|
Again you check at rockets in a vacuum, puting aside all the murders, repression, oppression, that the israel do daily in palestinian land.
|
On July 30 2014 07:31 WhiteDog wrote:Again you check at rockets in a vacuum, puting aside all the murders, repression, oppression, that the israel do daily in palestinian land.
What repression after Israel's disengagement from Gaza are you talking about? The first thing that happened after Israel withdrew was this.Yes, after a few months of quiet the first brilliant thing the Hamas came up with was capturing an Israelian officer. Great idea!
|
On July 30 2014 07:34 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On July 30 2014 07:31 WhiteDog wrote:Again you check at rockets in a vacuum, puting aside all the murders, repression, oppression, that the israel do daily in palestinian land. What repression after Israel's disengagement from Gaza are you talking about? The first thing that happened after Israel withdrew was this.Yes, after a few months of quiet the first brilliant thing the Hamas came up with was capturing an Israelian officer. Great idea!
Yeah because Gaza and West Bank are two different country so far away they can't communicate.
And yeah because Gazans never work in Israel. Yeah and because Gazans didn't suffer from a blockade.
|
On July 30 2014 07:36 WhiteDog wrote:Show nested quote +On July 30 2014 07:34 Nyxisto wrote:On July 30 2014 07:31 WhiteDog wrote:Again you check at rockets in a vacuum, puting aside all the murders, repression, oppression, that the israel do daily in palestinian land. What repression after Israel's disengagement from Gaza are you talking about? The first thing that happened after Israel withdrew was this.Yes, after a few months of quiet the first brilliant thing the Hamas came up with was capturing an Israelian officer. Great idea! Yeah because Gaza and West Bank are two different country so far away they can't communicate. And yeah because Gazans never work in Israel. Yeah and because Gazans didn't suffer from a blockade.
The blockade started in 2007.
|
On July 30 2014 07:37 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On July 30 2014 07:36 WhiteDog wrote:On July 30 2014 07:34 Nyxisto wrote:On July 30 2014 07:31 WhiteDog wrote:Again you check at rockets in a vacuum, puting aside all the murders, repression, oppression, that the israel do daily in palestinian land. What repression after Israel's disengagement from Gaza are you talking about? The first thing that happened after Israel withdrew was this.Yes, after a few months of quiet the first brilliant thing the Hamas came up with was capturing an Israelian officer. Great idea! Yeah because Gaza and West Bank are two different country so far away they can't communicate. And yeah because Gazans never work in Israel. Yeah and because Gazans didn't suffer from a blockade. The blockade started in 2007.
The 2006–2007 economic sanctions against the Palestinian National Authority were economic sanctions imposed by Israel and the Quartet on the Middle East against the Palestinian National Authority and the Palestinian territories following the January 2006 legislative elections that brought Hamas to power.
The international sanctions were terminated in June 2007 following the Battle of Gaza, while at the same time a new and more severe blockade was initiated by Israel against Gaza.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006–2007_economic_sanctions_against_the_Palestinian_National_Authority
At no point Israel have let Palestinian free in their land, because they want to annex those lands that's as simple as that.
|
On July 30 2014 07:27 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +On July 30 2014 07:10 BlueSpace wrote:On July 30 2014 06:48 kwizach wrote:On July 30 2014 06:42 BlueSpace wrote:On July 30 2014 06:36 kwizach wrote:On July 30 2014 06:33 BlueSpace wrote:On July 30 2014 06:25 kwizach wrote:On July 30 2014 06:02 BlueSpace wrote:On July 30 2014 05:52 EtherealBlade wrote:On July 30 2014 05:45 BlueSpace wrote:
[quote]
Sorry but that is pure speculation. They might also plot to continue to support terror campaigns in Israel and use the Palestinian state as a staging ground. In order for the two state solution to work, both sides need to recognize each other and their respective borders. Israel has not been willing to offer any acceptable borders to the prospected state of Palestine, that's why every peace talks broke down so far. That is factually false. For example the Road map of 2000 reached a dead end around 2003 because the Israelis refused to withdraw from the territories they occupied since 28 September 2000 AND at the same time the Palestinian authority couldn't prevent Palestinian terrorism. They actually never got to the point to discuss borders or the fate of Jerusalem. It is not factually false at all. Israel refuses, to this day, to outline the borders it would wish a two-state solution to be based on. This was one of the requests of Abbas in the recent negotiations - simply having Israel outline the border it wants. Israel refused. So you're changing every peace talk to the most recent peace talk? The definition of the borders is clearly an issue, but it is not the sole reason why every peace talk has broken down so far as was claimed. That is the reason why this blanket statement is false. EDIT: Didn't realize someone jumped in. Yeah, I'm not the poster you were replying to. I thought your "that is factually false" statement referred to what he said about Israel not being willing to outline borders, which is entirely true. They are clearly trying to grab as much as they can. But still this is just one of many issues, that hamper the peace talks, although it is one of the big ones. The Palestinian terrorism being the other one. In the end the entire conflict sometimes seems like a giant chicken and egg problem. What has to come first in order for peace to work? And nobody can really answer that I think. Pro-Palestinian will always claim, that all terrorism will cease once the territory question is settled while Pro-Israelis will claim that once the terror stops, a solution for the territory problem can be found. In the end I believe that the current leadership on both sides are not really interested in peace. Your last sentence is a false equivalence - Abbas and the Fatah have repeatedly proven themselves to be much more willing to compromise and meet the Israeli government half way than the latter. The latest talks are only one more example of this. See here, in particular the answer after "what concessions?". (these are American officials involved in the negotiations talking) "He [Abbas] agreed to a demilitarized state; he agreed to the border outline so 80 percent of settlers would continue living in Israeli territory; he agreed for Israel to keep security sensitive areas (mostly in the Jordan Valley - NB) for five years, and then the United States would take over. He accepted the fact that in the Israeli perception, the Palestinians would never be trustworthy.
"He also agreed that the Jewish neighborhoods in East Jerusalem would remain under Israeli sovereignty, and agreed that the return of Palestinians to Israel would depend on Israeli willingness. 'Israel won't be flooded with refugees,' he promised.
"He told us: 'Tell me if there's another Arab leader that would have agreed to what I agreed to. I won't make any more concessions until Israel agrees to the three following terms:
- Outlining the borders would be the first topic under discussion. It would be agreed upon within three months.
- A timeframe would be set for the evacuation of Israelis from sovereign Palestinian territories (Israel had agreed to complete the evacuation of Sinai within three years).
- Israel will agree to have East Jerusalem as the capital of Palestine.
The Israelis would not agree to any of the three demands." And we are ignoring the fact, that there is an organization called Hamas, that won the last elections in 2006 and that are currently in a unity government with Fatah. I don't want to link again the interview, but people should start reading it. Demilitarization is not happening. So Abbas can talk all he wants. As long as Hamas is not on board, it doesn't mean anything for the moment. I didn't drew false equivalence. You just picked a specific representative of the Palestinian leadership that wants to compromise in order to fit your narrative. Which is actually the entire problem with this thread. People just conveniently ignore whatever doesn't fit their specific story in order to white wash "their" side. I picked "a specific representative of the Palestinian leadership"? Abbas is the president of the Palestinian National Authority and the leader of the PLO, which Israel recognizes as the representative of the Palestinian people as a whole. I'm not sure what "Abbas can talk all he wants" is supposed to mean - that's what you're supposed to do during negotiations, put propositions on the table and try reach an agreement on a set of elements. Why would the Palestinians per-emptively do whatever Israel asks of them in the negotiations before any deal is reached between the two parties and Israel agrees to the basic terms of the Palestinians as well? I'm not sure what your point with regards to Hamas is either. Do you think that they should be included in the negotiations, or at least that they should be willing to put into effect the content of an agreement? If so, you should be happy that an agreement for a unity government was reached. In any case, even not being in a unity government with Abbas doesn't change the fact that the negotiations are supposed to lead to compromise and concessions on both sides, that have to later be put into effect. If you can't reach a compromise in the first place, you have to look at what's blocking an agreement, and the fact is that Israel has clearly been less willing than Abbas to compromise. Not even being willing to outline borders is simply mind-blowing when you think about it. Show nested quote +On July 30 2014 07:09 Nyxisto wrote:
Israel has always talked to Abbas and the Fatah. "Only 40% support for the Hamas"? "So only every second person supports the group that officially wants to tear your throat out? What's your problem buddy!" It's amazing to what standards Israel is held. Every other country wouldn't even have entered the room given the political climate of the Palestinian authorities. If the US were in Israel's shoes they would have brought the Palestinians some glorious freedom quite a while ago. And you're complaining about the people accusing you of strawmen and hyperbole? Do you see the kind of rubbish that you post? If you're not willing to engage in serious discussion, which you don't seem to be considering you carefully ignored every single one of the arguments I presented to you in my last posts, please abstain from intervening altogether in my exchanges with other people.
What I mean is that Abbas despite being the nominal president doesn't have enough authority to actually implement what he is promising. Especially since Hamas leadership has made contradictory statements especially in respect to demilitarization. That's why I think to only cite Abbas position is not sufficient for a comparison. Fatah and Abbas have very little influence in the Gaza. They called for a ceasefire which Hamas has ignored so far.
|
On July 30 2014 07:41 WhiteDog wrote:
At no point Israel have let Palestinian free in their land, because they want to annex those lands that's as simple as that.
Well maybe because after over one-hundred suicide attacks over the course of four years Israel wasn't just going to give up complete control at once? The point is that the region saw some improvement for a short while after Israel withdrew from Gaza. But no, our glorious Hamas leaders couldn't have that. They needed to abduct an Israeli officer and throw 300 rockets into Israel's face.
|
On July 30 2014 07:43 BlueSpace wrote:Show nested quote +On July 30 2014 07:27 kwizach wrote:On July 30 2014 07:10 BlueSpace wrote:On July 30 2014 06:48 kwizach wrote:On July 30 2014 06:42 BlueSpace wrote:On July 30 2014 06:36 kwizach wrote:On July 30 2014 06:33 BlueSpace wrote:On July 30 2014 06:25 kwizach wrote:On July 30 2014 06:02 BlueSpace wrote:On July 30 2014 05:52 EtherealBlade wrote:
[quote]
Israel has not been willing to offer any acceptable borders to the prospected state of Palestine, that's why every peace talks broke down so far. That is factually false. For example the Road map of 2000 reached a dead end around 2003 because the Israelis refused to withdraw from the territories they occupied since 28 September 2000 AND at the same time the Palestinian authority couldn't prevent Palestinian terrorism. They actually never got to the point to discuss borders or the fate of Jerusalem. It is not factually false at all. Israel refuses, to this day, to outline the borders it would wish a two-state solution to be based on. This was one of the requests of Abbas in the recent negotiations - simply having Israel outline the border it wants. Israel refused. So you're changing every peace talk to the most recent peace talk? The definition of the borders is clearly an issue, but it is not the sole reason why every peace talk has broken down so far as was claimed. That is the reason why this blanket statement is false. EDIT: Didn't realize someone jumped in. Yeah, I'm not the poster you were replying to. I thought your "that is factually false" statement referred to what he said about Israel not being willing to outline borders, which is entirely true. They are clearly trying to grab as much as they can. But still this is just one of many issues, that hamper the peace talks, although it is one of the big ones. The Palestinian terrorism being the other one. In the end the entire conflict sometimes seems like a giant chicken and egg problem. What has to come first in order for peace to work? And nobody can really answer that I think. Pro-Palestinian will always claim, that all terrorism will cease once the territory question is settled while Pro-Israelis will claim that once the terror stops, a solution for the territory problem can be found. In the end I believe that the current leadership on both sides are not really interested in peace. Your last sentence is a false equivalence - Abbas and the Fatah have repeatedly proven themselves to be much more willing to compromise and meet the Israeli government half way than the latter. The latest talks are only one more example of this. See here, in particular the answer after "what concessions?". (these are American officials involved in the negotiations talking) "He [Abbas] agreed to a demilitarized state; he agreed to the border outline so 80 percent of settlers would continue living in Israeli territory; he agreed for Israel to keep security sensitive areas (mostly in the Jordan Valley - NB) for five years, and then the United States would take over. He accepted the fact that in the Israeli perception, the Palestinians would never be trustworthy.
"He also agreed that the Jewish neighborhoods in East Jerusalem would remain under Israeli sovereignty, and agreed that the return of Palestinians to Israel would depend on Israeli willingness. 'Israel won't be flooded with refugees,' he promised.
"He told us: 'Tell me if there's another Arab leader that would have agreed to what I agreed to. I won't make any more concessions until Israel agrees to the three following terms:
- Outlining the borders would be the first topic under discussion. It would be agreed upon within three months.
- A timeframe would be set for the evacuation of Israelis from sovereign Palestinian territories (Israel had agreed to complete the evacuation of Sinai within three years).
- Israel will agree to have East Jerusalem as the capital of Palestine.
The Israelis would not agree to any of the three demands." And we are ignoring the fact, that there is an organization called Hamas, that won the last elections in 2006 and that are currently in a unity government with Fatah. I don't want to link again the interview, but people should start reading it. Demilitarization is not happening. So Abbas can talk all he wants. As long as Hamas is not on board, it doesn't mean anything for the moment. I didn't drew false equivalence. You just picked a specific representative of the Palestinian leadership that wants to compromise in order to fit your narrative. Which is actually the entire problem with this thread. People just conveniently ignore whatever doesn't fit their specific story in order to white wash "their" side. I picked "a specific representative of the Palestinian leadership"? Abbas is the president of the Palestinian National Authority and the leader of the PLO, which Israel recognizes as the representative of the Palestinian people as a whole. I'm not sure what "Abbas can talk all he wants" is supposed to mean - that's what you're supposed to do during negotiations, put propositions on the table and try reach an agreement on a set of elements. Why would the Palestinians per-emptively do whatever Israel asks of them in the negotiations before any deal is reached between the two parties and Israel agrees to the basic terms of the Palestinians as well? I'm not sure what your point with regards to Hamas is either. Do you think that they should be included in the negotiations, or at least that they should be willing to put into effect the content of an agreement? If so, you should be happy that an agreement for a unity government was reached. In any case, even not being in a unity government with Abbas doesn't change the fact that the negotiations are supposed to lead to compromise and concessions on both sides, that have to later be put into effect. If you can't reach a compromise in the first place, you have to look at what's blocking an agreement, and the fact is that Israel has clearly been less willing than Abbas to compromise. Not even being willing to outline borders is simply mind-blowing when you think about it. On July 30 2014 07:09 Nyxisto wrote:
Israel has always talked to Abbas and the Fatah. "Only 40% support for the Hamas"? "So only every second person supports the group that officially wants to tear your throat out? What's your problem buddy!" It's amazing to what standards Israel is held. Every other country wouldn't even have entered the room given the political climate of the Palestinian authorities. If the US were in Israel's shoes they would have brought the Palestinians some glorious freedom quite a while ago. And you're complaining about the people accusing you of strawmen and hyperbole? Do you see the kind of rubbish that you post? If you're not willing to engage in serious discussion, which you don't seem to be considering you carefully ignored every single one of the arguments I presented to you in my last posts, please abstain from intervening altogether in my exchanges with other people. What I mean is that Abbas despite being the nominal president doesn't have enough authority to actually implement what he is promising. Especially since Hamas leadership has made contradictory statements especially in respect to demilitarization. That's why I think to only cite Abbas position is not sufficient for a comparison. Fatah and Abbas have very little influence in the Gaza. They called for a ceasefire which Hamas has ignored so far.
Hamas and the Fatah were unified just before the attack, together they had enough authority. That's what Israel is trying to break. Not to mention the current state of the Fatah is the result of Israel unwillingness to settle.
Nyxisto your inability to have at least a more balanced view makes me wonder.
|
On July 30 2014 07:43 BlueSpace wrote:Show nested quote +On July 30 2014 07:27 kwizach wrote:On July 30 2014 07:10 BlueSpace wrote:On July 30 2014 06:48 kwizach wrote:On July 30 2014 06:42 BlueSpace wrote:On July 30 2014 06:36 kwizach wrote:On July 30 2014 06:33 BlueSpace wrote:On July 30 2014 06:25 kwizach wrote:On July 30 2014 06:02 BlueSpace wrote:On July 30 2014 05:52 EtherealBlade wrote:
[quote]
Israel has not been willing to offer any acceptable borders to the prospected state of Palestine, that's why every peace talks broke down so far. That is factually false. For example the Road map of 2000 reached a dead end around 2003 because the Israelis refused to withdraw from the territories they occupied since 28 September 2000 AND at the same time the Palestinian authority couldn't prevent Palestinian terrorism. They actually never got to the point to discuss borders or the fate of Jerusalem. It is not factually false at all. Israel refuses, to this day, to outline the borders it would wish a two-state solution to be based on. This was one of the requests of Abbas in the recent negotiations - simply having Israel outline the border it wants. Israel refused. So you're changing every peace talk to the most recent peace talk? The definition of the borders is clearly an issue, but it is not the sole reason why every peace talk has broken down so far as was claimed. That is the reason why this blanket statement is false. EDIT: Didn't realize someone jumped in. Yeah, I'm not the poster you were replying to. I thought your "that is factually false" statement referred to what he said about Israel not being willing to outline borders, which is entirely true. They are clearly trying to grab as much as they can. But still this is just one of many issues, that hamper the peace talks, although it is one of the big ones. The Palestinian terrorism being the other one. In the end the entire conflict sometimes seems like a giant chicken and egg problem. What has to come first in order for peace to work? And nobody can really answer that I think. Pro-Palestinian will always claim, that all terrorism will cease once the territory question is settled while Pro-Israelis will claim that once the terror stops, a solution for the territory problem can be found. In the end I believe that the current leadership on both sides are not really interested in peace. Your last sentence is a false equivalence - Abbas and the Fatah have repeatedly proven themselves to be much more willing to compromise and meet the Israeli government half way than the latter. The latest talks are only one more example of this. See here, in particular the answer after "what concessions?". (these are American officials involved in the negotiations talking) "He [Abbas] agreed to a demilitarized state; he agreed to the border outline so 80 percent of settlers would continue living in Israeli territory; he agreed for Israel to keep security sensitive areas (mostly in the Jordan Valley - NB) for five years, and then the United States would take over. He accepted the fact that in the Israeli perception, the Palestinians would never be trustworthy.
"He also agreed that the Jewish neighborhoods in East Jerusalem would remain under Israeli sovereignty, and agreed that the return of Palestinians to Israel would depend on Israeli willingness. 'Israel won't be flooded with refugees,' he promised.
"He told us: 'Tell me if there's another Arab leader that would have agreed to what I agreed to. I won't make any more concessions until Israel agrees to the three following terms:
- Outlining the borders would be the first topic under discussion. It would be agreed upon within three months.
- A timeframe would be set for the evacuation of Israelis from sovereign Palestinian territories (Israel had agreed to complete the evacuation of Sinai within three years).
- Israel will agree to have East Jerusalem as the capital of Palestine.
The Israelis would not agree to any of the three demands." And we are ignoring the fact, that there is an organization called Hamas, that won the last elections in 2006 and that are currently in a unity government with Fatah. I don't want to link again the interview, but people should start reading it. Demilitarization is not happening. So Abbas can talk all he wants. As long as Hamas is not on board, it doesn't mean anything for the moment. I didn't drew false equivalence. You just picked a specific representative of the Palestinian leadership that wants to compromise in order to fit your narrative. Which is actually the entire problem with this thread. People just conveniently ignore whatever doesn't fit their specific story in order to white wash "their" side. I picked "a specific representative of the Palestinian leadership"? Abbas is the president of the Palestinian National Authority and the leader of the PLO, which Israel recognizes as the representative of the Palestinian people as a whole. I'm not sure what "Abbas can talk all he wants" is supposed to mean - that's what you're supposed to do during negotiations, put propositions on the table and try reach an agreement on a set of elements. Why would the Palestinians per-emptively do whatever Israel asks of them in the negotiations before any deal is reached between the two parties and Israel agrees to the basic terms of the Palestinians as well? I'm not sure what your point with regards to Hamas is either. Do you think that they should be included in the negotiations, or at least that they should be willing to put into effect the content of an agreement? If so, you should be happy that an agreement for a unity government was reached. In any case, even not being in a unity government with Abbas doesn't change the fact that the negotiations are supposed to lead to compromise and concessions on both sides, that have to later be put into effect. If you can't reach a compromise in the first place, you have to look at what's blocking an agreement, and the fact is that Israel has clearly been less willing than Abbas to compromise. Not even being willing to outline borders is simply mind-blowing when you think about it. On July 30 2014 07:09 Nyxisto wrote:
Israel has always talked to Abbas and the Fatah. "Only 40% support for the Hamas"? "So only every second person supports the group that officially wants to tear your throat out? What's your problem buddy!" It's amazing to what standards Israel is held. Every other country wouldn't even have entered the room given the political climate of the Palestinian authorities. If the US were in Israel's shoes they would have brought the Palestinians some glorious freedom quite a while ago. And you're complaining about the people accusing you of strawmen and hyperbole? Do you see the kind of rubbish that you post? If you're not willing to engage in serious discussion, which you don't seem to be considering you carefully ignored every single one of the arguments I presented to you in my last posts, please abstain from intervening altogether in my exchanges with other people. What I mean is that Abbas despite being the nominal president doesn't have enough authority to actually implement what he is promising. Especially since Hamas leadership has made contradictory statements especially in respect to demilitarization. That's why I think to only cite Abbas position is not sufficient for a comparison. Fatah and Abbas have very little influence in the Gaza. They called for a ceasefire which Hamas has ignored so far.
There is a difference between calling for a ceasefire in the context of a crisis of the type currently going on, and reaching an agreement with Israel as representatives of the PLO. In the latter case, it would be extremely difficult, and I would go as far as saying virtually impossible politically, for Hamas not to follow the agreement reached by Abbas, because an agreement would mean finally having set borders, no longer being constantly pushed back further by new settlements in the West Bank, Palestinians getting the recognition as citizens and as human beings they feel they've been denied, and in particular, for Gaza, finally having access again to necessary resources in much greater number. The support of Hamas would evaporate if they refused to follow such an agreement reached by Fatah with Israel. The extent of demilitarization is a tricky question considering Hamas does not even control all of the militant groups in Gaza, but given that it has proven itself to be willing to respect the previous ceasefire until Israel's "investigation" of the kidnapping resulted in several Palestinian deaths and multiple arrests, it is extremely likely that the organization would abstain from violence in the wake of an Israel-Abbas agreement of the type we mentioned.
Beyond all this, however, and as I explained earlier, implementation comes after an agreement on mutual concessions. At this point Israel isn't even refusing to outline borders based on the objection that they think Abbas would be able to implement his concessions - they're refusing to outline borders period.
|
On July 30 2014 07:47 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On July 30 2014 07:41 WhiteDog wrote:
At no point Israel have let Palestinian free in their land, because they want to annex those lands that's as simple as that. But no, our glorious Hamas leaders couldn't have that.
Could you tell me where exactly someone in this thread is glorifying Hamas? Or are you ready to stop with the ridiculous hyperbole and tone? Do you have anything else to say other than "Hamas = bad"?
|
On July 30 2014 07:52 WhiteDog wrote:Show nested quote +On July 30 2014 07:43 BlueSpace wrote:On July 30 2014 07:27 kwizach wrote:On July 30 2014 07:10 BlueSpace wrote:On July 30 2014 06:48 kwizach wrote:On July 30 2014 06:42 BlueSpace wrote:On July 30 2014 06:36 kwizach wrote:On July 30 2014 06:33 BlueSpace wrote:On July 30 2014 06:25 kwizach wrote:On July 30 2014 06:02 BlueSpace wrote:
[quote]
That is factually false. For example the Road map of 2000 reached a dead end around 2003 because the Israelis refused to withdraw from the territories they occupied since 28 September 2000 AND at the same time the Palestinian authority couldn't prevent Palestinian terrorism. They actually never got to the point to discuss borders or the fate of Jerusalem. It is not factually false at all. Israel refuses, to this day, to outline the borders it would wish a two-state solution to be based on. This was one of the requests of Abbas in the recent negotiations - simply having Israel outline the border it wants. Israel refused. So you're changing every peace talk to the most recent peace talk? The definition of the borders is clearly an issue, but it is not the sole reason why every peace talk has broken down so far as was claimed. That is the reason why this blanket statement is false. EDIT: Didn't realize someone jumped in. Yeah, I'm not the poster you were replying to. I thought your "that is factually false" statement referred to what he said about Israel not being willing to outline borders, which is entirely true. They are clearly trying to grab as much as they can. But still this is just one of many issues, that hamper the peace talks, although it is one of the big ones. The Palestinian terrorism being the other one. In the end the entire conflict sometimes seems like a giant chicken and egg problem. What has to come first in order for peace to work? And nobody can really answer that I think. Pro-Palestinian will always claim, that all terrorism will cease once the territory question is settled while Pro-Israelis will claim that once the terror stops, a solution for the territory problem can be found. In the end I believe that the current leadership on both sides are not really interested in peace. Your last sentence is a false equivalence - Abbas and the Fatah have repeatedly proven themselves to be much more willing to compromise and meet the Israeli government half way than the latter. The latest talks are only one more example of this. See here, in particular the answer after "what concessions?". (these are American officials involved in the negotiations talking) "He [Abbas] agreed to a demilitarized state; he agreed to the border outline so 80 percent of settlers would continue living in Israeli territory; he agreed for Israel to keep security sensitive areas (mostly in the Jordan Valley - NB) for five years, and then the United States would take over. He accepted the fact that in the Israeli perception, the Palestinians would never be trustworthy.
"He also agreed that the Jewish neighborhoods in East Jerusalem would remain under Israeli sovereignty, and agreed that the return of Palestinians to Israel would depend on Israeli willingness. 'Israel won't be flooded with refugees,' he promised.
"He told us: 'Tell me if there's another Arab leader that would have agreed to what I agreed to. I won't make any more concessions until Israel agrees to the three following terms:
- Outlining the borders would be the first topic under discussion. It would be agreed upon within three months.
- A timeframe would be set for the evacuation of Israelis from sovereign Palestinian territories (Israel had agreed to complete the evacuation of Sinai within three years).
- Israel will agree to have East Jerusalem as the capital of Palestine.
The Israelis would not agree to any of the three demands." And we are ignoring the fact, that there is an organization called Hamas, that won the last elections in 2006 and that are currently in a unity government with Fatah. I don't want to link again the interview, but people should start reading it. Demilitarization is not happening. So Abbas can talk all he wants. As long as Hamas is not on board, it doesn't mean anything for the moment. I didn't drew false equivalence. You just picked a specific representative of the Palestinian leadership that wants to compromise in order to fit your narrative. Which is actually the entire problem with this thread. People just conveniently ignore whatever doesn't fit their specific story in order to white wash "their" side. I picked "a specific representative of the Palestinian leadership"? Abbas is the president of the Palestinian National Authority and the leader of the PLO, which Israel recognizes as the representative of the Palestinian people as a whole. I'm not sure what "Abbas can talk all he wants" is supposed to mean - that's what you're supposed to do during negotiations, put propositions on the table and try reach an agreement on a set of elements. Why would the Palestinians per-emptively do whatever Israel asks of them in the negotiations before any deal is reached between the two parties and Israel agrees to the basic terms of the Palestinians as well? I'm not sure what your point with regards to Hamas is either. Do you think that they should be included in the negotiations, or at least that they should be willing to put into effect the content of an agreement? If so, you should be happy that an agreement for a unity government was reached. In any case, even not being in a unity government with Abbas doesn't change the fact that the negotiations are supposed to lead to compromise and concessions on both sides, that have to later be put into effect. If you can't reach a compromise in the first place, you have to look at what's blocking an agreement, and the fact is that Israel has clearly been less willing than Abbas to compromise. Not even being willing to outline borders is simply mind-blowing when you think about it. On July 30 2014 07:09 Nyxisto wrote:
Israel has always talked to Abbas and the Fatah. "Only 40% support for the Hamas"? "So only every second person supports the group that officially wants to tear your throat out? What's your problem buddy!" It's amazing to what standards Israel is held. Every other country wouldn't even have entered the room given the political climate of the Palestinian authorities. If the US were in Israel's shoes they would have brought the Palestinians some glorious freedom quite a while ago. And you're complaining about the people accusing you of strawmen and hyperbole? Do you see the kind of rubbish that you post? If you're not willing to engage in serious discussion, which you don't seem to be considering you carefully ignored every single one of the arguments I presented to you in my last posts, please abstain from intervening altogether in my exchanges with other people. What I mean is that Abbas despite being the nominal president doesn't have enough authority to actually implement what he is promising. Especially since Hamas leadership has made contradictory statements especially in respect to demilitarization. That's why I think to only cite Abbas position is not sufficient for a comparison. Fatah and Abbas have very little influence in the Gaza. They called for a ceasefire which Hamas has ignored so far. Hamas and the Fatah were unified just before the attack, together they had enough authority. That's what Israel is trying to break. Not to mention the current state of the Fatah is the result of Israel unwillingness to settle. Nyxisto your inability to have at least a more balanced view makes me wonder.
Lets not forget that the genesis of these attacks was the murder of 3 teenagers by someone in Gaza and then a reprisal killing by several zealots in Israel. Which had the intended effect the zealots on both sides wanted lead to tension and then the firing of rockets in to Israel. This entire situation was created and escalated by fanatics on both sides on the conflict who are just itching for violence.
|
On July 30 2014 08:02 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +On July 30 2014 07:47 Nyxisto wrote:On July 30 2014 07:41 WhiteDog wrote:
At no point Israel have let Palestinian free in their land, because they want to annex those lands that's as simple as that. But no, our glorious Hamas leaders couldn't have that. Could you tell me where exactly someone in this thread is glorifying Hamas? Or are you ready to stop with the ridiculous hyperbole and tone? Do you have anything else to say other than "Hamas = bad"?
Not really, because that pretty much sums up what they are. Yes, people have repeatedly glorified the Hamas in this thread, ranging from declaring them freedom fighters to 'more peaceful than Israel'.
|
On July 30 2014 08:05 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On July 30 2014 07:52 WhiteDog wrote:On July 30 2014 07:43 BlueSpace wrote:On July 30 2014 07:27 kwizach wrote:On July 30 2014 07:10 BlueSpace wrote:On July 30 2014 06:48 kwizach wrote:On July 30 2014 06:42 BlueSpace wrote:On July 30 2014 06:36 kwizach wrote:On July 30 2014 06:33 BlueSpace wrote:On July 30 2014 06:25 kwizach wrote:
[quote]
It is not factually false at all. Israel refuses, to this day, to outline the borders it would wish a two-state solution to be based on. This was one of the requests of Abbas in the recent negotiations - simply having Israel outline the border it wants. Israel refused. So you're changing every peace talk to the most recent peace talk? The definition of the borders is clearly an issue, but it is not the sole reason why every peace talk has broken down so far as was claimed. That is the reason why this blanket statement is false. EDIT: Didn't realize someone jumped in. Yeah, I'm not the poster you were replying to. I thought your "that is factually false" statement referred to what he said about Israel not being willing to outline borders, which is entirely true. They are clearly trying to grab as much as they can. But still this is just one of many issues, that hamper the peace talks, although it is one of the big ones. The Palestinian terrorism being the other one. In the end the entire conflict sometimes seems like a giant chicken and egg problem. What has to come first in order for peace to work? And nobody can really answer that I think. Pro-Palestinian will always claim, that all terrorism will cease once the territory question is settled while Pro-Israelis will claim that once the terror stops, a solution for the territory problem can be found. In the end I believe that the current leadership on both sides are not really interested in peace. Your last sentence is a false equivalence - Abbas and the Fatah have repeatedly proven themselves to be much more willing to compromise and meet the Israeli government half way than the latter. The latest talks are only one more example of this. See here, in particular the answer after "what concessions?". (these are American officials involved in the negotiations talking) "He [Abbas] agreed to a demilitarized state; he agreed to the border outline so 80 percent of settlers would continue living in Israeli territory; he agreed for Israel to keep security sensitive areas (mostly in the Jordan Valley - NB) for five years, and then the United States would take over. He accepted the fact that in the Israeli perception, the Palestinians would never be trustworthy.
"He also agreed that the Jewish neighborhoods in East Jerusalem would remain under Israeli sovereignty, and agreed that the return of Palestinians to Israel would depend on Israeli willingness. 'Israel won't be flooded with refugees,' he promised.
"He told us: 'Tell me if there's another Arab leader that would have agreed to what I agreed to. I won't make any more concessions until Israel agrees to the three following terms:
- Outlining the borders would be the first topic under discussion. It would be agreed upon within three months.
- A timeframe would be set for the evacuation of Israelis from sovereign Palestinian territories (Israel had agreed to complete the evacuation of Sinai within three years).
- Israel will agree to have East Jerusalem as the capital of Palestine.
The Israelis would not agree to any of the three demands." And we are ignoring the fact, that there is an organization called Hamas, that won the last elections in 2006 and that are currently in a unity government with Fatah. I don't want to link again the interview, but people should start reading it. Demilitarization is not happening. So Abbas can talk all he wants. As long as Hamas is not on board, it doesn't mean anything for the moment. I didn't drew false equivalence. You just picked a specific representative of the Palestinian leadership that wants to compromise in order to fit your narrative. Which is actually the entire problem with this thread. People just conveniently ignore whatever doesn't fit their specific story in order to white wash "their" side. I picked "a specific representative of the Palestinian leadership"? Abbas is the president of the Palestinian National Authority and the leader of the PLO, which Israel recognizes as the representative of the Palestinian people as a whole. I'm not sure what "Abbas can talk all he wants" is supposed to mean - that's what you're supposed to do during negotiations, put propositions on the table and try reach an agreement on a set of elements. Why would the Palestinians per-emptively do whatever Israel asks of them in the negotiations before any deal is reached between the two parties and Israel agrees to the basic terms of the Palestinians as well? I'm not sure what your point with regards to Hamas is either. Do you think that they should be included in the negotiations, or at least that they should be willing to put into effect the content of an agreement? If so, you should be happy that an agreement for a unity government was reached. In any case, even not being in a unity government with Abbas doesn't change the fact that the negotiations are supposed to lead to compromise and concessions on both sides, that have to later be put into effect. If you can't reach a compromise in the first place, you have to look at what's blocking an agreement, and the fact is that Israel has clearly been less willing than Abbas to compromise. Not even being willing to outline borders is simply mind-blowing when you think about it. On July 30 2014 07:09 Nyxisto wrote:
Israel has always talked to Abbas and the Fatah. "Only 40% support for the Hamas"? "So only every second person supports the group that officially wants to tear your throat out? What's your problem buddy!" It's amazing to what standards Israel is held. Every other country wouldn't even have entered the room given the political climate of the Palestinian authorities. If the US were in Israel's shoes they would have brought the Palestinians some glorious freedom quite a while ago. And you're complaining about the people accusing you of strawmen and hyperbole? Do you see the kind of rubbish that you post? If you're not willing to engage in serious discussion, which you don't seem to be considering you carefully ignored every single one of the arguments I presented to you in my last posts, please abstain from intervening altogether in my exchanges with other people. What I mean is that Abbas despite being the nominal president doesn't have enough authority to actually implement what he is promising. Especially since Hamas leadership has made contradictory statements especially in respect to demilitarization. That's why I think to only cite Abbas position is not sufficient for a comparison. Fatah and Abbas have very little influence in the Gaza. They called for a ceasefire which Hamas has ignored so far. Hamas and the Fatah were unified just before the attack, together they had enough authority. That's what Israel is trying to break. Not to mention the current state of the Fatah is the result of Israel unwillingness to settle. Nyxisto your inability to have at least a more balanced view makes me wonder. Lets not forget that the genesis of these attacks was the murder of 3 teenagers by someone in Gaza and then a reprisal killing by several zealots in Israel. Which had the intended effect the zealots on both sides wanted lead to tension and then the firing of rockets in to Israel. This entire situation was created and escalated by fanatics on both sides on the conflict who are just itching for violence.
It's a pretext. After the killing (someone in gaza ? I'm not sure there are even enough information to assume that) Israel arrested 600 people in the West Bank, with 11 deputee, killed 4 kids during the arrestation (called "abduction" by the Fatah).
In 1967, De Gaulle made a famous speech about the attack from Israel on Egypt, saying the blockade (from Egypt) was just a pretext coming from a country that has a desire to expand itself - a desire the french felt during the joint attack on the Suez canal in 1956. Nothing changed since then.
|
On July 30 2014 08:05 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On July 30 2014 08:02 kwizach wrote:On July 30 2014 07:47 Nyxisto wrote:On July 30 2014 07:41 WhiteDog wrote:
At no point Israel have let Palestinian free in their land, because they want to annex those lands that's as simple as that. But no, our glorious Hamas leaders couldn't have that. Could you tell me where exactly someone in this thread is glorifying Hamas? Or are you ready to stop with the ridiculous hyperbole and tone? Do you have anything else to say other than "Hamas = bad"? Not really, because that pretty much sums up what they are. Yes, people have repeatedly glorified the Hamas in this thread, ranging from declaring them freedom fighters to 'more peaceful than Israel'.
Great, thanks for making sure everyone knows Hamas = bad. Can we move on now? For example by discussing how to actually solve the issue? Here's, let's go back to the post of which you ignored the entire first part:
"Think about what you're saying for a second. What is your long-term solution with regards to Hamas? Is it to keep Gaza an occupied territory, completely ignoring the fact that numerous organizations have pointed out that the living conditions are progressively deteriorating from an already low level, even without taking into account any Israeli military action, and that with the demographic pressure the area will be barely liveable by 2020 (see here for the UNRWA report I referenced earlier)? Is it to keep using military violence against Hamas and civilians alike, destroying countless more lives, reinforcing Hamas and its extremist wings (at the detriment of its pragmatic wing, which does exist - Hamas is not a monolithic entity contrary to how you keep representing it) in the process through anti-Israel resentment in the population, and at the same time increasing the number of rockets fired towards Israel? Is it to keep blocking the negotiations with Abbas and Fatah, leading only to disillusion among the Palestinian population with regards to the peace process and the possibility of being listened to by Israel - again reinforcing those calling for violence? How exactly is any of that supposed to bring more security to Israel (and how exactly is any of that supposed to be a humane way of dealing with other human beings?)?
Like I've repeatedly told you in the posts that you keep ignoring, resorting to military, diplomatic and institutional violence is completely counter-productive with regards to the objective of achieving peace and reducing the influence of Hamas."
|
I have already said what I think should be done about the Hamas. Demilitarize the Gaza-Strip, if necessary by force and break up the Hamas. And no, the Hamas is a largely monolithic movement. The only thing they don't agree upon is if they should shell Israel with five or ten rockets per day. The fact that they run some social programs doesn't change that. It's what all jihadist groups in the middle-east do to present themselves as the saviours and increase their numbers.
And you have still provided no actual example of how engaging the Hamas in diplomacy has resulted in less violence.
|
On July 30 2014 08:12 WhiteDog wrote:Show nested quote +On July 30 2014 08:05 Plansix wrote:On July 30 2014 07:52 WhiteDog wrote:On July 30 2014 07:43 BlueSpace wrote:On July 30 2014 07:27 kwizach wrote:On July 30 2014 07:10 BlueSpace wrote:On July 30 2014 06:48 kwizach wrote:On July 30 2014 06:42 BlueSpace wrote:On July 30 2014 06:36 kwizach wrote:On July 30 2014 06:33 BlueSpace wrote:
[quote]
So you're changing every peace talk to the most recent peace talk? The definition of the borders is clearly an issue, but it is not the sole reason why every peace talk has broken down so far as was claimed. That is the reason why this blanket statement is false.
EDIT: Didn't realize someone jumped in. Yeah, I'm not the poster you were replying to. I thought your "that is factually false" statement referred to what he said about Israel not being willing to outline borders, which is entirely true. They are clearly trying to grab as much as they can. But still this is just one of many issues, that hamper the peace talks, although it is one of the big ones. The Palestinian terrorism being the other one. In the end the entire conflict sometimes seems like a giant chicken and egg problem. What has to come first in order for peace to work? And nobody can really answer that I think. Pro-Palestinian will always claim, that all terrorism will cease once the territory question is settled while Pro-Israelis will claim that once the terror stops, a solution for the territory problem can be found. In the end I believe that the current leadership on both sides are not really interested in peace. Your last sentence is a false equivalence - Abbas and the Fatah have repeatedly proven themselves to be much more willing to compromise and meet the Israeli government half way than the latter. The latest talks are only one more example of this. See here, in particular the answer after "what concessions?". (these are American officials involved in the negotiations talking) "He [Abbas] agreed to a demilitarized state; he agreed to the border outline so 80 percent of settlers would continue living in Israeli territory; he agreed for Israel to keep security sensitive areas (mostly in the Jordan Valley - NB) for five years, and then the United States would take over. He accepted the fact that in the Israeli perception, the Palestinians would never be trustworthy.
"He also agreed that the Jewish neighborhoods in East Jerusalem would remain under Israeli sovereignty, and agreed that the return of Palestinians to Israel would depend on Israeli willingness. 'Israel won't be flooded with refugees,' he promised.
"He told us: 'Tell me if there's another Arab leader that would have agreed to what I agreed to. I won't make any more concessions until Israel agrees to the three following terms:
- Outlining the borders would be the first topic under discussion. It would be agreed upon within three months.
- A timeframe would be set for the evacuation of Israelis from sovereign Palestinian territories (Israel had agreed to complete the evacuation of Sinai within three years).
- Israel will agree to have East Jerusalem as the capital of Palestine.
The Israelis would not agree to any of the three demands." And we are ignoring the fact, that there is an organization called Hamas, that won the last elections in 2006 and that are currently in a unity government with Fatah. I don't want to link again the interview, but people should start reading it. Demilitarization is not happening. So Abbas can talk all he wants. As long as Hamas is not on board, it doesn't mean anything for the moment. I didn't drew false equivalence. You just picked a specific representative of the Palestinian leadership that wants to compromise in order to fit your narrative. Which is actually the entire problem with this thread. People just conveniently ignore whatever doesn't fit their specific story in order to white wash "their" side. I picked "a specific representative of the Palestinian leadership"? Abbas is the president of the Palestinian National Authority and the leader of the PLO, which Israel recognizes as the representative of the Palestinian people as a whole. I'm not sure what "Abbas can talk all he wants" is supposed to mean - that's what you're supposed to do during negotiations, put propositions on the table and try reach an agreement on a set of elements. Why would the Palestinians per-emptively do whatever Israel asks of them in the negotiations before any deal is reached between the two parties and Israel agrees to the basic terms of the Palestinians as well? I'm not sure what your point with regards to Hamas is either. Do you think that they should be included in the negotiations, or at least that they should be willing to put into effect the content of an agreement? If so, you should be happy that an agreement for a unity government was reached. In any case, even not being in a unity government with Abbas doesn't change the fact that the negotiations are supposed to lead to compromise and concessions on both sides, that have to later be put into effect. If you can't reach a compromise in the first place, you have to look at what's blocking an agreement, and the fact is that Israel has clearly been less willing than Abbas to compromise. Not even being willing to outline borders is simply mind-blowing when you think about it. On July 30 2014 07:09 Nyxisto wrote:
Israel has always talked to Abbas and the Fatah. "Only 40% support for the Hamas"? "So only every second person supports the group that officially wants to tear your throat out? What's your problem buddy!" It's amazing to what standards Israel is held. Every other country wouldn't even have entered the room given the political climate of the Palestinian authorities. If the US were in Israel's shoes they would have brought the Palestinians some glorious freedom quite a while ago. And you're complaining about the people accusing you of strawmen and hyperbole? Do you see the kind of rubbish that you post? If you're not willing to engage in serious discussion, which you don't seem to be considering you carefully ignored every single one of the arguments I presented to you in my last posts, please abstain from intervening altogether in my exchanges with other people. What I mean is that Abbas despite being the nominal president doesn't have enough authority to actually implement what he is promising. Especially since Hamas leadership has made contradictory statements especially in respect to demilitarization. That's why I think to only cite Abbas position is not sufficient for a comparison. Fatah and Abbas have very little influence in the Gaza. They called for a ceasefire which Hamas has ignored so far. Hamas and the Fatah were unified just before the attack, together they had enough authority. That's what Israel is trying to break. Not to mention the current state of the Fatah is the result of Israel unwillingness to settle. Nyxisto your inability to have at least a more balanced view makes me wonder. Lets not forget that the genesis of these attacks was the murder of 3 teenagers by someone in Gaza and then a reprisal killing by several zealots in Israel. Which had the intended effect the zealots on both sides wanted lead to tension and then the firing of rockets in to Israel. This entire situation was created and escalated by fanatics on both sides on the conflict who are just itching for violence. It's a pretext. After the killing (someone in gaza ? I'm not sure there are even enough information to assume that) Israel arrested 600 people in the West Bank, with 11 deputee, killed 4 kids during the arrestation (called "abduction" by the Fatah). In 1967, De Gaulle made a famous speech about the attack from Israel on Egypt, saying the blockade (from Egypt) was just a pretext coming from a country that has a desire to expand itself - a desire the french felt during the joint attack on the Suez canal in 1956. Nothing changed since then.
I was talking about back in June of this year, which is what started the escalation now. Not 50 years ago, which hardly seem relevant.
|
Norway28825 Posts
'more peaceful than israel' is not glorifying hamas, it's demonizing israel. I can only speak for myself, but I have the impression what I'm saying applies to other participants in the debate as well. Anyway, what I am expressing is understanding for the Hamas, not support for them. These are very different things, understanding what motivates parts in a conflict is obviously crucial to understand the conflict or try to figure out a solution, but it doesn't mean I think they're acting smartly or in accordance with my own moral code or whatever.
Likewise I understand how many Israelis genuinely suffer from and struggle with the highly problematic situation of being surrounded by enemies, and I understand that sometimes, hyperbole stemming from rage at the entire conflict, like saying how "Israel is committing genocide" or "Netanyahu is worse than hitler" can just make tensions worse, and is just a way of polarizing the debate. But in the same vein as I think launching missiles at Israel is just making things worse, I think the continued occupation, whatever stage of blockade they are currently in, constant checkpoints, never-ending settling, is just a way of continuing to breed hatred and thus more missiles.
Then, I just happen to have more sympathy for the Palestinians because I feel they are far more victimized and in much less of a position to change anything, and the whole asymmetry of the conflict makes me feel terrible, and the constant state of dehumanizing oppression to me seems much, much harder to cope with than the fear of missiles of which almost none ever kill anyone anyway. Once again not to trivialize this fear, I'm sure it feels terrible for Israelis, I just think it sounds so much less bad than what the Palestinians constantly have to deal with that like, if I were to make a scale over my perception of how safe and good I'd feel about my life, it's like, my safe life in Norway is at 10 and then Israel would be like 7-8 and then Palestine is a good 0.. The situations just aren't comparable..
|
On July 30 2014 08:19 Nyxisto wrote:
I have already said what I think should be done about the Hamas. Demilitarize the Gaza-Strip, if necessary by force and break up the Hamas. And no, the Hamas is a largely monolithic movement. The only thing they don't agree upon is if they should shell Israel with five or ten rockets per day. The fact that they run some social programs doesn't change that. It's what all jihadist groups in the middle-east do to present themselves as the saviours and increase their numbers.
Ok, so your suggestion does not work, as evidenced by the countless military operations conducted by Israel in Gaza so far. Some of the military operations have had a negative impact on public views of Hamas among Palestinians, but they have contributed to the radicalization of some, who end up joining the organization, meaning that military violence is simply not a long-term solution when it comes to the objective of reducing Hamas' influence and/or use of violence. The solution has to be political.
No, Hamas is not as monolithic as you say it is. If you genuinely want to educate yourself on the issue, I advise you to for example read Fawaz A. Gerges' "The Transformation of Hamas", published in 2010 in The Nation. Read it here. The interview with a leader of Hamas which I linked to earlier echoes Gerges' analysis.
On July 30 2014 08:19 Nyxisto wrote:
And you have still provided no actual example of how engaging the Hamas in diplomacy has resulted in less violence.
Ceasefires are the result of diplomacy.
|
Can all these mid east conflicts go into one thread or do you want me to start up a Yemini revolution thread as well
|
On July 30 2014 08:20 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On July 30 2014 08:12 WhiteDog wrote:On July 30 2014 08:05 Plansix wrote:On July 30 2014 07:52 WhiteDog wrote:On July 30 2014 07:43 BlueSpace wrote:On July 30 2014 07:27 kwizach wrote:On July 30 2014 07:10 BlueSpace wrote:On July 30 2014 06:48 kwizach wrote:On July 30 2014 06:42 BlueSpace wrote:On July 30 2014 06:36 kwizach wrote:
[quote]
Yeah, I'm not the poster you were replying to. I thought your "that is factually false" statement referred to what he said about Israel not being willing to outline borders, which is entirely true. They are clearly trying to grab as much as they can. But still this is just one of many issues, that hamper the peace talks, although it is one of the big ones. The Palestinian terrorism being the other one. In the end the entire conflict sometimes seems like a giant chicken and egg problem. What has to come first in order for peace to work? And nobody can really answer that I think. Pro-Palestinian will always claim, that all terrorism will cease once the territory question is settled while Pro-Israelis will claim that once the terror stops, a solution for the territory problem can be found. In the end I believe that the current leadership on both sides are not really interested in peace. Your last sentence is a false equivalence - Abbas and the Fatah have repeatedly proven themselves to be much more willing to compromise and meet the Israeli government half way than the latter. The latest talks are only one more example of this. See here, in particular the answer after "what concessions?". (these are American officials involved in the negotiations talking) "He [Abbas] agreed to a demilitarized state; he agreed to the border outline so 80 percent of settlers would continue living in Israeli territory; he agreed for Israel to keep security sensitive areas (mostly in the Jordan Valley - NB) for five years, and then the United States would take over. He accepted the fact that in the Israeli perception, the Palestinians would never be trustworthy.
"He also agreed that the Jewish neighborhoods in East Jerusalem would remain under Israeli sovereignty, and agreed that the return of Palestinians to Israel would depend on Israeli willingness. 'Israel won't be flooded with refugees,' he promised.
"He told us: 'Tell me if there's another Arab leader that would have agreed to what I agreed to. I won't make any more concessions until Israel agrees to the three following terms:
- Outlining the borders would be the first topic under discussion. It would be agreed upon within three months.
- A timeframe would be set for the evacuation of Israelis from sovereign Palestinian territories (Israel had agreed to complete the evacuation of Sinai within three years).
- Israel will agree to have East Jerusalem as the capital of Palestine.
The Israelis would not agree to any of the three demands." And we are ignoring the fact, that there is an organization called Hamas, that won the last elections in 2006 and that are currently in a unity government with Fatah. I don't want to link again the interview, but people should start reading it. Demilitarization is not happening. So Abbas can talk all he wants. As long as Hamas is not on board, it doesn't mean anything for the moment. I didn't drew false equivalence. You just picked a specific representative of the Palestinian leadership that wants to compromise in order to fit your narrative. Which is actually the entire problem with this thread. People just conveniently ignore whatever doesn't fit their specific story in order to white wash "their" side. I picked "a specific representative of the Palestinian leadership"? Abbas is the president of the Palestinian National Authority and the leader of the PLO, which Israel recognizes as the representative of the Palestinian people as a whole. I'm not sure what "Abbas can talk all he wants" is supposed to mean - that's what you're supposed to do during negotiations, put propositions on the table and try reach an agreement on a set of elements. Why would the Palestinians per-emptively do whatever Israel asks of them in the negotiations before any deal is reached between the two parties and Israel agrees to the basic terms of the Palestinians as well? I'm not sure what your point with regards to Hamas is either. Do you think that they should be included in the negotiations, or at least that they should be willing to put into effect the content of an agreement? If so, you should be happy that an agreement for a unity government was reached. In any case, even not being in a unity government with Abbas doesn't change the fact that the negotiations are supposed to lead to compromise and concessions on both sides, that have to later be put into effect. If you can't reach a compromise in the first place, you have to look at what's blocking an agreement, and the fact is that Israel has clearly been less willing than Abbas to compromise. Not even being willing to outline borders is simply mind-blowing when you think about it. On July 30 2014 07:09 Nyxisto wrote:
Israel has always talked to Abbas and the Fatah. "Only 40% support for the Hamas"? "So only every second person supports the group that officially wants to tear your throat out? What's your problem buddy!" It's amazing to what standards Israel is held. Every other country wouldn't even have entered the room given the political climate of the Palestinian authorities. If the US were in Israel's shoes they would have brought the Palestinians some glorious freedom quite a while ago. And you're complaining about the people accusing you of strawmen and hyperbole? Do you see the kind of rubbish that you post? If you're not willing to engage in serious discussion, which you don't seem to be considering you carefully ignored every single one of the arguments I presented to you in my last posts, please abstain from intervening altogether in my exchanges with other people. What I mean is that Abbas despite being the nominal president doesn't have enough authority to actually implement what he is promising. Especially since Hamas leadership has made contradictory statements especially in respect to demilitarization. That's why I think to only cite Abbas position is not sufficient for a comparison. Fatah and Abbas have very little influence in the Gaza. They called for a ceasefire which Hamas has ignored so far. Hamas and the Fatah were unified just before the attack, together they had enough authority. That's what Israel is trying to break. Not to mention the current state of the Fatah is the result of Israel unwillingness to settle. Nyxisto your inability to have at least a more balanced view makes me wonder. Lets not forget that the genesis of these attacks was the murder of 3 teenagers by someone in Gaza and then a reprisal killing by several zealots in Israel. Which had the intended effect the zealots on both sides wanted lead to tension and then the firing of rockets in to Israel. This entire situation was created and escalated by fanatics on both sides on the conflict who are just itching for violence. It's a pretext. After the killing (someone in gaza ? I'm not sure there are even enough information to assume that) Israel arrested 600 people in the West Bank, with 11 deputee, killed 4 kids during the arrestation (called "abduction" by the Fatah). In 1967, De Gaulle made a famous speech about the attack from Israel on Egypt, saying the blockade (from Egypt) was just a pretext coming from a country that has a desire to expand itself - a desire the french felt during the joint attack on the Suez canal in 1956. Nothing changed since then. I was talking about back in June of this year, which is what started the escalation now. Not 50 years ago, which hardly seem relevant.
"A simile is a rhetorical figure expressing comparison or likeness that directly compares two objects through some connective word such as like, as, so, than, or many other verbs such as resembles."
The situation is exactly the same as in 1967 ; Israeli are using random event to justify an attack that has other objectives. That's the reason why I said that nothing changed.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
