|
Post by Jaga on Jun 16, 2009 21:36:17 GMT -7
Pieter,
you know way too much about Israel/Palestine. Some of the details you present here are over my head. Here is quite reasonable commentary about Netanyahu stupid, one-sided and illogical politics:In his speech last Sunday, the prime minister failed to address the continual growth of Israeli settlements on the occupied West Bank, where close to 300,000 Israeli settlers live. The Palestine that Netanyahu envisions must steadily shrink to accommodate the growing number of Israeli settlers in its midst. It would be a collection of barely contiguous cantons. By refusing to address the growth of the settlements, Netanyahu has avoided a fight with the hard-right forces in his governing coalition. Yet he has asked the leaders of the Palestinian Authority to accept a state whose contours no Palestinian could willingly accept. He demands a Palestine with no army, yet also demands that the Palestinian Authority suppress Hamas as a precondition for negotiations with Israel -- something, as my American Prospect colleague Gershom Gorenberg has pointed out, that the very well-armed Israeli army has been unable to do. By refusing to take on the settlers, however, Netanyahu may be cruising for a clash not just with Israel's longtime critics but with its longtime supporters as well. The Obama administration, Democrats on the Hill who have long championed Israel's interests and a clear majority of American Jews all view the growth of the settlements as a major impediment to a two-state solution, and, therefore, a threat to Israel's long-term survival. The Israeli government speaks of the "natural growth" of the settlements, but, says Queens Democrat Gary Ackerman, " having children can't be an excuse to expand a settlement. Neither side should be expanding beyond its perimeters or attacking the other side. No expansions, no how, no way, no shticks, no tricks." ... But why the waning of American Jewish identification with Israel over the past few decades? At its birth, and for several decades thereafter, Israel commanded virtually consensual support among American Jews. But for the past 42 of its 61 years, Israel has ruled over Palestinians who are citizens neither of Israel nor of a Palestinian state. They are -- a condition that should be familiar to Jews -- stateless. The blame for their statelessness is surely their own as well as the Israelis', but in time, the Israeli role in the Palestinian disaster has eroded American Jewish identification with Israel. By every measure, American Jews remain intensely committed to liberalism and to universal and minority rights. As a democratic state rising on the ashes of the Holocaust, Israel once embodied those values to its supporters, but 42 years of occupation have rendered Israel a state that tests those values more than it affirms them. Its most fervent American Jewish backers, to be found disproportionately among the Orthodox, identify with it for reasons that are more tribal than universal. All of which has created the political space for President Obama to try to craft a resolution to one of the planet's most venerable and dangerous disputes. www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/06/16/AR2009061602636.html?hpid=opinionsbox1
|
|
|
Post by Jaga on Jun 16, 2009 22:27:57 GMT -7
Jimmy Carter has spoken of his "grief and despair" at seeing the destruction in the Gaza Strip carried out by Israel's 22-day offensive on the territory six months ago. "This is holy land for us all and my hope is that we can have peace ... all of us are children of Abraham," the former US president said during a joint news conference with Ismail Haniya, the deposed Hamas Palestinian prime minister, in Gaza City. Following a tour of the area to see the effects of Israel's offensive, Carter said: "My primary feeling today is one of grief and despair and an element of anger when I see the destruction perpetrated against innocent people in January." He said the Palestinians had been treated "like animals" and the deprivations faced by them in Gaza were unique in history. Carter said he was trying to persuade Hamas leaders to accept the international community's conditions for ending its boycott of the movement. english.aljazeera.net/news/middleeast/2009/06/200961613038571684.html
|
|
|
Post by tuftabis on Jun 17, 2009 11:18:47 GMT -7
Pieter,
you know way too much about Israel/Palestine. Some of the details you present here are over my head. Here is quite reasonable commentary about Netanyahu stupid, one-sided and illogical politics: I n his speech at Bar-Ilan University, Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu acquiesced to precisely what he was elected to repudiate. US pressure is no excuse for this. Leaders are elected to resist pressure, not to submit to it; to sidestep it, not succumb to it; to divert it, not to yield to it. A myriad of allegedly "pragmatic" arguments can be raised to justify the tone and the substance of his admirably crafted speech. But none of these carries any durable strategic substance. They reflect a clear preference for the fleeting benefits of short-term cunning rather than the enduring fruits of long-term wisdom.
Some might protest at this unbenevolent assessment, claiming that in fact it was a brilliant political maneuver, placing the onus on the Palestinians, exposing their "true face" and cutting the ground away from political rivals such as Kadima. But all this is chaff in the wind. Indeed, if the true face of the Palestinians has not been revealed by the brutal post-Oslo surge in terror, by the murderous response to the far-reaching 2000 Ehud Barak initiative, by vicious fury of their post-disengagement violence, what hope is there that Netanyahu's rehashed version of failed past proposals will drive home this reality?
continue reading this reasonable commentary from the 'other side of the coin' at - www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1244371115669&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull
|
|
|
Post by tuftabis on Jun 17, 2009 11:28:59 GMT -7
A 22-year-old Palestinian woman, who says she became an informer for Israel to earn money that would get her out of prostitution, is going to prison for life. Others convicted of collaboration with Israel by West Bank courts sit on death row.
Such draconian sentences reflect the loathing Palestinian society has for collaborators, even small-time informants or those blackmailed by Israeli intelligence agents into cooperating.
Yet the harsh treatment of collaborators also highlights the complex realities of life in the West Bank, where a US-backed Palestinian government works increasingly closely with Israeli security forces against a common enemy, Hamas. Israel has overall security control in the West Bank.
Such security coordination is unpopular among Palestinians. Some say collaborators have been made into scapegoats to deflect attention from the coordination between Israeli and Palestinian forces, which is aimed at preventing a Hamas takeover of the West Bank.
Palestinian officials say the information they share with Israel helps keep residents safe, while individuals selling information are betraying their country.
"There's no authority that should allow its people to collaborate," said Saleh Abdul Jawad, a Palestinian political scientist.
In the most recent case Monday, a military tribunal in a security compound in the West Bank town of Jenin sentenced 22-year-old Taghreed - her last name was not released - to a life term of hard labor.
The dark-skinned, portly woman, wearing a lace headscarf and blue jeans, remained calm while the sentence was announced. She refused to speak to reporters and none of her family attended the trial, indicating they had washed their hands of her.
The scene played out in a hastily assembled courtroom of plastic chairs, benches and a Palestinian flag.
Earlier, Taghreed had told the court that she turned informer after she left her husband, who had forced her to work as a prostitute and thus turned her into an outcast. The information the woman sold was low-level - nothing that led to arrests by the Israelis, according to military prosecutor Raed Dalbah.
Since 1994, when the Palestinian Authority was established after the Oslo Accords, at least 35 suspected informers were sentenced to death, according to the Gaza-based Palestinian Center for Human Rights. Two defendants were executed by firing squad in Gaza several years ago.
Seventeen alleged informers, both those on death row and those still awaiting trial, were killed in vigilante-style shootings by Palestinians during Israel's war on Hamas in Gaza in January.
It is mostly the vulnerable, like Taghreed, who ultimately become Israeli snoops, often providing information to Israeli intelligence in exchange for money and to access key services like medical care and permits to work in Israel, said Ran Yaron of Physicians for Human Rights, which studies the issue.
They are nonetheless widely despised for helping Israel.
"If I was the judge, I would shoot her on the spot," said a guard outside the courtroom, spitting on the ground to emphasize his disgust at Taghreed.
In the past two years alone, West Bank tribunals have convicted seven people of collaboration, including Taghreed. She was the only one not sentenced to death, though the executions were not carried out.
During the two Palestinian intifadas, vigilante gunmen often killed suspected collaborators, at times with crowds looking on. After Israel withdrew from parts of the West Bank in the 1990s, it relocated hundreds of collaborators to Israel to protect them from retribution.
Palestinian human rights activists say they oppose the death penalty on principle, but most have not rushed to the defense of collaborators.
"We do not think there should be a death sentence," said Hanan Ashrawi, a Palestinian legislator and human rights advocate. "The punishment has to fit the crime. The crime, in the popular imagination, is the most unconscionable crime. It is a betrayal of everything that people hold sacred." www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1245184851462&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull
|
|
|
Post by Jaga on Jun 18, 2009 22:05:14 GMT -7
Here is the Israel poll showing that majority of Israeli are for the end of settlements: Friday Poll in Israel shows Majority/Solid Support for Settlement Evacuation tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/06/05/friday_poll_in_israel_shows_majoritysolid_support/Every Friday, the Israeli papers publish a national poll catching a snapshot of the public's mood. This week's poll is unequivocal in showing major public support for an end to the settlement foolery. This gives Bibi Netanyahu the political cover he needs, if he wants to transform, but as the Friday commentators also point out in the Israeli papers, whether his own personality and personal history trap him in the paradigm of the past is the question of the moment....as one top Israeli commentator says, if he doesn't respond to Obama's program, the current government is on a collision course that puts it on a trajectory for toppling and soon....the right politician in Israel (with help from Israel's friends) can capture the current mood and make progress --Here is the poll: -- Q: Should Netanyahu acquiesce to Obama's demands or reject these even at the cost of sanctions? Acquiesce -- 56% Not acquiesce -- 40% Q: Should Israel agree to the establishment of a Palestinian state as part of a peace deal? Agree -- 55% Not agree -- 41% Q: Is Obama's policy good for Israel? Not good -- 53% Good -- 26% Q: How would you rate Netanyahu's performance since being elected prime minister? Good -- 47% Not good -- 45% Q: Are you satisfied with Netanyahu's conduct in addressing the crisis with the United States? Satisfied -- 34% Not satisfied -- 47% Q: Will Netanyahu eventually agree to the establishment of a Palestinian state? Will agree -- 44% Will not agree -- 50% Q: Of whom Obama is being more considerate: Israel's security needs or the Palestinians desire to establish a state? The Palestinian's desires --51% Israel's needs -- 22% Q: Who is responsible for the crisis with the United States? Obama -- 28% Netanyahu -- 16% Both parties -- 50% Q: Are you disappointed by Obama's policy towards Israel? Disappointed -- 51% Not disappointed -- 41% Q: Should Israel freeze settlement construction? Yes -- 52% No -- 43% Q: Should the illegal outposts be evacuated? Yes -- 70% No -- 25% Q: Should the birthrate in the settlements be taken under consideration and therefore allow construction for the sake of natural growth? Yes -- 54% No -- 42% Q: If the government decides to halt construction in the settlements, should Yisrael Beiteinu leave the government? Among the general public: Yes -- 36% No -- 41% Among Yisrael Beiteinu voters: Yes -- 23% No -- 60% Q: If it is decided to freeze all construction in the settlements, should Kadima join the government? Among the general public: Yes -- 41% No -- 43% Among Kadima voters: Yes -- 52% No -- 41% Q: If it is decided to evacuate the settlements, will you join those resisting this? Yes -- 12% No -- 85% The poll questioned 501 people. The margin of error is 4.4%. In questions where figures do not amount to 100%, the missing percentages refer to those who chose not to reply
|
|
|
Post by Jaga on Jun 18, 2009 22:11:06 GMT -7
Some might protest at this unbenevolent assessment, claiming that in fact it was a brilliant political maneuver, placing the onus on the Palestinians, exposing their "true face" and cutting the ground away from political rivals such as Kadima. But all this is chaff in the wind. Indeed, if the true face of the Palestinians has not been revealed by the brutal post-Oslo surge in terror, by the murderous response to the far-reaching 2000 Ehud Barak initiative, by vicious fury of their post-disengagement violence, what hope is there that Netanyahu's rehashed version of failed past proposals will drive home this reality? [/i] continue reading this reasonable commentary from the 'other side of the coin' at - www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1244371115669&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull[/quote]Tufta, this commentary from Jerusalem post is written in strange language and is quite unreasonable.
Could you translate it into common language and explain why killing thousands of Palestinians is good and why keeping Palestinians in the ghetto is good and why It is good for both sides that Israel has to continue pushing Palestinians out of West Bank?
|
|
|
Post by RabiaMuweis on Jun 19, 2009 0:18:22 GMT -7
Pieter FOR NOW IM GONNA BUT AFTER 22/9/2009 IM GONNA TALLLLLLLLLLKKKKKKKKKK ;D
|
|
|
Post by tuftabis on Jun 19, 2009 0:53:03 GMT -7
Jaga, strange but I found the article's English perfect, but of course I may be wrong and you caught some mistakes and imprecision. The article strenghtens the al Jazeera's thesis you have kindly presented, pointing out that Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu's policy is not the best, and very short-sighted. But the criticism in Jerusalem Post here comes 'from the other side' of the stage, so to say. So PM Binyamin Netanyahu is making a common mistake of weak leaders - he choses a path which doesn't suit anyone and does not liquidate the basis of conflict. The conflict is then just postponed and will erupt with more power in future.
Further, not everything you don't agree with is unreasonable.
The really difficult conflicts are when two reasonable points of view clash. Such is the situation in Middle East. But one needs some mental distance to see it.
|
|
|
Post by Jaga on Jun 19, 2009 7:50:39 GMT -7
+++So PM Binyamin Netanyahu is making a common mistake of weak leaders - he choses a path which doesn't suit anyone and does not liquidate the basis of conflict.+++
So, according to Jerusalem Post which represents interests of Jewish community, Netanyahu should not compromise.
According to Jerusalem Post, compromise is "a mistake of weak leaders".
According to Jerusalem Post, Israel should build more settlements on Palestinians territory, causing Palestinians more harm. Israel should not listen to anybody and act in its own self-interest.
According to Jerusalem Post compromise means weakness. I can assume that Hamas is a positive example for Jerusalem Post, since Hamas (in the past) also did not compromise. So, lack of compromise is good - let both sides kill each other!!!! These who compromise and want to find a commong ground are weak.
|
|
|
Post by karl on Jun 19, 2009 11:27:14 GMT -7
Dear Rabia
I must say of this in good faith to you. For you are playing of a situation. For the tip off was the use of daten: 22 September 2009. For this is the date of the UN General assembly of this previous year of 2008.
Forth-wit of Document £ A/63/368-S/2008/612
In-as-much of as described: Peaceful settlement of question-Palestinian settlement.
Is this a manner of flushing out of expose of those your people may see as threat?
This forum is of reasonable and honest people of European faction of that of Poland. I do speak of this with some what quiet tones, for as being German here is some what out side of the protection of ethnics.
Or, am I to be some what over suspicious? For it is to you to now, to build the foundations of your protection that I am wrong..
Fret not so many, for the clock is ticking of my presence here..
Karl
|
|
|
Post by tuftabis on Jun 19, 2009 12:36:13 GMT -7
+++So PM Binyamin Netanyahu is making a common mistake of weak leaders - he choses a path which doesn't suit anyone and does not liquidate the basis of conflict.+++ So, according to Jerusalem Post which represents interests of Jewish community, Netanyahu should not compromise. According to Jerusalem Post, compromise is "a mistake of weak leaders". According to Jerusalem Post, Israel should build more settlements on Palestinians territory, causing Palestinians more harm. Israel should not listen to anybody and act in its own self-interest.According to Jerusalem Post compromise means weakness. I can assume that Hamas is a positive example for Jerusalem Post, since Hamas (in the past) also did not compromise. So, lack of compromise is good - let both sides kill each other!!!! These who compromise and want to find a commong ground are weak. Jaga, except the point about Hamas you are quite right. That's what, more or less, Jerusalem Post assumes. However JPost, does not represent the interests of Jewish community as a whole, it rather represents centre-right to right part of this community. As you see in the present respect they quite agree with you, representing - or so it seems - the interests of Arab community, vioiced by al'Jazeera, you both are saying that PM Binyamin Netanyahu policy is of little value. Btw. (if you are interested) my personal opinion is in disagreement with both you and JPost. I think that Netanyahu did a right thing, as he had no other choice. Although, frankly, I don't think he did that sincerely. In the meaning that by partial consessions he is just looking for time until the administration in his greatest allies homes inevitably changes.
|
|
|
Post by tuftabis on Jun 19, 2009 12:42:50 GMT -7
for the clock is ticking of my presence here.. Karl I think you shouldn't do that. Please remember about your heritage. You are of the brave.
|
|
|
Post by Jaga on Jun 20, 2009 4:43:10 GMT -7
Why the demand to recognize a JEWISH STATE is a non-starter?By M.J. Rosenberg - June 19, 2009, 10:18AMPrime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu's insistence that Palestinians recognize Israel as a "Jewish state" seems to rely on the certain knowledge that the Palestinians will never agree.This demand is of recent vintage. How recent? In 2006, after Hamas won the Palestinian elections, Israel demanded that the West insist on three conditions before dealing with it. Now known as the Quartet Conditions, they are still in effect today: "Hamas must recognize Israel, forswear terrorism and accept previous Palestinian commitments." Note condition one. "Hamas must recognize Israel." Full stop. Not as a "Jewish state" or as anything else. Like Jordan and Egypt, which signed peace treaties with Israel, Hamas is only asked to accord simple recognition. Of course, simple recognition is all Israel ever sought until now. That should be good enough. I can't think of an example anywhere on the globe where one nation is required to accept another as anything. Palestinians can (and most do) accept the reality of Israel. The Oslo breakthrough of 1993 occurred when Israel recognized the PLO in exchange for this pledge from Yasir Arafat: "The PLO recognizes the right of the State of Israel to exist in peace and security. The PLO accepts United Nations Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338." In all the years since, even during the horrific second Intifada, the Palestinians never retracted their recognition of Israel, and Israel maintained its recognition of the PLO as the "legitimate representative of the Palestinian people." Had either side renounced those conditions, there would be no peace process or even the possibility of a peace process. But Palestinians have not recognized Israel as a "Jewish state" and no one should expect them to until the two sides enter "final status negotiations." Perhaps once Israel agrees to final borders, Palestinians will agree to recognize Israel as a "Jewish state" within those borders. But without any definition of borders and with Netanyahu committed to expanding settlements in the West Bank, how can anyone seriously expect Palestinians to recognize Israel as a "Jewish state"?Would that Jewish state include Hebron and Ariel? Would it include territory in the Jordan Valley? Would it include Silwan in Jerusalem? Would that Jewish state have any obligation to the Palestinian refugees? Would its designation as "Jewish" remove any sense that the Palestinians are native to the land?Acceptance of Israel as a "Jewish state" is a non-starter at this point. And Netanyahu knows it. If that is a precondition for negotiations, there will be no negotiations. Instead, there will be an agreement imposed by the United States or no agreement at all, and another war or two or three. Again, I see nothing wrong with Israel demanding recognition as a Jewish state in the context of final status negotiations, just as it will demand control over Jerusalem and ironclad security guarantees and just as Palestinians will demand Israel's return to the pre-'67 borders. But not in advance of negotiations. Like every other issue, it can only be addressed in the context of unconditional negotiations, which means no series of demands that must be met in advance of them. from: tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/06/19/why_not_recognize_israel_as_a_jewish_state/
|
|
|
Post by Jaga on Jun 20, 2009 4:46:43 GMT -7
Even secular Jews have problems with laws imposed by rabbis for "Jewish state" instead of "State of Israel"
It is not only Palestinians who have problems with the "Jewish state" formulation. Secular Israelis believe that the Orthodox rabbinate controls way too much of their lives. In Jerusalem the ultra-Orthodox are actually demanding (and may get) segregated public buses, i.e., separate buses for men and women. A desperately needed new parking lot recently opened only to have the religious authorities succeed in getting it closed on Saturday. The food police can shut down restaurants or shops that don't observe religious dietary laws (woe to the shopkeeper who has bread on his shelves during Passover). Not to mention the stranglehold the Orthodox rabbinate has over marriage, divorce, and citizenship.
Americans would never tolerate this. In fact, because we have a constitution and a First Amendment, even the most fervent Christian fundamentalist would not dream of demanding the kind of restrictions routinely imposed on all Israelis. It is easy to imagine how formal recognition of Israel as a "Jewish state" rather than as the "State of Israel" could be used to make life even more difficult for the secular majority of Israelis. There is another thing wrong with the whole "Jewish state" demand; it is antithetical to Zionism.
Zionism is the self-determination movement of the Jewish people. That means that it is the Jews themselves who created their state and who define it. The "self" part of "self-determination" means that a nation does not rely on the recognition of other people to validate or legitimize them.
Why should Israel need Palestinians to recognize Israel's religious identity? Before Yitzhak Rabin became prime minister in 1992, Israel did not even recognize Palestinians as a separate people at all. In fact, even today, neocons in Israel and the United States insist that Palestinians are "just Arabs" who invented their Palestinian nationality as a response to Zionism. But what difference does it make? So long as Israelis and Palestinians recognize their mutual rights to self-determination and security, either side can consider the other as anything it wants.
I don't know when the right-wing of the pro-Israel camp became so nervous and whiny. Of course, I grew up in the era (following the Six Day War) when Israelis were the tough guys in the region. The last thing they would have cared about was how they were defined by others. But those were more confident days. The same people who say they need recognition of Israel's character as a Jewish state routinely liken the Jewish condition today to that of the 1940s, implying that neither the IDF nor a nuclear arsenal has succeeded in ending Jewish powerlessness. They are locked in a pre-1948 state of mind.
No, Israel does not need recognition as a Jewish state; its character is for citizens of Israel, not Palestinians, to decide. That is what Zionism means.
The only thing Israel needs from Palestinians is recognition of its right to exist in peace and security (which already was offered by both Arafat and Abbas) and ironclad security guarantees to ensure that a Palestinian state will not threaten Israel. That goes without saying; every peace proposal ever considered by Israelis and Palestinians contains those security mechanisms.
Of course, security is a two way street. That is why it is good news that the United States is coupling its demand for an end to settlements with the immediate easing of the blockade of Gaza. Israel is saying that it won't let necessary goods into Gaza until Gilad Shalit is free, as if a suffering child in Gaza has anything to do with Shalit's imprisonment. Shalit should be released now. But the collective punishment of a million Gazans also must end. Now.
Arguing about what constitutes recognition is ridiculous. The only thing that matters is that both Israelis and Palestinians are safe, and feel safe, in their own sovereign countries. The rest is posturing
|
|
|
Post by karl on Jun 20, 2009 10:35:31 GMT -7
for the clock is ticking of my presence here.. Karl I think you shouldn't do that. Please remember about your heritage. You are of the brave. Dear Tufta Thank you for this honour for indeed so But, I must say of this: for I am undeserving of such bestowed honour you have given.. For it is to you, that this honour must go. For of each and every day, you arise with out reservation. To go about with the affairs of family, your children, your wife and all things of the home. Then to attend to the professional life that is yours of responsibility. You then attend to all that is of yours to deal with. This, being as the teaching faculty, your class-room, daily lesson plan, all that as required with faculty meetings/ daily attendance with your students under your responsibility. To insure to them of each day of teaching, that they will understand and impress upon their training. For these young people are learning from you, their tools of life. Yes, I would say of this: You are the man of today, for your students to be the people of tomorrow as of success, is total dependent upon you as their teacher... Yes, it is to you for of this honour to be bestowed to, with all laurels and honour befitting of a hero. For in-time, your students will owe all that they are, to your teaching and training, yes.. And our small world will be the benefactor to the skills and work of these new replacements of our selves, a better world then what we have left to them as an inheritance. Yes Tufta, you are the man of courage and honour! Karl
|
|