Wanton destruction of Palestine and Lebanon

You —

Salaam

I was not gonna start this topic.

Just too erm... I got no words to say. Nothing I can do.#

Just hopeless.

Destroying basic infrastructure is collective punishment. Its a breach of basic human rights. Blowing up power stations, water treatment facilities, bridges does not release a single prisoner.

Flying Jets through Syria as a 'gesture' to say you can't, shouldn't, wouldn't do anything is just gross.

And all this makes people angry.

Not the most fluent post ever. Not thinking straight enough to be. I am not angry. Just no idea what to feel. Or think. Or write.

(and I ruin a good topic by making it all me, me, me.)

EDIT: Title updated ------------- Modnster

Forum
General

zara — Wed, 23 Aug 2006 - 18:46

Admin

UK cleared of aiding bomb flights

The government did not knowingly assist "acts of terrorism" by allowing US aircraft carrying bombs to Israel to stop at UK airports, a judge has ruled.

The Islamic Human Rights Commission (IHRC) claimed in the High Court the flights encouraged Israel's campaign against Hezbollah in southern Lebanon.

Peter Carter QC, for the IHRC, told the judge that the UK was assisting in "disproportionate military attacks".

The IHRC had sought permission to bring injunction proceedings.

BBC News

What utter tosh!

[b]If the government were tried under the UK terrorism laws, it would be guilty and convicted of many acts of terror.

[/b]

get real, like that's ever going to happen.

You — Thu, 24 Aug 2006 - 01:28

We all seem to have forgotten the destruction of Gaza which is still ongoing (be it at a slower pace).

I can not believe that the supporters of democracy are silent as the Palestinian democratic system is being dismantled p[erson by person. MPs are being arrested. (The charge of being a member of Hamas. Well duh! Hamas won the democratic election you were calling for!)

MuslimBro — Fri, 25 Aug 2006 - 21:40

Russia denies Hezbollah arms link

The Russian Defence Minister, Sergei Ivanov, has denied Israeli claims that Hezbollah has modern Russian weapons.

Israel says that Russian anti-tank weapons delivered to the Syrian army have been passed on to Hezbollah.

The minister's comments during a visit to Russia's far east were in response to Israeli allegations that Hezbollah had used Russian state-of-the-art Kornet anti-tank system in the recent fighting in Lebanon.

Last week Israeli officials said they had provided Moscow with proof that Hezbollah had been supplied with Russian weapons delivered to the Syrian Army.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/5284938.stm

Even if Russia was supplying Hezbollah weapons, why shouldn't they....the US is supplying Israel weapons.

MuslimBro — Sat, 26 Aug 2006 - 19:56

Turkey and Saudi Arabia have stopped Iran using their air space to send humanitarian relief to Lebanon, media in Iran have said. Iran’s health ministry has been collecting supplies to send to the Lebanese people, the reports said. But the goods had to be sent via Dubai to Syria because of objections by other countries in the region.
This may fuel Iranian anger against nations that they feel have not done enough to support Hezbollah against Israel.
Iran’s Labour news agency quotes the head of the country’s emergency services as complaining that Turkish officials prevented Iran from using their air space for humanitarian aid destined for Lebanon.
The same official said three Iranian ambulances had already been despatched to Lebanon and soon another 20 would follow.
Another news agency quotes the security chief of Iran’s health ministry saying both Turkey and Saudi Arabia had prevented Iran from using their air space for three plane-loads of medicine.
Iran has already complained bitterly about Arab countries like Saudi Arabia, Jordan and the Gulf.

MuslimBro — Sat, 26 Aug 2006 - 19:58

The President of Venezuela, Hugo Chavez, has said his country is likely to sever ties with Israel in protest at its military offensive in Lebanon.
Mr Chavez said he had “no interest in maintaining relations with Israel, whom he has accused of committing genocide. Venezuela recalled its charge d’affaires to Israel last week, prompting Israel to withdraw its ambassador to Caracas on Monday.
Mr Chavez recently expressed his support for Israel’s arch-foe, Iran.

This is a guy I rate for standing up against the US and calling Bush a "terrorist".

MuslimBro — Sun, 27 Aug 2006 - 21:31

Nasrallah sorry for scale of war

Hezbollah chief Sheikh Hassan Nasrallah has said he would not have ordered the capture of two Israeli soldiers if he had known it would lead to such a war.

"Had we known that the kidnapping of the soldiers would have led to this, we would definitely not have done it," he said in an interview on Lebanese TV.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/5291420.stm

What has happened to the kidnapped soldiers, have they killed em?

MuslimBro — Sun, 27 Aug 2006 - 21:37

Israeli rocket hits Reuters car

An Israeli air strike on a car in Gaza City during a security operation has injured a Reuters news agency cameraman and a local journalist.

At least one rocket hit the car as the cameraman was filming, knocking him unconscious, while the second man received serious leg wounds.

The Reuters car was clearly marked all over as a media vehicle.

The Israeli army said the car had not been identified as press and expressed regret that journalists had been hurt.

The agency named its cameraman as Fadel Shana and the other man wounded as local website journalist Sabbah Hmaida.
Two Palestinian bystanders were also injured in the attack.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/5289984.stm

If the palestinians done the same thing to an Israeli journalist, it would have been a very different thing.

You — Sun, 27 Aug 2006 - 22:38

Muslim Bro
What has happened to the kidnapped soldiers, have they killed em?

Nothing. No change in status quo. If the soldeirs died while being captured, then they are dead. Otherwise they are still alive. Well that is what I understand.

MuslimBro — Wed, 6 Sep 2006 - 19:46

Israel to lift Lebanon blockade

Israel says it will lift its air and sea blockade of Lebanon on Thursday, at 1800 local time (1500 GMT).

The restrictions have been enforced since the start of its conflict with Hezbollah guerrillas in July.

International pressure has been building on Israel to lift the embargo, which has remained in place despite a three-week-old ceasefire.

Israel has been insisting that steps must be in place to stop Hezbollah getting more weapons.

Correspondents say the lifting of the blockade means Lebanon can begin rebuilding much more quickly following Israel's massive bombardment of the south, as well as resuming normal trade and travel arrangements.

A statement from the Israeli prime minister's office said international forces would replace the Israelis at "control positions" over Lebanese sea and air ports.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/5321280.stm

MuslimBro — Thu, 28 Sep 2006 - 13:36

Life sentences for W Bank killer

An Israeli court has handed a Jewish settler four life sentence for killing four Palestinians in the West Bank last year during Israel's Gaza withdrawal.

Asher Weisgan snatched a gun and shot his victims - who worked at Shilo settlement - in cold blood.

He told investigators his intention had been to provoke Palestinian retaliation which would distract the Israeli army.

Having to quell Palestinian unrest in the West Bank would stop the army from evicting settlers in Gaza, he hoped.

Weisgan has said he has no regrets about the shootings and claimed he carried them out as a "necessary defence" to prevent greater harm coming to the people of Israel.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/5386144.stm

You — Thu, 28 Sep 2006 - 14:47

'Million bomblets' in S Lebanon

Up to a million cluster bomblets discharged by Israel in its conflict with Hezbollah remain unexploded in southern Lebanon, the UN has said.

The UN's mine disposal agency says about 40% of the cluster bombs fired or dropped by Israel failed to detonate - three times the UN's previous estimate.

It says the problem could delay the return home of about 200,000 displaced people by up to two years.

The devices have killed 14 people in south Lebanon since the August truce.

The manager of the UN's mine removal centre in south Lebanon, Chris Clark, said Israel had failed to provide useful information of its cluster bomb strikes, which could help with the clearance operation.

Last month, the UN's humanitarian chief, Jan Egeland, accused Israel of "completely immoral" use of cluster bombs in the conflict.

Israel says all its weapons and munitions, as well as their use, comply with international law.

'Threat to life'

Mr Clark said Israel fired up to 6,000 bombs, rockets and artillery a day into Lebanon during the 34-day conflict.

He said more than 40,000 cluster bomblets had been cleared since the fighting ended on 14 August, but many more remained scattered "in bushes, trees, hedges and wire fences".

Mr Clark said information Israel had provided to help with the bomblets' clearance had been "useless".

"We have asked for grid references for [cluster bomb] strikes," he said.

"We have not received them so far."

The UN's refugee agency said the danger of unexploded cluster bombs meant some 200,000 people displaced by the conflict would not be able to return home for up to two years, rather than 12 months as previously forecast.

"This is clearly the biggest threat to civilian life," said Arjun Jain, of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees.

Hundreds of bomblets are packed into the cluster bombs, which are fired from the ground or dropped by aircraft.

The bombs detonate in mid-air, dispersing the drinks-can sized bomblets over a wide area. Those which do not explode on impact become like anti-personnel mines.

The use of cluster bombs is not prohibited under international law.

BBC News

MuslimBro — Tue, 3 Oct 2006 - 11:46

Militants threaten Hamas leaders

A militant group linked to former Palestinian governing party Fatah has threatened to kill leaders of political rival Hamas.

The al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades said it held Hamas officials responsible for deaths during violent clashes between gunmen from both factions.

Three senior Hamas officials had been marked out for "execution", a statement from the group said.

Clashes between gunmen from the two rival groups began on Sunday in Gaza.

Eight people died in the violence and more than 60 were injured. Two more people died on Monday in further clashes.

"We in al-Aqsa announce, with all might and frankness... [that we will] execute the head of the sedition, Khaled Meshaal, Said Siyam and Youssef al-Zahar, and we will execute this ruling so those filthy people can be made an example," the statement from the group said.

Mr Meshaal is Hamas' Damascus-based political chief, Mr Siyam the interior minister and Mr Zahar a senior interior ministry official.

The latest violence is believed to mark the most serious round of internecine fighting since Hamas came to power in March.

Palestinian Authority president, Mahmoud Abbas, and the Hamas prime minister, Ismail Haniya, have appealed for calm and said the violence must stop.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/5402156.stm

This may be what Israel & the US wanted, Fatah and Hamas groups killing each other.

The Great 100 — Fri, 6 Oct 2006 - 02:15

MuslimBro
This may be what Israel & the US wanted, Fatah and Hamas groups killing each other.

It would be ideal. Then these fools who throw out cheap shots about Israel trying to wipe out the Palestinians would find that the IDF could concentrate on the terrorists to the north and leave the Palestinians alone.

You — Thu, 8 Mar 2007 - 19:00

PM 'says Israel pre-planned war'

Israel's prime minister has said that the strategy used in last year's war with Lebanon was drawn up months in advance, an Israeli newspaper reports.

According to Haaretz, Ehud Olmert said it was decided at least four months before that any kidnap of Israeli troops on its border would trigger war.

On 12 July 2006 Hezbollah militants seized two Israeli soldiers sparking an all-out assault by Israel's military.

Mr Olmert reportedly made the claim to an inquiry last month.

The Winograd Commission is an Israeli government-appointed commission tasked with investigating last summer's conflict with Lebanon and identifying lessons to be learned from it.

It is expected to release its interim report this month.

Knee-jerk reaction?

Mr Olmert testified before the commission on 1 February. Haaretz did not reveal how it uncovered details of that testimony.

About 1,000 Lebanese, most of them civilians, died in the 24 days of fighting along with 116 Israeli soldiers and 43 civilians.

The war began within hours of reservists Ehud Goldwasser and Eldad Regev being captured by Hezbollah in a cross border raid into Israel.

But it ended without Israel achieving its main aim, the release of the two soldiers.

Mr Olmert has borne much of the blame for that failure, with critics accusing him of reacting too hastily with a knee-jerk military strategy which had not been properly thought through.

But if the Haaretz report is correct, Mr Olmert said that in fact the plans had been in place for a long time.

According to the newspaper, Mr Olmert said he held several high-level meetings on the situation in Lebanon - the first on 8 January 2006, just four days after he took over from Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, who was in a coma following a massive stroke.

Mr Olmert reportedly told the commission that at a meeting in March he asked whether any plans existed about how Israel should react in the event of one of its soldiers being taken across its northern border.

He is said to have claimed that he looked at the various strategies tabled and decided that a plan, which Haaretz described as "moderate", of air strikes and a limited ground operation would be best.

Polls slump

Mr Olmert is also reported to have said that he believes in the event he acted as his predecessor Mr Sharon, a man with far greater military experience, would have done.

Along with criticism over its handling of the Lebanon crisis, Mr Olmert's government has been beset by a number of political and financial scandals.

In two new opinion polls released in Israel on Thursday the prime minister fared badly.

In one by Israel's Channel 10 television, 72% said they believed Mr Olmert should not continue in office and 57% favoured holding early elections.

And in an opinion poll for the mass-circulation newspaper Yediot Aharonot, just 2% of respondents said that they trusted the current leader.

BBC News

Oh, my.

MuslimBro — Fri, 9 Mar 2007 - 18:35

Israeli army 'used human shields'

An Israeli human rights group has accused Israel's army of using two young Palestinians as human shields during a recent raid in the West Bank.

The B'Tselem group said it had testimony from a 15-year-old boy, his 24-year-old cousin and also an 11-year-old girl.

They said that soldiers had forced them to enter houses ahead of the troops during the raid in Nablus.

The use of human shields is illegal under Israeli and international law.

The Israeli defence force says it is investigating the allegations.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/6432133.stm

There's a link in the webpage if you wanna see the video of the soldiers using civilians as 'human shields'.

You — Sat, 17 Mar 2007 - 18:25

Israel shuns Palestinian cabinet

Israel has reiterated that it will not deal with the new Palestinian government of national unity, whose cabinet has been sworn into office.

A spokeswoman for Israeli PM Ehud Olmert accused the cabinet, made up of rival Fatah and Hamas MPs, of endorsing the use of "terror".

Palestinian Prime Minister Ismail Haniya of Hamas said statehood was the priority of the new coalition.

Palestinians hope the formation of the coalition will end a Western boycott.

The EU and UN have indicated there could be a softening of their stance.

Hours after the Palestinian parliament overwhelmingly backed the new government on Saturday, Norway said it would normalise ties with it.

Norwegian Foreign Minister Jonas Gahr Stoere said in a statement: "The unity government's programme takes important steps toward meeting the demands set by the international community.

"On this basis, Norway will therefore resume political and economic relations with the Palestinian government."

'No change'

Israeli spokeswoman Miri Eisen told the BBC that despite the formation of a new government, the Palestinians' policies remained the same.

"We have a brand new government, it won't recognise Israel, it won't renounce terror, it won't accept any of the former treaties, and that means that basically they're accepting the guidelines of the exact same Hamas government that we've had in the Palestinian Authority for the last year," she said.

Ms Eisen was speaking after the Palestinian parliament met simultaneously in Gaza City and in the West Bank city of Ramallah, with a video link that strained to cope with the applause and cheering that greeted the result of the vote.

"The government affirms that resistance in all its forms, including popular resistance to occupation, is a legitimate right of the Palestinian people," Mr Haniya told MPs.

"Our people have the right to defend themselves from continuous Israeli aggression," he said.

But he also said that his cabinet would work on maintaining a truce if Israel would stop its "occupation aggression".

The BBC's Matthew Price says that while Mr Haniya's speech will not go far enough for Israel, it is important that a senior member of Hamas has again called for the establishment of a Palestinian state on land occupied by Israel since 1967.

Our correspondent says that some see this as an implicit recognition of Israel's existence.

Earlier, Palestinian Authority (PA) President and Fatah chief Mahmoud Abbas called for an end to "the siege" - referring to a crippling Western embargo.

He said the Palestinian people "reject violence in all its forms", and called for "mutual commitment by Israel to stop all violence".

'Door open'

The Palestinian economy has been badly hit by the embargo.

It was imposed after the election victory in January last year of Hamas, which rejects international calls for it to recognise Israel, renounce violence and comply with previous agreements between Israel and the PA.

The new government contains a cross-section of Palestinian parties, including some ministers who recognise Israel, our correspondent says.

The US has indicated it may leave the door open to some contact with the new finance minister.

Salam Fayyad is a Western-backed economist who is thought to be respected by the Bush administration.

The new administration was forged after several months of fighting between the Hamas and Fatah factions left more than 140 people dead.

The new cabinet takes office amid increasing lawlessness in the Gaza Strip.

There has been a series of abductions over recent months of Western aid workers and journalists. Intensive efforts are continuing to find missing BBC Gaza correspondent Alan Johnston, who is feared kidnapped.

BBC News

Important bit is in bold.

You — Sat, 17 Mar 2007 - 20:40

dunno.

:twisted:

That is an honest answer. Double edged swords cut both ways. I will elaborate. Your definition of terror and mine are different. With my definition, yes.

Will Israel negotiate with no threat of violence? why? what would their motivation be?

They would have alot to lose with nothing to gain. Status quo would be golden.

Whatever happens needs to be reciprocal in it's entirety.

For the Palestinian authority to recognise Israel and denounce violence against Israel (which is different from terror. Targetting soldiers is legitimate in any warfare.), the asme needs to be done by the other side. Recognise Palestine, and stop violence. No more raids. No crossings. No restrictions.

Or we could go the opposite way (into fantasy land - it will not happen. Both sides are too entrenched), and both sides drop their claims. Give all citizens an equal vote in a single unified country, where both Israeli and Palestinian is equal.

Two way street.

In that quote I highlighted the bit about Norway, as what Israel does is immaterial. Either it will not negotiate or it is gettign a stronger bargaining hand for when Washington asks both sides to talk.

Mr Honey's Day Out — Sat, 17 Mar 2007 - 21:24

A campaign is written into the Hamas charter and is the principle of Islamic Jihad, Hezbollah and Al Qaeda, that Israel is an illegitimate colonial project that has to be eradicated. Israel is offering negotiations for a Palestinian state if violence is renounced. It cannot and will not renounce its right to military defence.

The responsibility Israel bears for Palestinian suffering is a large part of the campaign against Israel. But the campaign against Israel is not in any way a result of that as long as it is written into the charters and textbooks of the Palestinians. It seems pretty clear to me.

The suggestion that a unified country is the answer, you must know is the end of Israel. Did you know that 60 years ago a third of Baghdad was Jewish, but that when the Baath ideology took hold they fled for their lives? That refugees from Islamic countries were about half of the non-native Israeli population? That the Arab population in Palestine more than doubled in the years of Jewish immigration prior to 1948 as they sought to benefit from the Zionist movement, while disputing Jewish ownership? Israel has withdrawn from Gaza, whereupon short-range Palestinian rocket attacks intensified. There has long been a drive to make life as difficult as possible for Israel, and if Palestinians don't like it when Israel fights back, they have only to declare that they would accept a territory alongside Israel and live in peace.

Until then it isn't a two-way street.

Thanks for answering.

You — Sat, 17 Mar 2007 - 21:38

Mr Honey's Day OutA campaign is written into the Hamas charter and is the principle of Islamic Jihad, Hezbollah and Al Qaeda, that Israel is an illegitimate colonial project that has to be eradicated. Israel is offering negotiations for a Palestinian state if violence is renounced. It cannot and will not renounce its right to military defence.

So it has no right to demand that of others.

The responsibility Israel bears for Palestinian suffering is a large part of the campaign against Israel. But the campaign against Israel is not in any way a result of that as long as it is written into the charters and textbooks of the Palestinians. It seems pretty clear to me.

But not to me. Any settlement will have to be negotiated where such issues can be discussed. charters ammended. Just demanding change gets everyone nowhere fast.

The suggestion that a unified country is the answer, you must know is the end of Israel. Did you know that 60 years ago a third of Baghdad was Jewish, but that when the Baath ideology took hold they fled for their lives? That refugees from Islamic countries were about half of the non-native Israeli population? That the Arab population in Palestine more than doubled in the years of Jewish immigration prior to 1948 as they sought to benefit from the Zionist movement, while disputing Jewish ownership?

Yes, I know it will be the end of israel as we know it today, just like ending the appartide was the end of South Africa we knew then.

I did not know that history, and will leave that for someone who knows about it to make comment. but it also must be said before the state of Israel, muslims and Jews lived in relative harmony.

The blame game can be played both ways.

Israel has withdrawn from Gaza, whereupon short-range Palestinian rocket attacks intensified. There has long been a drive to make life as difficult as possible for Israel, and if Palestinians don't like it when Israel fights back, they have only to declare that they would accept a territory alongside Israel and live in peace.

Until then it isn't a two-way street.

Thanks for answering.

It is still a two way street. the withdrawal was one sided. It was not negotiated. it had no meaning for the militant groups apart from saying that if you fight hard enough for long enough you just may get what you want. They had no reason to back off. Every reason to fight harder as the violence seemed to be getting them results. results that were not achieved with the peace.

Mr Honey's Day Out — Sat, 17 Mar 2007 - 22:16

On your first point, my point is that the Hamas charter is in violent opposition to Israel irrespective of Israeli actions. If they will not change that, but make demands for land, Israel cannot negotiate; and is foolish to think it can.

On your second point, my point is that Palestinian groups obscure the above, which to them is concrete fact, the impossibility of accepting an Israeli state, by casting themselves as victims of Israeli defence. In that sense it is they who do not acknowledge a two-way street.

On your third point, my point is that the pan-Arab movements behind the Palestinian cause have no intention of accommodating Jews as anything other than subjects in an Islamic state. You respond by comparing their cause to that of black South Africans, who had never lived in harmony with the whites or been accorded equal rights. You hardly needed to add that you don't know the history. This isn't a blame game, it is the matter that the Palestinians have no principle of peaceful coexistence and are entirely politicised by violent ideologues. I might correct you on the "relative harmony" idea, true as it was once, but that in the 1920s relations broke down badly, with the rioting for repossession of Jewish-owned land and the later emergence of Islamist, Communist and Hitler-inspired movements across the middle east and the tendency of the once ideological Muslim Brotherhood towards revolutionary politics and the rejection of the Jews' right to a state. Those movements haven't gone away and easily overshadow the humanitarian cause we might both support.

Your fourth point is that as far as Hamas are concerned because Israel withdrew without negotiating but in the context of a Hamas campaign, Hamas were correct to read it as a victory. This in itself tells me not only that you don't encourage a peaceful resolution, but that you are playing games and point-scoring. Am I correct? Israel unilaterally withdrew from Gaza. If the Palestinians want to negotiate in a spirit of goodwill they can unilaterally renounce "the struggle", which in fact costs them more than it has "won", but which can of course be justified if Muslim lives are but numbers.

You — Sun, 18 Mar 2007 - 00:04

Mr Honey's Day OutOn your first point, my point is that the Hamas charter is in violent opposition to Israel irrespective of Israeli actions. If they will not change that, but make demands for land, Israel cannot negotiate; and is foolish to think it can.

Sure they can. One side demands land, the other recognition. A fertile land for negotiation.

On your second point, my point is that Palestinian groups obscure the above, which to them is concrete fact, the impossibility of accepting an Israeli state, by casting themselves as victims of Israeli defence. In that sense it is they who do not acknowledge a two-way street.

I won't argue that they are not entrenched in their positions. I think both sides are.

On your third point, my point is that the pan-Arab movements behind the Palestinian cause have no intention of accommodating Jews as anything other than subjects in an Islamic state. You respond by comparing their cause to that of black South Africans, who had never lived in harmony with the whites or been accorded equal rights. You hardly needed to add that you don't know the history. This isn't a blame game, it is the matter that the Palestinians have no principle of peaceful coexistence and are entirely politicised by violent ideologues. I might correct you on the "relative harmony" idea, true as it was once, but that in the 1920s relations broke down badly, with the rioting for repossession of Jewish-owned land and the later emergence of Islamist, Communist and Hitler-inspired movements across the middle east and the tendency of the once ideological Muslim Brotherhood towards revolutionary politics and the rejection of the Jews' right to a state. Those movements haven't gone away and easily overshadow the humanitarian cause we might both support.

But there was relative opeace until some point...

Your fourth point is that as far as Hamas are concerned because Israel withdrew without negotiating but in the context of a Hamas campaign, Hamas were correct to read it as a victory. This in itself tells me not only that you don't encourage a peaceful resolution, but that you are playing games and point-scoring. Am I correct? Israel unilaterally withdrew from Gaza. If the Palestinians want to negotiate in a spirit of goodwill they can unilaterally renounce "the struggle", which in fact costs them more than it has "won", but which can of course be justified if Muslim lives are but numbers.

I am not point scoring. I was all ni favour of the withdrawal, even if it was unilateral. However at the same time I see the reality of how it was played on the ground, and also do personally think that if there was no violence, there would not have been a withdrawal.

Abiout negotiaion, it is a game. israel will negotiate right upto the point where words mean something, then look for escapes. first they would not deal with Abbas because they want elections first. Then after the elections they would not negotiate coz they don't like who won. Once the factions start fighting, they will negotiate with only Abbas. Once there is peace again, they refse to negotiate again. It is a game.

No country would give up something for nothing. It just does not work that way.

Since the international presure is on the Palestinians to sort themselves out (and rightly - there should be pressure.), Israel can play fast and loose. There should also be the same pressure on it to negotiate. but there is not.

Ariel Sharon once had a plan to squeeze the Palestinans to the point where they beg for what he was offering to give them. Olmert will not do too much more. He does nto have credibility even in the eyes of his own electorate. That is not negotiation. It is a game.

Mr Honey's Day Out — Sun, 18 Mar 2007 - 00:34

If the Palestinians continue to push for the destruction of Israel, no, Israel cannot negotiate. And there is no deal whereby Israel is negotiating to unify Israel and Palestine. If the Palestinians believe war is the way to achieve that, they will have war. Israel demands recognition as a precursor to negotiation because the charters expressly do not recognise Israel. Israeli soldiers do not take lives blithely, nor as a matter of principle, but as long as the Palestinians do, Israel will assert itself and aim for victory. That is what costs lives.

Your argument is flawed in that on the one hand you acknowledge Hamas views Israeli concessions as victory and a reason to pursue violence, and on the other you claim that Israel should pursue a negotiating strategy of land for peace. If you are saying the difference is in the negotiation, you will have to find me statements by Haniyeh suggesting the charter can be changed in negotiation. Since these possibilities are not beyond contemplation now it is odd to suggest that positions will change when politicians are in the same room.

Dave — Sun, 18 Mar 2007 - 00:36

Two things:

As far as Israel is concerned it is already recognized as a State - by the international community and by the Palestinians themselves. A new government came to power that reversed that position, and the Israelis are rightfully not interested in using leverage to gain their recognition back, they expect Hamas to continue the policies of the predecessor government in this regard.

Thing two - the Arab (not "Muslim") world has two positions with regard to Israel's "Colonialism" - one legitimate the other not. Arabs screech about the existance of Israel being nothing more than a Jewish colony and therefore not a legal entity - which is nonsense. However the argument that the Israelis are colonizing areas outside their pre-67 borders is undebateable - it was Israeli policy for the last 50 years. You do not send "settlers" to land that is your own. So you cannot paint the Israeli colonialism argument with one brush, it's more complicated than that - throwing out the argument and barring it completely is intellectually irresponsible.

Peace without conquest by one side or the other will never happen - I'm convinced of it. That kind of peace would require Arab countries to take an active role in the defense of an Israeli nation, carved from the Holy Land, that they could never lay claim to. They would never do this, it flies against their religious beliefs and nationalist leanings. Meanwhile that kind of peace would require the Israelis to forever abandon ownership of Jerusalem let go of their desire for revenge over the last 50 years and above all ghettoize themselves internationally - accept that the people around them will not harm them.

That's never going to happen. Especially with the added religious significance of the location - it is virtually a given that at some point under such a peace neighboring Muslim Arabs would have to assist Israelis against fellow Muslims. Likewise Israelis would have to deal with Western religious pressure. Would such a promise be honored in these cases? Of course not.

Not that it matters, that level of speculation is moot since neither party is interested in making those kinds of concessions (or moving toward a serious permanent peace).

It's ridiculous, the world is held hostage to this absurd little ethnic conflict.

Mr Honey's Day Out — Sun, 18 Mar 2007 - 00:45

That seems like a mostly fair analysis.

I do not believe that Israel is loathe to make concessions or that it would have difficulty "letting go of their desire for revenge over the last 50 years". To me that is an invention. Nor do I consider it impossible that Arab states could live at peace with Israel, which Jordan and Egypt more-or-less have, so long as other Arab states do not use the issue as a distraction or scapegoat Israel.

You — Sun, 18 Mar 2007 - 00:49

Apart from no longer seeking the destruction of Israel at every press conference there is not much further Haniyeh will go. It is a concession they have gioven, albeit to Fatah rather than Israel.

I do have to agree with Most of Don's assessment.

Both sides have too much to lose. Not a good place for negotiations.

Mr Honey's Day OutIf the Palestinians continue to push for the destruction of Israel, no, Israel cannot negotiate.

Ofcourse they can. How do you think they got to the initial peace? Did the PLO recognise Israel before 199x (can;t expectme to ermember the year! 😛 93? 94?)

Not that it would ever be final, but I am willing to settle for 6 relatively good years over none.

Dave — Sun, 18 Mar 2007 - 00:54

Mr Honey's Day OutThat seems like a mostly fair analysis.

I do not believe that Israel is loathe to make concessions or that it would have difficulty "letting go of their desire for revenge over the last 50 years". To me that is an invention. Nor do I consider it impossible that Arab states could live at peace with Israel, which Jordan and Egypt more-or-less have, so long as other Arab states do not use the issue as a distraction or scapegoat Israel.

lol Jordan and Egypt don't "officially" attack Israel - instead they look the other way when their countries become staging grounds for terrorist attacks on Israel. Only when their regimes are challenged in the process do they act.

Lasting peace with Israel obviously means Arab nations have to clamp down on that activity. Jordan I could see complying if the United States pressured them - as for Egypt I find the idea laughable the regime stays in power on a delicate balance of placating the antisemitic mob and not instigating serious conflict with Israel - a far less stringent demand than committing to the actual defense of Israel, and going forward with the other essentials like Syria? Never. Not possible - they are all but genetically opposed to the idea.

As for Israel making serious concessions or letting go of 50 years of violence - it smacks in the face of everything Israel is meant to be. This was meant to be the Jewish haven, the one place on the planet they are safe from pogroms and racism. Living in a world where they do not have the strategic upper hand or have to trust their enemies from last week for security means Israel is nothing more than a slightly larger Ghetto - they know that. They'd never let it happen. Not in ten thousand years.