Israel/Palestine discussion

Seen something interesting in the news or on the intertubes? Discuss it here.

Moderators: Zamfir, Hawknc, Moderators General, Prelates

yedidyak
Posts: 954
Joined: Mon Apr 12, 2010 10:24 pm UTC
Location: Israel

Re: Israel/Palestine discussion

Postby yedidyak » Mon May 16, 2011 11:36 pm UTC

Big writing and quotes from individuals and opinion pieces
DOES NOT MAKE A POINT ANY MORE REAL!

JonScholar
Posts: 272
Joined: Mon Mar 02, 2009 5:07 am UTC

Re: Israel/Palestine discussion

Postby JonScholar » Mon May 16, 2011 11:46 pm UTC

Oh, got your dander up do you? I assumed this was the place to post news articles relevant to Israel/Palestine. Do you object to the factual statements made within the articles I posted, or are you just mad that I posted them?

User avatar
sourmìlk
If I can't complain, can I at least express my fear?
Posts: 6393
Joined: Mon Dec 22, 2008 10:53 pm UTC
Location: permanently in the wrong
Contact:

Re: Israel/Palestine discussion

Postby sourmìlk » Mon May 16, 2011 11:50 pm UTC

For these purposes, there is no practical difference between an armistice line and a border. So to say "oh, they only crossed an armistice line and were thus not subject to Israel's military" is kind of silly: Israel maintains those lines as borders because no other peace agreement has been reached and because they need to for security. Israel holds the Golan Heights because Syria didn't accept them when Israel offered them back, and because the Syrians used the mountains to shell Kindergartens.

Also, only one person was shot near Gaza, and he was trying to plant an explosive. According to the article originally linked, the people who were shot were those trying to cross from Lebanon to Israel and from Syria to the Golan heights.

And yedidyak, relax: that's supposed to indicate a headline.
Terry Pratchett wrote:The trouble with having an open mind, of course, is that people will insist on coming along and trying to put things in it.

yedidyak
Posts: 954
Joined: Mon Apr 12, 2010 10:24 pm UTC
Location: Israel

Re: Israel/Palestine discussion

Postby yedidyak » Mon May 16, 2011 11:56 pm UTC

Give me a point to discuss, and I will talk about it. Posting random collections of opinion pieces with various quotes put in huge type isnt an argument.

But to quickly run through your articles.

First, a ynet article about a radical leftist rally in Tel Aviv. OK? So?

Second, a Guardian article about an old story by Breaking the Silence. So? What point are you trying to bring?

Third, a Haaretz opinion piece (for those unfamiliar, Haaretz tries to get the most radical leftist opinion pieces they can, like the ones bashing Obama for murdering Osama in cold blood for a 'fistful of votes') pointing out that Israel has no legally defined borders and then trying to extrapolate that anyone should be able to walk into Israel from anywhere anytime. The author is making a pedantic legal point with no real relevance:

Therefore, on Sunday the Syrians penetrated an area held by the State of Israel, but they did not cross the Israeli border. Nor did Palestinians from the Gaza Strip attempt to cross the Israeli border in the south. They crossed the cease-fire line that was ratified in the Oslo Accords but never demarcated as a border between Israel and any neighbor in the south of the country.


Again, So?

JonScholar
Posts: 272
Joined: Mon Mar 02, 2009 5:07 am UTC

Re: Israel/Palestine discussion

Postby JonScholar » Tue May 17, 2011 12:13 am UTC

They're news articles; purely informative. Read them and come to your own conclusions.

engr
Posts: 322
Joined: Sat Sep 25, 2010 3:08 am UTC

Re: Israel/Palestine discussion

Postby engr » Tue May 17, 2011 12:49 am UTC

yedidyak wrote:Third, a Haaretz opinion piece (for those unfamiliar, Haaretz tries to get the most radical leftist opinion pieces they can, like the ones bashing Obama for murdering Osama in cold blood for a 'fistful of votes') pointing out that Israel has no legally defined borders and then trying to extrapolate that anyone should be able to walk into Israel from anywhere anytime.

Holy crap. I knew Haaretz was leftist, but I thought it was Peres/Barak leftist, not Chomksy/Tibi/Shamir leftist (I mean this Shamir, not that one).
Tolerance is the virtue of the man without convictions. Gilbert K. Chesterton

User avatar
sourmìlk
If I can't complain, can I at least express my fear?
Posts: 6393
Joined: Mon Dec 22, 2008 10:53 pm UTC
Location: permanently in the wrong
Contact:

Re: Israel/Palestine discussion

Postby sourmìlk » Tue May 17, 2011 1:47 am UTC

JonScholar wrote:They're news articles; purely informative. Read them and come to your own conclusions.

Except that they're actually opinion pieces. I don't have a problem with opinion pieces being posted here, but I do wonder what point you're trying to make by posting them. Opinion pieces differ from news articles in that news articles describe events, opinion pieces try to make a point.
Terry Pratchett wrote:The trouble with having an open mind, of course, is that people will insist on coming along and trying to put things in it.

yoni45
Posts: 2123
Joined: Sun Jul 08, 2007 9:16 am UTC
Contact:

Re: Israel/Palestine discussion

Postby yoni45 » Tue May 17, 2011 2:09 am UTC

JonScholar wrote:...
STUFF IN BIG LETTERS


Lol, you're easy.
I sell LSAT courses and LSAT course accessories. Admittedly, we're still working on the accessories.

JonScholar
Posts: 272
Joined: Mon Mar 02, 2009 5:07 am UTC

Re: Israel/Palestine discussion

Postby JonScholar » Tue May 17, 2011 2:12 am UTC

There's one "opinion" piece by an Israeli geographer, which is basically a recitation of what's almost unanimously accepted as fact outside of Israel, that the Golan Heights are not Israeli territory, and thus you cannot honestly claim that the Israeli border was "breached" by the Nakba protestors. The claim that the piece was "trying to extrapolate that anyone should be able to walk into Israel from anywhere anytime" is an imaginative fabrication by yediyak.

As for my personal opinion, I've already posted it. The occupation of the Golan Heights is illegal, and the Israelis had no right to be there to begin with, and they certainly didn't have the right to gun down unarmed protesters.

User avatar
Izawwlgood
WINNING
Posts: 18686
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2007 3:55 pm UTC
Location: There may be lovelier lovelies...

Re: Israel/Palestine discussion

Postby Izawwlgood » Tue May 17, 2011 2:20 am UTC

JonScholar wrote:unarmed protesters.

Even an iota of fact finding would demonstrate this to be an incorrect statement.
... with gigantic melancholies and gigantic mirth, to tread the jeweled thrones of the Earth under his sandalled feet.

User avatar
sourmìlk
If I can't complain, can I at least express my fear?
Posts: 6393
Joined: Mon Dec 22, 2008 10:53 pm UTC
Location: permanently in the wrong
Contact:

Re: Israel/Palestine discussion

Postby sourmìlk » Tue May 17, 2011 2:22 am UTC

JonScholar wrote:There's one "opinion" piece by an Israeli geographer, which is basically a recitation of what's almost unanimously accepted as fact outside of Israel, that the Golan Heights are not Israeli territory, and thus you cannot honestly claim that the Israeli border was "breached" by the Nakba protestors. The claim that the piece was "trying to extrapolate that anyone should be able to walk into Israel from anywhere anytime" is an imaginative fabrication by yediyak.

As for my personal opinion, I've already posted it. The occupation of the Golan Heights is illegal, and the Israelis had no right to be there to begin with, and they certainly didn't have the right to gun down unarmed protesters.


Ignoring the fact that Syria refused Israel's offer to give back the Golan Heights in exchange for peace, Israel still holds this land because Syria was using it to shell them. Are you saying that Israel should have let Syria hold a military position that was allowing them to kill Israelis just because it was beyond an armistice line? And furthermore, whether or not the Golan Heights should be Israeli territory isn't really relevant here: it is Israeli territory, it's held by Israel, and thus the border between Syria and Israel is defined by the Golan Heights.
Terry Pratchett wrote:The trouble with having an open mind, of course, is that people will insist on coming along and trying to put things in it.

JonScholar
Posts: 272
Joined: Mon Mar 02, 2009 5:07 am UTC

Re: Israel/Palestine discussion

Postby JonScholar » Tue May 17, 2011 2:27 am UTC

Izawwlgood wrote:Even an iota of fact finding would demonstrate this to be an incorrect statement.


A few idiots holding rocks doesn't make the protesters "armed", nor does it give the Israeli army carte blanche to fire live ammunition at civilians. And that bit of snark about "fact finding" rings pretty hollow when you personally have been caught so many times making patently uniformed statements.

User avatar
Izawwlgood
WINNING
Posts: 18686
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2007 3:55 pm UTC
Location: There may be lovelier lovelies...

Re: Israel/Palestine discussion

Postby Izawwlgood » Tue May 17, 2011 2:32 am UTC

An insult readily and appropriately returned!

We've been over this many a time; throwing rocks and charging a barricaded border en masse does not qualify as 'peaceful protest', and when the other side is incredibly, justifiably, paranoid of suicide bombings and various other threats from people on the other side, you shouldn't be surprised at what happens when you act like you've been listening to too much Rage against the Machine.
... with gigantic melancholies and gigantic mirth, to tread the jeweled thrones of the Earth under his sandalled feet.

User avatar
sourmìlk
If I can't complain, can I at least express my fear?
Posts: 6393
Joined: Mon Dec 22, 2008 10:53 pm UTC
Location: permanently in the wrong
Contact:

Re: Israel/Palestine discussion

Postby sourmìlk » Tue May 17, 2011 2:35 am UTC

JonScholar wrote:
Izawwlgood wrote:Even an iota of fact finding would demonstrate this to be an incorrect statement.


A few idiots holding rocks doesn't make the protesters "armed", nor does it give the Israeli army carte blanche to fire live ammunition at civilians.


For a given value of "armed", rocks definitely count. Rocks can easily do as much damage as, say, a club. And even if you don't believe that rioting with rocks gives the IDF the right to fire at civilians, rioting with rocks while crossing a militarized border definitely does.
Terry Pratchett wrote:The trouble with having an open mind, of course, is that people will insist on coming along and trying to put things in it.

JonScholar
Posts: 272
Joined: Mon Mar 02, 2009 5:07 am UTC

Re: Israel/Palestine discussion

Postby JonScholar » Tue May 17, 2011 2:41 am UTC

I am not going to respond to arguments that I refuted, literally two pages ago in this thread. Unless you're willing to argue that the Mubarak was justified in attempting to clear Tahrir square using live ammunition, and that the Toronto police should have gunned down the G-20 protesters, I think the internal inconsistencies of your argument pretty much speak for themselves. Enjoy your final response, I won't be reading it

User avatar
sourmìlk
If I can't complain, can I at least express my fear?
Posts: 6393
Joined: Mon Dec 22, 2008 10:53 pm UTC
Location: permanently in the wrong
Contact:

Re: Israel/Palestine discussion

Postby sourmìlk » Tue May 17, 2011 2:47 am UTC

JonScholar wrote:I am not going to respond to arguments that I refuted, literally two pages ago in this thread. Unless you're willing to argue that the Mubarak was justified in attempting to clear Tahrir square using live ammunition, and that the Toronto police should have gunned down the G-20 protesters, I think the internal inconsistencies of your argument pretty much speak for themselves. Enjoy your final response, I won't be reading it


And I already addressed that point, and the fact that you've forgotten seems to indicate that you really aren't reading my responses. For those keeping track then: I do not support the use of live ammunition to clear peaceful protesters. Thus Mubarak's potential use of live ammunition against everybody in Tahrir square wouldn't be acceptable: most weren't throwing rocks and breaking into places and such. However, if the protesters decided to break into guarded areas and hurl rocks at people, then I would be okay with using live ammunition to stop them.
Terry Pratchett wrote:The trouble with having an open mind, of course, is that people will insist on coming along and trying to put things in it.

User avatar
Izawwlgood
WINNING
Posts: 18686
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2007 3:55 pm UTC
Location: There may be lovelier lovelies...

Re: Israel/Palestine discussion

Postby Izawwlgood » Tue May 17, 2011 2:57 am UTC

I'm just bemused that JonScholar once again thinks he 'won' the debate. Yup, irrefutable.
... with gigantic melancholies and gigantic mirth, to tread the jeweled thrones of the Earth under his sandalled feet.

yoni45
Posts: 2123
Joined: Sun Jul 08, 2007 9:16 am UTC
Contact:

Re: Israel/Palestine discussion

Postby yoni45 » Tue May 17, 2011 3:05 am UTC

JonScholar wrote:...I refuted...


Teehee.

It's like if you make a faulty comparison enough times, it eventually becomes less faulty.
I sell LSAT courses and LSAT course accessories. Admittedly, we're still working on the accessories.

User avatar
aleflamedyud
wants your cookies
Posts: 3307
Joined: Tue Oct 09, 2007 7:50 pm UTC
Location: The Central Bureaucracy

Re: Israel/Palestine discussion

Postby aleflamedyud » Tue May 17, 2011 8:02 am UTC

Notably, JonScholar also seems to engage himself in anti-Israel postings on Reddit under the username jonscholar. He posted that YNet article about the radical protests under the headline, "Did you think FOX news was bad? Check out what the Israelis have to put up with." The implication is, apparently, that the radicals are correct, and the Rightists shouldn't be protesting against such innocuous sentiments as "the Intifada will be victorious". Apparently people who oppose intifadas, known in English as "terrorist campaigns", are as loony as Fox News broadcasters.

engr wrote:
yedidyak wrote:Third, a Haaretz opinion piece (for those unfamiliar, Haaretz tries to get the most radical leftist opinion pieces they can, like the ones bashing Obama for murdering Osama in cold blood for a 'fistful of votes') pointing out that Israel has no legally defined borders and then trying to extrapolate that anyone should be able to walk into Israel from anywhere anytime.

Holy crap. I knew Haaretz was leftist, but I thought it was Peres/Barak leftist, not Chomksy/Tibi/Shamir leftist (I mean this Shamir, not that one).

They range full across the chart of the Israeli Left, and can usually be found centered one party to the Left of the most mainstream leftist party. If Kadima does well in elections, Ha'aretz writes for Labour. If Labour does well (or goes into the coalition), Ha'aretz writes for Meretz-Yachad, as it has recently. Then, of course, it makes perennial efforts to maintain its position as Dovisher-than-thou by occasionally putting out crap like Gideon Levy that's only worthy of Chadash (the pro-Soviet Israeli Communist Party) or Balad and Ta'al (the Arab nationalist parties).
"With kindness comes naïveté. Courage becomes foolhardiness. And dedication has no reward. If you can't accept any of that, you are not fit to be a graduate student."

User avatar
sourmìlk
If I can't complain, can I at least express my fear?
Posts: 6393
Joined: Mon Dec 22, 2008 10:53 pm UTC
Location: permanently in the wrong
Contact:

Re: Israel/Palestine discussion

Postby sourmìlk » Tue May 17, 2011 8:11 am UTC

aleflamedyud wrote:The implication is, apparently, that the radicals are correct, and the Rightists shouldn't be protesting against such innocuous sentiments as "the Intifada will be victorious".


I think it has to do more with ynetnews calling the left-winged protestors "extreme left-wing protestors." My guess is that JonScholar feels that's not an objective approach to journalism. While ynetnews is accurate in its description, it probably should avoid such adverbs as "extreme" when reporting objectively.
Terry Pratchett wrote:The trouble with having an open mind, of course, is that people will insist on coming along and trying to put things in it.

yedidyak
Posts: 954
Joined: Mon Apr 12, 2010 10:24 pm UTC
Location: Israel

Re: Israel/Palestine discussion

Postby yedidyak » Tue May 17, 2011 9:31 am UTC

sourmìlk wrote:
aleflamedyud wrote:The implication is, apparently, that the radicals are correct, and the Rightists shouldn't be protesting against such innocuous sentiments as "the Intifada will be victorious".


I think it has to do more with ynetnews calling the left-winged protestors "extreme left-wing protestors." My guess is that JonScholar feels that's not an objective approach to journalism. While ynetnews is accurate in its description, it probably should avoid such adverbs as "extreme" when reporting objectively.


And insult every moderate leftist in Israel by comparing them to this bunch of terror-supporting lunatics?

User avatar
Iulus Cofield
WINNING
Posts: 2917
Joined: Wed Apr 07, 2010 9:31 am UTC

Re: Israel/Palestine discussion

Postby Iulus Cofield » Fri May 20, 2011 2:58 am UTC


User avatar
sourmìlk
If I can't complain, can I at least express my fear?
Posts: 6393
Joined: Mon Dec 22, 2008 10:53 pm UTC
Location: permanently in the wrong
Contact:

Re: Israel/Palestine discussion

Postby sourmìlk » Fri May 20, 2011 3:03 am UTC

I think everybody's in an uproar over nothing. While I don't understand why the rather arbitrary '49 armistice lines were picked (seeing as Israel doesn't want those used as a basis and the Arabs didn't want those used as a basis for agreements), but saying "we should use these lines as a start with land swaps" allows for virtually infinite possibilities anyways.
Terry Pratchett wrote:The trouble with having an open mind, of course, is that people will insist on coming along and trying to put things in it.

User avatar
Iulus Cofield
WINNING
Posts: 2917
Joined: Wed Apr 07, 2010 9:31 am UTC

Re: Israel/Palestine discussion

Postby Iulus Cofield » Fri May 20, 2011 3:21 am UTC

Yeah, I hardly think Obama was pretty careful in his wording and concessive to both sides. His references to the borders, as you said, are very flexible. I think he was just trying to encourage negotiations.

User avatar
sourmìlk
If I can't complain, can I at least express my fear?
Posts: 6393
Joined: Mon Dec 22, 2008 10:53 pm UTC
Location: permanently in the wrong
Contact:

Re: Israel/Palestine discussion

Postby sourmìlk » Fri May 20, 2011 3:22 am UTC

Iulus Cofield wrote:Yeah, I hardly think Obama was pretty careful in his wording and concessive to both sides. His references to the borders, as you said, are very flexible. I think he was just trying to encourage negotiations.


Yeah. But you've seen the reactions: I think people are reading way more into what he said that is reasonable
Terry Pratchett wrote:The trouble with having an open mind, of course, is that people will insist on coming along and trying to put things in it.

BattleMoose
Posts: 1993
Joined: Tue Nov 13, 2007 8:42 am UTC

Re: Israel/Palestine discussion

Postby BattleMoose » Fri May 20, 2011 3:26 am UTC

Aren't peace talks completely premature so long as Hamas has the destruction of Israel as a dedicated goal?

User avatar
sourmìlk
If I can't complain, can I at least express my fear?
Posts: 6393
Joined: Mon Dec 22, 2008 10:53 pm UTC
Location: permanently in the wrong
Contact:

Re: Israel/Palestine discussion

Postby sourmìlk » Fri May 20, 2011 3:28 am UTC

BattleMoose wrote:Aren't peace talks completely premature so long as Hamas has the destruction of Israel as a dedicated goal?

Yes, which is why he also called for a demilitarization of Palestine. Clearly negotiations aren't going to commence until Hamas disarms itself.
Terry Pratchett wrote:The trouble with having an open mind, of course, is that people will insist on coming along and trying to put things in it.

User avatar
Iulus Cofield
WINNING
Posts: 2917
Joined: Wed Apr 07, 2010 9:31 am UTC

Re: Israel/Palestine discussion

Postby Iulus Cofield » Fri May 20, 2011 3:33 am UTC

I think Obama phrased this very well:

President Obama wrote:In particular, the recent announcement of an agreement between Fatah and Hamas raises profound and legitimate questions for Israel: How can one negotiate with a party that has shown itself unwilling to recognize your right to exist? And in the weeks and months to come, Palestinian leaders will have to provide a credible answer to that question.

User avatar
sourmìlk
If I can't complain, can I at least express my fear?
Posts: 6393
Joined: Mon Dec 22, 2008 10:53 pm UTC
Location: permanently in the wrong
Contact:

Re: Israel/Palestine discussion

Postby sourmìlk » Fri May 20, 2011 3:37 am UTC

Iulus Cofield wrote:I think Obama phrased this very well:

President Obama wrote:In particular, the recent announcement of an agreement between Fatah and Hamas raises profound and legitimate questions for Israel: How can one negotiate with a party that has shown itself unwilling to recognize your right to exist? And in the weeks and months to come, Palestinian leaders will have to provide a credible answer to that question.


Agreed. Of course, my extremely ultra-orthodox Uncle is annoyed with Obama's speech because he feels he legitimized the '49 armistice lines as borers and recognized the Palestinians as a distinct ethnicity. I semi-successfully got him to relax.
Terry Pratchett wrote:The trouble with having an open mind, of course, is that people will insist on coming along and trying to put things in it.

User avatar
Iulus Cofield
WINNING
Posts: 2917
Joined: Wed Apr 07, 2010 9:31 am UTC

Re: Israel/Palestine discussion

Postby Iulus Cofield » Fri May 20, 2011 3:39 am UTC

Out of curiosity for the ultra-orthodox viewpoint, what borders does your uncle want? 47 Partition plan? Just where the PA has effective control of currently? Post Six Day War? No Palestinian state at all?

User avatar
sourmìlk
If I can't complain, can I at least express my fear?
Posts: 6393
Joined: Mon Dec 22, 2008 10:53 pm UTC
Location: permanently in the wrong
Contact:

Re: Israel/Palestine discussion

Postby sourmìlk » Fri May 20, 2011 3:45 am UTC

Iulus Cofield wrote:Out of curiosity for the ultra-orthodox viewpoint, what borders does your uncle want? 47 Partition plan? Just where the PA has effective control of currently? Post Six Day War? No Palestinian state at all?


Honestly, I don't know. My guess is that he'd prefer Israel control all of the Golan Heights, the West Bank, Gaza, and the Sinai. Then again, he probably recognizes that Israel wouldn't have a good time ruling over additional millions of Arabs.
Terry Pratchett wrote:The trouble with having an open mind, of course, is that people will insist on coming along and trying to put things in it.

User avatar
Iulus Cofield
WINNING
Posts: 2917
Joined: Wed Apr 07, 2010 9:31 am UTC

Re: Israel/Palestine discussion

Postby Iulus Cofield » Fri May 20, 2011 3:46 am UTC

Did he vote for Begin in '49? :D I'm trying to be funny, maybe that will just sound rude, if so, sorry.

User avatar
sourmìlk
If I can't complain, can I at least express my fear?
Posts: 6393
Joined: Mon Dec 22, 2008 10:53 pm UTC
Location: permanently in the wrong
Contact:

Re: Israel/Palestine discussion

Postby sourmìlk » Fri May 20, 2011 3:48 am UTC

Iulus Cofield wrote:Did he vote for Begin in '49? :D I'm trying to be funny, maybe that will just sound rude, if so, sorry.

He lives in America and wasn't alive until '65. But he probably doesn't have nearly the problems with Begin that I do.
Terry Pratchett wrote:The trouble with having an open mind, of course, is that people will insist on coming along and trying to put things in it.

User avatar
Iulus Cofield
WINNING
Posts: 2917
Joined: Wed Apr 07, 2010 9:31 am UTC

Re: Israel/Palestine discussion

Postby Iulus Cofield » Fri May 20, 2011 3:57 am UTC

I agree, it wasn't a very funny joke.

User avatar
aleflamedyud
wants your cookies
Posts: 3307
Joined: Tue Oct 09, 2007 7:50 pm UTC
Location: The Central Bureaucracy

Re: Israel/Palestine discussion

Postby aleflamedyud » Fri May 20, 2011 5:04 am UTC

I think the Obama speech sounds remarkably reasonable but not remarkably shrewd or realistic. As has been pointed out here, the PLO has done some pretty stupid stuff lately and taken some stances that pretty openly say they're not really committed to the Oslo Accords -- if they ever really were (their actions say definitely not, while the Israelis' actions say sorta-kinda-almost yes). I'd like to see Obama talk about how he's actually going to rope the PLO into negotiations and a negotiated settlement rather than allowing them to pursue their current strategy of declaring a state in the West Bank and Gaza unilaterally and then "negotiating" for more than that before they'll consider their hostilities ended.

But then again, I'd also like to see Bibi Netanyahu replaced with a Prime Minister from the National Left movement, and if wishes were fishes, I'd be eating a rather delicious lox-and-labneh bagel right now.
"With kindness comes naïveté. Courage becomes foolhardiness. And dedication has no reward. If you can't accept any of that, you are not fit to be a graduate student."

User avatar
sourmìlk
If I can't complain, can I at least express my fear?
Posts: 6393
Joined: Mon Dec 22, 2008 10:53 pm UTC
Location: permanently in the wrong
Contact:

Re: Israel/Palestine discussion

Postby sourmìlk » Fri May 20, 2011 5:28 am UTC

aleflamedyud wrote:But then again, I'd also like to see Bibi Netanyahu replaced with a Prime Minister from the National Left movement, and if wishes were fishes, I'd be eating a rather delicious lox-and-labneh bagel right now.


See, if you can pick anything for a wish to be, why choose fishes? How about 100-shekel bills or a warp drive or something?
Terry Pratchett wrote:The trouble with having an open mind, of course, is that people will insist on coming along and trying to put things in it.

User avatar
Iulus Cofield
WINNING
Posts: 2917
Joined: Wed Apr 07, 2010 9:31 am UTC

Re: Israel/Palestine discussion

Postby Iulus Cofield » Fri May 20, 2011 6:00 am UTC

Danny Danon, a member of the Likud Party, and a deputy speaker of the Israeli Knesset wrote an opinion piece for the New York Times yesterday. He takes a very different viewpoint than Obama.

Spoiler:
Making the Land of Israel Whole

OVER the past few months, analysts in Israel and abroad have warned that Israel will face what Defense Minister Ehud Barak has termed a “diplomatic tsunami.” In September, the Palestinian Authority plans to bring the recognition of a Palestinian state based on the 1967 boundary to the United Nations General Assembly for a vote. The Palestinians’ request will almost certainly be approved.

While most voices in the Israeli and international news media are calling on Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to grant major concessions to the Palestinians to forestall such a move, he should in fact do the opposite: he should annex the Jewish communities of the West Bank, or as Israelis prefer to refer to our historic heartland, Judea and Samaria.

In 1995, as part of the Oslo accords, Israel and the Palestinians agreed that “neither side shall initiate or take any step that will change the status of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip pending the outcome of the permanent status negotiations.” If the president of the Palestinian Authority, Mahmoud Abbas, and prime minister, Salam Fayyad, decide to disregard this section of the accords by seeking United Nations recognition of statehood, it would mean that Israel, too, is no longer bound by its contents and is freed to take unilateral action.

The first immediate implication would be that all of the diplomatic and security assistance that Israel provides to the Palestinians would be halted, and the transfer of tax revenues — upward of $1 billion per year — would end permanently. This alone could threaten the very existence of the Palestinian Authority.

Second, a United Nations vote on Palestinian statehood would give Israel an opportunity to rectify the mistake we made in 1967 by failing to annex all of the West Bank (as we did the eastern half of Jerusalem). We could then extend full Israeli jurisdiction to the Jewish communities and uninhabited lands of the West Bank. This would put an end to a legal limbo that has existed for 44 years.

In addition to its obvious ideological and symbolic significance, legalizing our hold on the West Bank would also increase the security of all Israelis by depriving terrorists of a base and creating a buffer against threats from the east. Moreover, we would be well within our rights to assert, as we did in Gaza after our disengagement in 2005, that we are no longer responsible for the Palestinian residents of the West Bank, who would continue to live in their own — unannexed — towns.

These Palestinians would not have the option to become Israeli citizens, therefore averting the threat to the Jewish and democratic status of Israel by a growing Palestinian population.

While naysayers will no doubt warn us of the dire consequences and international condemnation that are sure to follow such a move by Israel, this would not be the first time that Israel has made such controversial decisions.

In 1949, Prime Minister David Ben-Gurion moved the Knesset to Jerusalem and declared it the capital of the State of Israel despite the 1947 United Nations partition plan, which had designated the city an international zone. Immediately after the 1967 Six-Day War, Prime Minister Levi Eshkol annexed East Jerusalem and declared that the city would remain a united and undivided entity. And in 1981, Prime Minister Menachem Begin extended Israeli sovereignty to the Golan Heights.

In each of these cases, Israel’s actions were met with harsh international criticism and threats of sanctions; all of these decisions, however, are cornerstones of today’s reality.

Our leaders made these decisions based on the realization that their actions would further Zionist values and strengthen the State of Israel. The diplomatic storms soon blew over as the international community moved on to other issues. It would be wise of Mr. Netanyahu to follow in their footsteps.

If the Palestinians decide that they want to end the Oslo agreement and begin experimenting with unilateral actions, then an unexpected opening will present itself for Israel. Our leaders must seize this opportunity and right a historic wrong by annexing parts of our homeland.

User avatar
sourmìlk
If I can't complain, can I at least express my fear?
Posts: 6393
Joined: Mon Dec 22, 2008 10:53 pm UTC
Location: permanently in the wrong
Contact:

Re: Israel/Palestine discussion

Postby sourmìlk » Fri May 20, 2011 6:11 am UTC

Yeah, that sounds like Likud. The only point I totally agree with him on is that Palestine shouldn't declare unilateral statehood: it's not conducive to peace. And really, they're going to declare that they're now in control of East Jerusalem and then what? Are they going to invade or are they going to just use their supposed ownership as another tactic to stall negotiations ("you're building on our land, stop it.").

But seriously, he thinks annexing the entire West Bank is a good idea? I have no idea why he thinks that Israel would want to rule over an additional 2.5 million Palestinians, most of whom are not too fond of Israel. I much prefer the policy of leaving them be as soon as security can be assured.
Terry Pratchett wrote:The trouble with having an open mind, of course, is that people will insist on coming along and trying to put things in it.

User avatar
Vaskafdt
Posts: 137
Joined: Fri Dec 25, 2009 8:56 am UTC
Location: Jerusalem

Re: Israel/Palestine discussion

Postby Vaskafdt » Fri May 20, 2011 6:13 am UTC

aleflamedyud wrote:But then again, I'd also like to see Bibi Netanyahu replaced with a Prime Minister from the National Left movement, and if wishes were fishes, I'd be eating a rather delicious lox-and-labneh bagel right now.


who? Barak? Peretz?

Don't get me wrong.. I'm a swing vote between labour and Meretz, but who the hell does the national left has that can possibly lead a country better then Bibi? (as terrible a job of it as he is doing)
My Art Blog: (Slightly NSFW)
Image

User avatar
Iulus Cofield
WINNING
Posts: 2917
Joined: Wed Apr 07, 2010 9:31 am UTC

Re: Israel/Palestine discussion

Postby Iulus Cofield » Fri May 20, 2011 6:14 am UTC

I misread that the same way, he doesn't want to annex all of the West Bank. Just every place in the West Bank where a Jewish person is living.


Return to “News & Articles”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 13 guests