The PLO admits the truth

[Bronzeage]

I'm sticking with totally insane. You have created a system of mutual predators, each unable to kill enough to remove the threat, and each new death is incentive to continue.

The problem is there's nothing better available at present.

The eternal argument for 1967 borders is nonsense. There wasn't peace when that was the border, there won't be peace if it were made the border now. The Palestinians have adopted a strategy of trying to take whatever they can by negotiation but not giving up fighting. They'll take the 67 borders and continue to fight. Most Israelis understand this by now, hence the lack of interest in peace. Getting an Israeli interested in peace is about like getting a scientist interested in a perpetual motion machine.

You seem to have an inside source with the Palestinians and the Israelis and a crystal ball.

I do concede that Israel is not interested in peace, since they decline to do the one thing which could lead to peace, and since 1967, made it impossible to pursue peace. Then they blame the Palestinians for fighting, even though this is what they want the Palestinians to do.

I'm going with "totally insane."

Remind me again what benefits the US gets from our alliance with Israel, and what we get for the very large amount of money we give them.

 

[Jayjay]

1) Why should they make a massive concession like that for no gain?

They wouldn't. That's why it's up to Palestinians (and to lesser extent the international community) to force it.

2) The lack of control of the West Bank would probably mean more attacks.

Who said anything about lack of control? I was talking about ending the civilian settlements. Israel could still maintain the military occupation and border control as long as necessary.

You are also correct that Israel couldn't care less about peace, but you are wrong about the reasons. They don't care about peace because the spoils of war are greater than the cost. If Palestinians were by some monkey-paw magic suddenly turned pacifists and put down all their weapons, Israel still would not withdraw from West Bank, and quite reasonably so because there is nobody to force them. Only way to change the equation is to either reduce the spoils by removing the possibility of land theft via settlements, or increase the cost by amping up the violent resistance in the occupied territories (on the other hand, increasing the intensity of the conflict outside West Bank tends to have the opposite effect).

No--a pullback won't reduce the cost of the war at all, although it might increase it. On the other hand, a government that spends a few years worth of revenue (the cost of the pullout you are asking for) for no gain at all is going to be wildly unpopular.

See (1) above.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The problem is there's nothing better available at present.

The eternal argument for 1967 borders is nonsense. There wasn't peace when that was the border, there won't be peace if it were made the border now. The Palestinians have adopted a strategy of trying to take whatever they can by negotiation but not giving up fighting. They'll take the 67 borders and continue to fight. Most Israelis understand this by now, hence the lack of interest in peace. Getting an Israeli interested in peace is about like getting a scientist interested in a perpetual motion machine.

You seem to have an inside source with the Palestinians and the Israelis and a crystal ball.

I do concede that Israel is not interested in peace, since they decline to do the one thing which could lead to peace, and since 1967, made it impossible to pursue peace. Then they blame the Palestinians for fighting, even though this is what they want the Palestinians to do.

I'm going with "totally insane."

Remind me again what benefits the US gets from our alliance with Israel, and what we get for the very large amount of money we give them.

But you're ignoring the fact that again and again the Palestinians admit it's not about the 1967 borders. You're asking for a huge concession for no benefit at all.

- - - Updated - - -

They wouldn't. That's why it's up to Palestinians (and to lesser extent the international community) to force it.

2) The lack of control of the West Bank would probably mean more attacks.

Who said anything about lack of control? I was talking about ending the civilian settlements. Israel could still maintain the military occupation and border control as long as necessary.

Which would do nothing about making peace.

You just want them to give up a chunk of land in the name of "fair". That's simply not how the world works. Shall we leave and return the US to the Native Americans?

 

[laughing dog]

Which would do nothing about making peace.

It has a better chance of making peace than the current set of policies (which you also endorse). It meets your stated criterion of avoiding annihilation of either side. It is not surprising your reject a proposal that meets your stated criteria but it is revealing.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Which would do nothing about making peace.

It has a better chance of making peace than the current set of policies (which you also endorse). It meets your stated criterion of avoiding annihilation of either side. It is not surprising your reject a proposal that meets your stated criteria but it is revealing.

So you're saying 0% is better than 0%.

 

[Jayjay]

They wouldn't. That's why it's up to Palestinians (and to lesser extent the international community) to force it.

2) The lack of control of the West Bank would probably mean more attacks.

Who said anything about lack of control? I was talking about ending the civilian settlements. Israel could still maintain the military occupation and border control as long as necessary.

Which would do nothing about making peace.

Yes, it would. Ending the civilian land grab would give Palestinians a viable state and it would show that Israel is not going to just keep stealing more and more land under the pretext of a low-level conflict. Removing the settlements is a necessary, but not sufficient, condition for any peace deal that does not involve ethnic cleansing or annexation of West Bank.

You just want them to give up a chunk of land in the name of "fair". That's simply not how the world works. Shall we leave and return the US to the Native Americans?

Too late for native Americans. And why whine about peace, when you know very well that for Israel this is not about peace but about stealing that aforementioned chunk of land? Of course, a criminal who profits from his crime and has insignificant risk of being punished will continue, but that's not a moral justification.

 

[bilby]

You seem to have an inside source with the Palestinians and the Israelis and a crystal ball.

I do concede that Israel is not interested in peace, since they decline to do the one thing which could lead to peace, and since 1967, made it impossible to pursue peace. Then they blame the Palestinians for fighting, even though this is what they want the Palestinians to do.

I'm going with "totally insane."

Remind me again what benefits the US gets from our alliance with Israel, and what we get for the very large amount of money we give them.

But you're ignoring the fact that again and again the Palestinians admit it's not about the 1967 borders. You're asking for a huge concession for no benefit at all.

You appear to be completely ignoring the post to which you are responding.

You were asked a direct question; please could you answer it, because I too would like to know the answer to this:

"Remind me again what benefits the US gets from our alliance with Israel, and what we get for the very large amount of money we give them."

 

[laughing dog]

It has a better chance of making peace than the current set of policies (which you also endorse). It meets your stated criterion of avoiding annihilation of either side. It is not surprising your reject a proposal that meets your stated criteria but it is revealing.

So you're saying 0% is better than 0%.

Obviously you misread the phrase "a better chance" because that makes it clear your response is a straw man. To be clear, I am not saying that.

Using your own stated standard, you ought to prefer the abandonment of the West Bank settlements by the gov't of Israel. So why the hypocrisy?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

They wouldn't. That's why it's up to Palestinians (and to lesser extent the international community) to force it.

2) The lack of control of the West Bank would probably mean more attacks.

Who said anything about lack of control? I was talking about ending the civilian settlements. Israel could still maintain the military occupation and border control as long as necessary.

Which would do nothing about making peace.

Yes, it would. Ending the civilian land grab would give Palestinians a viable state and it would show that Israel is not going to just keep stealing more and more land under the pretext of a low-level conflict. Removing the settlements is a necessary, but not sufficient, condition for any peace deal that does not involve ethnic cleansing or annexation of West Bank.

1) "More and more land"??? It's been a long time since the borders moved.

2) You're assuming that doing nice to the Palestinians will help. History shows the exact opposite--good gestures from Israel are repaid with shit.

3) This is what you would expect anyway--the Arab culture has a strong tendency to respect strength, not nice behavior. Making concessions is seen as weakness and thus a sign to increase the pressure.

You just want them to give up a chunk of land in the name of "fair". That's simply not how the world works. Shall we leave and return the US to the Native Americans?

Too late for native Americans. And why whine about peace, when you know very well that for Israel this is not about peace but about stealing that aforementioned chunk of land? Of course, a criminal who profits from his crime and has insignificant risk of being punished will continue, but that's not a moral justification.

And why is it too late for the Native Americans? It's the same scenario. If returning the West Bank is proper so is returning America.

- - - Updated - - -

But you're ignoring the fact that again and again the Palestinians admit it's not about the 1967 borders. You're asking for a huge concession for no benefit at all.

You appear to be completely ignoring the post to which you are responding.

You were asked a direct question; please could you answer it, because I too would like to know the answer to this:

"Remind me again what benefits the US gets from our alliance with Israel, and what we get for the very large amount of money we give them."

He's interpreting the Israeli unwillingness to enter into a bad "peace" treaty (which would just end up in war anyway) as evidence that they want war. The whole thing is based on a false premise.

- - - Updated - - -

So you're saying 0% is better than 0%.

Obviously you misread the phrase "a better chance" because that makes it clear your response is a straw man. To be clear, I am not saying that.

Using your own stated standard, you ought to prefer the abandonment of the West Bank settlements by the gov't of Israel. So why the hypocrisy?

You're saying "a better chance". I'm saying that "better" chance is 0%. Same as the 0% if they don't agree.

 

[bilby]

You were asked a direct question; please could you answer it, because I too would like to know the answer to this:

"Remind me again what benefits the US gets from our alliance with Israel, and what we get for the very large amount of money we give them."

He's interpreting the Israeli unwillingness to enter into a bad "peace" treaty (which would just end up in war anyway) as evidence that they want war. The whole thing is based on a false premise.

That's nice.


Remind me again what benefits the US gets from her alliance with Israel, and what she gets for the very large amount of money she gives them.

 

[laughing dog]

You're saying "a better chance". I'm saying that "better" chance is 0%.

Abandoning the West Bank settlements eliminates the major grievance that the PLO has against the gov't of Israel. And it would show that Israel is serious about real peace to most of the world. That has to increase the chances of peace beyond 0%. Your refusal to acknowledge that reasoning reflects your deep-seating bias for the gov't of Israel.

 

[Jayjay]

They wouldn't. That's why it's up to Palestinians (and to lesser extent the international community) to force it.

2) The lack of control of the West Bank would probably mean more attacks.

Who said anything about lack of control? I was talking about ending the civilian settlements. Israel could still maintain the military occupation and border control as long as necessary.

Which would do nothing about making peace.

Yes, it would. Ending the civilian land grab would give Palestinians a viable state and it would show that Israel is not going to just keep stealing more and more land under the pretext of a low-level conflict. Removing the settlements is a necessary, but not sufficient, condition for any peace deal that does not involve ethnic cleansing or annexation of West Bank.

1) "More and more land"??? It's been a long time since the borders moved.

What borders? Israel has not defined any. But settlement expansion continues under the guise of evicting Palestinians and demolishing Palestinian homes, "illegal" outposts that Israeli government looks through its fingers, the military giving seized lands to civilian purposes, legitimizing previously illegal outposts, redefining municipal boundaries and building new "neighbourhoods" in existing settlements. Many of these incidents have been discussed on this forum.

2) You're assuming that doing nice to the Palestinians will help. History shows the exact opposite--good gestures from Israel are repaid with shit.

You think Palestinians should thank Israel for 50 years of occupation, just if Israel occasionally gives lip service to "peace" and does the Palestinians a favor of not bombing them to the ground all the time? Of course Israel is going to get some flak regardless, but if they don't give up border control and military occupation like they did in Gaza there is no reason to think that ending the settlements would cause any reduction in security.

3) This is what you would expect anyway--the Arab culture has a strong tendency to respect strength, not nice behavior. Making concessions is seen as weakness and thus a sign to increase the pressure.

Oppressing and illegally seizing land is not the same as "strength". You make it sound like the Arabs deserve to be treated like second-class humans because it's in their culture to be submissive. White man's burden, eh?

You just want them to give up a chunk of land in the name of "fair". That's simply not how the world works. Shall we leave and return the US to the Native Americans?

Too late for native Americans. And why whine about peace, when you know very well that for Israel this is not about peace but about stealing that aforementioned chunk of land? Of course, a criminal who profits from his crime and has insignificant risk of being punished will continue, but that's not a moral justification.

And why is it too late for the Native Americans? It's the same scenario. If returning the West Bank is proper so is returning America.

There is no land that has been seized from native americans in well over a century, there is no land that they feel is their own, there is no political will or structures to establish a native American country that any lands could be returned to, there is no international recognition or demands to do so, and native Americans have full citizenship rights within USA already so there is no real need anyway.

If Israel simply annexed West Bank, and gave all Arabs there full Israeli citizenship, that would be one way to end the occupation without returning the land, and it would be just as equitable a solution as giving Palestinians their own state. What's not fair is eternal occupation and slow theft of land.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

He's interpreting the Israeli unwillingness to enter into a bad "peace" treaty (which would just end up in war anyway) as evidence that they want war. The whole thing is based on a false premise.

That's nice.


Remind me again what benefits the US gets from her alliance with Israel, and what she gets for the very large amount of money she gives them.

1) Real world weapons testing.

2) We avoid the situation over there going nuclear.

3) Until recently, a lightning rod that protects us from the terrorists.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

You're saying "a better chance". I'm saying that "better" chance is 0%.

Abandoning the West Bank settlements eliminates the major grievance that the PLO has against the gov't of Israel. And it would show that Israel is serious about real peace to most of the world. That has to increase the chances of peace beyond 0%. Your refusal to acknowledge that reasoning reflects your deep-seating bias for the gov't of Israel.

It removes no grievance. The notion that it's the West Bank occupation that's the driving force is a deception for western ears. Look at what has happened over there:

1) Pullout from Lebanon--the terrorists, with the cooperation of the governments of Syria and Lebanon pretend that a piece of Syria is actually Lebanon. The result has been more rocket fire from Lebanon.

2) Pullout from Gaza--same thing, the result is more rocket fire.

May I remind you of one of the standard definitions of insanity: trying the same thing over and over and expecting a different result. Why should the third time be any different than the first two?

The Sinai pullout never involved that much terrorism in the first place so it's not surprising we didn't see the same thing there.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

1) "More and more land"??? It's been a long time since the borders moved.

What borders? Israel has not defined any. But settlement expansion continues under the guise of evicting Palestinians and demolishing Palestinian homes, "illegal" outposts that Israeli government looks through its fingers, the military giving seized lands to civilian purposes, legitimizing previously illegal outposts, redefining municipal boundaries and building new "neighbourhoods" in existing settlements. Many of these incidents have been discussed on this forum.

I'm talking about the defacto borders.

And in case you aren't aware, the Palestinians routinely build things on land they don't own. It's deception for western ears--you see the buildings being torn down, you don't realize the people building them did it for that very reason. And it's not just the Palestinians, some of the buildings are built by EU money. There are places where buildings have been torn down repeatedly.

And it's not new "neighborhoods", but rather the normal filling in you see in any developed area.

2) You're assuming that doing nice to the Palestinians will help. History shows the exact opposite--good gestures from Israel are repaid with shit.

You think Palestinians should thank Israel for 50 years of occupation, just if Israel occasionally gives lip service to "peace" and does the Palestinians a favor of not bombing them to the ground all the time? Of course Israel is going to get some flak regardless, but if they don't give up border control and military occupation like they did in Gaza there is no reason to think that ending the settlements would cause any reduction in security.

You're looking at it from a standpoint of being nice. That's not how the world works.

3) This is what you would expect anyway--the Arab culture has a strong tendency to respect strength, not nice behavior. Making concessions is seen as weakness and thus a sign to increase the pressure.

Oppressing and illegally seizing land is not the same as "strength". You make it sound like the Arabs deserve to be treated like second-class humans because it's in their culture to be submissive. White man's burden, eh?

No. I'm saying that you don't get an Arab to suddenly behave nice by acting weak.

And why is it too late for the Native Americans? It's the same scenario. If returning the West Bank is proper so is returning America.

There is no land that has been seized from native americans in well over a century, there is no land that they feel is their own, there is no political will or structures to establish a native American country that any lands could be returned to, there is no international recognition or demands to do so, and native Americans have full citizenship rights within USA already so there is no real need anyway.

What's the time frame got to do with it? And the lack of a political will to retake it doesn't change whether it's right or not.

If Israel simply annexed West Bank, and gave all Arabs there full Israeli citizenship, that would be one way to end the occupation without returning the land, and it would be just as equitable a solution as giving Palestinians their own state. What's not fair is eternal occupation and slow theft of land.

That "solution" would lead to genocide. You're asking Israel to commit suicide.

 

[whichphilosophy]

Abandoning the West Bank settlements eliminates the major grievance that the PLO has against the gov't of Israel. And it would show that Israel is serious about real peace to most of the world. That has to increase the chances of peace beyond 0%. Your refusal to acknowledge that reasoning reflects your deep-seating bias for the gov't of Israel.

It removes no grievance. The notion that it's the West Bank occupation that's the driving force is a deception for western ears. Look at what has happened over there:

1) Pullout from Lebanon--the terrorists, with the cooperation of the governments of Syria and Lebanon pretend that a piece of Syria is actually Lebanon. The result has been more rocket fire from Lebanon.

2) Pullout from Gaza--same thing, the result is more rocket fire.

May I remind you of one of the standard definitions of insanity: trying the same thing over and over and expecting a different result. Why should the third time be any different than the first two?

The Sinai pullout never involved that much terrorism in the first place so it's not surprising we didn't see the same thing there.

Your definition of insanity fits the actions of the parties who are constantly on the path of clashes and incursions. There are disputes overland not only between Israel and Syria and Lebanon but between Lebanon and Syria.

Did you see you the Philippines and China sorted out a land dispute without actually dropping any claims?

 

[laughing dog]

It removes no grievance. The notion that it's the West Bank occupation that's the driving force is a deception for western ears.

It is delusional to think that is not a driving force.

Look at what has happened over there:

1) Pullout from Lebanon--the terrorists, with the cooperation of the governments of Syria and Lebanon pretend that a piece of Syria is actually Lebanon. The result has been more rocket fire from Lebanon.

2) Pullout from Gaza--same thing, the result is more rocket fire.

May I remind you of one of the standard definitions of insanity: trying the same thing over and over and expecting a different result. Why should the third time be any different than the first two?

The Sinai pullout never involved that much terrorism in the first place so it's not surprising we didn't see the same thing there.

None of that is related in any factual or logical way to the issue of West Bank settlements. Your argument is based on delusional reactions.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

It removes no grievance. The notion that it's the West Bank occupation that's the driving force is a deception for western ears. Look at what has happened over there:

1) Pullout from Lebanon--the terrorists, with the cooperation of the governments of Syria and Lebanon pretend that a piece of Syria is actually Lebanon. The result has been more rocket fire from Lebanon.

2) Pullout from Gaza--same thing, the result is more rocket fire.

May I remind you of one of the standard definitions of insanity: trying the same thing over and over and expecting a different result. Why should the third time be any different than the first two?

The Sinai pullout never involved that much terrorism in the first place so it's not surprising we didn't see the same thing there.

Your definition of insanity fits the actions of the parties who are constantly on the path of clashes and incursions. There are disputes overland not only between Israel and Syria and Lebanon but between Lebanon and Syria.

Did you see you the Philippines and China sorted out a land dispute without actually dropping any claims?

1) It's one of the standard definitions, by no means original to me.

2) You're assuming they think those clashes will lead to peace. Israel knows it won't.

You seem to be operating under the notion that peace is always superior to war no matter what.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

It is delusional to think that is not a driving force.

Look at what has happened over there:

1) Pullout from Lebanon--the terrorists, with the cooperation of the governments of Syria and Lebanon pretend that a piece of Syria is actually Lebanon. The result has been more rocket fire from Lebanon.

2) Pullout from Gaza--same thing, the result is more rocket fire.

May I remind you of one of the standard definitions of insanity: trying the same thing over and over and expecting a different result. Why should the third time be any different than the first two?

The Sinai pullout never involved that much terrorism in the first place so it's not surprising we didn't see the same thing there.

None of that is related in any factual or logical way to the issue of West Bank settlements. Your argument is based on delusional reactions.

I see no attempt to actually address the facts.

 

[laughing dog]

It is delusional to think that is not a driving force.
None of that is related in any factual or logical way to the issue of West Bank settlements. Your argument is based on delusional reactions.

I see no attempt to actually address the facts.

There are no relevant facts to address in your evasives and double standard.