself from Iran and is trying to negotiate for the Golan. I don't think they'll be getting their attack platform back as long as Netanyahu is in power and Iran is being a threat. Quote Nothing cracks a turtle like Leon Uris.
benny Posted July 19, 2009 Report Posted July 19, 2009 I don't think they'll be getting their attack platform back as long as Netanyahu is in power and Iran is being a threat. Who can seriously imagine Iran ceasing to be a threat!? Quote
jdobbin Posted July 19, 2009 Author Report Posted July 19, 2009 I don't think they'll be getting their attack platform back as long as Netanyahu is in power and Iran is being a threat. I don't think the Golan will be returned unless the military up there is made up of American and NATO military. Then, I think it might ge achievable and the 18,000 settlers can be removed and Syrian civilians can return. Syria has made friendly noises towards the U.S. in recent weeks. I think the Obama administration should explore the possibilities. This could be the Egypt of our times. Quote
DogOnPorch Posted July 19, 2009 Report Posted July 19, 2009 Israel recalls the UN attempting to keep they and the Arabs apart. Didn't work if you recall (the Arabs said leave, please, while we deal with Israel...and they left) and it led to the situation we see today...especially in the Golan. Quote Nothing cracks a turtle like Leon Uris.
DogOnPorch Posted July 19, 2009 Report Posted July 19, 2009 (edited) Who can seriously imagine Iran ceasing to be a threat!? Now you're getting it! B+ Edited July 19, 2009 by DogOnPorch Quote Nothing cracks a turtle like Leon Uris.
benny Posted July 19, 2009 Report Posted July 19, 2009 I don't think the Golan will be returned unless the military up there is made up of American and NATO military. Then, I think it might ge achievable and the 18,000 settlers can be removed and Syrian civilians can return.Syria has made friendly noises towards the U.S. in recent weeks. I think the Obama administration should explore the possibilities. This could be the Egypt of our times. Forget about Syria, it's not a nuclear power; imagine instead Golan irradiated and act accordingly. Quote
jdobbin Posted July 19, 2009 Author Report Posted July 19, 2009 Israel recalls the UN attempting to keep they and the Arabs apart. Didn't work if you recall (the Arabs said leave, please, while we deal with Israel...and they left) and it led to the situation we see today...especially in the Golan. Which is why the force would not be a U.N. one. Quote
DogOnPorch Posted July 19, 2009 Report Posted July 19, 2009 Which is why the force would not be a U.N. one. Ooooooooooooo K...who? Quote Nothing cracks a turtle like Leon Uris.
jdobbin Posted July 19, 2009 Author Report Posted July 19, 2009 Ooooooooooooo K...who? NATO. I believe that is one of the options that Gates will be talking about when he visits Israel this week. Quote
DogOnPorch Posted July 19, 2009 Report Posted July 19, 2009 NATO. I believe that is one of the options that Gates will be talking about when he visits Israel this week. Do you really think NATO wants to get involved in this BS? You do recall the results of the USMC being in Beirut...correct? Quote Nothing cracks a turtle like Leon Uris.
benny Posted July 19, 2009 Report Posted July 19, 2009 Do you really think NATO wants to get involved in this BS? You do recall the results of the USMC being in Beirut...correct? Mentioning NATO remind me of the alliance of Russia with Iran. Quote
jdobbin Posted July 19, 2009 Author Report Posted July 19, 2009 Do you really think NATO wants to get involved in this BS? You do recall the results of the USMC being in Beirut...correct? If Syria and Israel sign a peace deal, who do you think will attack in the Golan? Quote
Bonam Posted July 19, 2009 Report Posted July 19, 2009 If Syria and Israel sign a peace deal, who do you think will attack in the Golan? Any Israeli leader who signs away the Golan is a fool. Quote
jdobbin Posted July 19, 2009 Author Report Posted July 19, 2009 Any Israeli leader who signs away the Golan is a fool. Any Israeli leader who wants to have a regional peace agreement ought to consider it. There were many naysayers about the deal Israel had with Egypt but the peace has been longlasting and it has been worth it in terms of security. The Golan won't be returned if it is just going to be a military highpoint with Syrians using it to intimidate and possibly attack. It has to come with a peace deal and an Israeli and Syrian de-militarized zone. Only a NATO force would be able to secure the area with authority. Quote
Bonam Posted July 19, 2009 Report Posted July 19, 2009 The Golan won't be returned if it is just going to be a military highpoint with Syrians using it to intimidate and possibly attack. It has to come with a peace deal and an Israeli and Syrian de-militarized zone. Only a NATO force would be able to secure the area with authority. You are aware that there is already a de-militarized zone between the Israeli part of the Golan and Syria, monitored by the UNDOF since 1974, right? The current borders are just fine, any claim Syria may pretend to have to the Golan is invalid, it is inhabited by Israeli civilians and is an integral part of Israel. It is not like the West Bank or the Gaza strip and it is foolish to pretend that it is the same. Quote
jbg Posted July 19, 2009 Report Posted July 19, 2009 Because Israel agreed to talks, two states and a process to reduce violence and remove settlements. Hamas has not done that. They are committed to remove Israelis from pre-1967 territory as well. Their objective is not to talk but to violently overthrow Israel and take all lands back. To do this, they are prepared to use children and women as weapons. ********** Israel moved out of Gaza but because Hamas used the recovered territory to launch attacks on Israel the process derailed. ********** And the acts are terrorist. It isn't just a word. ********** You can't even admit that the use of suicide bombers is a terrorist attack. You can't even admit that that Hamas isn't even part of the peace process. ********** The Israelis have come to the table to talk. They have made similar agreements in the past with other regional players such as Egypt and Jordan. Land has been exchanged for lasting peace as a result. The Oslo agreements were the start of a process of continuing talks and ending violence. You called them a success. The roadmap was set up to handle the main issues one step at a time. The first focus was Gaza. The Israelis left that territory. Hamas did not agree to the process and used the recovered territory to launch attacks. Until Hamas actually agrees to the process, they are an impediment to further progress. That is an excellent, moving post. Could someone tell jdobbin I said so since for some reason he has me on "ignore"? Quote Free speech: "You can say what you want, but I don't have to lend you my megaphone." Always remember that when you are in the right you can afford to keep your temper, and when you are in the wrong you cannot afford to lose it. - J.J. Reynolds. Will the steps anyone is proposing to fight "climate change" reduce a single temperature, by a single degree, at a single location? The mantra of "world opinion" or the views of the "international community" betrays flabby and weak reasoning (link).
jbg Posted July 19, 2009 Report Posted July 19, 2009 I will accept your correction gladly. My intent was to imply that this nation use discernment in reaching any conclusion, instead of jumping on the bandwagon of perceived popular support. My view is that Canada has nothing in common with Hamas and lots in common with Israel. Both were settled by brave pioneers coming to a wild land seeking freedom and opportunity. Both are parliamentary democracies. Both have frequent minority governments. Both have multiple languages and cultures. Quote Free speech: "You can say what you want, but I don't have to lend you my megaphone." Always remember that when you are in the right you can afford to keep your temper, and when you are in the wrong you cannot afford to lose it. - J.J. Reynolds. Will the steps anyone is proposing to fight "climate change" reduce a single temperature, by a single degree, at a single location? The mantra of "world opinion" or the views of the "international community" betrays flabby and weak reasoning (link).
jbg Posted July 19, 2009 Report Posted July 19, 2009 Any Israeli leader who wants to have a regional peace agreement ought to consider it.There were many naysayers about the deal Israel had with Egypt but the peace has been longlasting and it has been worth it in terms of security. The Golan won't be returned if it is just going to be a military highpoint with Syrians using it to intimidate and possibly attack. It has to come with a peace deal and an Israeli and Syrian de-militarized zone. Only a NATO force would be able to secure the area with authority. The real problem is not that the Golan is a "military highpoint" but that it controls the source of the Jordan River. In fact, Syria's undertaking to choke off Israel's water pre-1967 war was one of the less-known causes of Israel's pre-emptive attack. Quote Free speech: "You can say what you want, but I don't have to lend you my megaphone." Always remember that when you are in the right you can afford to keep your temper, and when you are in the wrong you cannot afford to lose it. - J.J. Reynolds. Will the steps anyone is proposing to fight "climate change" reduce a single temperature, by a single degree, at a single location? The mantra of "world opinion" or the views of the "international community" betrays flabby and weak reasoning (link).
jdobbin Posted July 19, 2009 Author Report Posted July 19, 2009 You are aware that there is already a de-militarized zone between the Israeli part of the Golan and Syria, monitored by the UNDOF since 1974, right? The current borders are just fine, any claim Syria may pretend to have to the Golan is invalid, it is inhabited by Israeli civilians and is an integral part of Israel. It is not like the West Bank or the Gaza strip and it is foolish to pretend that it is the same. Yes, I know about the force. The Israelis have no faith in it to protect them if Syria has the Golan back and no deal is place. Syria does have a claim on the territory and pretending otherwise won't make it go away. The U.S. and Canada for one don't recognize it as a greater Israel. You can bet that if a deal can be achieved, the U.S. won't walk away from it. Many in Israel also did not want to give land back to Egypt either. That worked out rather well in the end. There were a number of Israelis settlements then and some Israelis considered the area part of greater Israel. Some went so far as to say that Egypt's claims were invalid. However, as I said, the Golan won't be handed back unless there is a peace agreement which includes a security, trade and water guarantee. Quote
benny Posted July 20, 2009 Report Posted July 20, 2009 However, as I said, the Golan won't be handed back unless there is a peace agreement which includes a security, trade and water guarantee. Once you take into account Iran's advanced military technologies, the Golan Heights is not a strategic region any longer. Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.