israel criticizes aregentina and brazil for recognizing palestinian st

[Bob]

Well, if you follow that path (do what we must/want/do with no regard for law, justice, rights of other people) you'll certainly become confirmed and acknowledged aggressor universally in the world. Not that things are too far away from that point, as they stand now.

You had one part right - we will continue to do what we must. We can't help it if people politicize terms such as "justice" and "rights" in attempts to delegitimize our national rights to independence and self-determination - which is what this struggle is all about.

[GostHacked]

You had one part right - we will continue to do what we must. We can't help it if people politicize terms such as "justice" and "rights" in attempts to delegitimize our national rights to independence and self-determination - which is what this struggle is all about.

You are a scary individual Bob.

[myata]

Palestinian authority has published the intent to have a state declared in August 2011 and by all signs they are on track to achieving that. A number of countries, including serious players like EU, Russia, have indicated that they would support it. With its intransigency Israel may be driving itself in a corner - fast. Yes they still have that big buddy to cover their every act, but even that may change.

[bloodyminded]

The bottom line, they're not going anywhere for many good reasons. If the recent "Palestine Papers" from Wikileaks are accurate, even the ridiculous PA has reconciled itself to some of these realities.

What the papers have demonstrated is that the Palestinians have offerred far more concessions that the conventional "no partner for peace" knuckleheads have been claiming...and that Israel has remained amazingly intransigent, refusing everything.

You know this, since you brought it up.

[Bonam]

What the papers have demonstrated is that the Palestinians have offerred far more concessions that the conventional "no partner for peace" knuckleheads have been claiming...and that Israel has remained amazingly intransigent, refusing everything.

You know this, since you brought it up.

I, too, was somewhat surprised by how much the Palestinian leadership was willing to compromise on. I agree that if they are willing to offer that much, the characterization of "no partner for peace" may be incorrect, if the population would actually abide by such an agreement.

But if all it would mean is Israel signing a deal with the PA, the PA becoming super unpopular and Hamas (or some other faction) taking over and then declaring that the deal is null and void and they want the 1948 borders or whatever, then it's kind of pointless.

[Bob]

What the papers have demonstrated is that the Palestinians have offerred far more concessions that the conventional "no partner for peace" knuckleheads have been claiming...and that Israel has remained amazingly intransigent, refusing everything.

You know this, since you brought it up.

That's a pretty ridiculous interpretation of the leaks. What you're saying boils down to this - since Israel doesn't view the situation as the Palestinians, then Israel is to blame for the deadlock in negotiations. The truth is, you don't know what the core issues are, and don't know the layout of the land.

Of course we refuse to relinquish Ma'ale Adumim. Of course we refuse to evacuate Gilo. These are two examples of absurd demands the PA is making that it knows will never be met. Of course we will ensure that we have access to our holy city of Hebron. We will not be complicit in helping the Arabs/Muslims make it Jew-free as was done in the past. Do we even need to get into the Temple Mount? Or demilitarization of a possible future Palestinian state?

The gaps between us and them are still irreconcilable at this point.

[Bob]

I, too, was somewhat surprised by how much the Palestinian leadership was willing to compromise on. I agree that if they are willing to offer that much, the characterization of "no partner for peace" may be incorrect, if the population would actually abide by such an agreement.

But if all it would mean is Israel signing a deal with the PA, the PA becoming super unpopular and Hamas (or some other faction) taking over and then declaring that the deal is null and void and they want the 1948 borders or whatever, then it's kind of pointless.

The leaks don't tell us anything we didn't already know. And, if accurate, they illustrate that the PA is still making impossible demands. None of this should come as any surprise. When you make an impossible demand and remain obstinate, the term "no partner for peace" is an accurate description.

From their perspective, we also make impossible demands. It's an irreconcilable situation.

[Bob]

Palestinian authority has published the intent to have a state declared in August 2011 and by all signs they are on track to achieving that. A number of countries, including serious players like EU, Russia, have indicated that they would support it. With its intransigency Israel may be driving itself in a corner - fast. Yes they still have that big buddy to cover their every act, but even that may change.

The EU, Russia, US, Canada, and other countries have been supporting the PA for decades. What's new? As far as them being "on track to achieving" an independent state, that statement of your illustrates yet again how little you know about this situation. Nothing could be further from the truth. The current obstacles before the Palestinians towards establishing an independent state are insurmountable in the short-term.

[Bonam]

The leaks don't tell us anything we didn't already know. And, if accurate, they illustrate that the PA is still making impossible demands. None of this should come as any surprise. When you make an impossible demand and remain obstinate, the term "no partner for peace" is an accurate description.

From their perspective, we also make impossible demands. It's an irreconcilable situation.

Yes, but, the demands were less impossible and ridiculous than before. Agreeing for permanent annexation of some of the settlements around Jerusalem and agreeing that the vast majority of Palestinians do not in fact have a right of return to Israel are big concessions, from the Palestinian perspective. While they may not yet be sufficient to be acceptable from the Israeli perspective, they show that the Palestinian leadership was at least willing to make some compromises, rather than stubbornly demanding the utterly impossible (all of east Jerusalem, right of return for millions, etc). If the PA actually had the support of their people in offering these compromises, I'd say it would have been a decent place to start/continue negotiating from. The issue of a few more specific neighborhoods around Jerusalem does not seem utterly intractable from my perspective, if both parties were to negotiate in good faith.

[Bob]

Yes, but, the demands were less impossible and ridiculous than before. Agreeing for permanent annexation of some of the settlements around Jerusalem and agreeing that the vast majority of Palestinians do not in fact have a right of return to Israel are big concessions, from the Palestinian perspective. While they may not yet be sufficient to be acceptable from the Israeli perspective, they show that the Palestinian leadership was at least willing to make some compromises, rather than stubbornly demanding the utterly impossible (all of east Jerusalem, right of return for millions, etc). If the PA actually had the support of their people in offering these compromises, I'd say it would have been a decent place to start/continue negotiating from. The issue of a few more specific neighborhoods around Jerusalem does not seem utterly intractable from my perspective, if both parties were to negotiate in good faith.

Well, at least you acknowledge that you're setting the standard pretty low. The PA has upgraded itself from demands that are absolutely impossible to demands that are just impossible.

The result? The demands are still impossible. As far as neighbourhoods around Jerusalem, for the most part, those demands are impossible. Any serious settlement block like Ma'ale Adumim ain't up for negotiation. Moreover, the municipal needs of Jerusalem must be met as well as national security needs around our capital city. You know as well as I do that we're not going back to the Auschwitz-lines where Arabs can snipe into our apartments from their apartments. We can't have an enemy state RIGHT ON TOP OF Jerusalem. It will be opening up another front, something we'd do well to avoid.

[bud]

Well, at least you acknowledge that you're setting the standard pretty low. The PA has upgraded itself from demands that are absolutely impossible to demands that are just impossible.

this is why israel will never be a partner of peace. because justice and fairness is impossible in their mind.

time for the world to officially recognize the state of palestine and stop wasting time with the israeli government.

[Bob]

this is why israel will never be a partner of peace. because justice and fairness is impossible in their mind.

time for the world to officially recognize the state of palestine and stop wasting time with the israeli government.

In your world, where "fairness" and "justice" mean Jewish national suicide, I'm glad to oppose your concept of "peace".

Rock on, bro. Take another haul on that spliff for me, while you're at it.

[bud]

In your world, where "fairness" and "justice" mean Jewish national suicide, I'm glad to oppose your concept of "peace".

i'm all for the israeli state within their legal borders. it's not a national suicide to give up claims to land that legally and morally does not belong to you.

[Bob]

i'm all for the israeli state within their legal borders. it's not a national suicide to give up claims to land that legally and morally does not belong to you.

What are our legal borders?

[bud]

What are our legal borders?

1967 border. you know, the one that the world (including u.s. and canada) recognizes and israel does not.

[Bob]

1967 border. you know, the one that the world (including u.s. and canada) recognizes and israel does not.

Oh, you mean the armistice lines of 1949 from which we were attacked from for twenty years. You mean the indefensible and wholly unworkable lines for municipal needs. You mean the lines that were rejected by the Arab world as they came together and tried to destroy us in three wars? Right... those borders. Otherwise known as the Auschwitz lines (credit to Abba Eban).

A little too late for those. Don't cry over spilled milk when we accepted those lines originally. This isn't a game of Monopoly where to get to go back to GO after you mess up.

Edited January 29, 2011 by Bob

[myata]

The result? The demands are still impossible. As far as neighbourhoods around Jerusalem, for the most part, those demands are impossible. Any serious settlement block like Ma'ale Adumim ain't up for negotiation. Moreover, the municipal needs of Jerusalem must be met as well as national security needs around our capital city. You know as well as I do that we're not going back to the Auschwitz-lines where Arabs can snipe into our apartments from their apartments. We can't have an enemy state RIGHT ON TOP OF Jerusalem. It will be opening up another front, something we'd do well to avoid.

Well, if fair and just principles recognized as such by vast majority of the worlds are "impossible", it could mean one thing only: it's the Isreal (its current government) that is not a genuine partner for peace. Plain and simple. And no way around this simple truth.

[Bob]

Well, if fair and just principles recognized as such by vast majority of the worlds are "impossible", it could mean one thing only: it's the Isreal (its current government) that is not a genuine partner for peace. Plain and simple. And no way around this simple truth.

Yes of course, the UN representing the "principles of the majority of the world". The same world that looked the other way while we were were being put into gas chambers. Excuse me for not accepting popular opinion as equivalent to truth and justice, especially considering that Jewish people compose a tiny fraction of one percent of the world's population.

The endless claims from people on your ideological end that you have popular international support rings hollow. Try finding better reasons to justify putting Israel into an indefensible position with borders, and thereby endangering Jewish independence and self-determination. Aligning yourself with UN positions and portraying that as the representation of morality and justice got old about forty years ago.

[dre]

Oh, you mean the armistice lines of 1949 from which we were attacked from for twenty years. You mean the indefensible and wholly unworkable lines for municipal needs. You mean the lines that were rejected by the Arab world as they came together and tried to destroy us in three wars? Right... those borders. Otherwise known as the Auschwitz lines (credit to Abba Eban).

A little too late for those. Don't cry over spilled milk when we accepted those lines originally. This isn't a game of Monopoly where to get to go back to GO after you mess up.

Don't cry over spilled milk when we accepted those lines originally. This isn't a game of Monopoly where to get to go back to GO after you mess up.

Then dont cry when Israel is still embroiled in this mess in another hundred years, and still a massive global welfare recipient that cant provide for its own security needs.

And dont cry if some other entity decides Israels national borders dont need to be respected.

Edited January 29, 2011 by dre

[bush_cheney2004]

.....And dont cry if some other entity decides Israels national borders dont need to be respected.

You mean like Canadians and Americans killing the locals in Afghanistan or Serbia?

[Jack Weber]

You had one part right - we will continue to do what we must. We can't help it if people politicize terms such as "justice" and "rights" in attempts to delegitimize our national rights to independence and self-determination - which is what this struggle is all about.

Viva La Revolucion,Roberto...

And always remember..

Israel Uber Alles!!!!

Enjoy the pile of rocks you covet....

Edited January 29, 2011 by Jack Weber

[Bob]

Then dont cry when Israel is still embroiled in this mess in another hundred years, and still a massive global welfare recipient that cant provide for its own security needs.

And dont cry if some other entity decides Israels national borders dont need to be respected.

Any country would have massive costs if in Israel's situation. As a Canadian, you should show some humility and recognize your own hypocrisy - as Canada freeloads off of the provision of American security. It's easy to save money on security costs when you've got three neighbours - the Atlantic, Pacific, and the USA. It's even easier when America covers virtually all of the costs...

We're also not "global welfare recipients". We receive military aid from the USA, and the USA does receive benefit for it through military R+D and a strategic alliance in n important region. If you want to talk about global welfare recipients, point your finger where it belongs - the Palestinians (and many Arab countries).

Edited January 29, 2011 by Bob

[dre]

attempts to delegitimize our national rights to independence and self-determination - which is what this struggle is all about.

Get fukkin real. People that think you should stop settling land and plundering resources that you have no legal right to could care less if you have your little religious state in that freakin dump.

This claim is just another part of victimology, but its a lie.

[bloodyminded]

I, too, was somewhat surprised by how much the Palestinian leadership was willing to compromise on. I agree that if they are willing to offer that much, the characterization of "no partner for peace" may be incorrect, if the population would actually abide by such an agreement.

But if all it would mean is Israel signing a deal with the PA, the PA becoming super unpopular and Hamas (or some other faction) taking over and then declaring that the deal is null and void and they want the 1948 borders or whatever, then it's kind of pointless.

Well, that's speculation.

What we do know, as fact, that isn't speculation, is that the notion that the Israelis have been generous, and the Palestinians intransigent, is false.

And it's been one of the central arguments, for years.

[myata]

It was commented here how world's attitude toward Israel's uncompromizing policy of expansion of illegal occupation could develop : from growing unease even among close allies, to isolation, then finally to widespread condemnation and sanctions.

Well, the latest development at Security Council where otherwise unanimous resolution condemning expansion of settlements has been vetoed by US marks the arrival of second phase in the process. And earlier than I could have ever expected.

Even closest allies of US, France and UK condemned that policy. US now stands alone trying to make sense (mostly to itself) how to keep the apppearance of supporting justice while at the same time encouraging their ally that has no intent of doing anything of the kind, to dig in and persist in policies of obstruction and aggression. Pretty much everybody else has moved on. The writing is on the wall.

And this brings us to the final, highly theoretical question of how Canada would have voted in this case. Its pretty obvious to everybody and of course is the chief reason why we aren't there. Credibility of this country as a respected agent of justice and peace, thanks mainly to our government of the day is at the ground level. There simply isn't anything we can say that is of independent value or interest, and for that reason is worthy of others attention.

Edited February 20, 2011 by myata