world

Israel 'spied on Kerry during peace talks'

60 Comments

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

© 2014 AFP

©2019 GPlusMedia Inc.

60 Comments
Login to comment

The Israeli lobby is already so powerful that US politicians of any hue who criticize Tel Aviv - or blow the whistle on this sort of behavior - commit career suicide.

With so many Israeli "outposts of influence," US politics isn't really so different to the West Bank.

17 ( +19 / -2 )

But in April this year, Israel made a surprise announcement of plans for 700 new settlements

That's 700 new illegal settlements.

And seriously delusional who think there's a two-state solution in the horizon actually believe these hundreds of settlements are going to be handed over? There's an awful lot of voters in the current settlements. Many of them support strongly right-wing parties like the Jewish Home Party, whose co-leader unabashedly referenced a speech calling for death to all Palestinians.

3 ( +12 / -9 )

And seriously delusional who think there's a two-state solution in the horizon actually believe these hundreds of settlements are going to be handed over?

Last January, Netanyahu made it very clear that after peace is negotiated, the settlers will stay in place and live under Palestinian rule.

Didn't seem to upset his popularity much.

1 ( +4 / -3 )

Netanyahu made it very clear that after peace is negotiated

Given the long history of never ending negotiations for peace, I don't think anyone is too worried about peace breaking out, much less Palestine's right to exist being recognized.

6 ( +7 / -1 )

Last January, Netanyahu made it very clear that after peace is negotiated, the settlers will stay in place and live under Palestinian rule.

Fairy tale. Likud's raison d'être is to settle the West Bank and establish all of Jerusalem as an Israeli capital.

“There cannot be a situation, under any agreement, in which we relinquish security control of the territory west of the River Jordan," (Netanyahu) said July 11 (2014) at a press conference. But if Israel doesn't relinquish security control, Palestinians cannot establish a state. The alternative, then, would be a single state in which Palestinians are residents but not full citizens.

"That sentence, quite simply, spells the end to the notion of Netanyahu consenting to the establishment of a Palestinian state,” summed up Times of Israel editor David Horovitz, whom Ha'aretz described as a Netanyahu supporter.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/07/18/benjamin-netanyahu-palest_n_5598997.html

5 ( +6 / -1 )

Israel is serious, it's looking at a solution some kind of Final Solution when dealing with peoples who have been living on their land for centuries.

3 ( +7 / -4 )

Last January, Netanyahu made it very clear that after peace is negotiated, the settlers will stay in place and live under Palestinian rule. Didn't seem to upset his popularity much.

LOL! And why would it? The Israelis appreciate a good joke, like most people.

Don't tell me you took him seriously...

-3 ( +7 / -10 )

The pro-Israel posters here very rarely acknowledge the vicious extremists on the Israeli side, painting Israel as a reasonable nation in a war against terrorists. Netanyahu has no intention whatsoever of compromising with Palestine over territory with anybody. America's unconditional support for Israeli excesses under the likes of Netanyahu or butchers like Sharon disgraces its integrity and this incident highlights the kind of regime you are dealing with.

4 ( +7 / -3 )

Nice. Bit of payback for the US.

4 ( +6 / -2 )

America's unconditional support for Israeli excesses under the likes of Netanyahu or butchers like Sharon disgraces its integrity and this incident highlights the kind of regime you are dealing with.

It goes all the way back to Ben-Gurion, and even before. I think the mentality goes like this: Because Jews have been victims and subjected to the cruel treatment by others (mainly Europeans) for so long, they can commit any crime as long as it justifies the ends of living "securely" in their own Jewish state. (Ironically, many of the places where Jews sought refuge from brutality like the Inquisition were in Arab lands -- where they were taken in and given safe haven. Baghdad and Tehran had thriving Jewish communities for many centuries.)

But the Zionist movement has given rise to a very pernicious new form of evil. When a state sends two agents to the home of a devout, orthodox rabbi in Amsterdam, tortures him and leaves him crippled, it's one of a host of incidents that reveals the nature of the evil that truly decent people must confront.

-3 ( +7 / -10 )

Wakarimasen: Wow, it seems you still believe in the old "an eye for an eye" logic.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

I'm sure America were doing the same thing to Israel... As Germany have shown, allies are not safe from a bit of eavesdropping lol!

1 ( +2 / -1 )

LOL! And why would it? The Israelis appreciate a good joke, like most people.

Don't tell me you took him seriously...

The ultra right wing took it very seriously and the government almost broke up a few times during the last round of negotiations.

However, the majority of the Israeli people know what is going to happen when a final settlement comes. They will either pack their bags and leave the West Bank or live under the Palestinian flag.

2 ( +5 / -3 )

US politicians of any hue who criticize Tel Aviv

Sense@What's with the "Tel Aviv"? The capital of Israel is Jerusalem.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

@Upgrayedd

Israeli settlers living under Palestinian rule sounds like the perfect recipe for a new Northern Ireland.

Nightmare waiting to happen.

3 ( +4 / -1 )

SenseNotSoCommonAug. 04, 2014 - 09:29AM JST

Fairy tale. Likud's raison d'être is to settle the West Bank and establish all of Jerusalem as an Israeli capital.

“There cannot be a situation, under any agreement, in which we relinquish security control of the territory west of the River Jordan," (Netanyahu) said July 11 (2014) at a press conference. But if Israel doesn't relinquish security control, Palestinians cannot establish a state. The alternative, then, would be a single state in which Palestinians are residents but not full citizens.

Likud has rolled back their party platform over the decades just as Hamas has rolled back many of their hardline positions over the same time.

Your quote doesn't have anything to do with the settlements. "Security control" of the Jordan Valley is up for interpretation and negotiation. During the last round of negotiations, the US and the Israelis were coming to the understanding that security control meant leaving behind high-tech early warning stations, security cameras and other equipment to monitor all border crossings, and other types of monitoring equipment.

Security control no longer means leaving soldiers on the ground or settlers in place. Most of the Israeli government had accepted that before the last rounds broke down.

0 ( +3 / -3 )

When a state sends two agents to the home of a devout, orthodox rabbi in Amsterdam, tortures him and leaves him crippled, it's one of a host of incidents that reveals the nature of the evil that truly decent people must confront.

You write this as if you have independent confirmation of it. If so, please link it. You were completely wrong about MK Sheked and what you mistakenly claimed she said, so I have a feeling this is another one of those dead ends, too.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

Sense@What's with the "Tel Aviv"?

Yes, Israel declared Jerusalem to be its capital in 1950, however not even the USA has recognized it as such.

Most countries have their embassies in Tel Aviv. The USA has a consulate general in Jerusalem for dealing with the Palestinian Authority, but deals with Israel in Tel Aviv.

Despite the best diplomatic endeavors, annexing territory - even building a parliament on it - does not confer sovereignty.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

The USA has a consulate general in Jerusalem for dealing with the Palestinian Authority, but deals with Israel in Tel Aviv.

It is true that the US has its embassy in Tel Aviv, as do many countries. It is kind of like how the US does not 'recognize' Taiwan, so they can talk to China. But in reality, the US recognizes both. Kerry met with Netanyahu in Jerusalem in 2013. It is not all of Jerusalem that the US has the 'problem' or objection to. It is the annexing of East Jerusalem. As you know, most of East Jerusalem with end up being the future capitol of Palestine. This was discussed quite successfully in 2000 and 2001 and the two sides were extremely close to a solution.

Despite the best diplomatic endeavors, annexing territory - even building a parliament on it - does not confer sovereignty.

To be accurate, the Knesset is in Givat Ram, in the central west part of Jerusalem, so it was originally part of the state of Israel in 1948. Thus annexing has nothing to do with where the Knesset is.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

@slumdog,

To be accurate, the Knesset is in Givat Ram, in the central west part of Jerusalem, so it was originally part of the state of Israel in 1948

And it's also accurate that the world hasn't stampeded to build their embassies in Givat Ram, for exactly the same reason that the Knesset was located there in the first place.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

And it's also accurate that the world hasn't stampeded to build their embassies in Givat Ram, for exactly the same reason that the Knesset was located there in the first place.

I am not sure what your point is. 'Originally' and 'in the first place' mean the same thing. The Knesset was not built on annexed land. It was part of the original pre-67 state of Israel. The fact that many embassies are not in Givat Ram has nothing to do with annexing. That was my point.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

At least the US won't whine about it. Just gotta do a better job next time.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

Israel only spied on Kerry for 2 minutes before falling asleep

0 ( +3 / -3 )

They know the laws of power, never put too much trust in friends. The US government doesn't have any friend though, all they are looking for is interest.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

@slumdog,

We can agree to disagree on this, then.

Why have no other countries recognized Israel's 1980 Jerusalem Law, declaring it the capital?

0 ( +2 / -2 )

But the Zionist movement has given rise to a very pernicious new form of evil. When a state sends two agents to the home of a devout, orthodox rabbi in Amsterdam, tortures him and leaves him crippled, it's one of a host of incidents that reveals the nature of the evil that truly decent people must confront.

Over the last week, We've been hearing your pretty direct anti-Semtic views when it comes to the Israelis. Now do you have ANY outrage towards Hamas whatsoever? Do you condemn Hamas in ANY way or is it ok for you that they kill as many Jewish people as possible. I'm not talking about proportionality, I'm talking generally speaking or do you think the Jews should just completely submit to Hamas and most importantly, do you think Hamas could ever live side by side in peace and harmony with the Israelis? Please answer me, I'm very curious as to how you think on this matter.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

Why have no other countries recognized Israel's 1980 Jerusalem Law, declaring it the capital?

I explained what I thought the reason was above.

Again,iIt is true that the US has its embassy in Tel Aviv, as do many countries. It is kind of like how the US does not 'recognize' Taiwan, so they can talk to China. But in reality, the US recognizes both. Kerry met with Netanyahu in Jerusalem in 2013. It is not all of Jerusalem that the US has the 'problem' or objection to. It is the annexing of East Jerusalem. As you know, most of East Jerusalem with end up being the future capitol of Palestine. This was discussed quite successfully in 2000 and 2001 and the two sides were extremely close to a solution.

Clearly the US and other countries are withholding recognition until a two state peaceful solution is reached. I think that is reasonable. You seem to think we have some sort of beef with each other, but as far as I am concerned, we don't.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Bass4funk: I'm not sure of Yabits opinion but I can tell you that neither side has any moral high ground to stand on and again Israel has attacked another UN shelter, even the US has condemned this attack. I don't support the actions of ANY government nor politician, nationalist pride sucks, only specific individuals in every country are worth being proud of! How do you feel about the latest Israeli actions? I've never heard you admit Israel has ever done anything wrong either.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

I'm not sure of Yabits opinion

Come on, Stuart. Don't be coy. You must be pretty sure of yabits' opinions at this point. He has not been shy about telling us about them.

How do you feel about the latest Israeli actions?

I have yet to see one poster cheering about the horrible deaths at the UN shelter. However, Israel does deny being the ones that attacked the UN shelter. So, I do not see anyone supporting such a thing. What is there to support? The deaths of innocents is wrong.

-4 ( +0 / -4 )

SlumDog: I don't read most of Yabits comments for one, nor can I answer a question intended for him. Secondly, if you want to see Israeli posters cheering about this, just go to CNN. Of coarse Israel denies it, just like the last time but it was proven true, plus this time even the US has condemned Israel for this action. For someone who is against the killing of innocent civilians, it's funny that all your comments either support or defend Israel.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

SlumDog: I don't read most of Yabits comments for one, nor can I answer a question intended for him.

? You admitted you know how he feels about Hamas and you know he is against a peaceful two state solution. Amazingly, you have not seen fit to criticize this. Why?

Secondly, if you want to see Israeli posters cheering about this, just go to CNN.

Go to CNN? I have no idea what you are talking about.

Of coarse Israel denies it,

Israel generally acknowledges when it is accused of something that it actually does. It usually apologizes as well. Have Hamas ever apologized for anything? The answer is, no.

For someone who is against the killing of innocent civilians, it's funny that all your comments either support or defend Israel.

I support Israel's right to exist. I am against Hamas and what they stand for. Nothing mysterious or funny about it. It is pretty straight forward. I am also against the killing of innocents by any side. Nothing myserious or funn about that either.

You, on the other hand, claim to be for a peaceful two state solution but never manage to criticize Hamas that I have seen. I criticize the killing of innocents full stop and I have specifically stated that Israel is fully responsible for any innocents killing by Israel.

just like the last time but it was proven true, plus this time even the US has condemned Israel for this action.

There has been so much violence and so much killing you will have to forgive if I do not know which one you are talking about. I know there have been a couple of UN incidents where it is still not clear who is responsible. Feel free to state what you think, but do not pretend to know the actual answers. I doubt the actual players do in many cases.

What's the deal with bringing my name into this? I thought we had a meeting of the minds. I guess not. Still, I believe in a peaceful two state solution and I believe Hamas stands squarely in the way of this.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

You were completely wrong about MK Sheked and what you mistakenly claimed she said, so I have a feeling this is another one of those dead ends, too.

This Jewish Israeli woman confirms to me that what I posted was accurate. The Zionists and their defenders, having completely deluded themselves, will lie at every turn.

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/why-im-on-the-brink-of-burning-my-israeli-passport-9600165.html

Or am I completely wrong about Ms. Hillel too?

As you know, most of East Jerusalem with end up being the future capitol of Palestine. This was discussed quite successfully in 2000 and 2001 and the two sides were extremely close to a solution.

If the Zionists truly wanted that it would have happened long ago.

Over the last week, We've been hearing your pretty direct anti-Semtic views when it comes to the Israelis.

I believe Americans (especially) should come to understand the difference between Judaism (which I love) and Zionism, which is non-religious and is actually a smear upon Judaism.

Do you condemn Hamas in ANY way or is it ok for you that they kill as many Jewish people as possible.

First of all, if Hamas had the ability to kill as many people in Israel with impunity as the Zionists can Arabs, the Zionists would be scrambling all over themselves to sue for peace. The reality is that Gaza is under siege and the West Bank under brutal occupation. International law -- which Zionist Israel does not observe -- grants a people under occupation the right to resist and fight back with any and all means at their disposal. If the Zionists want peace, they can first end their illegal acts.

most importantly, do you think Hamas could ever live side by side in peace and harmony with the Israelis?

First of all, look at history. The people who brutalized the Jews most in their long exile were European Christians. It was the Muslim countries who took thousands in; and over the centuries thriving Jewish communities existed in Yemen, Morocco, Iraq (Baghdad) and Persia (Iran). Can Jewish people today live side by side in peace and harmony with Germans? Of course they can. (But they could not with Nazis, obviously.)

Recently, an American rabbi and former head of the United Jewish Congress, Henry Siegman, sat and talked with members of Hamas. He is convinced that they can live side by side with Jews who practice the principles of their faith. But they can't with the kind of people who want to dominate and destroy them. (Obviously.)

You write this as if you have independent confirmation of it.

I write it as though I witnessed the man himself speaking about it, which I did. He is Rabbi Yosef Antebi of Amsterdam. I have also seen the counter claims some Zionists have made, and I accept the rabbi's story.

-1 ( +3 / -4 )

@yabits

I believe Americans (especially) should come to understand the difference between Judaism (which I love) and Zionism, which is non-religious and is actually a smear upon Judaism.

Really, Yabits? I'm not talking about the Bob Marley, let's have a smoke Zionism. Too much, puff, puff, pass.

First of all, if Hamas had the ability to kill as many people in Israel with impunity as the Zionists can Arabs, the Zionists would be scrambling all over themselves to sue for peace.

Riiiiight....

The reality is that Gaza is under siege and the West Bank under brutal occupation. International law -- which Zionist Israel does not observe -- grants a people under occupation the right to resist and fight back with any and all means at their disposal. If the Zionists want peace, they can first end their illegal acts

Sadly, misguided and as usual, you got your facts backwards on the issue. Hamas fired the first shot, period.

-5 ( +0 / -5 )

The Zionist Jews have no real claim to the land. It`s not theirs. They are occupiers who hide behind the corpses of the Shoa. Shameful.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Hamas fired the first shot, period.

Gaza was put under siege -- an act of war -- before Hamas ever fired a shot. Prior to the siege, in 2005, Israel blockaded their access to the sea and controlled Gaza's airspace -- both acts of war. Those acts were actually undertaken before Hamas was elected by Gazans in 2006. Gazan rage over the conditions may well have contributed to their turning to Hamas.

The Zionist Jews have no real claim to the land. It`s not theirs.

It would be better to drop "Jews" from the sentence. Zionism has nothing to do with religion. People will mention the Balfour Declaration, but it's something very few investigate. Why did Lord Balfour have such an interest in the idea of a "Jewish homeland" around WWi? Actually, the person who was pushing for it was another member of the House of Lords, Lord Rothschild.

But a Rothschild Declaration granting European Jews a "right" to come and take Arab land would be a bit too obvious.

-6 ( +4 / -10 )

'Gaza was put under siege -- an act of war -- before Hamas ever fired a shot. Prior to the siege, in 2005, Israel blockaded their access to the sea and controlled Gaza's airspace -- both acts of war. Those acts were actually undertaken before Hamas was elected by Gazans in 2006. Gazan rage over the conditions may well have contributed to their turning to Hamas.'

Yabits, don't bother. I've tried to put forward the fact that Israel's egregious violations of international law was going on long before Hamas was elected into power and will no doubt continue when Hamas are gone. General Sharon's butchery was legendary. It's not an argument the right seems to want to hear. As you said, part of the reason why Hamas was elected was the utter failure of previous administrations to provide the basics, partly due to the parlous state Israel kept Palestine in.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

Yabits, don't bother...It's not an argument the right seems to want to hear.

Getting them to admit that they don't care about international law where Israel is concerned would be a big step in the right direction.

This goes to the heart of the reason why they deny the Palestinians the right to defend themselves.

-6 ( +3 / -9 )

The Zionist Jews have no real claim to the land. It`s not theirs. They are occupiers who hide behind the corpses of the Shoa. Shameful.

And here we have another person that drank from the Kool-aid. ROFL

@yabits

Gaza was put under siege -- an act of war -- before Hamas ever fired a shot.

Oh, NO you don't! Once again, Hamas were the ones that fired the rockets first, that initiated the first strike, that's all I am asking you, nothing more.

It would be better to drop "Jews" from the sentence. Zionism has nothing to do with religion. People will mention the Balfour Declaration, but it's something very few investigate. Why did Lord Balfour have such an interest in the idea of a "Jewish homeland" around WWi? Actually, the person who was pushing for it was another member of the House of Lords, Lord Rothschild.

Yabits, please don't lecture me about Judaism or religion, thank you.

Getting them to admit that they don't care about international law where Israel is concerned would be a big step in the right direction.

Tell me when did the radical Hamas and the jihadists care about international law. Hiding weapons in a UN building, a school, a Mosque, seriously? You just can't stoop lower.

This goes to the heart of the reason why they deny the Palestinians the right to defend themselves.

Hmmmm, I don't call it defending when you smuggle rockets into one country, hiding them amongst your people and use these weapons to attack another group of people that for the majority want peace, but these people don't care. It's an absolute ruse to even suggest that these terrorists want to defend themselves, they want weapons to destroy the Jewish nation, pure and simple.

@jim

Yabits, don't bother. I've tried to put forward the fact that Israel's egregious violations of international law was going on long before Hamas was elected into power and will no doubt continue when Hamas are gone.

You put anything forward because it doesn't matter what you or the looney left think, you guys are anti-Semites and you would like nothing more than to see the state of Israel destroyed and that's not going to happen.

General Sharon's butchery was legendary. It's not an argument the right seems to want to hear.

He had a good reason.

As you said, part of the reason why Hamas was elected was the utter failure of previous administrations to provide the basics, partly due to the parlous state Israel kept Palestine in.

You reap what you sow.

-8 ( +0 / -8 )

Oh, NO you don't! Once again, Hamas were the ones that fired the rockets first, that initiated the first strike, that's all I am asking you, nothing more.

If you wish to remain ignorant of the basic facts, that is your prerogative. The "first strike" -- as in "first act of aggression" -- was clearly committed by the Israelis. They first occupied Gaza and then pulled out their troops while still blockading the coast and controlling the airspace. Long before Hamas took power. Those are the basic facts; nothing more. You simply can't accept them.

Tell me when did the radical Hamas and the jihadists care about international law. Hiding weapons in a UN building, a school, a Mosque, seriously?

Gaza is under siege -- just like the Warsaw Ghetto. Different rules under international law apply for people who are under occupation and siege. According to international law, they get to fight back using any means available to them. If you had any knowledge of international law, this would not have to be explained to you. The fact that it has be explained to you repeatedly reveals a completely different problem.

You have no ground to stand on.

-8 ( +3 / -11 )

@yabits

If you wish to remain ignorant of the basic facts, that is your prerogative.

If I'm ignorant to the fact that you are anti-Israeli and anti-Semitic then, I guess, I am very ignorant.

The "first strike" -- as in "first act of aggression" -- was clearly committed by the Israelis

Yabits, again, that is NOT what I asked you! Would you please answer my simple, very simple question? I will ask it again, a few weeks ago, who started the conflict, meaning: which side FIRED THE FIRST SHOT? That's all I want to know, everything else you are ranting about is irrelevant.

They first occupied Gaza and then pulled out their troops while still blockading the coast and controlling the airspace. Long before Hamas took power. Those are the basic facts; nothing more. You simply can't accept them.

Oh, I accept them as well as I accept, Israel should do whatever they can to safeguard their people from terrorist jihadists that their main objective is to NEVER have peace with Israel and to NEVER accept the state of Israel and to systematically eradicate all Jewish people from their land. Yeah, I accept the facts and accept the truth and reality of what Hamas is and what they stand for and because of this, I agree Israel should impose a blockade for their safety.

-4 ( +0 / -4 )

Oh, I accept them as well as I accept, Israel should do whatever they can to safeguard their people from terrorist

Just asking do you include genocide in there? It'll help me understand how far gone you are in your islamophobia...

2 ( +3 / -1 )

SNAP!...oh no they din't...

0 ( +0 / -0 )

a few weeks ago, who started the conflict, meaning: which side FIRED THE FIRST SHOT?

In this latest round of escalated violence, Israel fired the first shot.

On June 12, three Israeli teenagers were kidnapped. Although it was later revealed that Hamas was not behind the abductions, Prime Minister Netahyahu insisted they were. Attacks on and mass-arrests of Hamas sympathizers in the West Bank took place immediately, killing six. Raids, beatings and torture of Palestinians continued up until the time that the three youths were found dead.

It was around June 30, with killings and mass-arrests of Palestinians increasing, that "Gaza militants" launched around 16 rockets towards southern Israel.

So it was Israel who fired the first shots, arresting and killing innocent Palestinians in an effort to recover three kidnapped teenagers.

-7 ( +3 / -10 )

@slumdog

Israel generally acknowledges when it is accused of something that it actually does. It usually apologizes as well. Have Hamas ever apologized for anything? The answer is, no.

What does an apology mean? What is its value?

I punch you. Oops, sorry. I punch you again. My bad. I punch you yet again. My most humble apologies. THWAK! So sorry about that.

I hate apologies. They are just words. When people say sorry to me, I say no. You tell me why what you did was wrong and you promise me it won't happen again. Sorry is just an empty word otherwise.

I criticize the killing of innocents full stop and I have specifically stated that Israel is fully responsible for any innocents killing by Israel.

Responsible? What does it mean to be responsible? In what way should Israel be made to bear this responsibility? You tell us. I hope it goes beyond saying sorry for the hundredth time.

3 ( +3 / -0 )

SlumDog: I still can't answer a question intended for another poster. Because I personally am against ALL governments & politicians that don't support Pacifism, I can't exactly debate everyone who feels otherwise. While you and Bass4funk specifically debated my comments first, Yabits has not replied or debated my comments. If he does, you will read that I agree with some of his comments and disagree with supporting Hamas. 2nd. Simply go to CNN discuss section and you will see those comments we spoke of. 3rd. I have criticized Hamas, I have made multiple comments against the firing of rockets into Israel and continuously criticize both sides for endlessly repeating the same violent actions & reactions over and over again! And yes, I am for a peaceful two state solution but that action does not equal peace nor is it a solution to the many challenges between these two states, it's just a small step in the right direction. Lastly, the airstrikes by Israel have been condemned by the UN & USA. Being that it was an airstrike and Palestine has no military jet fighters, it's a fact that Israel was responsible for those bombing's

0 ( +2 / -2 )

Israel has proven itself to be a terrorist state. It was born via terrorism and now seems to have returned to it with a vengeance that is criminal. Those few Israelis who dare speak about the war crimes that have occurred in the last few weeks are getting beat up by goons. The country is going through a sickness that is terrifying and is the reason why 90% of the country justify the occupation and de facto genocide being carried out by the state of Israel.

Now after bombing another UN hospital the Israeli army is pulling out of Gaza. What has been accomplished. Nothing. Nothing other than Hamas is stronger now and the world, outside of the incredibly biased USA, sees Israel like it see Russia. A pariah state. Putin and Netanyahu are the same.

Two years from now another invasion will occur to satisfy the blood lust of the Likud Party and their despicable and short sited leaders. None of those losers have the guts to make peace like Sadat and Begin. They would rather bomb hospitals and starve kids.

Of yes course Israel spied on Kerry, Israel has been spying on the USA for decades.

4 ( +5 / -1 )

This Jewish Israeli woman confirms to me that what I posted was accurate.

No, that Jewish Israeli woman agrees with what was printed in the Daily Beast. Shaked herself denies she said those things. So, instead of posting hearsay, why not actually post what Sheked said?

If the Zionists truly wanted that it would have happened long ago.

How was Israel (that is what the country is called and the citizens are called Israelis) supposed to do this when the Palestinians left the negotiations? Are you suggesting the Israelis should just unilaterally leave the West Bank, too? Yeah, that worked out so well with Gaza. No, negotations first, then land for peace. That is the deal.

First of all, if Hamas had the ability to kill as many people in Israel with impunity as the Zionists can Arabs, the Zionists would be scrambling all over themselves to sue for peace.

It is the Palestinians, specifically Hamas that refuses to negotiate for a peaceful two state solution. You agree with this. I do not. I think all sides should negotiate until a deal is made.

I believe Americans (especially) should come to understand the difference between Judaism (which I love) and Zionism, which is non-religious and is actually a smear upon Judaism.

Israel has a right to exist. Judaism and the belief in the right to exist are not mutually exclusive no matter how much you attempt to claim they are.

International law -- which Zionist Israel does not observe -- grants a people under occupation the right to resist and fight back with any and all means at their disposal.

Really? Please quote this law for me. The UN has stated several times that they are for a peaceful two state solution. So have the US, the EU and most of the world. So have I. You have stated many times that you are against this. Amazingly, some others seem afraid to confront you about this.

First of all, look at history.

No, look at 2014 and the fact that not negotiating has made the Palestinians situation worse. Your hatred of Israel blinds you to this. A peaceful two state solution is the only solution.

Recently, an American rabbi and former head of the United Jewish Congress,

The United Jewish Congress supports a peaceful two state solution. I think it is great that they are trying to talk to Hamas. It would be great if they could convince them to negotiate for a peaceful two state solution. Shame you are against this.

I write it as though I witnessed the man himself speaking about it, which I did.

So, the answer is, no. You can accept what you wish to, but I believe your hatred of Israel blinds you. In the past, I admired your research and your carefulness when it came to sources of information. It is a shame that your hatred of Israel now prevents you from wanting the same quality of information here as well.

Gaza was put under siege -- an act of war -- before Hamas ever fired a shot.

Nope. Again, the US, the EU, Russia and the UN put sanctions in place when Hamas refused to honor agreements the PLA had made with Israel and Egypt.

Israel blockaded their access to the sea and controlled Gaza's airspace -- both acts of war.

Gaza is not a country yet. Those things are not acts of war. What law are you basing this on?

But a Rothschild Declaration granting European Jews a "right" to come and take Arab land would be a bit too obvious.

Rothschild, huh? How curious. You have finally started getting deeper into it. Please do continue. I have heard and read this tact before and know exactly where it leads.

Those are the basic facts; nothing more. You simply can't accept them.

No, there are more facts involved. After Israel left Gaza, things starting getting better. Gazans were crossing the border into Egypt legally for the first time since 1948, including the time between 1948 and 67 when Egypt controlled it. Talks were in the works for even more Palestinian border control and many other improvements in the situation of Gazans. It was Hamas' refusal to honor the agreements made by the PLA with Israel and Egypt that immediately led to the US, the EU, Russia and the UN along with Israel putting sanctions on Gaza.

Gaza is under siege -- just like the Warsaw Ghetto.

The two situations are nothing like each other. The residents of Warsaw Ghetto did not have a charter that called for the destruction of Germany. Hamas has a charter that calls for the destruction of Israel. Now, I know you agree with this. But, it is wrong. Hamas refuses to negotiate for a true peaceful two state solution. The Warsaw Ghetto residents had no such options. So, please stop comparing them, they are not the same at all. It is insulting to those who were force to live and die there and makes a mockery of what happened. Negotiations are the only answer.

What does an apology mean? What is its value?

In reality, probably not much value. But at least it shows regret. In Japan, it can make the difference in your sentence if convicted of something if you show regret.

In what way should Israel be made to bear this responsibility? You tell us.

At the very least, reparations are in order in my opinion. Money does not completely erase what happened, but Israel should be made to pay for such things. I feel this is true for when other countries do similar things as well. It never erases the horror, but it would at least make the lives of the families a little better and would force Israel to be more careful in the future. No, I do not think words are enough. I agree with you about this.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

How was Israel (that is what the country is called and the citizens are called Israelis) supposed to do this when the Palestinians left the negotiations? Are you suggesting the Israelis should just unilaterally leave the West Bank, too? Yeah, that worked out so well with Gaza. No, negotations first, then land for peace. That is the deal.

The Zionists have been wrong from the very start and they are wrong now. You just admitted to one of their tricks. The Zionists never "left Gaza." They pulled out their settlements so their people wouldn't be caught in the crossfire. But they still maintain complete control over air space and access by sea, and showed their willingness to strangle Gaza at a moment's notice if the people make an independent decision that the Zionists don't like. That's hardly "leaving them."

The Zionists have used deceit all along the way to incite the hapless Arab populations to violence. And that's precisely how they will end up taking all the West Bank, in time. And when they do, you'll be cheering them on saying, "Yeah, that two-state solution worked out so well."

Rothschild, huh? How curious. You have finally started getting deeper into it. Please do continue. I have heard and read this tact before and know exactly where it leads.

I take it no farther than that basic, verifiable fact. As the grandson of one of Israel's founders put it, the deal between Balfour and Rothschild was one between two white racists to steal Arab land. He doesn't take it any farther either. That much should be sufficient in and of itself. A Rothschild Declaration would have been all too obvious.

The residents of Warsaw Ghetto did not have a charter that called for the destruction of Germany.

All it took was for the leader of Germany to convince his people that those in the Warsaw Ghetto were bent on their ultimate destruction. The same lie used by Zionist leaders. There may have been many among them and the resistance who wanted the destruction of the Nazi state, and justly so. The vast majority of Palestinians have always been non-violent and could easily co-exist within a state that was not bent on their destruction as a people. After all, they had been living peacefully with Jewish communities for centuries.

Really? Please quote this law for me.

It is the first statement of UN Resolution 3103 of December 27, 1973

-7 ( +2 / -9 )

Slumdog,

Here's your law (updated from 1973):

(UNGA) reaffirms the legitimacy of the struggle of peoples for independence, territorial integrity, national unity and liberation from colonial and foreign domination and foreign occupation by all available means, including armed struggle.

UN General Assembly Resolution A/RES/37/43; 3 December 1982.

The residents of Warsaw Ghetto did not have a charter that called for the destruction of Germany.

Nor do the residents of Gaza have a charter calling for the destruction of Israel. What they do see in the Fatah controlled West Bank, however, is the repeated failure of nonviolent protest, and a Palestinian Authority powerless to prevent continued killings, thefts and assaults by illegal settlers and their IDF protectors. Surely that, rather than the much-quoted charter, explains why Hamas is in power.

Israelis are a proud people, and rightly so. Palestinians also have every right to be proud. It behoves both sides to find the courage to compromise now, so that future generations no longer have to fear each other.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

In all these intelligent autopsies of the issue, no one admits the single most important thing motivating Israel in securing the real estate... Gaza is water front property. Instead of Kerry the clown, this would easier be settled through Donald Trump.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

Kerry has attempted to mediate during the current Israeli military offensive in Gaza and flew to Israel last week.

Who can blame them for not trusting Kerry - the Obama administration is clearly hostile towards the Israeli's. Given that Obama has been spying on America's allies and their leaders, I doubt anyone really cares about Kerry's privacy.

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

You just admitted to one of their tricks. The Zionists never "left Gaza."

Yes, they left. They pulled their settlers out kicking and screaming. I never said that Israel did not control airspace, water entry and borders. They do. But, they did pull their soldiers and settlers out. The Palestinians, including the PLA, saw this as a good thing, even with the aspects of Israeli continued control of airspace, water entry and borders. Things were getting better. Gazans were crossing the border into Egypt legally for the first time since 1948, including the time between 1948 and 67 when Egypt controlled it. Talks were in the works for even more Palestinian border control and many other improvements in the situation of Gazans. It was Hamas' refusal to honor the agreements made by the PLA with Israel and Egypt that immediately led to the US, the EU, Russia and the UN along with Israel putting sanctions on Gaza. Had Hamas not done the things they did, I believe things would have continued to improve in Gaza.

And when they do, you'll be cheering them on saying, "Yeah, that two-state solution worked out so well."

? Ummm, I am the one who is for negotiations. You are stated that you are against them. I will cheer when the Palestinians get their state and stop listening to advice such as yours not to negotiate. I will thank you not to put words or ideas in my mouth that I have never said or posted.

All it took was for the leader of Germany to convince his people that those in the Warsaw Ghetto were bent on their ultimate destruction. The same lie used by Zionist leaders

Hamas's charter does have Israel's destruction as its goal. It is not a lie. It is a fact. You agree with Hamas about this, so why would you attempt to say it is a lie? The people in the Warsaw Ghetto had no such stated goals. The comparison is ridiculous.

It is the first statement of UN Resolution 3103 of December 27, 1973

I asked you to quote an international law. You said it was an international law not a non-binding UN resolution.

SenseNotSoCommon,

Here's your law (updated from 1973):

That is not an international law. It is a non-binding resolution. It is a recommendation. A suggestion. It is not a law.

Nor do the residents of Gaza have a charter calling for the destruction of Israel.

True, but Hamas does and Hamas is their government and their leaders. I wish they weren't, but they are.

Surely that, rather than the much-quoted charter, explains why Hamas is in power.

That is definitely part of it. Also, the corruption in Fatah, Arafat is said to have stolen close to a billion dollars from the Palestinian Authority. Also, Hamas tends to kill anyone who does not vote their way or support them.

Israelis are a proud people, and rightly so. Palestinians also have every right to be proud. It behoves both sides to find the courage to compromise now, so that future generations no longer have to fear each other.

I agree 100%. Unfortunately, Hamas, like yabits, do not seem to see things this way. I hope one day they will. I really do.

-4 ( +0 / -4 )

Yes, they left. They pulled their settlers out kicking and screaming.

But they didn't leave. (And what evil possessed the settlers' minds to cause them to believe they were entitled to build a settlement on Gaza land? Answer: The same evil that possessed the Zionists to start stealing and ethnically cleansing Palestinians from their lands in 1947.)

I never said that Israel did not control airspace, water entry and borders. They do. But, they did pull their soldiers and settlers out.

And here's the lie revealed from the above: "Controlling borders" means that the Zionists declared a 1 km buffer zone within tiny Gaza that enabled them to keep attacking civilians. That 1 km has now been extended to 3 km. It is a lie to say they left. But that's the kind of mentality that people of good faith have to deal with.

I will cheer when the Palestinians get their state and stop listening to advice such as yours not to negotiate.

I never say not to negotiate. But the world has to bear witness and catch the Zionists in their lies. The peace movements within the Zionist state know all too well the deceit and duplicity of the government they are citizens of. When you find out your negotiation partner is lying and failing to fulfill what they agree to, what is there to negotiate until they have fulfilled their commitments? (It has already been brought to your attention about the points that the Zionists failed to honor in the preliminaries to the 2000 talks. They even baited President Clinton to lie to Arafat on their behalf.)

I asked you to quote an international law. You said it was an international law not a non-binding UN resolution.

Understanding the context of the resolution requires a tiny amount of maturity. If anyone thinks or claims that what the Palestinians are doing by using violence to fight off an occupation is against international law, this resolution -- ratified by member states -- refutes that. It affirms the principle of violence as a option for resisting racist and evil regimes bent on control and conquest.

-9 ( +2 / -11 )

But they didn't leave.

I'm sorry. Maybe English is not your first language, but they did physically leave Gaza. The Gazans said the Israelis left. The Palestinian Authority said they left. They left. There were no Israelis in Gaza.

"Controlling borders" means that the Zionists declared a 1 km buffer zone within tiny Gaza that enabled them to keep attacking civilians.

I believe the army made a temporary buffer zone before leaving completely. Then it was gone. Israel has not made Gaza any smaller. Israel is not the only country to control Gazan borders. Egypt controls them as well. Hamas has managed to make a lot of trouble and misery for the Palestinians.

I never say not to negotiate.

I am pretty sure you have said 'no' on several occasions now.

But the world has to bear witness and catch the Zionists in their lies.

Just because you use the word 'Zionist' does not cover the fact you have actually said nothing of content. What lies? Israel attempted to negotiate for peace with the Palestinians. Rabin won the Nobel Peace prize for his efforts. You claim you knew Rabin was a good man who was working for peace. You know he was a Zionist. You know he was Israeli and you know he was working for peace. Why would you lie and suggest a Zionist like Rabin was not working for peace?

When you find out your negotiation partner is lying and failing to fulfill what they agree to, what is there to negotiate until they have fulfilled their commitments?

They were negotiating in 2000 and 2001. Arafat was there. Things were going well with the negotations. Both sides have said this. Up to that point, both sides had broken promises. Such is the middle east. However, both side were in fact negotiating.

It has already been brought to your attention about the points that the Zionists failed to honor in the preliminaries to the 2000 talks.

It has been brought to your attention that both sides have broken promises and agreements. However, both sides were in the negotiations. Both sides claim the negotiations were going very well. It was Arafat that went to Davos and made a horrible speech denouncing all the progress that had been made at the negotiations and this was after Shimon Perez made a speech showering Arafat with praise.

They even baited President Clinton to lie to Arafat on their behalf.

Clinton made it perfectly clear that it was Arafat that walked away from the deal. It is even in Clinton's very own book. In My Life, Clinton wrote that Arafat once complimented Clinton by telling him, "You are a great man." Clinton responded, "I am not a great man. I am a failure, and you made me one."

Understanding the context of the resolution requires a tiny amount of maturity.

? I ask what law. I did not ask about non-binding resolutions.

If anyone thinks or claims that what the Palestinians are doing by using violence to fight off an occupation is against international law, this resolution

You seem to forget that the UN also put sanctions on Gaza because of Hamas. So, the UN obviously found Hamas' actions illegal and wrong.

Hamas is wrong about wanting to destroy Israel instead of making peace and you are wrong for agreeing with Hamas as you have stated many times that you do.

-4 ( +0 / -4 )

Of course they did. They spy on us. We spy on them. No need for any faux outrage here.

The US Secretary of State doesn't have to make it that easy though.

3 ( +3 / -0 )

"the Obama administration is clearly hostile towards the Israeli's."

Hostile. I wonder if you know what that word means?

3 ( +3 / -0 )

"Obama repeats like a parrot the most basic Israeli propaganda and so does Kerry." (Uri Avnery, Tel Aviv, August 9th 2014)

1 ( +2 / -1 )

The U.S. spied on Germany! China spied on the U.S.! Russia spied on Ukraine! Isn't this kind of ridiculous? Countries and people have been spying on one another since Adam and Eve.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Stormcrow: Yes, rationalized spying is ridiculous! Just because others do it, does NOT make it right.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

That fact that Israel was successful in spying on Kerry "acting as a neutral intermediary" in ceasefire negotiations utterly undermines his credentials for that mission

1 ( +1 / -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