My only real issue with your views concerns the notion that Palestinians need not lift a finger in terms of peace. Other than that, I agree with damn near everything else you've said, so yes, there's not much room for debate. Byrnzie needs a boogeyman to focus on today, and because yosi isn't around, I am it.
if hamas renounced violence and reiterated their stance that israel can have their own land/state - do you really think there would be peace?
if hamas renounced violence and reiterated their stance that israel can have their own land/state - do you really think there would be peace?
I find it pretty bizarre that Israel has been engaged in a 40 year occupation, and just last year committed a massacre of 1000 civilians in Gaza, and yet here we are debating whether Hamas should renounce violence.
Allow me to rephrase the question: If Israel renounced violence and declared that the Palestinians can have their own state as required by international law, do you think there would be peace, or would the Jewish settlers oppose it?
If we could roll back the clock 30 years I bet you'd be here saying the blacks in Soweto, South Africa need to renounce violence. There would be those of us posting information about further Apartheid atrocities & abuses and you would be countering every one of those comments/articles by saying that the blacks are equally to blame.
Then you'd get all uppity and start accusing people of not understanding nuance, and being incapable of a reasoned debate, e.t.c, e.t.c....
Righto. Now its about the blacks on a completely different continent. I am such an immoral bastard.
You know, I just said this to someone over PMs and I might as well say it publically too ....
I argue about some of the details that a peace plan does or does not need to feature, and apparently this sends the message that Israeli actions like the assault on Gaza in 2006 are excusable. I do not wish to be misunderstood: I do believe that Israel holds most of the cards here. The Palestinians are an oppressed people who deserve basic levels of self-determination. ... They deserve food, shelter, and dignity. They do not deserve to be corralled in Gaza and the West Bank and killed. Any peace plan will require that Israel make some pretty drastic changes, including a withdrawal to proper borders and cessation of settlement expansion. Me arguing that Hamas might need to make some changes as well (e.g., officially recognize Israel) does not mean that Hamas or the Palestinians in general are responsible for what is going on: The argument is largely a pragmatic one, based on knowledge about how people compromise. Because people have trouble seeing this point, I am going to let it go and just acknowledge that the Palestinians are not ultimately at fault here. There may be things they can do to ease the peace process, but they did not choose to be oppressed. There was a time when I naively felt that it really all was about terrorism, and that position is simple and incorrect. Anyhow, there you go. This is polaris' consensus, or as close as we are going to get.
You know, I just said this to someone over PMs and I might as well say it publically too ....
I argue about some of the details that a peace plan does or does not need to feature, and apparently this sends the message that Israeli actions like the assault on Gaza in 2006 are excusable. I do not wish to be misunderstood: I do believe that Israel holds most of the cards here. The Palestinians are an oppressed people who deserve basic levels of self-determination. ... They deserve food, shelter, and dignity. They do not deserve to be corralled in Gaza and the West Bank and killed. Any peace plan will require that Israel make some pretty drastic changes, including a withdrawal to proper borders and cessation of settlement expansion. Me arguing that Hamas might need to make some changes as well (e.g., officially recognize Israel) does not mean that Hamas or the Palestinians in general are responsible for what is going on: The argument is largely a pragmatic one, based on knowledge about how people compromise. Because people have trouble seeing this point, I am going to let it go and just acknowledge that the Palestinians are not ultimately at fault here. There may be things they can do to ease the peace process, but they did not choose to be oppressed. There was a time when I naively felt that it really all was about terrorism, and that position is simple and incorrect. Anyhow, there you go. This is polaris' consensus, or as close as we are going to get.
The Palestinians are an oppressed people who deserve basic levels of self-determination. ... They deserve food, shelter, and dignity. They do not deserve to be corralled in Gaza and the West Bank and killed.
Hence the need for Israel to silence human rights groups.
The Palestinians are an oppressed people who deserve basic levels of self-determination. ... They deserve food, shelter, and dignity. They do not deserve to be corralled in Gaza and the West Bank and killed.
Hence the need for Israel to silence human rights groups.
The Palestinians are an oppressed people who deserve basic levels of self-determination. ... They deserve food, shelter, and dignity. They do not deserve to be corralled in Gaza and the West Bank and killed.
Hence the need for Israel to silence human rights groups.
Which I will agree is total BS.
knowledge is power. cant let the people gain any sort of power now can we???
hear my name
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/ma ... ettlements
'One of the underlying motives of the US resolve to get the peace process moving was offered today by the top US military commander, General David Petraeus, the head of Centcom, which is responsible for the Middle East and Asia. Petraeus told the Senate armed services committee yesterday that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict was a root cause of instability in the Middle East and Asia and "foments anti-American sentiment due to a perception of US favouritism for Israel".'
Comments
if hamas renounced violence and reiterated their stance that israel can have their own land/state - do you really think there would be peace?
I find it pretty bizarre that Israel has been engaged in a 40 year occupation, and just last year committed a massacre of 1000 civilians in Gaza, and yet here we are debating whether Hamas should renounce violence.
Allow me to rephrase the question: If Israel renounced violence and declared that the Palestinians can have their own state as required by international law, do you think there would be peace, or would the Jewish settlers oppose it?
Not unless Israel withdrew from the occupied territories and stopped all settlement expansion.
Righto. Now its about the blacks on a completely different continent. I am such an immoral bastard.
I argue about some of the details that a peace plan does or does not need to feature, and apparently this sends the message that Israeli actions like the assault on Gaza in 2006 are excusable. I do not wish to be misunderstood: I do believe that Israel holds most of the cards here. The Palestinians are an oppressed people who deserve basic levels of self-determination. ... They deserve food, shelter, and dignity. They do not deserve to be corralled in Gaza and the West Bank and killed. Any peace plan will require that Israel make some pretty drastic changes, including a withdrawal to proper borders and cessation of settlement expansion. Me arguing that Hamas might need to make some changes as well (e.g., officially recognize Israel) does not mean that Hamas or the Palestinians in general are responsible for what is going on: The argument is largely a pragmatic one, based on knowledge about how people compromise. Because people have trouble seeing this point, I am going to let it go and just acknowledge that the Palestinians are not ultimately at fault here. There may be things they can do to ease the peace process, but they did not choose to be oppressed. There was a time when I naively felt that it really all was about terrorism, and that position is simple and incorrect. Anyhow, there you go. This is polaris' consensus, or as close as we are going to get.
bravo ...
now - moving on to mr. harper ... haha
Hence the need for Israel to silence human rights groups.
Which I will agree is total BS.
knowledge is power. cant let the people gain any sort of power now can we???
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/ma ... ettlements
'One of the underlying motives of the US resolve to get the peace process moving was offered today by the top US military commander, General David Petraeus, the head of Centcom, which is responsible for the Middle East and Asia. Petraeus told the Senate armed services committee yesterday that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict was a root cause of instability in the Middle East and Asia and "foments anti-American sentiment due to a perception of US favouritism for Israel".'