world

Israel rejects Gaza ceasefire plan as death toll nears 850

53 Comments

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© (c) Copyright Thomson Reuters 2014.

©2019 GPlusMedia Inc.

53 Comments
Login to comment

Israel must realise somewhere in the deepest, darkest recesses of their consciousness that this ultimately isn't going to make anything better for them, and isn't the right way to go about resolving the issues with their neighbours, and ultimately establishing peace in the region. This, and of course the land grab settlements and effective Apartheid State they have turned The Gaza Strip and The West Bank into. And lets be honest, when they get the opportunity to kill Palestinians, they absolutely embrace it with both hands. 850 mostly civilians? Thats a war crime in my book.

This conflict really shines a harsh light on the foibles and divisive nature of religion - one of the root causes of so much death, so much suffering, so much hate. Because, genetically and historically, the Jews and the Palestinians/Arabs are exactly the same people.

http://epiphenom.fieldofscience.com/2009/01/shared-genetic-heritage-of-jews-and.html

It's a nonsense.

8 ( +10 / -3 )

If any other country in the world were to be performing this inexcusable slaughter, the United States would be all over them, banging their drum and pontificating about what is and isn't acceptable.

But because it's Israel, Congress passes a resolution in support of the massacres:

http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/senate/212617-senate-passes-resolution-in-support-of-israel

And continues giving Israel $8.5 million per day in MILITARY aid.

Where's your moral high ground now, Lady Liberty?

Oh, and according to the French PM, isf you don't support Israel's Slaughtering children, you're a closet nazi:

http://www.jpost.com/Jewish-World/Jewish-News/French-prime-minister-Behind-hatred-of-Israel-lies-hatred-of-Jews-363607

8 ( +12 / -5 )

What gets me is that everyone sympathize winged armed militants of Hamas will have to realize there is no way they can win, they have the option of dragging this on, it's gotten to the point that. No one wants to see innocent people killed, but Israel can't and shouldn't stop, the weapons that Hamas have now are more powerful, destructive and accurate than ever, not to mention so many NEW tunnels they keep discovering. Israel should NOT worry about outside opinion and the propaganda that Hamas perpetuates on a daily basis to draw up sympathy, they need to persist more than ever. If Hamas wants peace and if they can lay down their weapons, renounce their hostile attacks, acknowledge Israel's right to exist. Now I also do think Israel should halt building on any settlements until further notice. Hamas is the problem that is destroying and hindering real peace between the Palestinians and Israelis.

-8 ( +5 / -13 )

@Tamarama how much murdock news you been watching lately? eh??? he is disagreeable to you when the story suits you but when his story aligns with yours your ready to sit and preach it? Where did the word Palestinian come from? that would wrap up your genetic load of dust about religion? I dont see any light shining there at all. If people like you would take the time to understand the differences in the religions rather than just sweeping it together because it is too difficult, youd probably start talking some sense. Your so quick to point the finger at Israel-id say that is definitely too much murdock media-jumping sides are you-and not even state the obvious that the situation is really difficult, and that unless you are there watching and timing each and every move precisely, you can not judge. And as for Harold, havent you noticed the US is trying to let everyone else deal with theri own shat. It is talk like you do that always throws the guilty towel at them and tries to draw their participation more-albiet they do sometimes jump in by themselves-but arent you for them keeping to themselves and not judging the situation from a distance..

-8 ( +2 / -10 )

Tamarama

And lets be honest, when they get the opportunity to kill Palestinians, they absolutely embrace it with both hands. 850 mostly civilians? Thats a war crime in my book.

Yes, about those casualties...

http://www.aljazeera.com/news/middleeast/2014/07/gaza-under-seige-naming-dead-2014710105846549528.html

http://www.camera.org/index.asp?x_context=2&x_outlet=118&x_article=2762

-2 ( +2 / -4 )

What gets me is that everyone sympathize winged armed militants of Hamas will have to realize there is no way they can win

Is anyone sympathetic to Hamas? Strawman. People are sympathetic to the Palestinian people.

7 ( +10 / -3 )

unless you are there watching and timing each and every move precisely, you can not judge.

illsayit: I was not present at the Holocaust. Should I keep an open mind about it? I've never had Ebola. Should I try it, so I can make an informed decision?

Of course not. What a preposterous world we would live in if we ignored everything outside our own narrow pinprck of direct experience, gained in our safe, protected, privileged countries. Some things are self-evidently wrong, and this abomination currently being carried out by the extremist Zionist government of Israel is clearly one of them.

If the slaughter were being conducted by any other nation, immediate action would be demanded to stop it. But Israel get a free pass for any atrocity at the UN, because any criticism of Israel gets immediately vetoed by the USA, and whoever criticised the barbarity gets called a Nazi.

2 ( +5 / -3 )

Israel is part of the Middle East and the Middle East is one big mess and standing out as NON MUSLIMS?? Makes you a very VISIBLE target and if the other Arabs really cared about the Palestinians, they would take them in to their countries, from Saudi Arabia etc..they have more than enough $$$ to burn, but no this is POLITICS with RELIGION 101!! Who can win?? NO BODY!!

-5 ( +1 / -6 )

if the other Arabs really cared about the Palestinians, they would take them in to their countries

So the Palestinians should have to leave their homeland because the Israelis want it? Ridiculous.

4 ( +8 / -4 )

If the slaughter were being conducted by any other nation, immediate action would be demanded to stop it. But Israel get a free pass for any atrocity at the UN, because any criticism of Israel gets immediately vetoed by the USA, and whoever criticised the barbarity gets called a Nazi.

Where is your outrage that the Palestinians built tunnels some of them into Israel and them trying to kidnap Israelis into forcing them to release many of these terrorists, which is for me the biggest problem with Israel, they should NEVER give up any of their prisoners so that they can be recycled and sent back on the battlefield to combat the Israelis. The brutal barbarity is coming from the Palestinians, pure and simple and Israel should give a flying fig to what the international community or the UN feels or wants, it's their country, they have the absolute right to defend themselves from radical terrorism. Hamas started this mess, now let them lay in their bed and deal with the consequences.

-5 ( +5 / -10 )

Israel withdrawal from Gaza appears to be a mistake.

-3 ( +3 / -6 )

So the Palestinians should have to leave their homeland because the Israelis want it? Ridiculous.

You need to flip that around, buddy.

0 ( +7 / -6 )

You need to flip that around, buddy.

No.

2 ( +7 / -5 )

Yes, without a doubt, the Palestinians are in power to negotiate. If Hamas doesn't like how things are run in Israel, they can relocate somewhere else, it's Jewish homeland and they are more than welcome to live peacefully, but if Hamas thinks they are going to win this or shove the Jewish people out of their homes, they are beyond mistaken. Never will happen, even if the JT pro-Plestinian sympathizers wish it so.

-1 ( +4 / -5 )

it's Jewish homeland

It's also Palestinian homeland. Why should they have to be the ones to relocate and not the Jews?

This just goes to illustrate the difficulties in this region, and why America should keep their noses out of it.

2 ( +6 / -4 )

Hmm, I blame Britain for the current situation. Where was Israel before 1948 when Britain set up the borders and created the Jewish state, ditto for north Africa and their current disputes.

1 ( +4 / -3 )

This just goes to illustrate the difficulties in this region, and why America should keep their noses out of it.

Why? They are our biggest ally in the region and we would never turn our back against them, except for this president which has been a huge embarrassment for the US, the Jewish people, supporters and for Israel. They have been a tremendous help with serious vital intel on terrorist and many of our enemies in the ME and the war on terror. 2 more years and hopefully, we can reestablish better and more secure relations with Israel and regain the strong relationship we once had.

-4 ( +4 / -8 )

illsayit

murdock? Oh, you mean Murdoch. With a capital letter.

he is disagreeable to you when the story suits you but when his story aligns with yours your ready to sit and preach it?

What are you talking about?

Where did the word Palestinian come from?

For the sake of this article, to which we are referring here, I think the definition of a 'Palestinian' is quite clear.

If people like you would take the time to understand the differences in the religions rather than just sweeping it together because it is too difficult, youd probably start talking some sense.

Firstly, you don't know anything about me, so you are silly to assume. I know quite a lot about Religion and have at times, been very interested in it. I've also been to Israel to take a look first hand and try to make my mind up for myself. Have you?

Your so quick to point the finger at Israel-id say that is definitely too much murdock media-jumping sides are you-and not even state the obvious that the situation is really difficult,

'Your' is a second person possessive adjective - the word you are looking for is 'you're' - a contraction. Here you go: http://www.elearnenglishlanguage.com/blog/english-mistakes/your-vs-youre/

I didn't say the situation wasn't difficult at all - but I am firmly condemning Israel for the way they treat the Palestinian people, and I absolutely stand by that.

Do you think they are justified in killing Palestinian civilians so wantonly? If so, why?

5 ( +7 / -2 )

Now I also do think Israel should halt building on any settlements until further notice.

You are a happy Zionist.

1 ( +4 / -3 )

You are a happy Zionist.

What an insult! I am NOT a Zionist, nor am I happy, I am just stating the fact. I hate bloodshed and I don't like to see either side get hurt, but the Palestinians are fighting a losing battle, NO one really cares about them, especially the other Arabs and even if public opinion sways towards the Palestinian people, Israel will still win and the Palestinians will be the ones that will lose everything in the end, so if Hamas backs off and put down their weapons, then we can have a real cease fire, but the ball is in their court, if Hamas wants to bring their people down, then so be it, that burden rests on their shoulders.

-1 ( +4 / -5 )

Base4Funk says that Palestine is an Israeli homeland?? They are now internationally recolonized as sovereign state and despite what you think, Palestine in NOT an Israeli homeland. Secondly, where do you expect them to relocate to, the ocean? Palestine is a tiny place and most simply don't have the money or means to relocate there families.

2 ( +5 / -3 )

USNinJapan,

Thanks for the CAMERA link, and the unsubstantiated claim that a large proportion of Gaza's fatalities have been adult males (in an Arab society? Quelle surprise!) and therefore just must be combatants.

Here's one description Campaign for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America, by American journalist Robert I Friedman:

CAMERA, the A.D.L., AIPAC and the rest of the lobby don't want fairness, but bias in their favor. And they are prepared to use McCarthyite tactics, as well as the power and money of pro-Israel PACs, to get whatever Israel wants.

Let's stick to the facts, and not conjecture. Thank you.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

Enough of all the bull. Here the deal:

Israel will stop the attack when it has reached its policy aims. Its policy aims are to cull Hamas power.

Destroy the tunnels. Destroy the rockets. Cull the fighting force.

All else is commentary.

-1 ( +6 / -7 )

Please do not be impolite to other readers.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

'Now I do think that Israel should halt building on settlements.....'

Israel was stealing land before Hamas came to power and will continue to do so if Hamas is gone. Unconditional support and funding will continue from the US as long as the US right wing includes it in its creed. You agree that land stealing is wrong, so how about cutting off support until Israel stops breaking international law? Are you happy funding a country which illegally appropriates other people's territory?

1 ( +4 / -3 )

My commentary:

The US should stop futzing around with Israel. Why is the most powerful country in the world negotiating with pip-squeak Israel? Well, because we are not of one mind. And it makes us look weak: Oh, pretty please, we support you, but couldn't you pretty please stop...? Please.

As an American and Jew, I am sick of the US pretending to go hat in hand to Israel to try an wrangle some kind of concession.

The Administration supports Israel's actions. So be it. Or it if it didn't, so be it

Israel should be begging us for support! But its the other fracking way 'round. 'Cause of AIPAC and all the goddam Christian ZIonists.

1 ( +4 / -3 )

As long as the Israelis keep targeting hospitals, mosques, schools and homes - and killing children and women and civilians - this conflict will never end. Killing Palestinians at a rate of 25 to 1 Israelis does not indicate a fair fight. More like a one-sided war of bullying terror at best, and genocide at worst. Rest in Peace to all innocents.

5 ( +6 / -1 )

Israelis keep targeting hospitals,

No evidence that it was "targeted." You people make me sick.

-4 ( +3 / -7 )

Pure BS. Israel and Hamas agreed to a 12 hr. cease fire from 8:00AM to 8:00PM Saturday.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

SenseNotSoCommon

Thanks for the CAMERA link, and the unsubstantiated claim that a large proportion of Gaza's fatalities have been adult males (in an Arab society? Quelle surprise!) and therefore just must be combatants.

The linked Al Jazeera article merely lists uninterpreted data, Palestinian casualties by names along with their ages. You may not like CAMERA and others' interpretation of this data, but male/female ratio in the Gaza population is 1.04, pretty much even for the sexes, so the ratio for Palestinian casualties, especially in and around shelters, schools, and other civilian facilities that the IDF are allegedly targeting should be the roughly the same. However they are not. The casualties, not just in those locations but throughout Gaza, are overwhelmingly of the most likely sex and age group of combatants, not innocent women and children.

0 ( +3 / -3 )

The casualties, not just in those locations but throughout Gaza, are overwhelmingly of the most likely sex and age group of combatants, not innocent women and children.

Wow. So just by being a specific age and gender, your death is justifiable on a 'most likely' basis. That's an appalling sense of warped logic in justifying actions of war. A very casual and non-discriminatory approach to killing.

Which will only make things worse. Not better.

2 ( +4 / -2 )

@HaraldBloodaxe you must be a little high, thinking the US would interfere in a case like this. They only go to poor countries that has oil available. If they were concerned about the well-being of the people in a country, there would be no north korea, am I right?

-2 ( +3 / -5 )

Tamarama

It refutes the claim that the casualties, are mostly women and children, and vastly increases the likelihood that the casualties contain much higher number of combatants. Too bad there's no substantiated data on what percentage of reported casualties are the direct results of Hamas' activities and not collateral damage from IDF fire. It's certainly not zero, as the MSM will have you believe.

-4 ( +1 / -5 )

overwhelmingly of the most likely sex and age group of combatants, not innocent women and children

Guilty until proved innocent. Doubtless Ratko Mladic's rationale at Srebrenica, too.

collateral damage from IDF fire

Handy phrase that, almost from a car insurance clause. Dehumanizing the victims makes killing easier.

Before we jump to any conclusions, here's a breakdown of so far identified casualties (note they're flagging combatants) from respected Israeli group B'Tselem as at 20:00 on 23 July:

163 minors; 69 women (under age 60); 38 senior citizens (aged 60 and over); 153 combatants

http://www.btselem.org/gaza_strip/20140724_preliminary_data_on_fatalities

1 ( +3 / -2 )

Saiaku...what would you class as "interfering"? Surely, giving $8million a day of military aid: ie taxpayers' money being used to fund this slaughter is a kind of interference, is it not?

-1 ( +3 / -4 )

USNinJapan wrote: " CNN and journalistic objectivity? Don't count on it. Good to see Ambassador Dermer take them to task on their blatant bias. " | Posted 12:58AM JST in: 15 dead as Israeli shell hits U.N. school sheltering Gazans |

Ron Dermer, Ambassador of Israel to the United States, ( who has been critical of CNN objectivity ) has also publically stated his belief that the IDF should receive the Nobel Peace prize. (Dermer: IDF deserves Nobel Peace Prize for | unimaginable restraint | as reported in, The Times of Israel, July 22, 2014, 11:17 am)

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

Killing Palestinians at a rate of 25 to 1 Israelis does not indicate a fair fight. More like a one-sided war of bullying terror at best, and genocide at worst. Rest in Peace to all innocents.

Oh, I see. I get it now, silly me. But bombing innocent Israelis is ok? I know Israel is the bad guy, they should let the Palestinians bomb them out of existence, they have NO right to self defense, they should just take it, listen to the international community, pack, leave the country, wander off somewhere else, if an Israeli child is murdered who gives a rats ***, it's not as important because they are Jews and they are NOT as important, how dare these people blow up these tunnels that Hamas build to kidnap people, yes, they have every right to kidnap innocent Israelis, it's justifiable because they are good, hard working and innocent people and Netanyahu is evil for protecting his people and Obama is right for turning his back on our biggest ally. All Israelis are dog gone liars.

JTDan is absolutely right.

-5 ( +4 / -9 )

unless you are there watching and timing each and every move precisely, you can not judge.

illsayit: I was not present at the Holocaust. Should I keep an open mind about it? I've never had Ebola. Should I try it, so I can make an informed decision?

your pinprck is quite big there, spanning what? 6o+ years.Trying to get the camel through the needle hole are we?

and as for Tamarama, I kinda thought the english would be something to set your flags off. Who can be bothered fixing up me english for a forum where you hang out. eh??? I do not know you and you do not know what is going on in Israel, too bad if you claim youve been there before-from reading other comments youve made youve claimed to have been a lot of places. Never in one place long enough to really know what it is like Id say.

And you still have no idea when you cant even talk about the word Palestine. And it still gives your genetic dust no meaning. Or rather there is meaning but when you stop at the science and ignore the theological, which btw, it is obvious you havent really investigated it, well you just make no sense. Talk the theological and it it will probably lead you to where Israel is at now eh! But that part is too difficult, so just wipe it all under the mat with one big swipe of the word religion and you think you have a heart of compassion. Honestly, you have no idea.

And. you use the wantonly waaaaaaay tooooo wantonly. You say that the situation is difficult, and then suggest that there is some sort of random killing with absolutely no excuse for it. As if 2000+ rockets being fired at you isnt a little bit of a reason to retaliate. Noting that it is a nations decision versus a individuals decision. And you continue to avoid all the other aboslutely reasonable situations for retaliating-like the tunnels, the use of civilians to protect arsenal, and wtf, how about how come the Un has Hamas warfare in their schools???? Like I may know nothing about this sitaution but hello, that seems rather a big booboo.

-4 ( +3 / -7 )

Perhaps another approach to end this round of the conflict.

1) "Palestine" must destroy the tunnel network with UN observers confirming

2) "Palestine" must cease the missile bombardment; UN observers allowed to go to missile launch locations and be observers to ensure compliance

3) "Palestine" to be given land, nation, autonomy and recognized by Israel; to have a constitution and government after compliance of 1 & 2

4) "Israel" to be recognized by Palestine

The next round of fighting to follow that would be between Israel and a "failed" state as I seriously doubt that a Palestinian government could stop extremist groups from building tunnels, infiltrating Israel, and firing rockets into Israel. But that is for Palestinians to decide and act upon.

If Palestine rejects this, Israel then takes over the West Bank and Palestine shrinks some more to only the Gaza Strip. If Gaza then builds tunnels and fires rockets into Israel, then precedent for action is set.

Know it's too simplistic and probably doesn't address the 1,000,000,000 issues though. I'm interested to see if Palestinians really want independence or if it's just a disorganized land space occupied by hard working people mixed with extremists which can not, and don't, want to be controlled or stopped from infiltrating, harassing and attacking Israel.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

illsayit: I've tried and tried but I just cannot see the point you are trying to make, beyond insulting other users. Is that it? Zionist slaughter of kids is acceptable because if we don't like it, we "have no idea"?

-1 ( +4 / -5 )

Some often compare Zionism to the apartheid of South Africa. I agree.

I agree also. And the world has to deal with it the same way.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

illrantit

I do not know you and you do not know what is going on in Israel, too bad if you claim youve been there before-from reading other comments youve made youve claimed to have been a lot of places.

I have. And you should try it - you might be surprised and shocked by what you discover. Which makes your assertion that I am a victim of being manipulated by Murdoch media seem pretty ironic, because you seem to be forming rather strong views of this conflict based on....media reports and second hand information only.

And you still have no idea when you cant even talk about the word Palestine.

Palestine?! Here's your original quote:

Where did the word Palestinian come from?

So did you want to discuss Palestinians, or Palestine? I can't tell.

As for the rest, it's honestly a fairly predictable diatribe of regurgitated 'information' that constitutes the conservative pro-Zionist position. I suggest you do some deeper reading about the Israel/Palestinian conflict.

Afraid I'm mostly with HaraldBloodaxe on this one.

Oh yeah, one last thing.

and as for Tamarama, I kinda thought the english would be something to set your flags off.

Sentences always start with a capital letter, and generally not with a conjunction, like 'and'.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Zionism is merely support for the state of Israel. It just does not have the meaning yabits and others are attempting to give it. Quotes from nearly 100 years ago do not represent the current situation.

This is the platform of the World Zionist Organization presented in 2004:

The platform of the WZO is the Jerusalem Program. The Zionist Council, meeting in Jerusalem in June 2004, adopted this text as the latest version.[6]

Zionism, the national liberation movement of the Jewish people, brought about the establishment of the State of Israel, and views a Jewish, Zionist, democratic and secure State of Israel to be the expression of the common responsibility of the Jewish people for its continuity and future.

The foundations of Zionism are: The unity of the Jewish people, its bond to its historic homeland Eretz Yisrael, and the centrality of the State of Israel and Jerusalem, its capital, in the life of the nation; Aliyah to Israel from all countries and the effective integration of all immigrants into Israeli Society. Strengthening Israel as a Jewish, Zionist and democratic state and shaping it as an exemplary society with a unique moral and spiritual character, marked by mutual respect for the multi-faceted Jewish people, rooted in the vision of the prophets, striving for peace and contributing to the betterment of the world. Ensuring the future and the distinctiveness of the Jewish people by furthering Jewish, Hebrew and Zionist education, fostering spiritual and cultural values and teaching Hebrew as the national language; Nurturing mutual Jewish responsibility, defending the rights of Jews as individuals and as a nation, representing the national Zionist interests of the Jewish people, and struggling against all manifestations of anti-Semitism; Settling the country as an expression of practical Zionism.

There is nothing about the claims you make Zionsim out to be, yabits. Perhaps you might want to come back to present times and actually learn about what people think now rather than making assumptions about what people thought 100 years ago.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

Zionism is merely support for the state of Israel. It just does not have the meaning yabits and others are attempting to give it. Quotes from nearly 100 years ago do not represent the current situation.

Quotes from Israeli teachers and mental health professionals today indicate their concerns that Jewish kids are being taught racism in a very pernicious way. First of all, Israeli Arabs are faced with over 30 laws designed to discriminate against them. The state claims the laws are there for "security." When Zionism was being formed, there were factions that supported living together and sharing the land with Arabs, but the hard-liners -- who pushed for total separation -- won out and have ruled the state ever since.

There's a whole other set of laws for non-Israeli Arabs -- people whose families have lived in Palestine for centuries -- which subject them Israeli military justice in which they have to due process or recourse whatsoever. Who the IDF wants to imprison, beat, torture or kill, they can do so with impunity. The average middle-aged Israeli today has never personally met or sat down and talked with a Palestinian Arab. Like apartheid, Israel's laws are designed to keep them separated.

The unity of the Jewish people, its bond to its historic homeland Eretz Yisrael

That hasn't changed in a century. From the founding in Europe, the Jews of Europe -- who have no proof of ownership or entitlement to the land of Palestine -- drew up a map of this "Eretz Yisrael -- and set about the means to take it over from the people who had been living there for centuries. As Jews were sometimes subject to pogroms and ethnic cleansing in Europe, they were going to practice the same on the native population of Palestine -- over 90% Arab when Zionism was being founded.

rooted in the vision of the prophets, striving for peace and contributing to the betterment of the world.

What a shameful lie that is. As Gideon Levy asks, When have Jews ever strove for peace -- a truly just peace? The answer is "never." Israel does not want peace. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jBa7VLXq6og

And here is why:

Aliyah to Israel from all countries and the effective integration of all immigrants into Israeli Society

Simple logistics and common sense. If you're throwing open a welcome mat to the millions of Jews in the world to come to Israel, they are going to need the means not only to survive, but the live a comfortable life. This means getting as much land as possible -- check the map of Eretz Yisrael -- and water supplies. (That's the real reason the Golan was stolen from Syria -- water.) I hear some Jews claiming that their land actually entails all the land promised to Abraham: From Suez to the Euphrates River.

It is time for people of the world to start coming together as was done with the racist anti-apartheid movement. It will start with education, and there are no shortage of Israelis to help enlighten the world on Zionist Israel's true motivations and intentions.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

Quotes from Israeli teachers and mental health professionals today indicate their concerns that Jewish kids are being taught racism in a very pernicious way.

? What does this have to do with what I wrote? You tend not to actually respond to my posts and rather go off on various tangents. It is not very helpful to the discussion to do so. Anyway, sorry, just a mysterious mention of what you claim professional indicate is not what is known as evidence of anything. I never said there was no racists in Israel, just as I would never claim it of the Palestinians. However, that is not what we were talking about. You made a very incorrect claim of what you imagined Zionism to mean and I have shown you with specific evidence that you are wrong. Going off on a tangent, as you often (always?) do, does not change the fact that you were again incorrect.

drew up a map of this "Eretz Yisrael

I knew you would fall for that trap as I am quite aware that you are very new to this subject and this discussion. (I am also aware that your sudden interest in Israel and 'Zionists' just started on or about this month as you have never expressed an opinion or post about this subject up to now in all the years you have been posting under the name 'yabits'. The 1993 agreement with Jordan makes clear what are considered the borders of Eretz Israel and it does not include areas such as Lebanon, which Israel pulled out of in the early 2000's, and Sinai, which Israel pulled out of in 1979. It is clear that the meaning is what is called the state of Israel now and that is what the World Zionist Congress has also indicated. Now, you can make up your own stories of what you want to claim it means to Zionists, but the World Zionist Congress disagrees with you, as do I.

As Gideon Levy asks

You may not be aware, but Levy is a man. He is not a God or an all-knowing perfect being. He has his opinions and they are just that, opinions. The opinions of one journalist. Please stop making his opinions out to be decided facts. They are not.

Israel does not want peace.

Well, I disagree. Israel has traded land for peace with Egypt and Jordan. That peace stands today. Israel has attempted to negotiate for a real peace with the Palestinians. They came so close in 2000. Clinton is quoted as clearly suggesting it was the Palestinians that walked out and sunk the deal. Now, if you are claiming that Netanyahu does not really want peace, that I cannot say for sure to be honest. However, Ehud Barak did want peace, as did Clinton. It was Arafat that walked away from talks that would have created a Palestinians state and peace for both nations and peoples.

That's the real reason the Golan was stolen from Syria

Nah, Syria had there troops lined up on the border to attack in 67 and they cut off Israel's water supplies in the 60's. They also made a surprise attack again in 73. They lost the Golan, it was not 'stolen'. You really should read a bit of actual history before making such claims.

I hear some Jews claiming

Yeah? Well, I hear lots of crazy people from lots of countries say crazy things, but I do not assign those things to belong to the whole population of those countries. I mean, that would be racist. The fact is the majority of Israelis believe pretty much none of the things you mention in your post and instead belong to a tiny minority of crack pots. It would be like claiming the KKK's views represent how the US or its citizens as a whole feel about race. In other words, it would be inaccurate. Which is what I feel many of your views on this subject are, inaccurate.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

I am also aware that your sudden interest in Israel and 'Zionists' just started on or about this month as you have never expressed an opinion or post about this subject up to now in all the years you have been posting under the name 'yabits'

Until rather recently, I had always bought into Israeli propaganda, and so was a supporter of Israel in the way that many here are. My youth was spent among Arabs in Dearborn, Michigan, so that experience gives me some perspective. But it was not until undertaking the study of Torah over a year ago that my thinking started to change.

You tend not to actually respond to my posts and rather go off on various tangents.

I see a bigger picture than you do. Note that many in the world equate Zionism with racism. I have much more sympathy for that point of view now. I believe Zionism is poison for Judaism. Knowing that Israeli educators and mental health professionals are finding their way to this point of view is encouraging.

You may not be aware, but Levy is a man. He is not a God or an all-knowing perfect being.

This is true of every person. Nevertheless, he asks a question that no one can answer: When has Israel ever been for a just peace? The answer: Never.) Levy's opinions are informed, rather than knee-jerk blind obedience. Something very powerful must be at work for an Israeli Jew to cut through the state mythology. Teshuvah perhaps.

Clinton is quoted as clearly suggesting it was the Palestinians that walked out and sunk the deal.

Arafat could not accept surrendering the areas of the West Bank that the Israelis grabbed for settlements. Period. No country on earth would accept foreign, hostile enclaves in a land that is supposed to be theirs. Many of these settlers -- and I converse with them every Saturday -- are has hate-filled towards Arabs as racist whites are towards black people. I would not support any "right" of Nazi German to exist, just was I would not support any claimed right of apartheid South Africa to exist. Those systems were brought down, and so will Zionist Israel's.

and they cut off Israel's water supplies

Israel's water supplies were dependent upon the runoff and aquifer in the Golan Heights. Israel had no right to them whatsoever. Syria had every right to control them, since they were on Syrian territory, and Israel represented a hostile force to Arab interests. Curiously enough, the map of Eratz Yisrael includes Golan. I simply don't buy Zionist propaganda any longer.

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

But it was not until undertaking the study of Torah over a year ago that my thinking started to change.

The Torah is a book and there are many different interpretations of what is inside it. A short read is not enough to claim full knowledge of it and further claim it somehow means Israel does not have the right to exist.

I see a bigger picture than you do.

? I highly doubt that. You just seem to have more trouble keeping on topic.

Note that many in the world equate Zionism with racism.

'Many' are often wrong. The many that gassed millions of Jews were wrong. The many that enslaved people from Africa in the southern US were wrong. Many does not equal correct.

When has Israel ever been for a just peace?

When Israel traded land for peace with Jordan and Egypt, Israel was clearly for peace. When Israel pulled out of Lebanon, it was clearly for peace. When Israel and Clinton made a sincere effort in peace negotiations with the Palestinians in 2000, Israel was for peace.

Levy is wrong and so are you. Israel has a track record of making peace and tradling land for peace.

Arafat could not accept

Peace. Arafat could not accept peace. Because the rest of your paragraph has nothing to do with the 2000 negotiations. Arafat walked out in the middle of negotiations that BOTH sides say were close to an agreement. Please do not presume to know more than the Palestinian negotiators did about what happened. The problem was clearly that there was no insentive for Arafat personally to make a deal. The man had stolen millions of dollars of Palestinian money and there was nothing in it for him to make a deal. So, he walked out leaving a completely shocked Ehud Barak and Clinton. Again, the two sides were very close to making a deal when Arafat walked out. The Palestinian negotiators were equally shocked that the talks were suddenly ended. So, you description of the supposed reasons why the talks fell through are incorrect. It was Arafat himself that ended them and he had no other reason to do so other than he own personal ones. If Arafat truly had wanted a peaceful solution and a Palestinian state, he would have stayed at the negotiating table until he got it. I would have. Any reasonable person would have.

Israel's water supplies were dependent upon the runoff and aquifer in the Golan Heights. Israel had no right to them whatsoever

Again, that problem of not knowing about history. The Golan Height were established as a DMZ. However, during the period between the Israeli Arab War and the 67 War, Syria harrassed Israelis with shelling from the Golan Heights. In additiion, Israel's shared use of the water in the Golan was agreed with by the vast majority of the UN security council.

Curiously enough, the map of Eratz Yisrael includes Golan.

It is not curious at all. Israel annexed the Golan. I admit that freely. Israel has not annexed the West Bank or Gaza. Do you understand what that means? The Israeli government does not claim those areas as a part of the state of Israel. They are occupied territories up for negotiations. You know, the negotiations that were so close to success when Arafat up and left them.

You are mistaken in most of what you write and should reconsider your rejection of a peaceful two state solution. It is the only answer to this.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

A short read is not enough to claim full knowledge of it and further claim it somehow means Israel does not have the right to exist.

It's five books. No claim was ever made to "full knowledge." And it doesn't require a year to understand on a basic level things are clearly "anti" to the teachings. Zionism which lies, cheats, steals and murders has no right to exist.

Many does not equal correct

The Israelis who note the growing racism in Israel do not endorse killing innocent civilians, as so many Israelis do.

Israel has a track record of making peace and tradling land for peace.

Israel has never sought a just peace. Whatever "land" they gave up -- and I am specifically referring to Sinai and Jordanian lands -- was never theirs in the first place. They will never give up the West Bank for a Palestinian Arab state. What they will offer the Palestinians is the equivalent of a South African Bantustan. It is time for people in America to become educated to the truth about Israel, and allow boycotts, divestment and sanctions to do their work. All U.S. aid to Israel should be immediately cut.

Peace. Arafat could not accept peace.

Surrender. Arafat could not accept surrender on Israeli terms. Good for him and for his people.

So, you description of the supposed reasons why the talks fell through are incorrect.

They are correct. Like many people who have duped themselves -- as I once did -- you don't have the ability to see the pertinent facts that belie your flawed assumptions. Israel had stolen miles and miles of Arab land and was offering Arafat inches.

Again, that problem of not knowing about history. The Golan Height were established as a DMZ. However, during the period between the Israeli Arab War and the 67 War, Syria harrassed Israelis with shelling from the Golan Heights

This is a laugh. I'll take Dayan's word for things over words that support those who wish to live in delusion.

The peace accord at the end of the 1948 war had established demilitarized zones (DMZs) between Israel and Syria[22][23] However, as recalled by UN military forces officers such as Odd Bull and Carl Von Horn, Israelis gradually took over portions of the zone, evicting Arab villagers and demolishing their homes; these actions incurring protests from the UN Security Council.[24] Moshe Dayan, the Israeli defense minister at the time of the Six Day War, recounted in a 1976 interview that Israeli policy in the Demilitarized Zone between 1949 and 1967 was "to seize some territory and hold it until the enemy despairs and gives it to us", thus changing "the lines of the ceasefire accord with military actions that were less than a war".[22][25] Dayan related further that in the process Israel had provoked more than 80% of the border clashes with Syria in the lead-up to its April 7, 1967 invasion of Syria.[22][23] In defense of the Israeli actions historian Michael Oren said that "[t]here is an element of truth to Dayan's claim", but that Israeli actions were justified, as "Israel regarded the de-militarized zones in the north as part of their sovereign territory" (LOL!!).[26] Gluska qualified this view by pointing out that such Israeli sovereignty over all of the DMZ "was not sanctioned by the UN".[27] In fact the Israeli view had been rejected in 1951 by both Britain and the UN Security council (in Resolution 93).[28] In January 1967 Israel reverted to claiming sovereignty over the DMZ.[29]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origins_of_the_Six-Day_War -- with reference to source footnotes.

You are mistaken in most of what you write and should reconsider your rejection of a peaceful two state solution.

Israel will never give up stolen land on which it has built settlements, so the two-state solution is a delusion. The only solution is one-state solution that abolishes Zionist racism the way it was abolished in South Africa. In other words: True democracy.

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

It's five books.

Fine, Five books is not enough.

Zionism which lies

"Lies", huh? Kind of ironic coming from someone who has completely misrepresented the Zionist platform.

Sorry, Israel has a right to exist.

The Israelis who note the growing racism in Israel do not endorse killing innocent civilians

Many countries have a problem with racism. Israel is one of them. Most people, including most, if not all, Israelis do not endorse killing innocent civilians. That is just hyperbole.

Israel has never sought a just peace. Whatever "land" they gave up -- and I am specifically referring to Sinai and Jordanian lands -- was never theirs in the first place.

Nah, sorry. You cannot have it both ways. I am tired of the damned if you do and damned if you don't attitude. Israel did give up land it possessed for peace. It also did pull out of Gaza in 2005.

was never theirs in the first place.

Sorry? Aren't you already claiming that none of it is theirs anyway, including the West Bank and Gaza? You are not even consistent in your argument. Israel has given back land it has captured. It has made peace. It negotiated for peace in 2000 and by all eyewitness accounts, the talks were going well when Arafat quit them. That was Arafat's doing, not Israel's. You claim the offer was not good enough. Well, that is what continued negotiations are for, to continue until the job of peace is done. Israel and Clinton wanted to continue. Arafat did not.

Surrender. Arafat could not accept surrender on Israeli terms. Good for him and for his people.

Sorry, you 'opinion' based on five books does not equal the value of people that were there:

http://www.nytimes.com/2001/07/08/opinion/fictions-about-the-failure-at-camp-david.html?pagewanted=all&src=pm

Robert Malley wrote:

I was at Camp David, a member of the small American peace team, and I, too, was frustrated almost to the point of despair by the Palestinians' passivity and inability to seize the moment.

http://www.pij.org/details.php?id=32

In short, there was reason on the last day of Taba to believe that with four or five more days of negotiating, a framework agreement for most but not all issues was possible. With such positive progress, I cannot see any good reason whatsoever for Arafat to have left the talks. None. I can clearly see at least 14 years of misery why he should have stayed and continued talking.

Yet,

As Taba ended, there was general talk about further steps. One proposal was a meeting of Barak and Arafat, before the election, to achieve an undefined breakthrough or to agree on a framework. Another suggested reconvening the negotiators after the election, with the goal of reaching agreement by April 30. Some planning toward further meetings did occur, but a bitter speech by Arafat on Sunday, January 28, in Switzerland, attacked Israel with language completely at odds with the Taba negotiations, and that marked the end of the process.

Like many people who have duped themselves -- as I once did -- you don't have the ability to see the pertinent facts that belie your flawed assumptions. Israel had stolen miles and miles of Arab land and was offering Arafat inches. You can continue to excuse Arafat dropping out on the chance for a true peace, but I will not fall for it.

Nope. That is not what eyewitnesses to the talks or the negotiators have to say. Arafat betrayed his people and they have continued to suffer for it for the past 14 years.

This is a laugh.

No, my facts also came from the same sources you are using. They are accurate. Both sides were attempting to take over the Golan, but it was Syria that was shelling Israel from the Golan Heights and continued to do so up to 1973. Even Syria admits they did this.

Israel will never give up stolen land on which it has built settlements

? Again, Israel has pulled out of Sinai and took its settlements with it. Israel pulled out of Gaza and took its settlements with it. Former Prime Minister Olmert was working on plans to do the same in the West Bank, but was voted out of office before he could do it. You make claims that have no bearing on either history or the present situation. Israel has removed settlements and has given back land for peace.

The only solution is one-state solution

No. The destruction of Israel is not an option. It will never be an option.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Nope. That is not what eyewitnesses to the talks or the negotiators have to say. Arafat betrayed his people and they have continued to suffer for it for the past 14 years.

That is what listening selectively to "eyewitnesses" will get you. The stage had been set from the Oslo meeting of 1993. The Zionist state had agreed to interim steps from that meeting, including the transfer of three villages abutting Jerusalem to the Palestinians. The succeeding governments blithely disregarded that step and several others, leading Arafat to conclude that no matter what Barak claimed to agree to, the Zionist government could not be trusted to act in good faith.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2001/jul/20/comment

"Seen from Gaza and the West Bank, Oslo's legacy read like a litany of promises deferred or unfulfilled. Six years after the agreement, there were more Israeli settlements, less freedom of movement, and worse economic conditions. Behind almost all of Barak's moves, Arafat believed he could discern the objective of either forcing him to swallow an unconscionable deal, or mobilising the world to isolate and weaken the Palestinians. Those who claim that Arafat lacked interest in a permanent deal miss the point. Like Barak, the Palestinian leader felt that permanent status negotiations were long overdue; unlike Barak, he did not think that this justified doing away with the interim obligations. In many ways, Barak's actions led to a classic case of misaddressed messages...

"When Barak reneged on his commitment to transfer the three Jerusalem villages - a commitment he had specifically authorised Clinton to convey to Arafat - Clinton was furious. In the end, though, and on almost all these questionable tactical judgments, the US either gave up or gave in, reluctantly acquiescing out of respect for the things Barak was trying to do. If there is one issue that Israelis agree on, it is that Barak broke every conceivable taboo and went as far as any Israeli prime minister had gone or could go. Even so, it is hard to state with confidence how far Barak was actually prepared to go. Strictly speaking, there never was an Israeli offer. Determined to preserve Israel's position in the event of failure, the Israelis always stopped one, if not several, steps short of a proposal....

It's a wonder why Arafat even went at all.

Again, Israel has pulled out of Sinai and took its settlements with it. Israel pulled out of Gaza and took its settlements with it

These are tactical moves to buy time. The Zionists pulled settlements out of Gaza so they put a cage around it and kill Arabs without risking any collateral damage to the illegal settlements. Settlements will be there again.

Still I love this concept of giving something up that is illegal and making it appear that it's a concession. The big problem is that the U.S. has always "given up and given in" to the Zionist state. It think more and more people are getting tired of it. The next big push is a "teach-in" movement to get the real facts out about the wholesale rape of Palestine since 1947. I am witnessing what I did when the anti-apartheid movement started to build momentum.

-4 ( +0 / -4 )

That is what listening selectively to "eyewitnesses" will get you.

To quote you, "That's truly laughable". You misrepresented the Guardian article by Robert Malley completely.

Allow me to quote the final paragraph:

Offer or no offer, the negotiations that took place between July 2000 and February 2001 make up an indelible chapter in the history of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Taboos were shattered, the unspoken got spoken, and, during that period, Israelis and Palestinians reached an unprecedented level of understanding of what it will take to end their struggle. When the two sides resume their path toward a permanent agreement - and eventually, they will - they will come to it with the memory of those remarkable eight months, the experience of how far they had come and how far they had yet to go, and with the sobering wisdom of an opportunity that was missed by all, less by design than by mistake, more through miscalculation than through mischief.

You completely misrepresented the negotations, the history leading to them and the reasons for the actions taken place, particularly by Ehud Barak. Robert Malley is a man deserved of respect for his balance and perspective. You completely misrepresented that balance and perspective.

In case you did not happen to notice, one of the eyewitnesses I quoted was in fact Robert Malley, the man whose article you misrepresented.

Robert Malley also wrote:

I was at Camp David, a member of the small American peace team, and I, too, was frustrated almost to the point of despair by the Palestinians' passivity and inability to seize the moment.

http://www.nytimes.com/2001/07/08/opinion/fictions-about-the-failure-at-camp-david.html?pagewanted=all&src=pm

So, your incorrect claims of what Zionism are, are just that: incorrect. Your incorrect claims of the reasons why Barak did what he did are also just that: incorrect. This is according the very article you linked to supposedly support your argument. Again, I would suggest you actually read what you link before you link it.

I agree with Robert Malley. There will be peace between the nations of Palestine and Israel. You can bank on it.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

LOL, What you wrote was Malley's opinion. I pointed out his facts.

It is a fact that, at Oslo, Israel agreed to interim steps, such as the return of three villages to Palestine. It is a fact, as Malley reports, that Israel reneged on those steps. Nothing to misrepresent there. Is if fair to assume that people who renege on agreements -- even one that Barak explicitly told Clinton to communicate to Arafat, per your "eyewitness" -- can't be trusted? I'll leave that for readers to discern.

Again, I would appeal to readers to consider how important it is to fulfill even the small things you've agreed to, especially in times when so much mistrust exists between parties. In my view, the reason why Israel would not keep its agreements at Oslo is that they consider Arafat and the Palestinians inferiors.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

What you wrote was Malley's opinion. I pointed out his facts.

They are all Malleys opinions and views of what took place. You have not shown them to be facts. You have shown them to be opinons, as I have. However, while you pointed out some opinions, you also managed to completely avoid all balance seemingly on purpose.

It is disingenuous to mention Barak's actions without acknowledging the increase in terrorism at the time and the pressure Barak was under to maintain security. Arafat went to the negotations and by all accounts, they went very well. No matter what had happened up to that point, it is unrealistic to suggest that Arafat saw no point in negotiating at all because he and his staff were there for days negotiating. It was Arafat that provided no counter offer. Malley himself talks of his disappointment with the Palestinian passivity and inablitiy to seize on the moment. He is not the only one. Clinton clearly has stated the same thing several times.

Again, I would appeal to readers to consider how important

I would appeal to readers to consider that Arafat was in the negotations at that point. So, he obviously was no so affected by what had happened up to that point that he was unable to negotiate. He and his staff seemingly did so with the Israelis in what has been described by members of both sides as very fruitful discussions. Arafat then went to Davos and made a horrible speech basically decrying everything that was discussed and agreed to in negotiations and this was after Shimon Peres showered him with warm words and compliments.

Both sides were in a better place during the negotations we are discussing. It was Arafat and his lack of response to the Israeli offer and his speech in Davos that helped pave the way for the 14 years of misery since.

It is both sides that are to blame for the conflict and it is both sides that have to come together and fix it. They will do it someday. I know they will.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites