SFD, have you checked the papers coming out of Tel Aviv and Riyadh lately? Do you consider they have become equivalent in propaganda value?
Of course not. I said - SLOWLY, moving in that direction. Obviously they are not there yet. But are you denying that the discourse in Israel has become more hate-filled (where folks like Rabin can be called Nazis by settlers)? This EMPHATICALLY did not use to be the case 20 years ago. Ask anyone in Israel. It is frightening, and quite resembles the kinds of political rhetoric one finds in those nasty Arab regimes. Moderate voices have become almost silent these days - where is Peace Now "now" (LOL!), compared to the past? Where is the great debate between dove and hawk? Seems doves have moved out or been shut up - the debate now is between hawk and war criminal (Sharon). Looks to me more and more like the Arab countries.
I never claim the Arabs are without fault (indeed, how can they be without fault, when their civilisation has basically failed)
Yet in half your posts you blame Israel for the hatred against it -- it has sowed the fruits of hatred by stealing all its land, you keep saying, it's "vicious", "colonial", "evil", etc.
Don't you see the contradictions in your own argument? Does a "failed society" need just reasons to hate a successful one?
No, there is no contradiction. Many African states or societies, indeed many states that became colonies all over the world, were FAILED civilizations. That STILL did not JUSTIFY Britain or any colonial power from occupying them. That caused hatred. That caused a war of liberation.
So too with the Arabs. Yes, they are a hopelessly failed civilization, and failed states - corrupt, lacking in freedom, filled with every kind of flaw you can imagine, atrocious treatment of women etc., etc., etc., - indeed, I would never wish to live there, nor would I wish that system upon anyone. I could write a book on why I hope to Heavens that the West survives and Islam does not touch us. But that still does not take away from the fact that Israel has done wrong in occupying another people, however inadequate their society. It is not Israels, nor indeed anyone's right to determine how Arabs wish to live their lives. As long as they don't tell me how to live, I won't tell them.
As for this "war of liberation" the Palestinians are supposed to be fighting: if by "liberation" you mean the end of the Israeli occupation of the West Bank and Gaza, they could have had it two years ago (your reasons why Arafat must get 100% of the territories, 99.9% won't do, 35 years after the Six Day War, are entirely unpersuasive to non-Arabs. The Taba deal was for 97% net. So, who fights a war for 3%? Maybe borders aren't the real issue, hmm?)
Yes, it is about Israel retreating to pre-67 borders. And yes, 100%. Why 100% and borders aren't the real issue... here's my response from another post to you, perhaps you "missed" my points the last time.
Message 18143607
"Here's the simple fact: ONLY ONE THING CAN SATISFY THE PALESTINIANS - TOTAL, COMPLETE, UNCONDITIONAL, 100% retreat by Israel from post-67 territories. Not 99.99999999% or any other number. The correct answer is 100%.
You have to understand why - the Palestinians see themselves as ALREADY losing an incredible amount of land by agreeing to pre-67 Israel. Large parts of their society have claims of return, deeds to land, houses and the whole nine yards in Israel pre-67. To give up all that, is an immensely wrenching thing, emotionally and politically. To ask for even one inch MORE of them is to simply explode the whole thing. It is not possible. It is not even about the land as such (pieces of stone dirt someone called it here) - but the symbolism, the honor and the political reality. To give up even one inch more, after having been robbed so badly, would be seen as "frier supreme", and so completely unacceptable. That's what the Israelis don't understand - they keep thinking "what's a few yards" - that's not the point.
Oh, and just in case you think this is somehow a "maximalist" demand, and you "forgot" my response, here it is:
siliconinvestor.com
Nadine wrote: "sure, I enter and leave all MY negotiations demanding 100% of my demands, nothing less."
SFD:
Umm... no. The Palestinian demands span the gamut. From those that demand ALL of Israel including pre-67, to those who would happily sign anything.
So you got that part wrong right off the bat. What I outlined was the MINIMUM that a majority (i.e. it is politically sellable to the population) could accept - 100% of the post-67 territory. In fact, there were other demands as well - such as the right of return of noncombatants following a conflict that is guaranteed under international law.
So, in addition to territory, there were other questions. Palestinians really have a very strong case on the right of return, which would have huge implications.
Regardless of international law on the refugees, I don't believe Israel could function properly if it were to apply. Therefore, it is a legitimate issue for Israel - and something the Palestinians would have to give up, law being on their side notwithstanding.
So, indeed, the Palestinians would give up a great deal indeed, even if all they got was 100% of the post-67 territory. I simply outlined the MINIMUM, not what is the MAXIMUM Palestinian demand.
I believe that it works for both sides - Israel retreats 100% to pre-67, Palestinians give up all claims to any other territory, all claims to right of return, even all claims to monetary compensation. Privately, I think it would be in Israeli interest to pay something - they accomplish two things: make the deal easier to swallow, hopefully undercutting the Palestinian extremists even more, and more importantly, a wealthier, rebuilt Palestine is a safer one, and a better neighbor with profit for Israel down the road (as experience post WWII in German, Japan and other places showed). But, I would not make it a demand - up to the Israelis. However, they do have to give back the land - every inch of it.
Nadine:
You are reasonably promoting complete falsehoods
SFD:
I do no such thing, and I have seen you produce no evidence to that effect. I may be mistaken about something, but I never deliberately promoted falsehoods. And if mistaken, I try to correct it. Unlike some, I am interested in the truth, and I'm willing to change my mind, and unlike some, I see right and wrong on BOTH sides. |
