Four Israelis shot dead in West Bank in unprovoked terrorist attack

[Bob]

Hey everyone,

I haven't read all the posts in here, so please excuse me if I'm repeating something that's already been said. I have some concerns about the movement of the "peace process", as I feel these time periods are somewhat of a carte-blanche for Palestinian (and other Arab-Muslim) terrorists to kill Jews. It feels like open season on Israel and the Jewish people, because if Israel engages in necessary activities to combat terrorism it is criticized for not complying with the peace process. In other words, I feel that the "peace process" sometimes ties our hands with respect to us being able to protect our lives from those who never stop trying to kill us.

Let's hope Netanyahu can operate as Rabin, and work towards advancing the "peace process" as if there was no terrorism and fight terrorism as if there was no peace "process". Everyone I know, including myself, want peace. How we define that peace, however, is something entirely different. I am very sceptical, however, of significant developments resulting from this new series of negotiations. Judging by the public pronouncements of the PA and its affiliates, as well as the never-ending hostility from Hamas, it's hard to be hopeful. I feel like Arab-Muslim intransigence is worse than ever. Think of it this way, it's already 2010 and no Arab-Muslim leader (especially from the PA) can even bring themselves to mumble recognition of Israel as the Jewish homeland. If we can't even get that, what can we really expect from Abbas and his team?

Edited September 14, 2010 by Bob

[naomiglover]

Think of it this way, it's already 2010 and no Arab-Muslim leader (especially from the PA) can even bring themselves to mumble recognition of Israel and the Jewish homeland. If we can't even get that, what can we really expect from Abbas and his team?

1988 called:

December, 1988: Arafat recognizes Israel's right to exist

Link

It's interesting how you've put all blame on "Palestinian (and other Arab-Muslim) terrorists". Ever considered recognizing the problem with the settlements? What about the wall that has been ruled to be illegal under the ICC? What about Bibi's party which has vowed to never allow a Palestinian state?

Can you look at this map and say Israel does not systemically appropriate land?

It's not easy to take people like you seriously when you blame the derailing of peace talks on "Palestinian (and other Arab-Muslim) terrorists" while forgetting to mention some extremely important variables that are involved.

[naomiglover]

You're an idiot for typing that.

In fact, The NYT has not removed him from his position as Bureau Chief. Mainly because neither Bonner or his son can profit from his writing. I will grant though, had he been writing in a way that cast a negative spin on Israeli politics. you would not think he is in conflict. Nay, you would even hold him up as a model...a jew who disagrees with Israel.

Do you have a Jew problem? Because I don't. There are hundreds of thousands of Jews who recognize justice and have no problem acknowledging all the problems that are involved in this conflict. Here is an article by a Jew. No, he doesn't hate himself:

The progressive media watchdog group, FAIR, has published a statement joining Electronic Intifada and Tikun Olam in questioning the stonewalling approach the NY Times has taken to the issue of whether Ethan Bronner’s son’s induction into the IDF raises questions about his objectivity and conflict of interest:

Link

Bronner's son serves in the IDF and he writes about a conflict that his son is involved in. This creates a conflict of interest.

Even Clark Hoyt, the public editor, concluded an apologetic piece with this:

But, stepping back, this is what I see: The Times sent a reporter overseas to provide disinterested coverage of one of the world’s most intense and potentially explosive conflicts, and now his son has taken up arms for one side. Even the most sympathetic reader could reasonably wonder how that would affect the father, especially if shooting broke out.

Of course, Keller, rejected this and Bronner continues to write about a conflict in which his son serves in.

This is a lot more reading than Dancer is used to and since he's not here to engage in a real debate on this topic, I am adding this information for anyone else who cares to know more about this situation. In regards to the NYT and its coverage of the Middle East:

Although the paper has a Palestinian reporter in Gaza, Abunimah notes:

“[Taghreed] Khodary is allowed to report only on Palestinians. Neither she nor any other Arab reporter is allowed to report on Israeli Jews. While Jews/Americans may report on Palestinians, the converse is not true. Why is this? It must be – I assume – because there is an inherent, perhaps unacknowledged assumption that an Arab/Palestinian is or will be automatically biased against Israelis/Jews. Whereas, we are supposed to accept that in no case is a Jewish reporter who identifies with Israel biased even when his son has joined an occupation army that is raiding Palestinian refugee camps and communities dozens of times per week.”

Link

Edited September 13, 2010 by naomiglover

[M.Dancer]

“[Taghreed] Khodary is allowed to report only on Palestinians. Neither she nor any other Arab reporter is allowed to report on Israeli Jews. While Jews/Americans may report on Palestinians, the converse is not true. Why is this? It must be – I assume – because there is an inherent, perhaps unacknowledged assumption that an Arab/Palestinian is or will be automatically biased against Israelis/Jews. Whereas, we are supposed to accept that in no case is a Jewish reporter who identifies with Israel biased even when his son has joined an occupation army that is raiding Palestinian refugee camps and communities dozens of times per week.”[/b]

Link

The NYT trumps a freelance hack...

[naomiglover]

The NYT trumps a freelance hack...

Okee dokee Dancer.

You have won again with another one of your nonsensical, vague responds that misses the whole point. Thumbs up to you.

As mentioned;

This is a lot more reading than Dancer is used to and since he's not here to engage in a real debate on this topic, I am adding this information for anyone else who cares to know more about this situation.

[jbg]

Your words would have meaning if you condemned Israel's attack on Gazans which left 1000 civilians dead. Many of these civilians were killed indiscriminately as it has been proved through many investigations and as it has been repeated by IDF soldiers.

You're a bad person for being selective in your outrage for civilian deaths.

Are all of your posts anti-Israel or anti-Jewish spam?

[DogOnPorch]

Are all of your posts anti-Israel or anti-Jewish spam?

To naiomi, civilian equals Hamas member out-of-uniform.

Edited September 14, 2010 by DogOnPorch

[jbg]

For a better view of Israel, go here (link).

[DogOnPorch]

For a better view of Israel, go here (link).

Agreement...Israel's medical innovations alone attracts folks from all over the planet.

[Bob]

1988 called:

December, 1988: Arafat recognizes Israel's right to exist

Link

It's interesting how you've put all blame on "Palestinian (and other Arab-Muslim) terrorists". Ever considered recognizing the problem with the settlements? What about the wall that has been ruled to be illegal under the ICC? What about Bibi's party which has vowed to never allow a Palestinian state?

Can you look at this map and say Israel does not systemically appropriate land?

It's not easy to take people like you seriously when you blame the derailing of peace talks on "Palestinian (and other Arab-Muslim) terrorists" while forgetting to mention some extremely important variables that are involved.

Ah naomiglover.... I remember you.

Recognizing Israel's right to exist is one thing, recognizing Israel's right to exist as the Jewish homeland is something different. How can someone like yourself, who purports to be knowledgeable about this issue, not recognize this huge difference? I specifically said that no Arab or Muslim leader of importance has ever recognized Israel's purpose as the Jewish homeland - as a Jewish nation-state.

My own words, for a second time, were that no prominent Arab-Muslim leader can bring his (or her) lips to even mutter "recognition of Israel as the Jewish homeland".

[Bob]

With respect to whether or not settlement development is a serious impediment to peace, they really aren't. The Palestinians and their Arab-Muslim brethren have been murdering Jews around the world for many years before 1967. Of course some far-reaching settlements which are more far-removed from the Jewish mainland are up for negotiation towards peace, but they are not serious obstacles. Let's also remember that it's 2010, not 1967. Things have changed, and Judea and Samaria never belonged to Palestinians, anyways. You can't declare war on Israel on its day of independence, with all your political leader calling for a second Holocaust, lose the war, and then cry over sour grapes. You can't do it again in 1954, or again in 1967, or again in 1973, or again in 1982... and then keep crying that land is being "taken" from you in accordance with proposals which you have rejected and gone to war over.

We build, and they murder. I hope and pray for peace, but I am not holding any illusions. Until we see a fundamental shift among the Palestinians, from the top to the bottom and back again, towards renouncing terrorism and recognition of the Jewish State of Israel, the prospects of a meaningful peace are low.

[Bob]

For those out there who are actually interested in honesty, let's quickly analyze this map that naomiglover was kind enough to share with us.

Map illustrating Palestinian "loss of land"

First of all, Palestinians never controlled any of the land. There was never a Palestinian state. So the first map is very misleading. Certainly there was Palestinian ownership of some lands/properties, but it was under the administration and control of the British mandate. It's just a flat-out lie to paint in green massive parts of the Palestine Mandate as "Palestinian land". By the same token, there was no "Jewish land", either, aside from what was owned by Jewish people at this time - also under the control and administration of Britain.

After the Partition Plan was implemented and rejected by the Palestinians and their Arab-Muslim allies, the War of Independence occurred. This plan would have been the beginning of the Palestinian state.

Unless we define "Palestinian land" as land owned by Palestinians, then we can reconsider the maps presented. The Palestinians, however, most certainly DID NOT own all the land of Israel that is coloured in green as is indicated by the first map. That is a massive overestimation, which was more than likely done for disingenuous purposes - to advance some notion of Palestinian dispossession at the hands of Israeli developments.

Edited September 14, 2010 by Bob

[M.Dancer]

Your words would have meaning if you condemned Israel's attack on Gazans which left 1000 civilians dead.

Start with a lie, add propaganda and voila!

A Naomi post!!

[Bob]

The answer of course is yes. Your premise is stupid as well as dishonest. Should someone disqualify themselves over their adult children's decisions? Of course not. Should a Pulitzer Prize winning journalist disqualify themselves because they are jewish....that is your real question.

What naomiglover is try to say is so ridiculous as to not warrant a serious response. What's next, a President of the USA not being permitted to make national security decisions because his son or daughter is in the armed forces? As if a journalist cannot continue to do his or her job because what he or she is reporting on somehow involves a child.

Should I not talk about healthcare issues because my relative was ill with cancer in a public hospital? Should I not talk about Israeli issues because I live here? Should a Muslim not talk about 9/11 because of his or her faith?

Lastly, I literally laughed out loud when I read naomiglover tell us that there is a NYT policy somehow regarding this issue. Well now! If the NYT says it has a policy, then it most certainly IS NOT disputable!

[M.Dancer]

Well now! If the NYT says it has a policy, then it most certainly IS NOT disputable!

They indeed do have a policy. It is concerned with issues like inside trading and stock promotion. Never have I heard of an instance where a reporter could not cover military issues because of a son in the military, much less a bureau chief cover a nation, because his son is in that nations military...

[Bob]

They indeed do have a policy. It is concerned with issues like inside trading and stock promotion. Never have I heard of an instance where a reporter could not cover military issues because of a son in the military, much less a bureau chief cover a nation, because his son is in that nations military...

Of course it has to do with financial matters... but the enemies of Israel (i.e. naomiglover) are primarily concerned with shutting out the truth. Therefore, they mobilize to interpret the policy in a way favourable to their perspectives. Since he's Jewish and has a son in the IDF, he shouldn't be permitted to hold his position. They mask their true feelings with the claim that their is a "conflict of interest". Sickening and pathetic.

[DogOnPorch]

Bob: First of all, Palestinians never controlled any of the land. There was never a Palestinian state. So the first map is very misleading. Certainly there was Palestinian ownership of some lands/properties, but it was under the administration and control of the British mandate. It's just a flat-out lie to paint in green massive parts of the Palestine Mandate as "Palestinian land". By the same token, there was no "Jewish land", either, aside from what was owned by Jewish people at this time - also under the control and administration of Britain.

Paid for by 10s of thousands of Allied casualties during the Great War I might add...more than all the Arab-Israeli Wars put together. The area's reaction during WW2 is also telling. The Jews of the Mandate created their own elite infantry brigade that fought with honours during the Italian campaign while Arab leadership ended-up in the SS. The Grand Mufti is said to have gassed a load of Jews himself while visiting Auschwitz-Birkenau...curious as to how it was done.

[DogOnPorch]

Speaking of curiously...I believe it was the poster naiomiglover that claimed the Mufti was never an SS man.

[naomiglover]

Recognizing Israel's right to exist is one thing, recognizing Israel's right to exist as the Jewish homeland is something different.

Red Herring.

It is/was required by the Palestinians to accept Israel's right to exist as according to resolution 242. They did. Anything else is just more tactical stalling and more excuse by Israel to continue to annex more land.

With respect to whether or not settlement development is a serious impediment to peace, they really aren't.

After this comment, nothing else you say has any credibility.

If you cannot recognize the large problem with the settlements and the annexation of Palestinian land, then you're also a problem.

[DogOnPorch]

Well there you go, Bob. So much for reports straight from the scene...lol.

[M.Dancer]

After this comment, nothing else you say has any credibility.

I guess that means everything he said beforehand has credibility...which means he's way ahead of you.

[jbg]

It is/was required by the Palestinians to accept Israel's right to exist as according to resolution 242. They did. Anything else is just more tactical stalling and more excuse by Israel to continue to annex more land.

You mean it's wrong to test the sincerity of a recognition? At least require that it be in Arabic as well as English?

[naomiglover]

You mean it's wrong to test the sincerity of a recognition? At least require that it be in Arabic as well as English?

I'm not sure what you mean. Please explain.

[jbg]

I'm not sure what you mean. Please explain.

I mean Arafat's December 1988 "recognition" was not explicit, did not recognize a Jewish Homeland, and was in English only. He refused to say it in Arabic, or to renounce and forbid terrorism in Arabic. In other words he had different messages for different audiences.

[Bob]

Well there you go, Bob. So much for reports straight from the scene...lol.

Haha! It's funny how the most fundamental bone-of-contention is deemed to be mere semantics by naomiglover - the right for Israel to be the homeland for the Jews. Apparently this is just a minor, insignificant detail. That and terrorism.

The main problems are apartment buildings and offices in Jerusalem! Stay tuned for photos from "settlements" in the near future.