Israel's New Best Friend?

[bush_cheney2004]

Oh I see, US is using its veto (and so consistently, in this specific matter) only to save the other members the embarrasment of not being able to enforce their decision? How thoughtful indeed! Not to mention, how credible

Yes....in the case of Rwanda, Canada couldn't even come up with 50 measly APCs....or the means to get them there...pathetic.

Edited June 16, 2010 by bush_cheney2004

[Moonbox]

Palestinian parties are no more unanimous in hostility to Israel, than Israeli parties - to the state of Palestine.

The Israeli government dictates the policies of its military and it controls its militants. The Palestinians do not, nor do they control what its neighbours policies are.

Indeed there's no bottom that would be low enough if one seeks hard. Not sure it could be used as any sort of moral justification as it could justify anything. Absolutely anything.

It's not a justification as much as it highlights how silly the other side's proclamations are. That's what groups like Hamas and Iran say they intend to do. Unfortunately they're unable to do it. Imagine if Israel actually had the same intentions.

And so, Israel's aggression (landgrab) demonstrates "restraint" while lack thereof from the other side - obviously aggressive intentions?

I'm simply saying that having your intentions thwarted at every turn does not give you the moral high ground as you seem to assume.

Wow, admitting the obvious is a huge step forward here. The next question is, what are we going to do about it.

What is anyone going to do about it? Aside from trying to mediate, nobody is going to do anything. Like most conflicts going on right now in the world, the UN etc will stand back and watch.

Rationalizing Israeli reasons, are we also going to look at those on the other side? Or come up with policy based on objective view of the situation, encouraging both side to make steps toward peace and censoring them for acts of aggression in any form and regardless of affinities and affiliations?

Well there's an idea now. Yes. If both sides would come to the table and make concessions we'd be in a lot better shape. Unilateral demands and/or peace proposals, however, aren't going to work.

Again, reasons to continue hostilities can be found on either side, especially when looking hard enough. The question is what we do about it, and we have only free choices: contribute to the cycle of hostility; remain neutral; or encourage both sides to break it.

Well I think the last option is best. All we can do is mediate, however, because arbitration and enforcement are not really options.

So because it has that contentuous issue it can be dissmissed out of hand without as much as meaningful comment, in ten or so years? Sounds like a truly and creadibly peaceful position, does it?

The Arab League killed the proposal before it even had a chance. There have been plenty of responses from the Israeli side. Ehud Olmert (former Prime Minister) acknowledged it and invited the Arab League to discuss it further. Unfortunately, those 'contentious issues' we're talking about were non-negotiable. The Arab League has indicated that the proposal must be accepted before any further dialogue takes place. It wasn't a serious peace proposal. It was an ultimatum disguised as a peace proposal and was pure publicity.

Again, and for the umpteenth and last time I'm calling for objective, fact based view on the situation, encouraging parties for each positive development and censoring every hostile act on its own merit.

Okay. Let's list the facts:

1. Both sides are hostile to the other. Neither side is innocent.

2. Nobody is willing (or able) to take serious action to stop the conflict for all sorts of reasons

Any discussion from there is going to have to take those two 'facts' into account and that both sides are going to have to NEGOTIATE. Otherwise they'll keep doing whatever they please and nobody is going to stop them. If one side refuses to negotiate, regardless of who it is, the whole thing is a non-starter.

But it's been provided in the form of the list of countries that support Israel's right to the occupied lands (none - except Israel itself).

Oh no you don't champ. That's not the reference I was asking for. You specifically stated that the the majority of the world has indicated that prior to ANY negotiation taking place, Israel must withdraw from occupied lands. You said it. I want to see the reference for it. Otherwise you're talking out of your butt, making things up and flat out lying. Recognition of Israeli rights to occupy the land have NOTHING to do with the pre-reqs for negotiation.

Edited June 16, 2010 by Moonbox

[myata]

The Israeli government dictates the policies of its military and it controls its militants. The Palestinians do not, nor do they control what its neighbours policies are.

However, as we just established here, Israeli government itself is involved in aggressive and hostile acts advocated by these parties, giving us all the reason to think that no one sides is predominantly guilty of perpetrating hostilities, at least, not anymore.

It's not a justification as much as it highlights how silly the other side's proclamations are. That's what groups like Hamas and Iran say they intend to do. Unfortunately they're unable to do it. Imagine if Israel actually had the same intentions.

So again, you are saying that some words should be held equivalent to acts, while some acts (ongoing settlements buildup) would mean something entirely different from their objective manifestation (obvious and blatant landgrab)? And only you could interpret with confidence which word amounts to which act?

I'm simply saying that having your intentions thwarted at every turn does not give you the moral high ground as you seem to assume.

No, that assumption is entirely yours. I only said that each act must be judged on its own: illegal expansion as a manifestation of aggressive intents, while absense of militancy - well, absense of militancy. By militancy I of course mean not only actual attacks but any serious activity on preparation and execution thereof. However it has to be proven, in an objective manner, rather than taken for granted as common knowledge.

Well there's an idea now. Yes. If both sides would come to the table and make concessions we'd be in a lot better shape. Unilateral demands and/or peace proposals, however, aren't going to work.

Great idea. And it'll work with one minor addition that all serious acts of hostility must cease before meaningful negotiations of a lasting settlement could begin in any honesty. Can't negotiate with somebody who keeps robbing you even as you "negotiate" as was the case on all such earlier occasions.

The Arab League killed the proposal before it even had a chance. There have been plenty of responses from the Israeli side. Ehud Olmert (former Prime Minister) acknowledged it and invited the Arab League to discuss it further. Unfortunately, those 'contentious issues' we're talking about were non-negotiable. The Arab League has indicated that the proposal must be accepted before any further dialogue takes place. It wasn't a serious peace proposal. It was an ultimatum disguised as a peace proposal and was pure publicity.

Much of what you're saying is new to me, so I'll have to research some more details on this.

Any discussion from there is going to have to take those two 'facts' into account and that both sides are going to have to NEGOTIATE. Otherwise they'll keep doing whatever they please and nobody is going to stop them. If one side refuses to negotiate, regardless of who it is, the whole thing is a non-starter.

Of course, no serious negotiations are possible while massive hostilities are ongoing. The only thing that can be negotiated at that stage is immediate cessation of aggression and hostilities. See the example above.

You specifically stated that the the majority of the world has indicated that prior to ANY negotiation taking place, Israel must withdraw from occupied lands. You said it. I want to see the reference for it. Otherwise you're talking out of your butt, making things up and flat out lying. Recognition of Israeli rights to occupy the land have NOTHING to do with the pre-reqs for negotiation.

Well, this (highlight mine -m) is not what was said, nonetheless. So now you either enroll in English comprehension therapy, or explain here the meaning of lying or shall we say, misinterpreting and misrepresenting?

Edited June 17, 2010 by myata

[Oleg Bach]

Correct...the question in this context only concerns Canada, not the belligerents, as Canada has very little direct influence or interest in the region. It simply doesn't matter in the eventual outcome unless Canada ramps up involvement.

Are you kidding - we have a very powerful Jewish community that pound for pound sent more money to Israel than the Americans - but we do not make a big deal of it. We allow the Jewish community to deal with assisting Israel on a PERSONAL level - YOU on the other hand turn it into some bit of usery and put it on the highly disruptive poitical level - America is a common trouble maker...Israel has had over 60 years to make friends in the region - America has made sure that does not happen..devide and conquer..so old fashioned - don't yah think?

[bush_cheney2004]

Are you kidding - we have a very powerful Jewish community that pound for pound sent more money to Israel than the Americans - but we do not make a big deal of it.

Sorry...I don't buy that comparative argument any more....show me the money.

We allow the Jewish community to deal with assisting Israel on a PERSONAL level - YOU on the other hand turn it into some bit of usery and put it on the highly disruptive poitical level

That's because it is political....geo-political. Canada can practice on Haiti to hone its skills.

- America is a common trouble maker...Israel has had over 60 years to make friends in the region - America has made sure that does not happen..devide and conquer..so old fashioned - don't yah think?

I think you will still ship more depleted uranium to America.

[Oleg Bach]

Sorry...I don't buy that comparative argument any more....show me the money.

That's because it is political....geo-political. Canada can practice on Haiti to hone its skills.

I think you will still ship more depleted uranium to America.

We don't need to ship that shit to you - you have lots..as for Haiti...it is one huge fraud and nothing will change down there - almost all of the Haitian relief is stolen - this theft is probably faciltated by Haitian con men assisting white con artists who con the emotional common Canadian idiots... Frankly BC - getting back on track for a moment - The Israeli citizen whether they are man or woman are persecuted by their own if they even so much as make a gesture of friendship - towards Palistine _ and it is a monetary thing - those that are on the take and profit from conflict will simply not allow peace to take place..

[Moonbox]

However, as we just established here, Israeli government itself is involved in aggressive and hostile acts advocated by these parties, giving us all the reason to think that no one sides is predominantly guilty of perpetrating hostilities, at least, not anymore.

Unless you didn't type properly it almost seems like you said both sides are in the wrong and both sides perpetrate hostilities, in which case you're right and also we may be making progress here.

So again, you are saying that some words should be held equivalent to acts

Absolutely. Especially when we're not merely talking about 'words', but rather threats of violence from people and groups who have loooong history of ACTING on them. A respectable court of law would also punish an offender for those 'words' the same way it would for deprivation of property, since you cling so hard to 'law' in your arguments.

No, that assumption is entirely yours. I only said that each act must be judged on its own: illegal expansion as a manifestation of aggressive intents, while absense of militancy - well, absense of militancy. By militancy I of course mean not only actual attacks but any serious activity on preparation and execution thereof. However it has to be proven, in an objective manner, rather than taken for granted as common knowledge.

International law has been your crutch all throughout this argument, but we all know how impotent and largely irrelevant it is. Keep clinging to it if you like, but since it won't be applied or enforced (on either side), it's pretty pointless.

Great idea. And it'll work with one minor addition that all serious acts of hostility must cease before meaningful negotiations of a lasting settlement could begin in any honesty. Can't negotiate with somebody who keeps robbing you even as you "negotiate" as was the case on all such earlier occasions.

Yes. You absolutely can negotiate amidst hostilities. Most conflicts throughout history have been resolved in such a way. We have hundreds of years of history to show it can work. A lot of these peace settlements, in fact, were largely inequitable. The whole point of a negotiation is that both sides get something they want and end up (hopefully) better off than when they started.

Much of what you're saying is new to me, so I'll have to research some more details on this.

Fair enough, but read the terms of the proposal carefully and hopefully you'll see why they're simply impossible. The fact that it's non-negotiable according to the Arab League leaves some serious questions as to the intention of the proposal and in what sort of faith it was made.

Of course, no serious negotiations are possible while massive hostilities are ongoing.

Wrong. If I have to I could probably go over hundreds of years of history throughout which what you say is impossible happened on a regular basis.

Well, this (highlight mine -m) is not what was said, nonetheless. So now you either enroll in English comprehension therapy, or explain here the meaning of lying or shall we say, misinterpreting and misrepresenting?

Oh? Let's go over this again...

Most of the world sees it as unquestionnably illegal practice with all lands returned as a condition of any meaningful dialogue of peace.

That's exactly what you said. I asked for a citation of that and you just gave me a list of hundreds of UN resolutions. I'll even let you go on the 'illegal practice' part but I need to see a reference from you still on what the conditions are for serious peace talks, because I really think you're out to lunch there.

Edited June 17, 2010 by Moonbox

[myata]

Unless you didn't type properly it almost seems like you said both sides are in the wrong and both sides perpetrate hostilities, in which case you're right and also we may be making progress here.

It's not the first time I said it here (not by far) but I'm glad that it has finally reached your active consciousness.

Absolutely. Especially when we're not merely talking about 'words', but rather threats of violence from people and groups who have loooong history of ACTING on them. A respectable court of law would also punish an offender for those 'words' the same way it would for deprivation of property, since you cling so hard to 'law' in your arguments.

Well, I've no time or interest in babytalk. Without excusing hostile talk, it's obvious that no court would treat a threat of violence as being equivalent to actual physical violence. It's been proven that both sides have involved themselves in hostile polemics and regardless of excuses, perpetrating acts of hostility and aggression would lead, naturally, to no other result than more hostility and aggression.

Yes. You absolutely can negotiate amidst hostilities. Most conflicts throughout history have been resolved in such a way. We have hundreds of years of history to show it can work. A lot of these peace settlements, in fact, were largely inequitable. The whole point of a negotiation is that both sides get something they want and end up (hopefully) better off than when they started.

I wouldn't though, nor would I advise it to anybody in their right mind. Honest negotiation necessarily implies some minimal level of trust to the partner and no such trust could exist if you are being robbed even as negotiations are taking place. Could it be perhaps that as happens here you confused the words (negotiation with capitulation)? They sound quite similar indeed.

That's exactly what you said. I asked for a citation of that and you just gave me a list of hundreds of UN resolutions. I'll even let you go on the 'illegal practice' part but I need to see a reference from you still on what the conditions are for serious peace talks, because I really think you're out to lunch there.

Well does it mean what your earlier interpretation suggested? Keep reading carefully and you'll find the answer, hopefully.

Edited June 17, 2010 by myata

[Moonbox]

I wouldn't though, nor would I advise it to anybody in their right mind.

Clearly your advice isn't worth anything then because, like I already said, it's been done for thousands of years successfully all over the world.

Honest negotiation necessarily implies some minimal level of trust to the partner and no such trust could exist if you are being robbed even as negotiations are taking place.

Hostile negotiations occur under the assumption that a signed treaty would be respected and witnessed by the whole world. The best part is that, particularly on the Arab side, they'd be giving up nothing but words. If Israel broke any treaty, it would be witnessed by all and Arab militants could denounce any concessions they made on the grounds of treaty violations, and go right back to launching rockets and threats.

Could it be perhaps that as happens here you confused the words (negotiation with capitulation)? They sound quite similar indeed.

Capitulation generally involves terms imposed on the losing side and is associated with a surrender. The Arab side isn't surrendering. Negotiating often means both sides don't get everything they want.

Well does it mean what your earlier interpretation suggested? Keep reading carefully and you'll find the answer, hopefully.

I didn't have an earlier interpretation. You made a claim and still haven't been able to reference it. Show us where the international community has indicated the pre-reqs for negotiation.

[dre]

Unless you didn't type properly it almost seems like you said both sides are in the wrong and both sides perpetrate hostilities, in which case you're right and also we may be making progress here.

Absolutely. Especially when we're not merely talking about 'words', but rather threats of violence from people and groups who have loooong history of ACTING on them. A respectable court of law would also punish an offender for those 'words' the same way it would for deprivation of property, since you cling so hard to 'law' in your arguments.

International law has been your crutch all throughout this argument, but we all know how impotent and largely irrelevant it is. Keep clinging to it if you like, but since it won't be applied or enforced (on either side), it's pretty pointless.

Yes. You absolutely can negotiate amidst hostilities. Most conflicts throughout history have been resolved in such a way. We have hundreds of years of history to show it can work. A lot of these peace settlements, in fact, were largely inequitable. The whole point of a negotiation is that both sides get something they want and end up (hopefully) better off than when they started.

Fair enough, but read the terms of the proposal carefully and hopefully you'll see why they're simply impossible. The fact that it's non-negotiable according to the Arab League leaves some serious questions as to the intention of the proposal and in what sort of faith it was made.

Wrong. If I have to I could probably go over hundreds of years of history throughout which what you say is impossible happened on a regular basis.

Oh? Let's go over this again...

That's exactly what you said. I asked for a citation of that and you just gave me a list of hundreds of UN resolutions. I'll even let you go on the 'illegal practice' part but I need to see a reference from you still on what the conditions are for serious peace talks, because I really think you're out to lunch there.

That's exactly what you said. I asked for a citation of that and you just gave me a list of hundreds of UN resolutions. I'll even let you go on the 'illegal practice' part but I need to see a reference from you still on what the conditions are for serious peace talks, because I really think you're out to lunch there.

The conditions are pretty obvious...

1. Israel ends the occupation and dismantles illegal settlements.

2. Palestine ends ALL hostilities and recognizes Israel with no reservations or caveats.

Nothing else is going to work. Expecting Palestinians to accept only a partial return of their land would be no less damaging to a peace deal than expecting Israel to accept only a partial cessation in violence, or partial recognition of Israel.

If you move away from these basic and obvious conditions any deal will get increasingly complicated and will be doomed to fail.

Israel gets a resolution to their security concerns.

Palestinians get their land back.

Anything else is just pissing in the wind. Yer probably gonna get wet.

[Moonbox]

The conditions are pretty obvious...

1. Israel ends the occupation and dismantles illegal settlements.

2. Palestine ends ALL hostilities and recognizes Israel with no reservations or caveats.

Yeah I can see that working. If the Arab League proposed (and could enforce) something like this (without all the other conditions they've previously discussed) I'd be disappointed if the Israelis didn't accept it.

[dre]

Yeah I can see that working. If the Arab League proposed (and could enforce) something like this (without all the other conditions they've previously discussed) I'd be disappointed if the Israelis didn't accept it.

Israel couldnt accept it and wouldnt. If that was an option for them they would have done it unilaterally. For example, that big ass security wall they built... They could have built it on their border instead of deep inside the west bank, and dismantled settlements on the other side of it. Then immediately they would have had the backing of the entire world, and nobody with more than 3 braincells could suggest the ball isnt in the palestinian court.

The problem with either of these solutions? They would cut themselves off from 1/3 of their water supply, which is something NO COUNTRY ON EARTH would be willing to do, especially in the increasing dry region where all those poor fuckers have to live.

[myata]

Clearly your advice isn't worth anything then because, like I already said, it's been done for thousands of years successfully all over the world.

Yeagh right, just because you said so everybody is supposed to nod in agreement, thoughtfully.

Hostile negotiations occur under the assumption that a signed treaty would be respected and witnessed by the whole world. The best part is that, particularly on the Arab side, they'd be giving up nothing but words. If Israel broke any treaty, it would be witnessed by all and Arab militants could denounce any concessions they made on the grounds of treaty violations, and go right back to launching rockets and threats.

It could also result in one or more parties continuing their hostilities under the veil of peace process. Not like it didn't happen before, so there isn't much point in going there again. Halt all serious hostilities as a token of genuine interest in peace and a measure to establish minimal level of trust between parties; only then there'd be any real chance for successful negotiations.

Capitulation generally involves terms imposed on the losing side and is associated with a surrender. The Arab side isn't surrendering. Negotiating often means both sides don't get everything they want.

With their land taken daily even as negotiations proceed they certainly wouldn't be negotiating from equal position. So you'll have to clarify it for us: do you also see allowing them to lop rockets into Israel in return for appropriation of their land? And Israel to conduct disproportionate retribution operations in return? And so on... as a colourful background to genuine peace negotiations?

Or maybe you'd want to insist that attacks on Israel stop unconditionally and completely, while in its turn it would be allowed to proceed with its landgrab policies unabated? Which scenario is closer to your idea of honest negotiation?

I didn't have an earlier interpretation. You made a claim and still haven't been able to reference it. Show us where the international community has indicated the pre-reqs for negotiation.

No, it's all there, just keep reading it, carefully and as it's written rather than as you want to see it appear in your mind.

Indeed, they (conditions) are quite obvious. And the best, i.e. quickest and most efficient way to encourage sides to accept them is to start acting objectively, encouraging and rewarding build of trust and condemning and censoring all acts of hostility and aggression - regardless by whom or with what justification.

[Moonbox]

Yeagh right, just because you said so everybody is supposed to nod in agreement, thoughtfully.

As I said, if you deny it's happened I'd be happy to provide CENTURIES of examples. You can continue to close your eyes, plug your ears and scream loudly, but that doesn't mean it's not true.

It could also result in one or more parties continuing their hostilities under the veil of peace process. Not like it didn't happen before, so there isn't much point in going there again.

It's not like anyone would be in a worse position than before is it?? So why not try? With a signed treaty in hand, the Arab League would be able to literally FLAY the Israelis on moral grounds if the Israelis broke it. Only their own stupidity thus far has prevented Israel's enemies from embarrassing it into a settlement.

With their land taken daily even as negotiations proceed they certainly wouldn't be negotiating from equal position.

Negotiations are pretty much never done from an equal position. Perhaps a little extra time in the real world will reveal that to you.

So you'll have to clarify it for us: do you also see allowing them to lop rockets into Israel in return for appropriation of their land? And Israel to conduct disproportionate retribution operations in return? And so on... as a colourful background to genuine peace negotiations?

My god man. Think about it. If the negotiations are seeking assurances that the hostilities you list above are ended, how can ending them be PRE requisites of the negotiations???? It doesn't even make sense. You can't have the objectives of the negotiations be the pre-requisites for the negotiations. That's the most bizarre logic I've ever seen here. That's not even something I can argue with. You're operating an a completely different magical plane of thinking....

Or maybe you'd want to insist that attacks on Israel stop unconditionally and completely, while in its turn it would be allowed to proceed with its landgrab policies unabated? Which scenario is closer to your idea of honest negotiation?

No I would simply insist that if the other side wants Israel to stop the landgrab and return occupied lands, they'd have to negotiate with Israel a set of conditions upon which Israel would agree to do exactly that. It's not rocket science here man.

The fact that the Arab League is willing to offer a peace proposal (a bad one but whatever) WHILE Israel continues its landgrab should stand as proof that the process CAN happen during ongoing hostilities.