Now are you willing to believe the PA pays terrorists?

[Loren Pechtel]

Well…Israel could always film a re-enactment of one of the Plagues upon Egypt while butchering a few million people. Though the Jordan River is barely a trickle compared to the Nile. I think it would be more a damning of the river, than into the river.

Another funny thing with our love affair with Israel, is how they pretty much got away with killing a bunch of our sailors and sinking a US Navy ship back in 1967…

Yeah, that comes up every once in a while.

I think there will peace between Israel and Palestine, but not in our lifetime. Maybe in 30 or 50 years. The leaders on both sides are too concerned with retaining power. All the idiots in the present generation will have to be gone before some kind of common sense is brought to the situation.

Peace between Israel and Palestine will come about soon after the Islamists quit pouring billions into war.

 

[Bronzeage]

Yeah, that comes up every once in a while.

I think there will peace between Israel and Palestine, but not in our lifetime. Maybe in 30 or 50 years. The leaders on both sides are too concerned with retaining power. All the idiots in the present generation will have to be gone before some kind of common sense is brought to the situation.

Peace between Israel and Palestine will come about soon after the Islamists quit pouring billions into war.

You mean peace will come when the Israelis kill all the Palestinians because the Palestinians can no longer fight back. That does not sound like a plan for peace. Do you have any solutions which might actually be possible? Your present plan just perpetuates the killing.

Let's suppose the Palestinians realize they can't kill every Israeli. What do you think their second choice might be?

 

[Jayjay]

Here is another reality check: every country is under "low-level attacks from the terrorists", for some value of "low". United States had 9/11, France has terrorists shooting cartoonists, and so on. Israel is under more attacks becasue it is aggressively annexing land and due to historical grievances. But qualitatively there is no difference and such attacks even at the level faced by Israel are manageable. As for heavier attacks, that just shows that Israel is capable of defending itself. It was able to defend itself in 1967, and it has been able to defend all its other borders just fine. Hezbollah has far more potent weaponry and Israel had no trouble defending its northern border during the 2006 war.

Pretending that there is something about the Palestinian border is based on a racist notion that Palestinians, among all Arabs and other people in the world, are barbarians who are incapable of anything but violence, regardless of circumstances or how they are treated. Of course, violence perpetrated by Israel breeds violence in its neighbours and it starts to have a momemtum of its own that is difficult to remove, but hyperbole that Israel would be committing "suicide" if it just stops land theft or stops treating Palestinians like subhuman rabble in a Ghetto, is not based on reality.

So you think the right thing to do is just eat the attacks and not respond?

No, I think that's a false dichotomy. Nobody is saying that Israel cannot respond to attacks, but stealing more land and increase its oppression of regular Palestinians who have nothing to do with the attacks, is not an appropriate response. It just breeds more violence.

Hamas has shown that if they want war they'll up the ante until they get it. Things like firing rockets at chemical factories.

The only sensible way for Israel to protect itself is to smack Hamas when Hamas wants to be smacked. It may be hard for you to understand Hamas wanting to be attacked but it's in their interest--the core leadership does things like hide in the main hospital so they don't get hurt, meanwhile they increase their control of the country.

The issue is not what Hamas wants, it's what Israel wants. The reason why Hamas is so popular is because israel has not been willing to offer a viable path to peaceful coexistence. Israel prefers the spoils of war.

 

[Bronzeage]

...
The issue is not what Hamas wants, it's what Israel wants. The reason why Hamas is so popular is because israel has not been willing to offer a viable path to peaceful coexistence. Israel prefers the spoils of war.

The reason they are called the "spoils of war," is they are not very palatable when new and do not improve with age.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Peace between Israel and Palestine will come about soon after the Islamists quit pouring billions into war.

You mean peace will come when the Israelis kill all the Palestinians because the Palestinians can no longer fight back. That does not sound like a plan for peace. Do you have any solutions which might actually be possible? Your present plan just perpetuates the killing.

Pay attention to what actually happens over there--the Palestinians attack, Israel reacts. No Palestinian attacks, no reaction. Peace.

Let's suppose the Palestinians realize they can't kill every Israeli. What do you think their second choice might be?

You're still making the mistake of thinking the Palestinians are making their own decisions. What they want doesn't matter--they're under the control of those who want the war to continue.

- - - Updated - - -

So you think the right thing to do is just eat the attacks and not respond?

No, I think that's a false dichotomy. Nobody is saying that Israel cannot respond to attacks, but stealing more land and increase its oppression of regular Palestinians who have nothing to do with the attacks, is not an appropriate response. It just breeds more violence.

You're still taking it as a given that they are stealing land. The de-facto borders were set by the wall, it hasn't moved.

Hamas has shown that if they want war they'll up the ante until they get it. Things like firing rockets at chemical factories.

The only sensible way for Israel to protect itself is to smack Hamas when Hamas wants to be smacked. It may be hard for you to understand Hamas wanting to be attacked but it's in their interest--the core leadership does things like hide in the main hospital so they don't get hurt, meanwhile they increase their control of the country.

The issue is not what Hamas wants, it's what Israel wants. The reason why Hamas is so popular is because israel has not been willing to offer a viable path to peaceful coexistence. Israel prefers the spoils of war.

You're evading the issue. Hamas wants periodic wars and they'll whatever it takes to get them. The quicker Israel responds to the attempted wars the fewer casualties they take.

 

[Bronzeage]

You mean peace will come when the Israelis kill all the Palestinians because the Palestinians can no longer fight back. That does not sound like a plan for peace. Do you have any solutions which might actually be possible? Your present plan just perpetuates the killing.

Pay attention to what actually happens over there--the Palestinians attack, Israel reacts. No Palestinian attacks, no reaction. Peace.

Let's suppose the Palestinians realize they can't kill every Israeli. What do you think their second choice might be?

You're still making the mistake of thinking the Palestinians are making their own decisions. What they want doesn't matter--they're under the control of those who want the war to continue.

- - - Updated - - -

So you think the right thing to do is just eat the attacks and not respond?

No, I think that's a false dichotomy. Nobody is saying that Israel cannot respond to attacks, but stealing more land and increase its oppression of regular Palestinians who have nothing to do with the attacks, is not an appropriate response. It just breeds more violence.

You're still taking it as a given that they are stealing land. The de-facto borders were set by the wall, it hasn't moved.

Hamas has shown that if they want war they'll up the ante until they get it. Things like firing rockets at chemical factories.

The only sensible way for Israel to protect itself is to smack Hamas when Hamas wants to be smacked. It may be hard for you to understand Hamas wanting to be attacked but it's in their interest--the core leadership does things like hide in the main hospital so they don't get hurt, meanwhile they increase their control of the country.

The issue is not what Hamas wants, it's what Israel wants. The reason why Hamas is so popular is because israel has not been willing to offer a viable path to peaceful coexistence. Israel prefers the spoils of war.

You're evading the issue. Hamas wants periodic wars and they'll whatever it takes to get them. The quicker Israel responds to the attempted wars the fewer casualties they take.

You really don't understand the situation, but you do a good job of reciting the party line. The Palestinians get aid from outside their territory. Israel gets aid from the US, the UK, France, and Germany. What's the difference?

Israel allowed Jewish settlements in the West Bank after the Six Day War. This meant there would always be Israeli citizens among Palestinians and as citizens, could demand protection by the Israeli Army. This effectively eliminates the possibility of a Palestinian state, because no sovereign nation can exist when a foreign army occupies its territory. Israel cannot give the Palestinians the status of citizens because the birth rate among Palestinians far exceeds the Israelis. In a generation, the Palestinians could vote the Israelis out of their own government.

This is a perpetual cause of conflict and only Israel can do anything about it.

Imagine that I hold a knife to your throat and you kick me in the shins. Can I stab you and claim it's only a reaction to your provocation?

Israel created the current conditions and they will have to live with them, or die with them, as the case may be.

 

[Jayjay]

So you think the right thing to do is just eat the attacks and not respond?

No, I think that's a false dichotomy. Nobody is saying that Israel cannot respond to attacks, but stealing more land and increase its oppression of regular Palestinians who have nothing to do with the attacks, is not an appropriate response. It just breeds more violence.

You're still taking it as a given that they are stealing land. The de-facto borders were set by the wall, it hasn't moved.

The wall is a red herring. It was never completed, but Israeli outposts have continued to creep forward regardless. Palestinians have absolutely no reason to think that this creeping land theft won't continue, especially with all the Israeli incentives that it offers to settlers and even illegal outposts.

Your logic is basically that if Hamas shot a rocket at Israel an hour ago, Israel can't respond because they are not firing rockets right now.

Hamas has shown that if they want war they'll up the ante until they get it. Things like firing rockets at chemical factories.

The only sensible way for Israel to protect itself is to smack Hamas when Hamas wants to be smacked. It may be hard for you to understand Hamas wanting to be attacked but it's in their interest--the core leadership does things like hide in the main hospital so they don't get hurt, meanwhile they increase their control of the country.

The issue is not what Hamas wants, it's what Israel wants. The reason why Hamas is so popular is because israel has not been willing to offer a viable path to peaceful coexistence. Israel prefers the spoils of war.

You're evading the issue. Hamas wants periodic wars and they'll whatever it takes to get them. The quicker Israel responds to the attempted wars the fewer casualties they take.

Israel can play whack-a-mole with Hamas until end of time if it wants. I am not evading the issue, just pointing out that what Hamas does is not particularly relevant since Israel has never wanted peace either. Hamas has not fired a single rocket from West Bank, yet Isael continues to host 300,000+ settlers on Palestinian land and deny Palestinians any hope of a sovereign country.

To achieve peace, both sides have to want it more than war. You still seem to have a notion that "peace" is something that one side unilaterally enforces on another: I think the word you are looking for is "submission".

 

[Loren Pechtel]

You really don't understand the situation, but you do a good job of reciting the party line. The Palestinians get aid from outside their territory. Israel gets aid from the US, the UK, France, and Germany. What's the difference?

The difference is that the aid to the Palestinians is contingent upon them attacking Israel.

Israel allowed Jewish settlements in the West Bank after the Six Day War. This meant there would always be Israeli citizens among Palestinians and as citizens, could demand protection by the Israeli Army. This effectively eliminates the possibility of a Palestinian state, because no sovereign nation can exist when a foreign army occupies its territory. Israel cannot give the Palestinians the status of citizens because the birth rate among Palestinians far exceeds the Israelis. In a generation, the Palestinians could vote the Israelis out of their own government.

The possibility of a Palestinian state never existed in the first place--Egypt and Jordan annexed the land specifically to prevent the formation of a Palestinian state. You're focusing on anything you can blame Israel for, never mind history.

While they never should have allowed settlement in the West Bank and Gaza this is not the cause of the problems no matter how often the left chants that it is.

This is a perpetual cause of conflict and only Israel can do anything about it.

The only thing Israel can do about is a nuclear strike on the capitals of the nations that are funding the war.

Imagine that I hold a knife to your throat and you kick me in the shins. Can I stab you and claim it's only a reaction to your provocation?

It depends on what came before.

Israel created the current conditions and they will have to live with them, or die with them, as the case may be.

Get a history book. Specifically, one before 1967.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The wall is a red herring. It was never completed, but Israeli outposts have continued to creep forward regardless. Palestinians have absolutely no reason to think that this creeping land theft won't continue, especially with all the Israeli incentives that it offers to settlers and even illegal outposts.

Evidence? Remember, the news media routinely reports "settlers" that aren't.

Your logic is basically that if Hamas shot a rocket at Israel an hour ago, Israel can't respond because they are not firing rockets right now.

No. If they shot a rocket last month, though...

Israel can play whack-a-mole with Hamas until end of time if it wants. I am not evading the issue, just pointing out that what Hamas does is not particularly relevant since Israel has never wanted peace either. Hamas has not fired a single rocket from West Bank, yet Isael continues to host 300,000+ settlers on Palestinian land and deny Palestinians any hope of a sovereign country.

And note that Israel only goes playing whack-a-mole when Hamas throws a bunch of rockets. That bunch of rockets never makes the news other than as a paragraph or two an in article talking about the Israeli response.

To achieve peace, both sides have to want it more than war. You still seem to have a notion that "peace" is something that one side unilaterally enforces on another: I think the word you are looking for is "submission".

At least you admit that the Palestinians have to want peace for there to be peace.

They have never indicated a desire for peace. The closest they have come is an offer of a temporary peace--which they specifically mention as the same sort of peace as a historical one broken by the Muslims.

Furthermore, even if they wanted peace their backers don't--and it's those backers that really matter.

When we see Iran, Syria and Qatar at the peace talks then they have a chance.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

Your source's conclusions are based on a bullshit premise:



The bolded phrase here is bullshit. In fact, it is their desire to avoid paying stipends to terrorists or the families of terrorists that is the reason for the scrutiny in the first place. A HUGE number of Palestinian prisoners have in fact been imprisoned without charge, or convicted without trial or the presentation of any corroborating evidence. The Palestinian Authority goes out of its way to avoid compensating the families of those who were arrested while clearly committing a criminal act; the fact that the Israelis never bother to bring half of these "terrorists" to trial means that legally speaking no crime has actually been committed and the PA is effectively providing public aid to the families of kidnap victims.

Calling it bullshit doesn't make it so.

http://www.courthousenews.com/2015/02/09/weeping-juror-rankles-lawyer-in-terror-trial.htm

It shows the PA continued to pay a suicide bomber...

Bullshit.

Lawyers for the families submitted records from the Palestinian Authority's General Intelligence Service allegedly linking their employees Ahmed Salah and Ali Ja'ara to that attack, a spokeswoman said.

Referring to the January 2004 attack Salah was supposedly involved with. Assuming this is the same Ahmed Salah that was involved with the bombing (that is not entirely certain) then he -- or rather, his family -- continued to receive his salary for 2 months, afterwards that money was deposited into a trust instead.

Not exactly "Years" Loren.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

So you're some kind of messenger? And just what is that message?

You're attacking me because you don't like what I'm saying: That you have no viable plan.

A viable plan has been presented literally hundreds of times both by people on this board and by polticians and diplomats on the world stage. You have objected to all of them, every single time, for exactly the same reason: The Palestinians are evil.

And yet, you have yourself been pressed many times to present YOUR alternate plan that would achieve peace, based on your own assumptions. You have never once attempted to do so; you assume, a priori, that the Palestinians don't really want peace and therefore any peace deal that includes them is destined to fail. So what are we supposed to do instead?

I showed a suicide bomber who was paid.

Correction: You showed an emotionally charged lawsuit by an Israeli family that CLAIMS a suicide bomber's family was paid. That is far from the same thing.

It's also a fact that the accused bomber in this case was never convicted of a crime (being dead and all) and therefore the P.A. has no legal reason to suspend his employment on those terms, nor yank his pension benefits.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Referring to the January 2004 attack Salah was supposedly involved with. Assuming this is the same Ahmed Salah that was involved with the bombing (that is not entirely certain) then he -- or rather, his family -- continued to receive his salary for 2 months, afterwards that money was deposited into a trust instead.

Not exactly "Years" Loren.

And since he died in the attack how do you say he wasn't involved?


And look at the documents--the payments continue for years.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

You're attacking me because you don't like what I'm saying: That you have no viable plan.

A viable plan has been presented literally hundreds of times both by people on this board and by polticians and diplomats on the world stage. You have objected to all of them, every single time, for exactly the same reason: The Palestinians are evil.

And yet, you have yourself been pressed many times to present YOUR alternate plan that would achieve peace, based on your own assumptions. You have never once attempted to do so; you assume, a priori, that the Palestinians don't really want peace and therefore any peace deal that includes them is destined to fail. So what are we supposed to do instead?

A plan has been presented. It basically consists of Israel rolling over and the Palestinians responding by doing the exact opposite of what they have said they will do. That's not a viable plan in my book.

I showed a suicide bomber who was paid.

Correction: You showed an emotionally charged lawsuit by an Israeli family that CLAIMS a suicide bomber's family was paid. That is far from the same thing.

What does emotionally charged have to do with it? I don't even agree with the lawsuit--my original post about it said I was only including it to give context to the documents it links.

It's also a fact that the accused bomber in this case was never convicted of a crime (being dead and all) and therefore the P.A. has no legal reason to suspend his employment on those terms, nor yank his pension benefits.

When a perpetrator dies in a crime the lack of charges doesn't mean they continue to get benefits that would have been lost due to the crime.

 

[Jayjay]

The wall is a red herring. It was never completed, but Israeli outposts have continued to creep forward regardless. Palestinians have absolutely no reason to think that this creeping land theft won't continue, especially with all the Israeli incentives that it offers to settlers and even illegal outposts.

Evidence? Remember, the news media routinely reports "settlers" that aren't.

Israel makes a legal distinction between "outposts", that are in Palestinian owned land, and government owned land. It retroactively legalizes illegal outposts if they grow large enough, thereby incentivizing even illegal settlement expansion: the fanatics who set up illegal outposts know that all they need to do is hang around long enough and they'll be legitimized. As for settlements in general, they receive many tax benefits and subsidies.

Your logic is basically that if Hamas shot a rocket at Israel an hour ago, Israel can't respond because they are not firing rockets right now.

No. If they shot a rocket last month, though...

So if Hamas doesn't shoot rockets for a month, you think they can be trusted to never fire a rocket ever again? Israel is building new settlements all the time, and even when not, there is a fierce lobbying going on to allow building even beyond the wall. Just becsuae they don't build new houses this month doesn't mean they have stopped.

One way that Israel could show it is serious about peace is to start disincentivizing the settlers. A very modest way to do that is freezing settlement construction indefinitely. Other reasonable steps would be to cut the tax benefits the settlers receive, and dismantling the illegal outposts and pressing criminal charges against those who do it.

Israel can play whack-a-mole with Hamas until end of time if it wants. I am not evading the issue, just pointing out that what Hamas does is not particularly relevant since Israel has never wanted peace either. Hamas has not fired a single rocket from West Bank, yet Isael continues to host 300,000+ settlers on Palestinian land and deny Palestinians any hope of a sovereign country.

And note that Israel only goes playing whack-a-mole when Hamas throws a bunch of rockets. That bunch of rockets never makes the news other than as a paragraph or two an in article talking about the Israeli response.

To achieve peace, both sides have to want it more than war. You still seem to have a notion that "peace" is something that one side unilaterally enforces on another: I think the word you are looking for is "submission".

At least you admit that the Palestinians have to want peace for there to be peace.

They have never indicated a desire for peace. The closest they have come is an offer of a temporary peace--which they specifically mention as the same sort of peace as a historical one broken by the Muslims.

Furthermore, even if they wanted peace their backers don't--and it's those backers that really matter.

When we see Iran, Syria and Qatar at the peace talks then they have a chance.

Nonsense. Do you think Iran, Syria and Qatar can make Palestinians a better offer than Israel, US, and Europe?

If Israel wanted to cut off Palestinian backers, they could easily do so. But instead, Israel is driving Palestinian groups to seek financing from shadiest sources by cutting off their agreed-on tax collection for example. As long as war is more profitable than peace, Israel will choose war. Only way to change that equation is to either make war more costly, or peace more profitable.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

Referring to the January 2004 attack Salah was supposedly involved with. Assuming this is the same Ahmed Salah that was involved with the bombing (that is not entirely certain) then he -- or rather, his family -- continued to receive his salary for 2 months, afterwards that money was deposited into a trust instead.

Not exactly "Years" Loren.

And since he died in the attack how do you say he wasn't involved?

I never said he wasn't involved. I said he wasn't tried and convicted.

Palestinians believe in due process just like everyone else.

And look at the documents--the payments continue for years.

The payments are deposited into a pension fund and collected (eventually) by his next of kin. The U.S. Military does (used to do?) the same thing when its soldiers were killed.

At issue here is whether or not the Palestinian Authority actually paid him to commit a suicide bombing. Clearly they didn't. He was on their payroll beforehand, and his family is entitled to compensation afterward. Simple.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

A viable plan has been presented literally hundreds of times both by people on this board and by polticians and diplomats on the world stage. You have objected to all of them, every single time, for exactly the same reason: The Palestinians are evil.

And yet, you have yourself been pressed many times to present YOUR alternate plan that would achieve peace, based on your own assumptions. You have never once attempted to do so; you assume, a priori, that the Palestinians don't really want peace and therefore any peace deal that includes them is destined to fail. So what are we supposed to do instead?

A plan has been presented. It basically consists of Israel rolling over...

No.

It consists of Israel dismantling its settlements, ending the blockade of Gaza and retreating to the 1967 borders.

There's no "roll over" there except for Israel to give up on the annexation of the West Bank. NO ONE has claimed they give up their right to self defense if attacked, especially since it's extremely clear that Israel is FULLY capable of neutralizing any attack the Palestinians will be able to launch at them, conventional or otherwise (and they're getting better all the time).

Even less has the plan involved the Palestinians "doing the exact opposite of what they said they will do." Abbas, for his part, has NEVER ONCE reneged on a peace agreement, nor has he ever negotiated in bad faith. He has been 100% reliable in keeping his agreements with Israel, even while Israel has been 100% reliable in breaking them.

You can say what you want about Hamas, their actions speak for themselves. But the claim that Mahmoud Abbas would deliberately break a peace deal with Israel just to placate the Islamists is an EXTRAORDINARY claim to say the least.

When a perpetrator dies in a crime the lack of charges doesn't mean they continue to get benefits that would have been lost due to the crime.

It does for military officers.

 

[arkirk]

Granted, nobody can tell either side in the Israel-Palestine dispute to do any at all...so long as the U.S. supports unconditionally one of the sides. We all know that is the case today. I would ask Loren however, what would he have the two sides do if they both agreed to listen to him....he must however abandon the notion that one side will never listen him...so HOW WOULD YOU APPROACH MAKING PEACE IN THE AREA?

 

[bilby]

If all your neighbours want to kill you and destroy your home, surely there comes a point when you just move to a better neighbourhood away from the crazy people?

No piece of land is worth this; North America could easily accommodate a Jewish homeland with a similar climate. Give them Lincoln County, Nevada, for example - it's a bit more land than they claim right now, it has only a slightly drier climate, is handy to Las Vegas, conveniently close to the other religious nutter state, Utah - and only about 5,400 people need to relocate if they don't want to stay (The US Government could offer them four million bucks each in compensation, and it would still cost less than a decade of the status quo). Make Israel the 51st state of the Union, and Robert is your mother's brother.

(I know, I know "but God". Perhaps it isn't just the neighbours who are crazy. Look, God is notoriously geographically challenged - who is to say that the land He promised to the Jews is even on this planet? He gets pissed at gays in San Francisco, and wipes out Kansas with tornadoes as punishment, so I don't think He cares too much about the exact location of stuff).

 

[Bronzeage]

Granted, nobody can tell either side in the Israel-Palestine dispute to do any at all...so long as the U.S. supports unconditionally one of the sides. We all know that is the case today. I would ask Loren however, what would he have the two sides do if they both agreed to listen to him....he must however abandon the notion that one side will never listen him...so HOW WOULD YOU APPROACH MAKING PEACE IN THE AREA?

There's really nothing unconditional about it. We attach so many conditions it's a wonder the Israelis still speak to us. They have an efficient and aggressive intelligence service, which is at our disposal anytime we need it. This is very convenient for them, because the spy on the US as much as any of their Arab neighbors.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Nonsense. Do you think Iran, Syria and Qatar can make Palestinians a better offer than Israel, US, and Europe?

They don't need to make an offer. Simply cutting off the backing would be enough to bring peace. Note how Fatah doesn't attack Israel much anymore--because most of the money is going to Hamas.

If Israel wanted to cut off Palestinian backers, they could easily do so. But instead, Israel is driving Palestinian groups to seek financing from shadiest sources by cutting off their agreed-on tax collection for example. As long as war is more profitable than peace, Israel will choose war. Only way to change that equation is to either make war more costly, or peace more profitable.

Yeah, they could cut it off--they have nukes and IRBMs to deliver them. They can't cut it off any other way.