Israel's New Best Friend?

[Moonbox]

What makes you think that the other side would not be in such "position" as well? With the means available to it?

If things got nasty enough Israel's armed forces could roll over the entire region with impunity. At present they strike at will and it's only their restraint as well as their respect/fear of the international community that keeps them from doing so.

You mean that the intention or goal of Israel's ever ongoing landgrab is peace and eternal friendship?

Again, it's not an ongoing land grab. The land grab happened several decades ago after they embarrassed the attempted invasion of their land. At this point I'd say their goal is to hang on to land they've already occupied and claimed.

How exactly would one "wipe off the map" four million people? Perhaps forcing them from their lands by direct expropriation or by making thier life impossible could be a way? Some "respect for peace" for sure. It's all in the words, isn't it?

As far as I can tell, they've not expanded their borders since the last attempted invasion against them.

Nope, still no referenced facts as requested here, as far I can see.

Read the Hamas charter. Read the statements its leaders have made in regards to peace with Israel. They themselves have specifically stated they will NOT negotiate peace with Israel. Get a clue about what you're talking about before you start asking for referenced facts.

Would it be like, if you just wait long enough pretending no wrong, then there isn't anything wrong and you can go on claiming the status of peaceful angelity, right? Full and complete dispositon to peace, one minute after one's land appropriation plans have been accopmlished. How novel! And how believable indeed.

Nope. It's more like if your neighbors are going to try to kill you regardless of what you do (their intentions made clear in their OWN words) you probably wouldn't really give a damn if you piss them off or take their stuff. Myata get this through your head please. You're really struggling with this concept I know...but:

I AM NOT SAYING ISRAEL IS INNOCENT. Read that to yourself slooowly a couple of times and maybe it might sink in for you.

If we can't think of anything better than that, I'd suggest not getting mixed up in the affair and watching it from sidelines. Less chance of getting undesirable blowbacks. But if we want to play a meaningful role in advancing peace, I just can't see how it can be achieved without being able to see the objective picture.

That's the trouble isn't it? From the way you speak on the subject I'd say you're one of the least objective people I've spoken to on the matter, yet you somehow claim to be....

No it's not what I'm saying at all, no matter why you keep repeating it over and again. I may have views on the causes of this conflict but it's not relevant to the cause of its resolution in this current reality. What I'm saying about Canada's position that it'll be either objective and based on principle or it wouldn't be advancing the cause of peace. As simple as that.

I think you have a really skewed view of what objective and principled actually mean in the context of an actual real world setting. I don't mean to be insulting but I truly and sincerely believe you really don't have a realistic view of the situation nor any grasp of how practical negotiations would take place. You can go on and on about objectivity and principles but pragmatism and realism are every bit if not more important to the process.

In previous discussions you've indicated that for any credible peace process to begin then Israel needs to unilaterally withdraw hundreds of thousands of settlers out of annexed land. You've indicated that in return Israel should not even expect the other side to indicate a willingness to discuss peace.

The suggestion itself is ludicrous. To suggest that one side should have to make huge, expensive and far-reaching concessions and to not expect the other side to even consider long term peace discussions is patently insane. It will never happen.

You lost me here, sorry. You mean that if I think that my "standards" are better than those of my neigbours it would justify my occupying and appropriating their land? I haven't heard of such interpretation of international law.

No. I'm saying that international law is about as credible as 'democracy' is in Iran. Not only is it applied selectively, but as a cohesive institution it's completely impotent.

The fundamentalist Islamic world brings up 'international law' only when it suits their purposes. Palestine, Jordan, Syria, Egypt, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Iraq, Pakistan, Sudan etc are all human rights disasters and operate so far outside international law in the first place that to bring it into the discussion is pretty pointless.

Applying and enforcing grossly unfair standards on one side alone isn't going to move things forward.

For peace to succeed both sides are going to have to come to the table and talk about it. It doesn't get any simpler than that.

Edited June 7, 2010 by Moonbox

[dre]

If things got nasty enough Israel's armed forces could roll over the entire region with impunity. At present they strike at will and it's only their restraint as well as their respect/fear of the international community that keeps them from doing so.

Again, it's not an ongoing land grab. The land grab happened several decades ago after they embarrassed the attempted invasion of their land. At this point I'd say their goal is to hang on to land they've already occupied and claimed.

As far as I can tell, they've not expanded their borders since the last attempted invasion against them.

Read the Hamas charter. Read the statements its leaders have made in regards to peace with Israel. They themselves have specifically stated they will NOT negotiate peace with Israel. Get a clue about what you're talking about before you start asking for referenced facts.

Nope. It's more like if your neighbors are going to try to kill you regardless of what you do (their intentions made clear in their OWN words) you probably wouldn't really give a damn if you piss them off or take their stuff. Myata get this through your head please. You're really struggling with this concept I know...but:

I AM NOT SAYING ISRAEL IS INNOCENT. Read that to yourself slooowly a couple of times and maybe it might sink in for you.

That's the trouble isn't it? From the way you speak on the subject I'd say you're one of the least objective people I've spoken to on the matter, yet you somehow claim to be....

I think you have a really skewed view of what objective and principled actually mean in the context of an actual real world setting. I don't mean to be insulting but I truly and sincerely believe you really don't have a realistic view of the situation nor any grasp of how practical negotiations would take place. You can go on and on about objectivity and principles but pragmatism and realism are every bit if not more important to the process.

In previous discussions you've indicated that for any credible peace process to begin then Israel needs to unilaterally withdraw hundreds of thousands of settlers out of annexed land. You've indicated that in return Israel should not even expect the other side to indicate a willingness to discuss peace.

The suggestion itself is ludicrous. To suggest that one side should have to make huge, expensive and far-reaching concessions and to not expect the other side to even consider long term peace discussions is patently insane. It will never happen.

No. I'm saying that international law is about as credible as 'democracy' is in Iran. Not only is it applied selectively, but as a cohesive institution it's completely impotent.

The fundamentalist Islamic world brings up 'international law' only when it suits their purposes. Palestine, Jordan, Syria, Egypt, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Iraq, Pakistan, Sudan etc are all human rights disasters and operate so far outside international law in the first place that to bring it into the discussion is pretty pointless.

Applying and enforcing grossly unfair standards on one side alone isn't going to move things forward.

For peace to succeed both sides are going to have to come to the table and talk about it. It doesn't get any simpler than that.

In previous discussions you've indicated that for any credible peace process to begin then Israel needs to unilaterally withdraw hundreds of thousands of settlers out of annexed land. You've indicated that in return Israel should not even expect the other side to indicate a willingness to discuss peace.

The suggestion itself is ludicrous. To suggest that one side should have to make huge, expensive and far-reaching concessions and to not expect the other side to even consider long term peace discussions is patently insane. It will never happen.

Most of the violence is a symptom of that occupation and will never end before the occupation does. And negotiations youre talking about are a nonstarter, because everyone on earth knows that even if jews and arabs fell in love with each other Israel would not vacate the occupied territories.

And EVEN IF a palestinian government was formed that had honest intentions of ending all violence against Israel it would be impossible for them to do it. They could try but theres no way they could keep every militant in check, and as soon as one successful attack against Israel happened the whole deal would be scuttled.

So theres no conceivable path to a resolution... which is why this has gone on for half a century already and will still be going on when your great great great great grandchildren are born.

There really is no solution to this thing. Isreal cant vacate the occupied territories because they depend on them for 2/3's of their fresh water. And the palestinians will never play nice with Israel as long as the occupation continues, especially while settlement building continues.

[Bonam]

Most of the violence is a symptom of that occupation and will never end before the occupation does. And negotiations youre talking about are a nonstarter, because everyone on earth knows that even if jews and arabs fell in love with each other Israel would not vacate the occupied territories.

And EVEN IF a palestinian government was formed that had honest intentions of ending all violence against Israel it would be impossible for them to do it. They could try but theres no way they could keep every militant in check, and as soon as one successful attack against Israel happened the whole deal would be scuttled.

So theres no conceivable path to a resolution... which is why this has gone on for half a century already and will still be going on when your great great great great grandchildren are born.

There really is no solution to this thing. Isreal cant vacate the occupied territories because they depend on them for 2/3's of their fresh water. And the palestinians will never play nice with Israel as long as the occupation continues, especially while settlement building continues.

It's not quite as hopeless as all that. I'm sure the situation could be resolved via a major genocidal war. If the Arabs drove the Jews into the Sea (as they have often vowed to do), or if Israel simply slaughtered or drove out all the Arabs in the territories, it would be resolved. Perhaps not in the way the Western world would like to see, but that'd certainly resolve the conflict, much in the same way conflicts of this sort have been resolved throughout much of human history.

Besides that there's always the technological solutions. If the conflict really was driven primarily by the need for water resources as you claim, it could be resolved trivially simply through the building of a few more desalinization plants.

Edited June 7, 2010 by Bonam

[dre]

It's not quite as hopeless as all that. I'm sure the situation could be resolved via a major genocidal war. If the Arabs drove the Jews into the Sea (as they have often vowed to do), or if Israel simply slaughtered or drove out all the Arabs in the territories, it would be resolved. Perhaps not in the way the Western world would like to see, but that'd certainly resolve the conflict, much in the same way conflicts of this sort have been resolved throughout much of human history.

Besides that there's always the technological solutions. If the conflict really was driven primarily by the need for water resources as you claim, it could be resolved trivially simply through the building of a few more desalinization plants.

It's not quite as hopeless as all that. I'm sure the situation could be resolved via a major genocidal war. If the Arabs drove the Jews into the Sea (as they have often vowed to do), or if Israel simply slaughtered or drove out all the Arabs in the territories, it would be resolved.

That of course sounds crazy but youve hit on a point. We could let one side finish the game and win. It would be Israel of course because the palestinians couldnt even drive my uncle pete into the sea. The problem of course is that solution is very unlikely in todays world. Nobody would tolerate the ethnic cleansing of palestinians in the occupied territories and that includes the jewish population of Israel.

A more obvious solution would be forced assimilation. Sort of like Canadians and Americans did with the native North Americans. That would ACTUALLY PROBABLY WORK in the long run. The problem is that Israel cant do that because they have to be watchfull of demographics or the state will cease to be jewish before too long. Thats another little fly in the ointment that makes this thing so tough to solve.

Besides that there's always the technological solutions. If the conflict really was driven primarily by the need for water resources as you claim, it could be resolved trivially simply through the building of a few more desalinization plants.

Thats a good place to start and its worth doing. The problem is that desalination is extremely expensive.

Prior to the war in 67 Israel put the water works under the control of the military and when war broke out they immediately sent the military to secure two massive potential water sources. One is the mountain aquifier in the west bank, and the other is the Golan heights which gives Israel a buffer between Syria and Lake Tiberius (AKA the Kinneret basic AKA the Sea of Galilea). Those two regions account for almost 2/3's of Israels water supply and they have spent a lot of money on infrastructure to facilitate its use (the nation water carrier, networks of wells and pipelines etc). The cost to replace all that water with desalination is literally staggering. Desalination plants are very expensive to build and operate and use a massive ammount of energy. Israel would be putting itself at a major disadvantage and has limited resources to spend on mega projects like this. Remember we are talking about two factions (Israelis and Palestinians) that spend so much effort and resources fighting each other they depend on a steady supply of aid and global welfare checks to continue operating.

Thats why this is so tough. Both sides are right to do what they do as bizzare as that sounds. Palestians have every right to resist the occupation with whatever force they can muster... And Israel would be crazy to vacate the occupied territories... especially since the world community essentially just toungue lashes them every once in a while and shows no real sign of forcing Israel to give back the territories in question.

Ill sign over the deeds for three houses, a boat, a car, a truck, and 100 grand worth of heavy duty equipment if this conflict is resolved while either of us is still alive. Thats how sure I am of how futile a situation this is.

[Bonam]

A more obvious solution would be forced assimilation. Sort of like Canadians and Americans did with the native North Americans. That would ACTUALLY PROBABLY WORK in the long run. The problem is that Israel cant do that because they have to be watchfull of demographics or the state will cease to be jewish before too long. Thats another little fly in the ointment that makes this thing so tough to solve.

Right and "assimilation" is obviously not a solution for this reason.

Thats a good place to start and its worth doing. The problem is that desalination is extremely expensive.

The price is trivial compared to military expenditures.

Prior to the war in 67 Israel put the water works under the control of the military and when war broke out they immediately sent the military to secure two massive potential water sources. One is the mountain aquifier in the west bank, and the other is the Golan heights which gives Israel a buffer between Syria and Lake Tiberius (AKA the Kinneret basic AKA the Sea of Galilea). Those two regions account for almost 2/3's of Israels water supply and they have spent a lot of money on infrastructure to facilitate its use (the nation water carrier, networks of wells and pipelines etc). The cost to replace all that water with desalination is literally staggering. Desalination plants are very expensive to build and operate and use a massive ammount of energy. Israel would be putting itself at a major disadvantage and has limited resources to spend on mega projects like this. Remember we are talking about two factions (Israelis and Palestinians) that spend so much effort and resources fighting each other they depend on a steady supply of aid and global welfare checks to continue operating.

Israel is in the process of building a new desalinization plant that is bigger than any other, and already gets ~1/3 of its water from this process. Furthermore technology continues to progress, both in terms of desalinization and energy production. You can be sure that if Israel lost access to all fresh water, they might suffer a few years in reduced industrial output from water-intensive processes and inefficient agriculture (they would still have more than enough drinking water), but would be back to normal within a few years.

Thats why this is so tough. Both sides are right to do what they do as bizzare as that sounds. Palestians have every right to resist the occupation with whatever force they can muster... And Israel would be crazy to vacate the occupied territories... especially since the world community essentially just toungue lashes them every once in a while and shows no real sign of forcing Israel to give back the territories in question.

Not really, the Palestinians are condemning themselves to a wretched existence by doing what they do. They could be trying to build themselves better lives, instead they put all their effort into lobbing mostly ineffectual rockets. Israel though is of course right to do what it is doing, and this can be seen as they have succeeded in building a mostly prosperous society.

[dre]

Right and "assimilation" is obviously not a solution for this reason.

The price is trivial compared to military expenditures.

Israel is in the process of building a new desalinization plant that is bigger than any other, and already gets ~1/3 of its water from this process. Furthermore technology continues to progress, both in terms of desalinization and energy production. You can be sure that if Israel lost access to all fresh water, they might suffer a few years in reduced industrial output from water-intensive processes and inefficient agriculture (they would still have more than enough drinking water), but would be back to normal within a few years.

Not really, the Palestinians are condemning themselves to a wretched existence by doing what they do. They could be trying to build themselves better lives, instead they put all their effort into lobbing mostly ineffectual rockets. Israel though is of course right to do what it is doing, and this can be seen as they have succeeded in building a mostly prosperous society.

Not really, the Palestinians are condemning themselves to a wretched existence by doing what they do. They could be trying to build themselves better lives, instead they put all their effort into lobbing mostly ineffectual rockets. Israel though is of course right to do what it is doing, and this can be seen as they have succeeded in building a mostly prosperous society.

The palestinians are fucked no matter what they do. Even if they stop firing rockets its impossible for them to build a prosperous society in that situation. They live under strict water quotas imposed by Israel that make agriculture dificult if not impossible in many cases. The land they have to work with is broken up by Israeli enclaves, concrete walls etc.

And even if 99.9% of palestinians behaved themselves and worked to build a better future all it would take is one militant firing a rocket at Israel to scuttle the whole thing.

Just forgot about it.

[Bonam]

The palestinians are fucked no matter what they do. Even if they stop firing rockets its impossible for them to build a prosperous society in that situation. They live under strict water quotas imposed by Israel that make agriculture dificult if not impossible in many cases. The land they have to work with is broken up by Israeli enclaves, concrete walls etc.

Water quotas? If they are limited in how much water they can use, it is because that water comes from Israeli infrastructure, built with Israeli labor, paid for by Israeli money. Israel does not stop them from having water, rather, it provides them with water, though perhaps not as much as they might like in some cases.

If they want more, what stops them from building their own water systems? Besides tapping their own aquifers, Gaza has coastline just like Israel, and both it and the West Bank can employ Atmospheric Water Generators (condensers). Expensive, but Palestine is not exactly lacking in funding given the disproportionate international aid that is allocated there. Moreover, determined people working to improve their own community can build very impressive things very quickly at minimal cost.

And even if 99.9% of palestinians behaved themselves and worked to build a better future all it would take is one militant firing a rocket at Israel to scuttle the whole thing.

Not really, Israel usually tolerates thousands of rocket attacks before initiating a major reprisal action.

[dre]

Water quotas? If they are limited in how much water they can use, it is because that water comes from Israeli infrastructure, built with Israeli labor, paid for by Israeli money. Israel does not stop them from having water, rather, it provides them with water, though perhaps not as much as they might like in some cases.

If they want more, what stops them from building their own water systems?

Hrrrrrrrrrrm....

The Israeli military stops them from building their own water systems. Palestinians are not even allowed to drill wells in the west bank.

Israel does not stop them from having water, rather, it provides them with water, though perhaps not as much as they might like in some cases.

Palestinians are allowed to use about 20% of the water Israelis are. They are not allowed to drill wells without permits from the Israeli military.

West Bank Water Usage

•Of the water available from West Bank aquifers, Israel uses 73%, West Bank Palestinians use 17%, and illegal Jewish settlers use 10%.

•While 10-14% of Palestine’s GDP is agricultural, 90% of them must rely on rain-fed farming methods. Israel’s agriculture is only 3% of their GDP, but Israel irrigates more than 50% of its land.

•Three million West Bank Palestinians use only 250 million cubic meters per year (83 cubic meters per Palestinian per year) while six million Israelis enjoy the use of 1,954 million cubic meters (333 cubic meters per Israeli per year), which means that each Israeli consumes as much water as four Palestinians. Israeli settlers are allocated 1,450 cubic meters of water per person per year.

•Israel consumes the vast majority of the water from the Jordan River despite only 3% of the river falling within its pre-1967 borders. Israel now diverts one quarter of its total water consumption through its National Water Carrier from the Jordan River, whereas Palestinians have no access to it whatsoever due to Israeli closures.

Water security is a major concern for both Palestinians and Israelis. In 1967, before the 6 day war, Israeli Prime Minister Levi Eshkol noted that water was a question of survival for Israel and that Israel would use all means necessary to secure water resources. The principal water resources are the West Bank aquifer system, the Jordan River system and the Coastal aquifer. In 1967, the Israeli military order 92 transferred all powers over water to the occupation authorities, which were subsequently transferred to the Israeli water company Mekorot in 1979. The Israeli occupation denied permits to Palestinians for drilling for new wells and set quotas on water extraction that were severely below basic needs. Indeed, Palestinian consumption of water on a per capita basis is more than 4 times less than that of Israeli’s and less than the World Health Organization’s minimum recommended guidelines. This is not due to a shortage of water per se, but is a consequence of discriminatory Israeli water policies and lack of investment in infrastructure for Palestinians. Presently, 80% of Palestinian water from the West Bank’s Aquifer is used by Israel (ARIJ), and a large percentage of water from the sources annexed in 1967, above all the Eastern Aquifer in the West Bank, were used to benefit settlements in the area. Water shortages, contamination and lack of infrastructure have dire consequences for development and 215,000 Palestinians live in communities with no running water, roughly 10% of the population.

BTW... Read up on "Military order 92". Its interesting stuff for anyone that doubts my assertion that water is a key factor in the conflict. Order 92 gave the Israeli military control of all West Bank and Gaza Strip water.

Edited June 7, 2010 by dre

[Bonam]

The Israeli military stops them from building their own water systems. Palestinians are not even allowed to drill wells in the west bank.

Palestinians are allowed to use about 20% of the water Israelis are. They are not allowed to drill wells without permits from the Israeli military.

Got an example of this being enforced? A video of evil Israeli soldiers coming and shutting down an unauthorized well perhaps? Anyway, condensers are not wells.

Oh and also I'm pretty sure they can do whatever the heck they want now, in regards to water systems, in Gaza.

Edited June 7, 2010 by Bonam

[dre]

Got an example of this being enforced? A video of evil Israeli soldiers coming and shutting down an unauthorized well perhaps? Anyway, condensers are not wells.

Oh and also I'm pretty sure they can do whatever the heck they want now, in regards to water systems, in Gaza.

Got an example of this being enforced?

Sure heres one but theres literally hundreds. Water resources in the west bank are under strict control. Israel only allows wells to be drilled in accordance with their provisional quotas (which allow Israelies to use 5 times as much water as palestinians).

On 8 August the Israeli military destroyed two agricultural wells in Bardela and Furush Beit Dajan villages.

Zidki Maman, from the Israeli Civil Administration, said the wells were dug without Israeli issued permits and the military was simply acting in accordance with the law. However, Palestinians said the wells were old and had been in use for many years.

Oh and also I'm pretty sure they can do whatever the heck they want now, in regards to water systems, in Gaza.

Theres no significant water resources in Gaza. At least nothing as important as mountain aquifier or the kinneret basin. Thats probably why Israel was able to withdraw from Gaza.

[Moonbox]

And even if 99.9% of palestinians behaved themselves and worked to build a better future all it would take is one militant firing a rocket at Israel to scuttle the whole thing.

The Palestinians themselves could more or less put a stop to this. Once support, both official and unofficial, dries up for militant action against Israel, it becomes extremely difficult for them to operate. The arab side has more or less been able enforce ceasefires so extending that to a peace treaty isn't inconceivable.

[myata]

The Palestinians themselves could more or less put a stop to this. Once support, both official and unofficial, dries up for militant action against Israel, it becomes extremely difficult for them to operate. The arab side has more or less been able enforce ceasefires so extending that to a peace treaty isn't inconceivable.

Well, fortunately, with that we don't need to go guessing. Significant drop in militancy did already happend, and at least on two occasions:

1. Decade following Oslo accord

2. Folling second Intifada before election of Hamas.

And the result? Serious and credible peace negotiations? Think again. Because the actual observable act of consequtive Israeli governments has been massive and persistent build up of settlements in the illegally occupied territories. I'm sorry but the only way to proceed with a meaningful discussion at this point is to reduce it to the purely factual level, so why don't we put the two numbers side by side:

1) Militant attacks from Palestinians on Israel vs

2) Illegal settlemenet activity + violation of human rights in the occupied territories, and see for ourselves which of the sides has contributed and continues to contribute to the conflict?

Or abandon all claims to objective and rational view of this event till we're prepared to accept factual reality as the ground for our decisions.

[Army Guy]

Gaza does have a water source, over usage will soon kill it, there has also been Aid projects to help with this problem , of course some of the american construction workers were killed putting that on hold go figure.

My linkdissidentvoice.org/Oct05/

My linkwww.usaid.gov/wbg/

[Moonbox]

Well, fortunately, with that we don't need to go guessing. Significant drop in militancy did already happend, and at least on two occasions:

1. Decade following Oslo accord

2. Folling second Intifada before election of Hamas.

Okay thanks that only proves my point. Palestine can police its militants. Great.

And the result? Serious and credible peace negotiations? Think again. Because the actual observable act of consequtive Israeli governments has been massive and persistent build up of settlements in the illegally occupied territories.

The Israeli ceasefire was unilateral. The only reason Hamas stopped firing rockets was because Israeli counter attacks were swift and brutal.

I'm sorry but the only way to proceed with a meaningful discussion at this point is to reduce it to the purely factual level, so why don't we put the two numbers side by side:

1) Militant attacks from Palestinians on Israel vs

2) Illegal settlemenet activity + violation of human rights in the occupied territories, and see for ourselves which of the sides has contributed and continues to contribute to the conflict?

Or abandon all claims to objective and rational view of this event till we're prepared to accept factual reality as the ground for our decisions.

Sorry Myata, but the conflict unfortunately cannot be reduced to an equation. Get real.

As mentioned above, militants from Palestine etc cannot act without fear of retaliation from Isreal. It's purely this fear that has kept their militancy in check.

As for 'factual reality' as you so eloquently put it, perhaps you'd like to comment on this:

There is no solution for the Palestinian question except through Jihad. Initiatives, proposals and international conferences are all a waste of time and vain endeavors

That's a nice little highlight of the Hamas Covenant and I invite you to read the whole thing yourself.

That's the governing authority of Palestine. That's their 'Charter'. You can bleat and carry on about the standing joke that is international law, but it's absolutely pointless. Both sides haven't a leg to stand on in that regard and the only way you're going to negotiate peace is if both sides are willing to make concessions.

Israel has no reason to dismantle its settlements or halt expansion. Give them one or the whole process is a joke, much like the international law you keep bringing up.

Edited June 7, 2010 by Moonbox

[myata]

The Israeli ceasefire was unilateral. The only reason Hamas stopped firing rockets was because Israeli counter attacks were swift and brutal.

Right, asked about birds talk of watermelons.

Again: what about persistent policy of mass settelement buildup even in the times of reduced militant activity? Would it signify a persistent policy of aggression and how would that affect credibility of our urging for peace?

Sorry Myata, but the conflict unfortunately cannot be reduced to an equation. Get real.

No, not interested in objective facts as they can be seen in actuality. Need to get real and share in the ideological reality of the mind instead. Makes picture instantly nice and clear and dissolves all questions and doubts - guaranteed.

There is no solution for the Palestinian question except through Jihad. Initiatives, proposals and international conferences are all a waste of time and vain endeavors

That's a nice little highlight of the Hamas Covenant and I invite you to read the whole thing yourself.

Further substantiated by equation of word with act. Have we also examined the annals of Israeli extreme right with equal zeal, I wonder? No but of course, a very understandable omission.

Israel has no reason to dismantle its settlements or halt expansion. Give them one or the whole process is a joke, much like the international law you keep bringing up.

Well objectively measurable reduction in violence obviously won't count. A formal plan to return to international borders with guarantees of recognition and peace, neither. What else do we have in mind mmm? Wait, do we really have to (halt or dismantle)? Why shouldn't anything that would make me halt my expansion be a joke? Short of achieving my aggressive goals, fully and 100%. The following day I'll be all peace and love, you won't even recognise me; promise... just let me get there.

That's it Moonbox? No can't blow for peace and cheer for the aggressor all at the same time, so just make your choice and be comfortable with it. Want to cheer for one side no matter what it does, go ahead, it's OK, no need to be shy about it. Just don't pretend that it would have anything to do with "peace" or "settlement". And if you want to maintain objective position on the situation, there's no way you could cheer for one side, or more importantly, continue to supply it massively with finances and arms no matter what it does. See, it's really easy, pick one or the other, but sorry can't really have both at the same time with any measure of credibility.

[dre]

Okay thanks that only proves my point. Palestine can police its militants. Great.

The Israeli ceasefire was unilateral. The only reason Hamas stopped firing rockets was because Israeli counter attacks were swift and brutal.

Sorry Myata, but the conflict unfortunately cannot be reduced to an equation. Get real.

As mentioned above, militants from Palestine etc cannot act without fear of retaliation from Isreal. It's purely this fear that has kept their militancy in check.

As for 'factual reality' as you so eloquently put it, perhaps you'd like to comment on this:

There is no solution for the Palestinian question except through Jihad. Initiatives, proposals and international conferences are all a waste of time and vain endeavors

That's a nice little highlight of the Hamas Covenant and I invite you to read the whole thing yourself.

That's the governing authority of Palestine. That's their 'Charter'. You can bleat and carry on about the standing joke that is international law, but it's absolutely pointless. Both sides haven't a leg to stand on in that regard and the only way you're going to negotiate peace is if both sides are willing to make concessions.

Israel has no reason to dismantle its settlements or halt expansion. Give them one or the whole process is a joke, much like the international law you keep bringing up.

Israel has no reason to dismantle its settlements or halt expansion. Give them one or the whole process is a joke, much like the international law you keep bringing up.

Absolutely nothing the palestinians could do would give them such a reason, and Iv explained exactly why. If you think Israel is going to give up all that territory and 2/3's of its fresh water supply just because Palestinians stop their pathetic ineffectual attacks then you are flat out kidding yourself.

The only possible way this could ever get resolved is through external pressure, and thats unlikely to happen given the current world order.

Actually theres one other remote possibility... Israeli courts might eventually rule the occupation is illegal. Not holding my breath on that one either though.

You and I will both die without seeing one iota of real progress in resolving the conflict.

Edited June 7, 2010 by dre

[myata]

If you think Israel is going to give up all that territory and 2/3's of its fresh water supply just because Palestinians stop their pathetic ineffectual attacks then you are flat out kidding yourself.

It hasn't been the case in at least two such episodes in the past. That should certainly raise serious questions about how genuine Israel government's statements of peace are in any objective mind.

Overall I agree that the intent to continue occupation and massive foreign aid on one side, and inability to unite and focus efforts on peaceful resistence on the other, the conflict would probably last for a long time. However at least the realization of the need for objectivity and equal handed approach is emerging in the international community right at the same time when Canadian government is shifting its priorities from objective position to ideology based cheering for one side. Will we find ourselves on the "right side" of this conflict in the long run? Without objectivity and principles consistent with our values within Canada, I wouldn't bet on that.

Edited June 7, 2010 by myata

[Moonbox]

Right, asked about birds talk of watermelons.

Again: what about persistent policy of mass settelement buildup even in the times of reduced militant activity? Would it signify a persistent policy of aggression and how would that affect credibility of our urging for peace?

I think you're failing to understand WHY militant activity is reduced. It's because Israel takes incredibly harsh preventative measures and retaliates decively. Don't mistake it for peaceful intentions. That's a joke.

No, not interested in objective facts as they can be seen in actuality. Need to get real and share in the ideological reality of the mind instead. Makes picture instantly nice and clear and dissolves all questions and doubts - guaranteed.

It's the selection and choice of facts that you deem relevant that I take issue with. The conflict is not an equation and you can't break it down numerically. Your argument is basically:

Israeli settlements > Arab killings of Israeli, therefore Israel is in the wrong.

There's sooo many more issues to this mess and breaking it down like you've tried to is a joke.

Further substantiated by equation of word with act. Have we also examined the annals of Israeli extreme right with equal zeal, I wonder? No but of course, a very understandable omission.

The extreme right of Israel doesn't run the country, nor do religious zealots. Palestine IS run by Hamas. Statements like this are echoed across Arabia and Persia. If I absolutely NEEED to I'll look some more up for you.

Well objectively measurable reduction in violence obviously won't count. A formal plan to return to international borders with guarantees of recognition and peace, neither.

Check your 'facts' again because no formal plan to recognize Israel or lasting peace was ever offered. The closest we've had is Hamas offering hudna, which is a temporary truce, which is no better than a ceasefire. They've been very clear they will NOT recognize Israel's right to exist nor will they consider lasting peace.

TEHRAN, Iran — Palestinian Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh told thousands of Iranians on Friday that his Hamas-led government will never recognize Israel and will continue to fight for the "liberation of Jerusalem."

I'm insisting from this podium that these issues won't materialize. We will never recognize the usurper Zionist government and will continue our jihad-like movement until the liberation of Jerusalem," he said.

http://ctestp.ctv.ca/servlet/an/local/CTVNews/20061208/hamas_haniyeh_061208?hub=CP24Entertainment

That's just Hamas, only a fraction of what Israel has to deal with. Here's Hezbollah:

Hezbollah Secretary General Sayyed Hasan Nasrallah reiterated on Friday that Palestine belongs to the Palestinian people and not to the Zionist entity, stressing that recognizing Israel’s existence is forbidden and calling on all Arab and Islamic governments and people to adopt the choice of stead fasting in the face of the Israeli enemy.

http://www.tehrantimes.com/index_View.asp?code=203566

Since Iran finances them, let's see what they have to say:

Our dear Imam (referring to Ayatollah Khomeini) said that the occupying regime must be wiped off the map for great justice and this was a very wise statement.....whoever accepts the legitimacy of this regime [israel] has in fact, signed the defeat of the Islamic world.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/30/weekinreview/30iran.html?_r=1&ex=1161230400&en=26f07fc5b7543417&ei=5070

Apparently the translation was botched and instead of saying 'wiped off the map' he actually said 'erased from history' but either way he makes his point. Comment on those FACTS please.

Want to cheer for one side no matter what it does, go ahead, it's OK, no need to be shy about it. Just don't pretend that it would have anything to do with "peace" or "settlement".

I've made it pretty clear that I think Israel isn't going to leave territory it's occupied for decades, nor do I think they should. I haven't pretended I don't lean one way on this issue. Clearly you don't either, though you have trouble admitting it.

And if you want to maintain objective position on the situation, there's no way you could cheer for one side, or more importantly, continue to supply it massively with finances and arms no matter what it does. See, it's really easy, pick one or the other, but sorry can't really have both at the same time with any measure of credibility.

What are you getting at here? I'm pro Israel I think it's clear. You're very anti-Israel and everything you've said has made it clear. Let's dispense with the pretenses of objectivity and get to discussing what it would take for both sides to bury the hatchet and move on.

Edited June 8, 2010 by Moonbox

[myata]

It's because Israel takes incredibly harsh preventative measures and retaliates decively. Don't mistake it for peaceful intentions. That's a joke.

OK, so Israel's land grab is actually just a "preventative measure"? It's so nice and neat when you just find the right word for it. But guess what, the strategy works just as fine for the other side ("glorious resistance" etc). So, if you want to say that force is right, why hide behind all those neaty words? I already said, yes it's one possible approach, we'd just have to wait and see what will emerge. Not sure how credible would be all this chestpumping about international justice, yada we like to pride ourselves over but we'll get over it as a necessary marketing expence like that artificial lake.

It's the selection and choice of facts that you deem relevant that I take issue with. The conflict is not an equation and you can't break it down numerically.

...

There's sooo many more issues to this mess and breaking it down like you've tried to is a joke.

I see, I provide facts, you - ponderous thoughts about many issues. Works, doesn't it?

The extreme right of Israel doesn't run the country, nor do religious zealots.

No, really? Even when when they are in the government, like now?

Check your 'facts' again because no formal plan to recognize Israel or lasting peace was ever offered. The closest we've had is Hamas offering hudna, which is a temporary truce, which is no better than a ceasefire. They've been very clear they will NOT recognize Israel's right to exist nor will they consider lasting peace.

OK, you do think that words equal acts. You give me the thousand bucks, I - sincere assurances that our account is settled. BTW remember about that study (of Israeli rightwing rhethorics) you still have to present here to keep any credibility - unless of course you also happen to think that unlike above sited, they just innocent and friendly musings of essentially good natured buddies?

I've made it pretty clear that I think Israel isn't going to leave territory it's occupied for decades, nor do I think they should. I haven't pretended I don't lean one way on this issue. Clearly you don't either, though you have trouble admitting it.

What are you getting at here? I'm pro Israel I think it's clear. You're very anti-Israel and everything you've said has made it clear.

OK, if as much as asking for objectivity is "very anti-Israel", does it mean that pro Israel must be anti-objectivity? Necessarily or by definition?

Let's dispense with the pretenses of objectivity and get to discussing what it would take for both sides to bury the hatchet and move on.

But of course, let's go! Only wait.. if we dispense with objective reality as the ground for our discussion, what other foundations could it be based on? Of course we could always accept the version of reality as you see it, no pretenses of objectivity. It would work so great:

"nor do I think they should" [abandon occupied territories - m])

as a basis to "bury the hatchet", wouldn't it? Edited June 9, 2010 by myata

[bloodyminded]

OK, if as much as asking for objectivity is "very anti-Israel", does it mean that pro Israel must be anti-objectivity? Necessarily or by definition?

Yeah, and what's this "anti-Israel" shit, anyway? I get a little tired of people thinking they can determine all parameters of every debate...including my own stance...after which I must play by their arbitrary rules of definition.

[myata]

Yeah, and what's this "anti-Israel" shit, anyway? I get a little tired of people thinking they can determine all parameters of every debate...including my own stance...after which I must play by their arbitrary rules of definition.

Because objective analysis of facts would raise questions some folks aren't prepared to face or answer, the simplest response that allows them to retain the appearance of rationality would be to summarily dismiss such questions, or objective analysis, or facts themselves. Any pretext to do that (dismiss reality) would do, but "anti" appears to be a long time favorite.

[Moonbox]

OK, so Israel's land grab is actually just a "preventative measure"? It's so nice and neat when you just find the right word for it.

No genius. Israeli preventative measures are air strikes, tanks rolling in and targetted assassinations. It's brutal, it's violent and it works. When Arab rockets fly, so do Israeli gunships and one side has typically come out on top.

I see, I provide facts, you - ponderous thoughts about many issues. Works, doesn't it?

We've both provided facts. You ignore the ones I present. You also lie and distort. You said Hamas offered a peace agreement and recognition of Israel. It did not. I provided citations showing their OFFICIAL position and you've discounted it as meaningless. Really credible...

No, really? Even when when they are in the government, like now?

You provide me with citations of Israeli leadership indicating they'll never accept peace with the Arab world. Go ahead. Do it. You're getting pathetic.

OK, you do think that words equal acts. You give me the thousand bucks, I - sincere assurances that our account is settled.

Now you're reallllly making me laugh. That's exactly what you've been proposing the Israelis do. Give up the occupied territories and withdraw back to 1949 borders for....nothing.

OK, if as much as asking for objectivity is "very anti-Israel", does it mean that pro Israel must be anti-objectivity? Necessarily or by definition?

Your claim of objectivity is pure comedy.

But of course, let's go! Only wait.. if we dispense with objective reality as the ground for our discussion, what other foundations could it be based on?

Again, you really have a problem with the concept of 'reality'.

Reality would suggest that when one side is claiming they'll never accept peace with the other, you've got some pretty big problems.

Edited June 9, 2010 by Moonbox

[bloodyminded]

No genius. Israeli preventative measures are air strikes, tanks rolling in and targetted assassinations. It's brutal, it's violent and it works.

Usually these are not "preventive measures, but provocations designed to incite retaliation.

For example, Israel broke a cease-fire; after which Hamas restarted its rocket attacks; after which Israel committed Operation Cast Lead.

That's an act of aggression.

[Moonbox]

Yeah, and what's this "anti-Israel" shit, anyway? I get a little tired of people thinking they can determine all parameters of every debate...including my own stance...after which I must play by their arbitrary rules of definition.

Myata's position has been no less objective than my own. He's focused purely and exclusively on the Israeli side of the conflict and ignored and discounted everything the other side has done to escalate and perpetuate the conflict.

His parameters have LITERALLY been:

Israel has to withdraw from all of its occupied territory and withdraw hundreds of thousands of settlers in an effort to appease hostiles who've indicated OFFICIALLY they will NEVER accept peace with the Israel.

In return they should expect nothing, but HOPE that militant Arabs around the world will talk to them about peace..which again they've already made clear they won't.

Hmmmm....

[bloodyminded]

Myata's position has been no less objective than my own. He's focused purely and exclusively on the Israeli side of the conflict and ignored and discounted everything the other side has done to escalate and perpetuate the conflict.

Can you link me to your harsh condemnations of Israeli behaviour and intransigence?

Or have you been "focused purely and exclusively on the Palestinian side of the conflict and ignored and discounted everything the other side has done to escalate and perpetuate the conflict?