|
Post by fascinating on Sept 25, 2018 8:50:48 GMT 1
You haven't answered the question, and you can drop the filthy, risible, implication that I am an anti-semite, merely because I ask what you think Israel might do. I never implied that you are a spokesman for the government of Israel. Of course I can't answer the question as put. I have no predictive insight into or directive power over the government of Israel. I said, as a clear response to your question, that Hamas' recognition of the legitimacy of Israel is a necessary precursor to negotiation. Only a fool would state it to be a sufficient one. It is a characteristic of antisemites that they pretend all Jews are somehow in control of and therefore responsible for what happens in Israel. It is a characteristic of thoughtful seekers of wisdom that they know the difference between "will" and "might". It is a characteristic of apologists for the indefensible that, when challenged, they pretend to have been misunderstood. I cannot guess your motives. I can only respond to your words. Yes, just stick with my words, none of which are anti-semitic, and don't try to make faulty guesses, such as that I am anti-semitic. You said that Hamas should take the first step of recognising Israel. I am simply asking you to state why you think that would help things in any way. I was assuming, perhaps wrongly, that such a statement from Hamas would lead to some kind of response from Israel. If that is not so, how is that recognition going to change anything?
|
|
|
Post by fascinating on Sept 25, 2018 9:02:44 GMT 1
September 9, 1993 Yitzhak Rabin Prime Minister of Israel Mr. Prime Minister, The signing of the Declaration of Principles marks a new era...I would like to confirm the following PLO commitments: 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. The PLO commits itself...to a peaceful resolution of the conflict between the two sides and declares that all outstanding issues relating to permanent status will be resolved through negotiations...the PLO renounces the use of terrorism and other acts of violence and will assume responsibility over all PLO elements and personnel in order to assure their compliance, prevent violations and discipline violators...the PLO affirms that those articles of the Palestinian Covenant which deny Israel's right to exist, and the provisions of the Covenant which are inconsistent with the commitments of this letter are now inoperative and no longer valid. Consequently, the PLO undertakes to submit to the Palestinian National Council for formal approval the necessary changes in regard to the Palestinian Covenant. Sincerely, Yasser Arafat. Chairman: The Palestine Liberation Organization Can it be that you don't understand? Nay - what is required is an acknowledgmrnt of Israel as the Jewish State. That means the dropping of the demand for the Right to Return. This is the single issue that has prevented a resolution - in particular, especially, when Yassir Arafat was in control of the PLO. Tha above was a transparent attempt to fool people that the PLO has become reasonable. Clinton came to realise this, eventually, and these Principles went no further. You understand? You've been duped. Progenitor A has proved that the PLO has recognised the state of Israel, proving mrsonde's assertion that they had not done so, to be wrong. mrsonde now moves on to put additional conditions, that the Palestinians must recognise Israel as a Jewish State and furthermore drop the notion of the "right of return".
|
|
|
Post by fascinating on Sept 25, 2018 9:06:36 GMT 1
NO!You have typically lifted 2 words from a sentence that doesn't mention Israel and made the absurd accusation that I contend that the people of Israel should move elsehwere. Utter rubbish. You think everyone else is as moronic as you are? That's what I said. It wasn't an analogy. No one mentioned any of that. You do acknowledge that you were talking about what you term an analogy? You do acknowledge that it was about Israel and Gaza? Yes or no? You do acknowledge that you would run with this "analogy"? You do acknowledge that your action would be to move elsewhere if the Gazans attacked you? Yes or no? I know I am. You'd have some questions to answer, lady. Fortunately for you, the complaint would be about your anti-semitism, rather than any supposed islamophobia, so no doubt you;d get away with it. Accusing Israelis of murdering peaceful Gazans whatever they do is hate speech. You might be able to get away with the Corbyn-style excuse that you didn't mean Jews when you said "Israelis", I suppose. Most rational people see through such creepy prevarication. Is there anyone on here actually thinks there is any logic in what mrsonde says here? For the avoidance of doubtI DO NOT BELIEVE, AND HAVE NEVER BELIEVED, THAT THE PEOPLE OF ISRAEL SHOULD MOVE ELSEWHERE.
|
|
|
Post by alancalverd on Sept 25, 2018 23:15:03 GMT 1
You said that Hamas should take the first step of recognising Israel. I am simply asking you to state why you think that would help things in any way. Hamas' recognision of Israel is, as I said at least three times before, a necessary but by no means sufficient condition of alleviating the suffering Hamas imposes on the citizens of Gaza. You cannot negotiate with anyone who does not consider you to have the right to exist. See above. Whether it produces any response is beyond my competence to guess, but not making such a statement will certainly not evoke a response. Try this for an analogy. "I loathe and despise you and all your kin. I am sworn to your destruction, and I teach my children and my neighbours to hate you and take very opportunity to kill your friends and disrupt your life and livelihood. I do not recognise your right to exist. Please be nice to me and let me live in your house." Your response is awaited.
|
|
|
Post by fascinating on Sept 26, 2018 8:15:47 GMT 1
Your suggestion, then, doesn't take things forward at all, and is of no use. As Progenitor A has shown, the PLO recognised Israel decades ago, and the conflict has been in stalemate ever since.
Analogical response: "I have enough firepower to obliterate you, though I would rather not do that. Why do you hate me?".
What is your analogical response (to the analogical statement you made)?
|
|
|
Post by alancalverd on Sept 26, 2018 17:29:44 GMT 1
1. You clearly do not understand the concept of sine qua non, nor the difference between PLO and Hamas. Such things are rather germane to Middle East politics.
2. I would not dignify that statement of intent with as much as a "fuck off".
My response to such a policy statement would be no response. I have no interest in your motive, no reason to be nice to you or indeed to have any dealings with you whatever, and certainly no intention of letting you enter my house, never mind live in it.
I would be inclined to erect a fence betweeen us, defend it with any weaponry available, and question the motives of anyone who approached the fence or showed sympathy to your point of view.
Probably because I have inherited the wisdom of history.
|
|
|
Post by fascinating on Sept 26, 2018 18:58:01 GMT 1
You clearly do not understand the concept of sine qua non, nor the difference between PLO and Hamas. Such things are rather germane to Middle East politics. My response to such a policy statement would be no response. I have no interest in your motive, no reason to be nice to you or indeed to have any dealings with you whatever, and certainly no intention of letting you enter my house, never mind live in it. I would not dignify your statement of intent with as much as a "fuck off". Let's get clear (because certain people here are prone to wildly misinterpret what I say) it is NOT MY STATEMENT. It is an analogical statement of intent that YOU came up with. I am aware of the differences between PLO and Hamas. What specific differences are you most interested in, in this context? Right so you have now said you would set up a fence and defend it and "question the motives" of anyone who approached it. Questioning the motives is fine. You haven't said that you would shoot any unarmed person who was well away from the fence.
|
|
|
Post by alancalverd on Sept 26, 2018 21:57:00 GMT 1
Whatever I would or wouldn't do, I certainly wouldn't discuss it with my self-declared enemy. Good strategy is to evaluate every action of those who threaten you, and respond appropriately. In war, as in business or even walking down the street, your evaluation is based on incomplete knowledge. Adding an exclusion zone to the fence gives you additional confidence in your assessment of a perceived threat and a wider range of options to deal with it. Land mines are unselective and so threat assessment and response are best left to the soldiers defending the border.
The one I have been quoting throughout this discussion: the refusal of Hamas to accept the legitimacy of Israel. I won't say it again. If you ask again, I must assume you suffer from selective illiteracy.
|
|
|
Post by aquacultured on Sept 27, 2018 0:41:35 GMT 1
Is Corbyn's announcement today/yesterday - that Labour will recognise a Palestinian State directly it gets into power - a helpful or unhelpful move, for peace in the ME?
|
|
|
Post by alancalverd on Sept 27, 2018 8:16:24 GMT 1
Funny how nobody calls him Mr Corbyn or Jeremy. IIRC, the journalistic convention is for convicted criminals to be identified by surname only.
Peace in the Middle East has of course been achieved by Henry Kissinger (Nobel Peace Prize, 1973), Yasser Arafat (Nobel Peace Prize 1994) and Tony B Liar (600,000 dead Iraqis so far). Moshe Dayan's comprehensive defeat of the Egyptian, Syrian and Jordanian armies clearly had no effect.
Mr Corbyn may well be the greatest politician since Donald Trump, but it will make no difference to anyone in the Middle East. His statement will of course attract a few more muslim and anti-Jewish votes without being overtly antisemitic, which is why he said it.
|
|
|
Post by Progenitor A on Sept 27, 2018 8:33:02 GMT 1
His statement will of course attract a few more muslim and anti-Jewish votes without being overtly antisemitic, which is why he said it. Why is it 'covertly' anti-semitic to make such a statement?
|
|
|
Post by fascinating on Sept 27, 2018 8:37:53 GMT 1
What threw me was your comment "You clearly do not understand ... the difference between PLO and Hamas£.But I have made it clear, from early on in this discussion, that I know Hamas' position re Israel, and put forward the idea of dehamasification. I have also recently emphasised Proginitor A's post showing that the PLO have accepted the legitimacy of Israel. So I thought you might be referring to something new and relevant. But, no, you are again referring to the Hamas' refusal to do the same as the PLO, even though we established your opinion that it would make no practical difference to the situation.
Yes I agree, an exclusion zone, within one's own territory, by the fence would give additional confidence in the assessment of a perceived threat.
|
|
|
Post by alancalverd on Sept 27, 2018 16:19:11 GMT 1
Do not put words into my mouth. I have not said it would make no practical difference. I said quite explicitly, enough times now for me to think that you really are perversely stupid, that no progress is possible without it. Do you drive with the handbrake on? Releasing it will not make the car go forward! Necessary but not sufficient. Sine qua non. Notwendig aber nicht genug. What language do you actually understand?
There is no point in excluding your own people from your own territory. Do you tell your children to stay away from your garden fence? Get real.
|
|
|
Post by alancalverd on Sept 27, 2018 16:28:38 GMT 1
His statement will of course attract a few more muslim and anti-Jewish votes without being overtly antisemitic, which is why he said it. Why is it 'covertly' anti-semitic to make such a statement? Because it will appeal to all those who want to punish the Jews for having their own country, but does not overtly mention them. A man who honours the murderers of Jews is not to be trusted with high office, and the rhetoric he uses in pursuit of that office must be read with deep scepticism.
|
|
|
Post by fascinating on Sept 27, 2018 17:17:17 GMT 1
Do not put words into my mouth. I have not said it would make no practical difference. I said quite explicitly, enough times now for me to think that you really are perversely stupid, that no progress is possible without it. Do you drive with the handbrake on? Releasing it will not make the car go forward! Necessary but not sufficient. Sine qua non. Notwendig aber nicht genug. What language do you actually understand? There is no point in excluding your own people from your own territory. Do you tell your children to stay away from your garden fence? Get real. You have not pointed out any progress that could be made by the Hamas recognising Israel. Get real, an exclusion zone within your own territory doesn't mean your own people cannot go there. Your soldiers can. For reasons of defence, many countries designate areas (for example military bases) where civilians are excluded. How many Israeli people actually live within a few hundred yards of the border with Gaza? And anyway, you want unarmed Gazans, in a very overcrowded territory, to be forced to stay hundreds of yards behind the fence. I may have quoted this before now but it's still relevant. The Gaza Strip 11 November 2017 "Israel treats an area inside the Gaza Strip, near the border fence, as its own territory, using it to create a “buffer zone” inside the already narrow Strip. After the second intifada broke out, the military declared a vast area near the Gaza-Israel border, much of it farmland, off-limits to Palestinians. It never officially announced this policy or clarified to the residents which areas exactly were off limits to them, which increases the danger they face. To enforce this access ban, the military has introduced open-fire regulations that permit firing at Palestinians found inside the zone – even if they pose no threat to anyone’s life. The implementation of these regulations has resulted in the death of 83 Palestinians who did not take part in fighting from the time the Disengagement Plan was implemented in September 2005 until September 2017, excluding rounds of fighting. Of these casualties, 39 were killed when they were in these zones as part of their daily routine, including local residents and farmers. Twelve more people were killed when they approached the fence, planning to cross it in search of work inside Israel. In addition, 28 Palestinians were killed in protests held near the fence, on the Palestinian side of it. Eight of them took part in hostilities – though were unarmed at the time of their death. In recent years, weekly demonstrations such as these have taken place in several locations, with hundreds participating. Protesters set tires on fire, attempt to hang Palestinian flags on the fence, damage or cross it, and throw stones at soldiers stationed on the Israeli side. In most cases, groups of soldiers stand protected behind concrete blocks or dirt mounds, dozens of meters away from the fence. Though soldiers use live fire in these incidents without facing mortal danger, in areas that the military is fully aware are inhabited by civilians, no one is held accountable for these killings – in keeping with Israel’s overall law enforcement policy regarding the killing of Palestinians by security forces. Another measure employed by the military to enforce the prohibition on approaching the fence is spraying herbicides on crops near the fence – on the Gazan side. The spraying is done without advance notice, and without alerting residents that they must protect crops that lie several hundred meters away from the fence, which are also harmed by the spraying. Israel has also destroyed vast areas near the border during the rounds of fighting, including demolishing entire neighborhoods." www.btselem.org/gaza_strip
|
|