My, oh my, your use of italics is so very threatening.
It's actually a little sad that you have no interest in actually talking about this issue, since it clearly means a lot to both of us. That you treat every discussion of Israel-Palestine as some sort of gloves-off grudge match that excludes any possibility of questioning your own positions is, I think, indicative of precisely the sort of mind set that stands in the way of actually achieving peace.
you couldn't swing if you were hangin' from a palm tree in a hurricane
My, oh my, your use of italics is so very threatening.
It's actually a little sad that you have no interest in actually talking about this issue, since it clearly means a lot to both of us. That you treat every discussion of Israel-Palestine as some sort of gloves-off grudge match that excludes any possibility of questioning your own positions is, I think, indicative of precisely the sort of mind set that stands in the way of actually achieving peace.
Or, alternatively, you could take me out of the equation and actually address the content of my posts?
You claimed above that the obstacle to peace over the past 45 years has been Palestinian violence. I then rubbished that claim and provided evidence to that effect. Your response was that you would now no longer reply to my posts as I have no interest in discussing the topic.
My, oh my, your use of italics is so very threatening.
It's actually a little sad that you have no interest in actually talking about this issue , since it clearly means a lot to both of us.That you treat every discussion of Israel-Palestine as some sort of gloves-off grudge match that excludes any possibility of questioning your own positions is, I think, indicative of precisely the sort of mind set that stands in the way of actually achieving peace.
Yes very ironic. These arguments are pointless. I'm perfectly willing to discuss these issues so long as the person I'm talking to evinces even a little bit of a willingness to engage in open and honest debate, which includes being broad-minded enough to consider the perspective of one's opponent honestly. I have always tried to bring that outlook to these discussions, which is precisely why I don't have a problem agreeing with my opponents on certain points. I rarely see the same openness in the responses I illicit.
You didn't make rubbish of my argument. There was no argument to make rubbish of. I was discussing how Israelis understand events. Even if your version of events were entirely factually accurate, which I don't think they are, that is beside the point. Maybe most Israelis don't understand the true nature of the events going on around them (which I really highly doubt), but that doesn't mean that my depiction of their perspective is inaccurate. If you weren't so caught up in "winning" all the time you may have noticed the distinction before launching into your furious cut and paste antics.
you couldn't swing if you were hangin' from a palm tree in a hurricane
And where, exactly, did I claim that the obstacle to peace over the last 45 years has been Palestinian violence? I believe that in my response to Polaris I explicitly acknowledged that there are elements in Israel that are not interested in pursuing peace. What I said was that Palestinian violence is an obstacle to peace, not the obstacle to peace. I would think that such a simple statement (violence is an obstacle to peace) would be a truism, but apparently I was wrong. But please, enlighten me. Has there been no Palestinian violence over the last 45 years? Do you believe that launching rockets at school buses and blowing up cafes is the way to achieve peace? I'd really be interested in knowing what you think about that.
you couldn't swing if you were hangin' from a palm tree in a hurricane
And where, exactly, did I claim that the obstacle to peace over the last 45 years has been Palestinian violence?...What I said was that Palestinian violence is an obstacle to peace, not the obstacle to peace.
When Israelis thought there was a chance at peace they voted in left-wing governments that promised to negotiate a peace accord. When terrorism dashed those hopes they voted in right-wing governments promising security. So you went from right in the late '80s with Shamir to left with Rabin and the Oslo accords in the early '90s, then back to the right with Bibi the first time after a wave of Hamas suicide bombings in the mid-'90s and then back to the left with Barack at the end of the '90s beginning of the 00s, then back to the right with Sharon once the second Intifada started. ...In short, it takes two to tango.
Thought this was a really good op-ed in the NY Times last week:
FOR three years, attempts at negotiations between Israel and the Palestinian leadership have failed because of a lack of trust. It now seems highly unlikely that the two sides will return to negotiations — but that does not mean the status quo must be frozen in place.
Israel doesn’t need to wait for a final-status deal with the Palestinians. What it needs is a radically new unilateral approach: It should set the conditions for a territorial compromise based on the principle of two states for two peoples, which is essential for Israel’s future as both a Jewish and a democratic state.
Israel can and must take constructive steps to advance the reality of two states based on the 1967 borders, with land swaps — regardless of whether Palestinian leaders have agreed to accept it. Through a series of unilateral actions, gradual but tangible changes could begin to transform the situation on the ground.
Israel should first declare that it is willing to return to negotiations anytime and that it has no claims of sovereignty on areas east of the existing security barrier. It should then end all settlement construction east of the security barrier and in Arab neighborhoods of Jerusalem. And it should create a plan to help 100,000 settlers who live east of the barrier to relocate within Israel’s recognized borders.
That plan would not take full effect before a peace agreement was in place. But it would allow settlers to prepare for the move and minimize economic disruption. Israel should also enact a voluntary evacuation, compensation and absorption law for settlers east of the fence, so that those who wish can begin relocating before there is an agreement with the Palestinians. According to a survey conducted by the Israeli pollster Rafi Smith, nearly 30 percent of these 100,000 settlers would prefer to accept compensation and quickly relocate within the Green Line, the pre-1967 boundary dividing Israel from the West Bank, or to adjacent settlement blocs that would likely become part of Israel in any land-swap agreement.
Our organization, Blue White Future, holds regular meetings with settlers. We have found that many would move voluntarily if the government renounced its sovereign claims to the West Bank, because they would see no future for themselves there.
Critics will argue that unilateral moves by Israel have been failures — notably the hasty withdrawal from the Gaza Strip in 2005, which left settlers homeless and allowed Hamas to move into the vacuum and launch rockets into Israel.
But we can learn lessons from those mistakes. Under our proposal, the Israeli Army would remain in the West Bank until the conflict was officially resolved with a final-status agreement. And Israel would not physically force its citizens to leave until an agreement was reached, even though preparations would begin well before such an accord.
We don’t expect the most ideologically motivated settlers to support this plan, since their visions for Israel’s future differ radically from ours. But as a result of our discussions and seminars with settlers of all stripes, we believe that many of them recognize that people with different visions are no less Zionist than they are. We have learned that we must be candid about our proposed plan, discuss the settlers’ concerns and above all not demonize them. They are the ones who would pay the price of being uprooted from their homes and also from their deeply felt mission of settling the land.
The Palestinian Authority has already taken constructive unilateral steps by seeking United Nations recognition as a state and building the institutions of statehood in the West Bank. Neither action contradicted the two-state vision. Although many Israelis and the Obama administration objected to the bid for statehood, it could have moved us closer to that outcome had Israel welcomed it rather than fought it.
After all, Israel could negotiate more easily with a state than with a nonstate entity like the Palestinian Authority. And statehood would undermine the Palestinians’ argument for implementing a right of return for Palestinian refugees, since the refugees would have a state of their own to return to.
Constructive unilateralism would also be in the interest of the United States. If President Obama supported this strategy, he would simply be encouraging actions aimed at facilitating an eventual negotiated agreement based on the parameters proposed by President Bill Clinton in 2000.
We recognize that a comprehensive peace agreement is unattainable right now. We should strive, instead, to establish facts on the ground by beginning to create a two-state reality in the absence of an accord. Imperfect as it is, this plan would reduce tensions and build hope among both Israelis and Palestinians, so that they in turn would press their leaders to obtain a two-state solution.
Most important, as Israel celebrates 64 years of independence later this week, it would let us take our destiny into our own hands and act in our long-term national interest, without blaming the Palestinians for what they do or don’t do.
- Ami Ayalon is a former commander of the Israeli Navy and head of the Israeli domestic security agency. Orni Petruschka is an entrepreneur. Gilead Sher was a peace negotiator and chief of staff to the Israeli prime minister from 1999 to 2001
Seems like a pretty reasonable assessment, apart from the self-serving and false claim that "withdrawal from the Gaza Strip in 2005 [...] allowed Hamas to move into the vacuum and launch rockets into Israel." That's just not what happened.
The repeated claim that the Israeli's magmanimously upped and left Gaza and were then subjected to rocket attacks from the ungrateful and violent Palestinians, is just pure horseshit, as anyone who looks at the historical record will see.
You're jumping to unwarranted conclusions (as usual). I was simply discussing why many Israelis support a right wing government (in which I personally have no faith). It is a fact that those bombings occured. I wasn't saying that had those bombings not occured there would have been peace (there's no way of knowing what would have happened). I was just saying that the response of the Israeli public to those bombings was to lose faith and trust in the immediate possibility of peace, and to turn to a government further to the right that promised increased security. I actually think that meaning is quite clear from what I wrote. If you could just slow down and actually consider what I'm actually saying (as opposed to what you imagine the zionist monster version of me must be saying) I think you would be able to get my meaning as well.
Now please, I really am curious, how is it that Palestinian violence is not an obstacle to peace?
The Gaza comment isn't horseshit. It's just a different perspective (which you seem to be allergic to). In fact, the comment you quote is factually completely accurate. Israel did withdraw from gaza. Hamas did take over. Rockets were (and are still) launched into Israel. The fact that Israelis interpret these events differently then you do does not, as you claim, make the statements false. I'm ignoring, of course, that you seem to equate interpretation and narrative with factual veracity. In that light, then yes, the statements are false, but only because you disagree with the interpretation being made.
you couldn't swing if you were hangin' from a palm tree in a hurricane
The Gaza comment isn't horseshit. It's just a different perspective (which you seem to be allergic to). In fact, the comment you quote is factually completely accurate. Israel did withdraw from gaza. Hamas did take over. Rockets were (and are still) launched into Israel.
It's only true if you exclude a large part of what actually transpired at that time, and omit the following facts:
http://www.normanfinkelstein.com/unpubl ... awal/#ngfc In a recent study entitled One Big Prison, B’Tselem observes that the crippling economic arrangements Israel has imposed on Gaza will remain in effect. In addition, Israel will continue to maintain absolute control over Gaza’s land borders, coastline and airspace, and the Israeli army will continue to operate in Gaza. “So long as these methods of control remain in Israeli hands,” it concludes, “Israel’s claim of an ‘end of the occupation’ is questionable.”[2]
The respected organization Human Rights Watch (HRW) is yet more emphatic that evacuating troops and Jewish settlements from inside Gaza will not end the occupation: “Whether the Israeli army is inside Gaza or redeployed around its periphery, and restricting entrance and exit, it remains in control.”[3]
The world’s leading authority on the Gaza Strip, Sara Roy of Harvard University, predicts that Gaza will remain “an imprisoned enclave,” while its economy, still totally dependent on Israel after disengagement and in shambles after decades of deliberately ruinous policies by Israel, will actually deteriorate.[4] This conclusion is echoed by the World Bank, which forecasts that, if Israel seals Gaza’s borders or curtails its utilities, the disengagement plan will “create worse hardship than is seen today.”
It also fails to take into account the fact that the Gaza 'disengaement was used as distraction by which large parts of the West Bank could be confiscated in a large escalation of settlement building.
Also, Hamas didn't 'take over', they won a free and fair election.
So, yes, if you exclude all of the above then your quote is indeed 'factually completely accurate'.
This is an interesting case study in your method. Three simple statements of fact are at issue.
1) Israel withdrew from Gaza. 2) Hamas took over. 3) Rockets were launched into Israel.
You claim that these statements are false, and yet your response doesn't bear that claim out. That's because you aren't actually talking about the veracity of these statements; you're jumping ahead to the argument you imagine will follow these statements.
You don't even try to contest 3 (that rockets were launched into Israel), so I will assume that you aren't so deranged as to contest the accuracy of this statement, and I'll simply move on.
You say that 2 (that Hamas took over) is false, noting that Hamas "won a free and fair election." That's true. It also doesn't show the statement to be in the least bit false. In fact it does the opposite. What does winning an election mean if not that your party "takes over." You are imputing a sinister meaning to the phrase "took over" based on your assumptions about the argument that you think is being implicitly made, and then arguing against your own imputation. However, while we're on the subject, your own account of those "free and fair" elections leaves out the part where Hamas consolidated its power by hog-tying a bunch of their Fatah rivals and threw them off of buildings. But please, go on thinking that Hamas' rule in Gaza is entirely benevolent and legitimate.
Finally, as to 1 (that Israel withdrew from Gaza), you argue that Israel is still "occupying" Gaza because of its actions in closing the borders and controlling movement in and out of the Strip. What you've done is replace one term with another. It's slight of hand. You claim that it's false to say that Israel "withdrew" from Gaza because Israel's subsequent actions somehow perpetuate the "occupation." But the fact remains that there are no longer any settlers in Gaza, nor are there any Israeli soldiers permanently stationed in Gaza. So it seems perfectly reasonable to say that Israel "withdrew" from Gaza. The fact that Israel is still in conflict with Gaza does not falsify the fact that Israel withdrew from the Strip. The very elections you cited, that brought Hamas to power, are proof of Israel's withdrawal. If the IDF hadn't been withdrawn from Gaza there is no way that Hamas would be allowed to openly function as the ruling government in Gaza. And yet they do. More to the point, from the Israeli perspective; if the IDF hadn't been withdrawn from Gaza thousands of rockets wouldn't have been fired into Israel, because the IDF would have been there to prevent there firing. In short, the fact that you vehemently disagree with Israel's actions vis-a-vis Gaza post-withdrawal doesn't falsify the fact of withdrawal itself.
Basically you're imagining arguments that may or may not follow from these simple, factually accurate statements, and then, essentially, you're arguing with yourself. More importantly, you are so caught up in insisting that your own interpretation of events is the only possible, legitimate way of viewing things that you are claiming that simple, factually true statements are false based on the arguments you imagine will follow. That says something about your standard for "truth" (i.e. that things are only true if they support the interpretation you have adopted).
Finally, whether Palestinian violence is or is not a symptom of the occupation (I think the history shows pretty conclusively that it is not, since it predates the occupation by decades) has nothing to do with whether or not it's an obstacle to peace. Since Israelis will only be willing to end the occupation if they believe that doing so will bring them peace, and since Palestinian violence undermines this belief among Israelis, Palestinian violence is an obstacle to peace. Q.E.D. Thus, it can be both a symptom of the occupation and an obstacle to peace.
But again, my bad. I know logic has no place intruding on irrationally one-sided righteous anger.
you couldn't swing if you were hangin' from a palm tree in a hurricane
You don't even try to contest 3 (that rockets were launched into Israel), so I will assume that you aren't so deranged as to contest the accuracy of this statement, and I'll simply move on.
This is the equivalence of someone criticizing Jewish resistance groups in WWII, or the A.N.C, whilst choosing to completely ignore the bigger picture.
You say that 2 (that Hamas took over) is false, noting that Hamas "won a free and fair election." That's true. It also doesn't show the statement to be in the least bit false. In fact it does the opposite. What does winning an election mean if not that your party "takes over." You are imputing a sinister meaning to the phrase "took over" based on your assumptions about the argument that you think is being implicitly made, and then arguing against your own imputation.
Your play with semantics is irrelevant, and kind of pathetic. You can attempt to wriggle out of what you said all day long. But it's there for all to see.
your own account of those "free and fair" elections leaves out the part where Hamas consolidated its power by hog-tying a bunch of their Fatah rivals and threw them off of buildings. But please, go on thinking that Hamas' rule in Gaza is entirely benevolent and legitimate.
The elections involved no violence between the rival factions. The violence occurred approximately one year after the elections, during and after the U.S & Israeli backed coup attempt.
Finally, as to 1 (that Israel withdrew from Gaza), you argue that Israel is still "occupying" Gaza because of its actions in closing the borders and controlling movement in and out of the Strip. What you've done is replace one term with another. It's slight of hand. You claim that it's false to say that Israel "withdrew" from Gaza because Israel's subsequent actions somehow perpetuate the "occupation." But the fact remains that there are no longer any settlers in Gaza, nor are there any Israeli soldiers permanently stationed in Gaza. So it seems perfectly reasonable to say that Israel "withdrew" from Gaza. The fact that Israel is still in conflict with Gaza does not falsify the fact that Israel withdrew from the Strip.
There were no Nazi soldiers inside the Warsaw ghetto either, but I'm pretty sure you wouldn't try and utilize your topsy-turvy logic to claim that therefore the Jews there were free?
The very elections you cited, that brought Hamas to power, are proof of Israel's withdrawal. If the IDF hadn't been withdrawn from Gaza there is no way that Hamas would be allowed to openly function as the ruling government in Gaza. And yet they do. More to the point, from the Israeli perspective; if the IDF hadn't been withdrawn from Gaza thousands of rockets wouldn't have been fired into Israel, because the IDF would have been there to prevent there firing. In short, the fact that you vehemently disagree with Israel's actions vis-a-vis Gaza post-withdrawal doesn't falsify the fact of withdrawal itself.
Maybe you've forgotten the U.s & Israeli backed coup attempt that sought to overthrow the democratically elected government in Gaza? Maybe you've forgotten the almost daily incursions into Gaza, along with missile strikes, and extra-judicial assassinations that led to Hamas launching rocket attacks? Maybe you've also forgotten that Israel broke the ceasefire in November 2008 which led to the invasion of Gaza and deaths of approx 1000 Palestinian civilians?
Basically you're imagining arguments that may or may not follow from these simple, factually accurate statements, and then, essentially, you're arguing with yourself. More importantly, you are so caught up in insisting that your own interpretation of events is the only possible, legitimate way of viewing things that you are claiming that simple, factually true statements are false based on the arguments you imagine will follow. That says something about your standard for "truth" (i.e. that things are only true if they support the interpretation you have adopted).
No, I'm simply pointing out all of the glaring omissions in practically everything you say. Omissions which allow you to paint a picture of the situation which conforms to your self-serving interpretation of events.
Finally, whether Palestinian violence is or is not a symptom of the occupation (I think the history shows pretty conclusively that it is not, since it predates the occupation by decades) has nothing to do with whether or not it's an obstacle to peace.
The first terrorist attacks inside Israel occurred in 1994 did they not? How then does that fit into your scheme of things?
Since Israelis will only be willing to end the occupation if they believe that doing so will bring them peace, and since Palestinian violence undermines this belief among Israelis, Palestinian violence is an obstacle to peace. Q.E.D. Thus, it can be both a symptom of the occupation and an obstacle to peace.
Interesting. So you believe that the answer to Palestinian violence is to place Israeli civilians in the line of fire? Please, go ahead and explain to me how that works. Maybe you can address the following points whilst your at it?:
Michael Neumann - 'The Case Against Israel' P107-108 'Some Israeli's may have seen the first Post-1967 settlements as outposts, advance warning stations guarding the new frontiers against possible attack. This never made a lot of sense: why not just have real advance warning stations, military positions, instead? No one has ever explained why a sprawl of civilian subdivisions and enclaves was required when, to all appearances, a few purely military outposts would have fulfilled any defensive functions at least as well, and at far less cost to both Israeli's and Palestinians. Dayan himself stated that "from the point of view of the security of the State, the establishment of the settlements has no great importance." Other officials shared his assessment:
"We have to use the pretext of security needs and the authority of the military governor as there is no way of driving out the Arabs from their land as long as they refuse to go and accept our compensation..."
Norman Finkelstein bids farewell to Israel bashing
'It's become too easy,' says Norman Finkelstein, talking about his new and surprisingly optimistic book.
By Natasha Mozgovaya
04:19 05.04.12
In June, Norman Finkelstein will mark 30 years of criticizing Israel. He remembers the exact day - the beginning of the Lebanon war, which ended his indifference to the Middle East's troubles. He'll have a new book coming out - "Knowing Too Much: Why the American Jewish Romance with Israel Is Coming to an End" - that focuses on Jewish public figures who represent, in his view, the narrative of beautiful Israel that's coming to an end. He is sure to make a lot of people mad again.
Jobless since losing his tenure in 2007 at DePaul University's political science department in an ugly public fight with Alan Dershowitz, Finkelstein remains in demand as a speaker at universities.
Norman Finkelstein.
Yet if you happened to walk into one of his lectures, you might be surprised to hear him say he is "not going to be an Israel-basher anymore." It's not that he's changed his mind on the conflict, he just says blaming Israel has become too easy.
"Nobody really defends Israel anymore," he said in an interview. "If you go on college campuses, there are some Hillel faithfuls who are bringing an IDF soldier to try to explain that not all IDF soldiers are war criminals. And among the 60 to 100 people in the audience, there are Palestinian supporters who come with tape over their mouth, and when the soldier starts to speak, many people stand up and walk out.
"They've lost the battle for public opinion," he says. "They claim it's because American Jews know too little - I claim it's because they know too much about the conflict, and young liberal Jews have difficulty defending the use of cluster bombs in Lebanon or supporting the Israeli settlements. I was bashing Israel in the past because nobody else was exposing its true record. Many people are doing it now, so I switched hats from a critic of Israel to a diplomat who wants to resolve the conflict. I have not changed, but I think the spectrum has moved."
Finkelstein's book is suprisingly optimistic about the chances of settling the confict, and about changing the debate, even among American Jewry. The tide of public opinion is turning against Israel, he says, and once support for Israeli policy becomes widely unacceptable in the United States, the "self-designated voices for Israel," as he calls them, will quickly drop out. Meanwhile, American Jewish college students are having their eyes opened.
"The academic research on Israel is no longer the footnoted "Exodus," and younger Jews, when they go to college, are walking away with a very different picture of Israel," he said. "And the American Jewish community that for a long time was a huge obstacle to resolving the conflict is breaking up. If you put forth a reasonable and principled goal, I think a resolution is possible. We might be entering the endgame, but one that might take a long time."
Loyal to his tradition of combativeness, Finkelstein takes on not only Michael Oren, Jeffrey Goldberg, Benny Morris and others, but also Steven Walt and John Mearsheimer's book on the Israel lobby.
"I accept that the lobby is very influential and shapes [U.S.] policy on Israel-Palestine. But when Walt and Mearsheimer start generalizing about the influence of the lobby on Iraq, Iran policy and elsewhere - that's where I think they get it wrong. I just can't find any evidence for it."
Finkelstein describes the leadership of J Street as "hopeless". "It's simply the loyal opposition. Politically they identify themselves mostly with Kadima."
Yet he recently clashed with those to the left of J Street, attacking the goals of the BDS (boycott, divestment and sanctions ) movement.
"I've written a little book on Gandhi, and one of the significant insights of his is that it's important not only for your tactics to be perceived as moral, the public also has to see your goal as moral. And the problem with BDS is the ambiguity of the goal. Their official position is: 'We take no position on [the legitimacy of] Israel.' While BDS is a legitimate tactic to force Israel to accept the two-state solution, it has to have a just goal, which means it has to include recognition of Israel as a state. I received mostly hostile reactions from the BDS activists, and that's OK - I am not out there to please."
Leftist-turned-rightist historian Benny Morris, who gets a whole chapter in the book, said once that "for Finkelstein the only good Israeli is an evil Israeli." Is he right?
"I don't claim to know Israel. I don't speak Hebrew, my contacts are pretty limited. But I didn't know Vietnam, I didn't know Nicaragua, El Salvador or Honduras. It doesn't mean you can't reach your conclusions. I don't study cafe life in Tel Aviv. I visited Israel every year for 16 years until I was denied entrance in 2008. I don't feel particularly attached to Israel - nationalism, as Noam Chomsky said, is not my cup of tea - but I feel no particular need to demonize it. I do feel a certain amount of disgust, that's for sure. If my focus was on any other country's human rights violations, I would be as appalled and disgusted. It's just unacceptable, and you can't make excuses for that with 'other people do it.' You probably will find the comparison offensive - it's like going to my parents in the Warsaw ghetto and asking, what do you think about the Volkswagen? Isn't it great? Don't ask people in Iraq or Afghanistan to praise Hollywood, or whether Whitney Houston did a beautiful rendition of the "Star Spangled Banner."
Why does he put the blame solely on Israel?
"Because I don't think both sides are equally responsible. If I were a Palestinian I wouldn't have accepted what was offered at Camp David. On the critical issues, the Palestinians have been willing to make far greater concessions than they are required to by [international] law - 60 percent of settlers to remain in place, largest Jerusalem in Israel's history. How can a rational person conclude that the Palestinians bear responsibility for the non-resolution of this conflict?"
How about the violence against civilians they turned to after Camp David?
"International law says people fighting for self-determination can use force in order to achieve their independence."
And targeting civilians?
"They do not have the right to target the civilian population. But now more and more Palestinians are turning to various forms of civil resistance and civil disobedience. This tactic of fasting in prison is going to spread."
"I do not see any other reasonable basis for resolution of this conflict other then the international law. What else can you use? To say, I have the rights, and solve it by force? Or based on needs - but who decides what are the needs? Dennis Ross decided Israel needs whatever it says it needs - and the Palestinians get everything that is left over. It's a political problem, so it's up to the international community to apply sufficient pressure to Israel to accept this map that is fair, within the parameters of law - and reasonable. And then the conflict can be solved. With the regional changes, there will be pressure applied by Egypt and Turkey however things settle with the Arab Spring, there will be pressure applied by the Palestinians and the international community, that is weary of this conflict, to resolve it on the basis of international consensus," he said.
You don't even try to contest 3 (that rockets were launched into Israel), so I will assume that you aren't so deranged as to contest the accuracy of this statement, and I'll simply move on.
This is the equivalence of someone criticizing Jewish resistance groups in WWII, or the A.N.C, whilst choosing to completely ignore the bigger picture.
The statement "rockets were launched into Israel" is a statement of historical fact. On its own the statement makes no argument or value judgment. You are imputing an argument to the statement (I assume the argument is that the rocket fire is illegitimate, and that you disagree). You then proceed to argue against the argument you imagine is being made by claiming that the simple factual statement is "false" because you believe that it is being used to support an argument that you reject. So basically, the truth of the statement is not fixed, but is to be determined by the argumentative use to which it is put. Thus, you are able to claim that the basic statement "rockets were launched into Israel" is false, even though it is historically true, because you disagree with the argument that you believe the statement is meant to support.
your own account of those "free and fair" elections leaves out the part where Hamas consolidated its power by hog-tying a bunch of their Fatah rivals and threw them off of buildings. But please, go on thinking that Hamas' rule in Gaza is entirely benevolent and legitimate.
The elections involved no violence between the rival factions. The violence occurred approximately one year after the elections, during and after the U.S & Israeli backed coup attempt.
What's the significance of your point? Hamas consolidated power in Gaza by murdering their rivals. That is generally not a good indicator of legitimate democratic rule. What does it matter whether they murdered them during the election or only afterwards. And what exactly are you talking about when you refer to a US and Israeli backed coup attempt?
Finally, as to 1 (that Israel withdrew from Gaza), you argue that Israel is still "occupying" Gaza because of its actions in closing the borders and controlling movement in and out of the Strip. What you've done is replace one term with another. It's slight of hand. You claim that it's false to say that Israel "withdrew" from Gaza because Israel's subsequent actions somehow perpetuate the "occupation." But the fact remains that there are no longer any settlers in Gaza, nor are there any Israeli soldiers permanently stationed in Gaza. So it seems perfectly reasonable to say that Israel "withdrew" from Gaza. The fact that Israel is still in conflict with Gaza does not falsify the fact that Israel withdrew from the Strip.
There were no Nazi soldiers inside the Warsaw ghetto either, but I'm pretty sure you wouldn't try and utilize your topsy-turvy logic to claim that therefore the Jews there were free?
Again, you are replacing one term for another and responding not to the factual accuracy of the statement but to the argument that you imagine the statement is meant to support. A simple statement was made; "Israel withdrew from Gaza." It refers to the fact of an historical change. Israel had settlers living in Gaza and soldiers permanently stationed there, then they "withdrew" those settlers and soldiers. There was a change; we went from "settlers and soldiers in Gaza" to "no settlers or soldiers in Gaza." The statement does nothing more than acknowledge the fact of that change. You seem to imagine that this simple factual statement is meant to support an argument that would, I gather from your response, be that Israel, post-withdrawal, is no longer responsible for any of the hardships of the people in Gaza. You clearly disagree with this argument (which again, is an argument you are infering from what is nothing more than a plainly factual statement). You disagree, it would seem, because you feel that Israel's subsequent actions have maintained a situation of non-freedom for Gazans. Whatever the merits of your argument, it has nothing to do with the factual veracity of the statement "Israel withdrew from Gaza." But, yet again, because you imagine that this factual statement is being used to support an argument with which you disagree you claim that it is a false statement, despite the fact that it is historically true.
Basically you're imagining arguments that may or may not follow from these simple, factually accurate statements, and then, essentially, you're arguing with yourself. More importantly, you are so caught up in insisting that your own interpretation of events is the only possible, legitimate way of viewing things that you are claiming that simple, factually true statements are false based on the arguments you imagine will follow. That says something about your standard for "truth" (i.e. that things are only true if they support the interpretation you have adopted).
No, I'm simply pointing out all of the glaring omissions in practically everything you say. Omissions which allow you to paint a picture of the situation which conforms to your self-serving interpretation of events.
Forgive me, but first, you did not say "those facts are true, but lest anyone draw the wrong conclusions from those facts here are other relevant facts that were omitted." You said "those facts are false." The facts are not false. They are entirely true. What you mean is that you disagree with the interpretation that you imagine those facts are meant to support, but which was not in fact made. Again, what you are doing is trying to enlist the authority of "truth" in support of your own interpretation of facts by labelling as "false" all statements of fact, no matter their historical veracity, that you suspect may support an interpretation different from your own. That is, to put it plainly, a dishonest method of argument.
Finally, whether Palestinian violence is or is not a symptom of the occupation (I think the history shows pretty conclusively that it is not, since it predates the occupation by decades) has nothing to do with whether or not it's an obstacle to peace.
The first terrorist attacks inside Israel occurred in 1994 did they not? How then does that fit into your scheme of things?
No, the first terrorist attacks inside Israel did not occur in 1994. If you actually knew the history of this conflict (and not just the portions of it that serve to support your pre-concieved notions) you'd be well aware of that. Palestinian violence against Jews in Israel/Palestine goes back at least to the 1920's if not earlier. If you're only talking about organized terrorism as we think of it today, then Palestinian terrorism against Israel goes back to at least the early 1950's (well before the occupation). Here's a list (not sure if it's complete) of terrorist attacks in Israel that predate the six-day war (and therefore the occupation, not to speak of 1994)(I've highlighted a few that stand out in the Israeli collective memory):
Jan 01, 1952 - Seven armed terrorists attacked and killed a nineteen year-old girl in her home, in the neighborhood of Beit Yisrael, in Jerusalem.
Apr 14, 1953 - Terrorists tried for the first time to infiltrate Israel by sea, but were unsuccessful. One boat was intercepted and the other escaped.
Jun 07, 1953 - A youngster was killed and three others were wounded, in shooting attacks on residential areas in southern Jerusalem.
Jun 09, 1953 - Terrorists attacked a farming community near Lod, and killed one of the residents. The terrorists threw hand grenades and sprayed gunfire in all directions. On the same night, another group of terrorists attacked a house in the town of Hadera. This occurred a day after Israel and Jordan signed an agreement, with UN mediation, in which Jordan undertook to prevent terrorists from crossing into Israel from Jordanian territory.
Jun 10, 1953 - Terrorists infiltrating from Jordan destroyed a house in the farming village of Mishmar Ayalon.
Jun 11, 1953 - Terrorists attacked a young couple in their home in Kfar Hess, and shot them to death.
Sep 02, 1953 - Terrorists infiltrated from Jordan, and reached the neighborhood of Katamon, in the heart of Jerusalem. They threw hand grenades in all directions. Miraculously, no one was hurt. Mar 17, 1954 - Terrorists ambushed a bus traveling from Eilat to Tel Aviv, and opened fire at short range when the bus reached the area of Maale Akrabim in the northern Negev. In the initial ambush, the terrorists killed the driver and wounded most of the passengers. The terrorists then boarded the bus, and shot each passenger, one by one. Eleven passengers were murdered. Survivors recounted how the murderers spat on the bodies and abused them. The terrorists could clearly be traced back to the Jordanian border, some 20 km from the site of the terrorist attack.
Jan 02, 1955 - Terrorists killed two hikers in the Judean Desert.
Mar 24, 1955 - Terrorists threw hand grenades and opened fire on a crowd at a wedding in the farming community of Patish, in the Negev. A young woman was killed, and eighteen people were wounded in the attack.
Apr 07, 1956 - A resident of Ashkelon was killed in her home, when terrorists threw three hand grenades into her house. Two members of Kibbutz Givat Chaim were killed, when terrorists opened fire on their car, on the road from Plugot Junction to Mishmar Hanegev. There were further hand grenade and shooting attacks on homes and cars, in areas such as Nitzanim and Ketziot. One person was killed and three others wounded.
Apr 11, 1956 - Terrorists opened fire on a synagogue full of children and teenagers, in the farming community of Shafrir. Three children and a youth worker were killed on the spot, and five were wounded, including three seriously.
Apr 29, 1956 - Egyptians killed Roi Rotenberg, 21 years of age, from Nahal Oz.
Sep 12, 1956 - Terrorists killed three Druze guards at Ein Ofarim, in the Arava region.
Sep 23, 1956 - Terrorists opened fire from a Jordanian position, and killed four archaeologists, and wounded sixteen others, near Kibbutz Ramat Rachel.
Sep 24, 1956 - Terrorists killed a girl in the fields of the farming community of Aminadav, near Jerusalem.
Oct 04, 1956 – Terrorists killed five Israeli workers in Sdom.
Oct 09, 1956 - Two workers were killed by terrorists in an orchard of the youth village, Neve Hadassah, in the Sharon region.
Nov 08, 1956 - Terrorists opened fire on a train, attacked cars and blew up wells, in the North and Center of Israel. Six Israelis were wounded.
Feb 18, 1957 - Two civilians were killed by terrorist landmines, next to Nir Yitzhak, on the southern border of the Gaza Strip.
Mar 08, 1957 - A shepherd from Kibbutz Beit Govrin was killed by terrorists in a field near the Kibbutz.
Apr 16, 1957 - Terrorists infiltrated from Jordan, and killed two guards at Kibbutz Mesilot.
May 20, 1957 - A terrorist opened fire on a truck in the Arava region, killing a worker.
May 29, 1957 - A tractor driver was killed and two others wounded, when the vehicle struck a terrorist landmine, next to Kibbutz Kisufim.
Jun 23, 1957 - Israelis were wounded by terrorist landmines, close to the Gaza Strip.
Aug 23, 1957 - Two guards of the Israeli Mekorot water company were killed by terrorists near Kibbutz Beit Govrin.
Dec 21, 1957 - A member of Kibbutz Gadot was killed by terrorists in the Kibbutz fields.
Feb 11, 1958 - Terrorists killed a resident of Moshav Yanov who was on his way to Kfar Yona, in the Sharon area.
Apr 05, 1958 - Terrorists lying in ambush shot and killed two people near Tel Lachish.
Apr 22, 1958 - Jordanian terrorists shot and killed two fishermen near Aqaba.
May 26, 1958 - Four Israeli police officers were killed in a Jordanian terrorist attack on Mt. Scopus, in Jerusalem.
Nov 17, 1958 - Syrian terrorists killed the wife of the British air attache in Israel, who was staying at the guesthouse of the Italian Convent on the Mt. of the Beatitudes.
Dec 03, 1958 - A shepherd was killed at Kibbutz Gonen. In the artillery attack by terrorists that followed, 31 civilians were wounded.
Jan 23, 1959 - A shepherd from Kibbutz Lehavot Habashan was killed by terrorists.
Feb 01, 1959 - Three civilians were killed by a terrorist landmine near Moshav Zavdiel.
Apr 15, 1959 - A guard was killed by terrorists at Kibbutz Ramat Rahel.
Apr 27, 1959 - Two hikers were shot at close range by terrorists and killed near Massada.
Sep 06, 1959 - Bedouin terrorists killed a paratroop reconnaissance officer near Nitzana.
Sep 08, 1959 - Bedouins terrorists opened fire on an army bivouac in the Negev, killing an IDF officer, Captain Yair Peled.
Oct 03, 1959 - A shepherd from Kibbutz Heftziba was killed by terrorists near Kibbutz Yad Hana.
Apr 26, 1960 - Terrorists killed a resident of Ashkelon south of the city.
Apr 12, 1962 - Terrorists fired on an Egged bus on the way to Eilat; one passenger was wounded.
Sep 30, 1962 - Two terrorists attacked an Egged bus on the way to Eilat. No one was wounded. Jan 01, 1965 - Palestinian terrorists attempted to bomb the National Water Carrier. This was the first attack carried out by the PLO's Fatah faction.
May 31, 1965 - Jordanian terrorists fired on the neighborhood of Musrara in Jerusalem, killing two civilians and wounding four.
Jun 01, 1965 - Terrorists attack a house in Kibbutz Yiftach.
Jul 05, 1965 - A Fatah terrorism cell planted explosives at Mitzpe Massua, near Beit Guvrin; and on the railroad tracks to Jerusalem near Kafr Battir.
Aug 26, 1965 - A waterline was sabotaged by terrorists at Kibbutz Manara, in the Upper Galilee.
Sep 29, 1965 - A terrorist was killed as he attempted to attack Moshav Amatzia.
Nov 7, 1965 - A Fatah terrorist cell that infiltrated from Jordan blew up a house in Moshav Givat Yeshayahu, south of Beit Shemesh. The house was destroyed, but the inhabitants were miraculously unhurt.
Apr 25, 1966 - Explosions placed by terrorists wounded two civilians and damaged three houses in Moshav Beit Yosef, in the Beit Shean Valley.
May 16, 1966 - Two Israelis were killed when their jeep hit a terrorist landmine, north of the Sea of Galilee and south of Almagor. Tracks led into Syria.
Jul 13, 1966 - Two soldiers and a civilian were killed near Almagor, when their truck struck a terrorist landmine.
Jul 14, 1966 - Terrorists attacked a house in Kfar Yuval, in the North.
Jul 19, 1966 - Terrorists infiltrated into Moshav Margaliot on the northern border and planted nine explosive charges.
Oct 27, 1966 - A civilian was wounded by a terrorist bomb on the railroad tracks to Jerusalem.
Jan 14, 1967 - Terrorists laid a land mine that at a soccer game, which exploded killing 1 and injuring 2.
The settlements were a mistake from the very beginning and do not add to Israeli security. That said, the presence of the IDF in the West Bank allows Israel to control the ability of terrorists to attack and harm Israelis much more than would be possible if they were not present there. The occupation thus provides security to Israelis in Israel proper, by preventing, for example, the firing of rockets from the West Bank into downtown Tel Aviv. Israelis will only be willing to give up this security if they are reasonably sure that the result will be peace. Palestinian terrorism does exactly the opposite of this. It only reenforces the impulse among Israelis to put security first, and is therefore counterproductive to Palestinian aims (in addition to being, in most cases, shockingly immoral).
So I'll ask again, why are you so quick to defend Palestinian violence? How is it that you think that such violence advances the cause of peace?
you couldn't swing if you were hangin' from a palm tree in a hurricane
No, the first terrorist attacks inside Israel did not occur in 1994. If you actually knew the history of this conflict (and not just the portions of it that serve to support your pre-concieved notions) you'd be well aware of that.
The statement "rockets were launched into Israel" is a statement of historical fact. On its own the statement makes no argument or value judgment. You are imputing an argument to the statement (I assume the argument is that the rocket fire is illegitimate, and that you disagree). You then proceed to argue against the argument you imagine is being made by claiming that the simple factual statement is "false" because you believe that it is being used to support an argument that you reject. So basically, the truth of the statement is not fixed, but is to be determined by the argumentative use to which it is put. Thus, you are able to claim that the basic statement "rockets were launched into Israel" is false, even though it is historically true, because you disagree with the argument that you believe the statement is meant to support.
It's perfectly clear and unambiguous for any honest and reasonable person to understand.
Hamas consolidated power in Gaza by murdering their rivals. That is generally not a good indicator of legitimate democratic rule. What does it matter whether they murdered them during the election or only afterwards. And what exactly are you talking about when you refer to a US and Israeli backed coup attempt?
And Fatah also murdered many members of Hamas during the U.S & Israeli backed coup attempt. As for what I'm 'talking about', it's no secret that the U.S & Israel supported and encouraged Fatah's failed coup attempt. Or are you also going to pretend that isn't the case?
Again, you are replacing one term for another and responding not to the factual accuracy of the statement but to the argument that you imagine the statement is meant to support. A simple statement was made; "Israel withdrew from Gaza." It refers to the fact of an historical change. Israel had settlers living in Gaza and soldiers permanently stationed there, then they "withdrew" those settlers and soldiers. There was a change; we went from "settlers and soldiers in Gaza" to "no settlers or soldiers in Gaza." The statement does nothing more than acknowledge the fact of that change. You seem to imagine that this simple factual statement is meant to support an argument that would, I gather from your response, be that Israel, post-withdrawal, is no longer responsible for any of the hardships of the people in Gaza. You clearly disagree with this argument (which again, is an argument you are infering from what is nothing more than a plainly factual statement). You disagree, it would seem, because you feel that Israel's subsequent actions have maintained a situation of non-freedom for Gazans. Whatever the merits of your argument, it has nothing to do with the factual veracity of the statement "Israel withdrew from Gaza." But, yet again, because you imagine that this factual statement is being used to support an argument with which you disagree you claim that it is a false statement, despite the fact that it is historically true.
Is your convoluted slippery lawyers-speak supposed to impress me? Because it doesn't. I actually find it somewhat ridiculous.
You said "those facts are false." The facts are not false. They are entirely true.
A 'fact' can be interpreted as false when that fact is presented in such a way as to give a misleading impression as to it's inherent truth. Your comment was that "withdrawal from the Gaza Strip in 2005 [...] allowed Hamas to move into the vacuum and launch rockets into Israel." First of all this comment completely fails to show that the 'withdrawal' did nothing to alleviate the suffering of the civilian population of Gaza, as Gaza was effectively turned into a big prison. It also falsely claims that after 'withdrawal' Hamas simply moved in to Gaza and began firing rockets at Israel, thereby omitting the fact that Israel had begun launching attacks on Gaza almost as soon as the so-called 'withdrawal' took place. So, in that sense, it is a false comment.
A comment can be considered false by the way in which it is presented and by what it omits. I.e, If I say that 'The Jews were guilty of murdering Germans in the 1940's'. This statement is essentially true. But it can be considered false and misleading by the way it's presented and by what it omits to mention. But then you know this already.
Though I do find it intriguing that someone who likes to harp on about 'context' and 'nuance', chooses to completely reject both of these elements when it suits him.
But then I'm also not really surprised that slippery lawyers tactics and playing with semantics are all that Israel's apologists have left in their arsenal. I've been aware of such tactics for a long time now. Looks to me like a pretty pathetic form of desperation.
First, what you're talking about is statements being misleading, not false. You wrote that "A comment can be considered false by the way in which it is presented and by what it omits." Actually how a fact is presented does not change the ultimate truth of the fact, only the meaning that may be taken from it, which is exactly my point - your objection is to the argument that you believe is being made, so you try to undermine the argument by claiming that the facts underpinning it are false. But they're not. The same is true of omissions. One fact isn't false just because it isn't presented in conjunction with a second fact. The meaning taken from that fact may be different, but again, that just takes us back to my point about argument verse facts. Your disagreement with a certain understanding of a set of given facts doesn't render those facts not true.
Second, "The Jews were guilty of murdering Germans in the 1940's" would actually be factually false, not misleading for omitting context. "The Jews" as a group could not really be said to have done anything relative to the Germans (aside from be killed by them). A better phrase would have been "Some Jews..."
Third, I'm actually quite happy that you think I'm resorting to "slippery lawyer tactics." I am in law school after all. I would call it well reasoned logic (as opposed to cut and paste articles that never fail to present only one perspective). I also consider it to generally be a good sign when my debate partners start hurling the ad hominem attacks rather than responding to my points. It tends to indicate they're lacking for a good rejoinder.
Fourth, I haven't failed to notice that you have studiously avoided answering any of my questions. Why is that? Palestinian violence; how is it not an obstacle to peace?
you couldn't swing if you were hangin' from a palm tree in a hurricane
Second, "The Jews were guilty of murdering Germans in the 1940's" would actually be factually false, not misleading for omitting context. "The Jews" as a group could not really be said to have done anything relative to the Germans (aside from be killed by them). A better phrase would have been "Some Jews..."
And a better phrase on yur part would have been "Israel's partial withdrawal from the Gaza Strip in 2005 was accompanied by an overall tightening of it's grip on the area - restricting the movement of essential goods and services into the area, effectively transforming Gaza into a large prison - and by an escalation of military incursions and extra-judicial assassinations, one result of which was the retaliatory launching of rockets into Israel by Hamas."
Third, I'm actually quite happy that you think I'm resorting to "slippery lawyer tactics." I am in law school after all. I would call it well reasoned logic (as opposed to cut and paste articles that never fail to present only one perspective).
This doesn't surprise me . You'd make Alan Dershowitz proud. Though as for 'well reasoned logic', there's nothing reasonable in resorting to oily sophistry and self-serving semantics. I see nothing reasonable in such blatent artifice and dishonesty at all.
I also consider it to generally be a good sign when my debate partners start hurling the ad hominem attacks rather than responding to my points. It tends to indicate they're lacking for a good rejoinder.
Fourth, I haven't failed to notice that you have studiously avoided answering any of my questions. Why is that? Palestinian violence; how is it not an obstacle to peace?
Bullshit. I answered your question 2 or 3 pages back. The fact that my answer may not have been to your liking does not constitute 'not answering it'.
Second, "The Jews were guilty of murdering Germans in the 1940's" would actually be factually false, not misleading for omitting context. "The Jews" as a group could not really be said to have done anything relative to the Germans (aside from be killed by them). A better phrase would have been "Some Jews..."
And a better phrase on yur part would have been "Israel's partial withdrawal from the Gaza Strip in 2005 was accompanied by an overall tightening of it's grip on the area - restricting the movement of essential goods and services into the area, effectively transforming Gaza into a large prison - and by an escalation of military incursions and extra-judicial assassinations, one result of which was the retaliatory launching of rockets into Israel by Hamas."
This encapsulates exactly what I'm talking about. Your agenda is to cast Israel in a negative light (I say that without making any value judgment regarding the merits of your argument). To that end you keep insisting that any discussion of Israel's withdrawal from Gaza that doesn't include an indictment of Israel's actions subsequent to the withdrawal is factually inaccurate. My point is that that is simply not true. Israelis interpret events differently than you do. They will therefore choose to emphasize certain facts over others. That doesn't mean that the facts as stated are false. It just means that you disagree with the conclusions being drawn because you choose to emphasize a different set of facts more strongly.
Israelis emphasize the facts they do because from their perspective the primary significance of the Gaza withdrawal is that once the IDF was no longer physically controlling Gaza there was an opportunity for terrorists in Gaza to act with greater impugnity, the result being the thousands of rockets that have been fired into Israel. For you, the primary significance of these events is the effect on the Palestinians, so you choose to emphasize that aspect of the history.
The problem is that you are thinking in totalitarian terms. Rather than treating facts as preceding interpretation, you treat interpretation as preceding facts, so that any set of facts that don't lead to your preferred interpretation are "false." You aren't happy simply disagreeing with someone. It isn't enough for you to trust that you have the better argument. You seem to be compelled to insist that any interpretation of events that is different from your own, and any facts that support that interpretation, are completely lacking validity. You have to be absolutely, categorically, totally and incontravertably right, which requires you to insist that everyone who disagrees with you is not only wrong in their interpretation of the facts, but that their facts are fundamentally not facts at all.
That's why it's entirely pointless discussing anything with you, because you refuse to even recognize a neutral set of facts that can serve as the basis for a discussion. The only facts that you're willing to recognize as valid are those that are presented in a manner that support your own established perspective. Everything else is "false."
you couldn't swing if you were hangin' from a palm tree in a hurricane
Israelis emphasize the facts they do because from their perspective the primary significance of the Gaza withdrawal is that once the IDF was no longer physically controlling Gaza there was an opportunity for terrorists in Gaza to act with greater impunity, the result being the thousands of rockets that have been fired into Israel. For you, the primary significance of these events is the effect on the Palestinians, so you choose to emphasize that aspect of the history.
And once again you miss the point. It wasn't a case of the IDF exiting Gaza, thereby allowing Hamas to act with impunity, upon which Hamas took it upon themselves to start firing rockets. This just totally ignores what actually happened. Your comments are 'misleading', and so the overall picture you paint is 'false'. And this is not merely my own interpretation, I'm simply referring to the factual, historical record - something you clearly have a problem with. Though I can understand why you'd much rather engage in swapping opinions and personal interpretations.
Again, you are presenting the situation as if "the historical record" is perfectly equivalent to your interpretation of that record. You are thereby categorically ruling out any possibility of discussion because anything I say that doesn't conform to your understanding of events is based on "false history;" false, not because my facts are invented, or don't conform to historical reality, but because as I present them they don't categorically lead me to draw the same conclusions that you have drawn.
you couldn't swing if you were hangin' from a palm tree in a hurricane
Again, you are presenting the situation as if "the historical record" is perfectly equivalent to your interpretation of that record. You are thereby categorically ruling out any possibility of discussion because anything I say that doesn't conform to your understanding of events is based on "false history;" false, not because my facts are invented, or don't conform to historical reality, but because as I present them they don't categorically lead me to draw the same conclusions that you have drawn.
The facts I presented above were from studies carried out by the respected human rights organizations B’Tselem, and Human Rights Watch, and by 'the world’s leading authority on the Gaza Strip, Sara Roy of Harvard University'.
Their findings, which I presented, have nothing to do with 'interpretation' on my part. But clearly, once again you're trying to turn this discussion into being all about me, and all about whatever preconceived notions, or biases, you imagine I have. Though again, I understand why it would benefit you to drag this discussion down to the personal level while failing to honestly address any of the points I've presented.
Also, you accused me earlier of studiously avoiding answering any of your questions, which as anyone who reads this thread can see is utter bollocks.
On the other hand, I asked you a question before which you have still failed to answer, so I'll ask it a second time:
Why do you believe that the answer to Palestinian violence is to place Israeli civilians in the line of fire, by constructing more illegal Jewish-only settlements?
I did answer that question. Several pages ago. I don't think that is the solution. Honestly, how many times do I have to tell you that I don't support the settlements?! It's really preposterous. Also another example of my point. It doesn't matter what I say to you because you aren't arguing with me; you're arguing with what you imagine that I must be saying (which most of the time is not at all what I'm actually saying!).
As for the findings you presented, I haven't said the facts they present are false. They just don't address my point, which is about how Israelis perceive events, how that perception informs their current political decision-making, and the opportunities that exist for Palestinians to constructively play a role in shifting the calculus in that process. You aren't interested in that discussion, though, because the initial premise (that Israelis have a perspective different from your own) is apparently so alarming to you that you have to attempt to disprove their perspective (which is, of course, absurd) by labelling the facts that inform that perspective as false (which they're not) or so incomplete as to be false (which is only the least bit sensical if one starts from the presumption that your opinion of what facts are essential to the constitution of a "true" picture of reality is categorically determinative).
you couldn't swing if you were hangin' from a palm tree in a hurricane
how many times do I have to tell you that I don't support the settlements?!
So you keep saying, yet in the same breath you defend the settlements by saying that they are there for security reasons, and that seeingas, in your opinion the Palestinians can't be trusted, then the settlements should remain in place.
In other words, you choose to have it both ways.
And yet again, you claim I said a bunch of stuff none of which I actually said.
Really? You're going to pretend that you've never said the settlements are there for security reasons? I would scroll through your posts to find the numerous instances where you've equated the settlements with security if I could be bothered, but I can't.
Benjamin Netanyahu: Israel will never quit settlements
Monday, 25 January 2010
The Israeli prime minister has taken part in tree-planting ceremonies in the West Bank while declaring Israel will never leave those areas.
Benjamin Netanyahu said the Jewish settlements blocs would always remain part of the state of Israel.
His remarks came hours after a visit by US envoy George Mitchell who is trying to reopen peace talks between Israel and Palestinians.
A Palestinian spokesman said the comments undermined peace negotiations.
"Our message is clear: We are planting here, we will stay here, we will build here. This place will be an inseparable part of Israel for eternity", the prime minister said.
Mr Netanyahu's comments have angered Palestinians, who want a state in the West Bank, Gaza Strip and east Jerusalem.
"This is an unacceptable act that destroys all the efforts being exerted by Senator Mitchell in order to bring back the parties to the negotiating table", Palestinian spokesman Nabil Abu Rudeina told the Associated Press.
Meanwhile, in the Jordanian capital Amman, Mr Mitchell emphasised the US commitment to the creation of an independent Palestinian state.
"We intend to continue to pursue our efforts until that objective is achieved", he told AP.
US attempts to revive peace talks have stalled over the Jewish settlement issue.
Palestinians say they will not return to peace talks unless Israel stops settlement building in the West Bank.
Israel has a long-standing commitment under an existing peace plan to stop settlement growth.
But the Israeli government has temporarily curbed construction as a goodwill gesture, though not in East Jerusalem.
The two sides appear no closer even to sitting in the same room, says the BBC's Tim Franks in Jerusalem.
All settlements in the the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, are considered illegal under international law, though Israel disputes this.
Regarding the article about Netanyahu...planting trees is a symbolic act, nothing more. I don't put weight in symbolism. The current Palestinian government continues to name streets after terrorists that have murdered Israelis. Friends of mine more to the right of me on these issues are apt to point to this as evidence of Palestinian intrasagence and hatred; my response to them, as it is to you now, is that such acts are only symbolic, and they're not what really matter. As to the concrete issues, I've said repeatedly that I don't support the current government, and that I believe all settlement construction should be immediately halted.
I've never said that the settlements, per se, serve Israel's security. I've said that the presence of the IDF in the West Bank serves Israel's security. The settlements and the IDF are not the same thing. One could have the IDF in the West Bank without the settlements. I've also repeatedly said that I'd like to see the occupation as a whole (settlements and IDF presence) end, but that I recognize that most Israelis will not support the withdrawal of the IDF from the West Bank until they have sufficient trust that doing so will lead to peace rather than a renewed wave of violence. My hope is that a rational Israeli government will at least take steps to begin the removal of settlers from the West Bank. I think a majority of Israelis would support this immediately, if it was done through incentives rather than force. I don't think the Israeli majority will be willing to endorse the forced removal of settlers except in the context of a final peace agreement.
Finally, and maybe this is where your confusion is coming from, I've argued that Israel has valid reasons for wanting to retain control of a small percentage of the West Bank in any final peace agreement (which they would presumably do by transferring control over an equivalent amount of land to the Palestinians). The land I'm referring to is essentially a narrow strip running along the green line. One reason Israel would want to retain this land is security; this strip of land runs along the heights that directly overlook Israel's coastal plain. The coastal plain contains all of Israel's most important economic and population centers, and is basically only about ten miles wide between the coast and the West Bank. It's really not very complicated to understand the security rational for not wanting a hostile neighbor to control the high ground from which they could basically spit into your most important cities at will. Another reason Israel would want this strip of land is that it is dense with settlements, so that retaining that strip would allow Israel to avoid having to deal with removing a large percentage of the settlers from their homes without negatively impacting the contiguity of a Palestinian state. Now, let me be clear, I'm not saying that these settlements were justified in being built because they happen to sit on strategically valuable land. I'm saying that given that these settlements do exist, Israel, because of their location, has a valid security reason for wanting to retain them.
I'd really prefer not to have to go through this again, so please, in the future, at least have the courtesy to read me carefully, because frankly you have a shockingly poor record when it comes to accurately conveying my positions.
you couldn't swing if you were hangin' from a palm tree in a hurricane
Comments
It's actually a little sad that you have no interest in actually talking about this issue, since it clearly means a lot to both of us. That you treat every discussion of Israel-Palestine as some sort of gloves-off grudge match that excludes any possibility of questioning your own positions is, I think, indicative of precisely the sort of mind set that stands in the way of actually achieving peace.
Or, alternatively, you could take me out of the equation and actually address the content of my posts?
You claimed above that the obstacle to peace over the past 45 years has been Palestinian violence. I then rubbished that claim and provided evidence to that effect. Your response was that you would now no longer reply to my posts as I have no interest in discussing the topic.
It's really a bit pathetic if you ask me.
ironic
You didn't make rubbish of my argument. There was no argument to make rubbish of. I was discussing how Israelis understand events. Even if your version of events were entirely factually accurate, which I don't think they are, that is beside the point. Maybe most Israelis don't understand the true nature of the events going on around them (which I really highly doubt), but that doesn't mean that my depiction of their perspective is inaccurate. If you weren't so caught up in "winning" all the time you may have noticed the distinction before launching into your furious cut and paste antics.
Here's what you said. It's pretty unambiguous:
Seems like a pretty reasonable assessment, apart from the self-serving and false claim that "withdrawal from the Gaza Strip in 2005 [...] allowed Hamas to move into the vacuum and launch rockets into Israel." That's just not what happened.
The repeated claim that the Israeli's magmanimously upped and left Gaza and were then subjected to rocket attacks from the ungrateful and violent Palestinians, is just pure horseshit, as anyone who looks at the historical record will see.
Now please, I really am curious, how is it that Palestinian violence is not an obstacle to peace?
The Gaza comment isn't horseshit. It's just a different perspective (which you seem to be allergic to). In fact, the comment you quote is factually completely accurate. Israel did withdraw from gaza. Hamas did take over. Rockets were (and are still) launched into Israel. The fact that Israelis interpret these events differently then you do does not, as you claim, make the statements false. I'm ignoring, of course, that you seem to equate interpretation and narrative with factual veracity. In that light, then yes, the statements are false, but only because you disagree with the interpretation being made.
Because Palestinian violence is not a cause of the Israeli occuaption. It is a symptom of the occupation.
It's only true if you exclude a large part of what actually transpired at that time, and omit the following facts:
http://www.normanfinkelstein.com/unpubl ... awal/#ngfc
In a recent study entitled One Big Prison, B’Tselem observes that the crippling economic arrangements Israel has imposed on Gaza will remain in effect. In addition, Israel will continue to maintain absolute control over Gaza’s land borders, coastline and airspace, and the Israeli army will continue to operate in Gaza. “So long as these methods of control remain in Israeli hands,” it concludes, “Israel’s claim of an ‘end of the occupation’ is questionable.”[2]
The respected organization Human Rights Watch (HRW) is yet more emphatic that evacuating troops and Jewish settlements from inside Gaza will not end the occupation: “Whether the Israeli army is inside Gaza or redeployed around its periphery, and restricting entrance and exit, it remains in control.”[3]
The world’s leading authority on the Gaza Strip, Sara Roy of Harvard University, predicts that Gaza will remain “an imprisoned enclave,” while its economy, still totally dependent on Israel after disengagement and in shambles after decades of deliberately ruinous policies by Israel, will actually deteriorate.[4] This conclusion is echoed by the World Bank, which forecasts that, if Israel seals Gaza’s borders or curtails its utilities, the disengagement plan will “create worse hardship than is seen today.”
It also fails to take into account the fact that the Gaza 'disengaement was used as distraction by which large parts of the West Bank could be confiscated in a large escalation of settlement building.
Also, Hamas didn't 'take over', they won a free and fair election.
So, yes, if you exclude all of the above then your quote is indeed 'factually completely accurate'.
1) Israel withdrew from Gaza. 2) Hamas took over. 3) Rockets were launched into Israel.
You claim that these statements are false, and yet your response doesn't bear that claim out. That's because you aren't actually talking about the veracity of these statements; you're jumping ahead to the argument you imagine will follow these statements.
You don't even try to contest 3 (that rockets were launched into Israel), so I will assume that you aren't so deranged as to contest the accuracy of this statement, and I'll simply move on.
You say that 2 (that Hamas took over) is false, noting that Hamas "won a free and fair election." That's true. It also doesn't show the statement to be in the least bit false. In fact it does the opposite. What does winning an election mean if not that your party "takes over." You are imputing a sinister meaning to the phrase "took over" based on your assumptions about the argument that you think is being implicitly made, and then arguing against your own imputation. However, while we're on the subject, your own account of those "free and fair" elections leaves out the part where Hamas consolidated its power by hog-tying a bunch of their Fatah rivals and threw them off of buildings. But please, go on thinking that Hamas' rule in Gaza is entirely benevolent and legitimate.
Finally, as to 1 (that Israel withdrew from Gaza), you argue that Israel is still "occupying" Gaza because of its actions in closing the borders and controlling movement in and out of the Strip. What you've done is replace one term with another. It's slight of hand. You claim that it's false to say that Israel "withdrew" from Gaza because Israel's subsequent actions somehow perpetuate the "occupation." But the fact remains that there are no longer any settlers in Gaza, nor are there any Israeli soldiers permanently stationed in Gaza. So it seems perfectly reasonable to say that Israel "withdrew" from Gaza. The fact that Israel is still in conflict with Gaza does not falsify the fact that Israel withdrew from the Strip. The very elections you cited, that brought Hamas to power, are proof of Israel's withdrawal. If the IDF hadn't been withdrawn from Gaza there is no way that Hamas would be allowed to openly function as the ruling government in Gaza. And yet they do. More to the point, from the Israeli perspective; if the IDF hadn't been withdrawn from Gaza thousands of rockets wouldn't have been fired into Israel, because the IDF would have been there to prevent there firing. In short, the fact that you vehemently disagree with Israel's actions vis-a-vis Gaza post-withdrawal doesn't falsify the fact of withdrawal itself.
Basically you're imagining arguments that may or may not follow from these simple, factually accurate statements, and then, essentially, you're arguing with yourself. More importantly, you are so caught up in insisting that your own interpretation of events is the only possible, legitimate way of viewing things that you are claiming that simple, factually true statements are false based on the arguments you imagine will follow. That says something about your standard for "truth" (i.e. that things are only true if they support the interpretation you have adopted).
Finally, whether Palestinian violence is or is not a symptom of the occupation (I think the history shows pretty conclusively that it is not, since it predates the occupation by decades) has nothing to do with whether or not it's an obstacle to peace. Since Israelis will only be willing to end the occupation if they believe that doing so will bring them peace, and since Palestinian violence undermines this belief among Israelis, Palestinian violence is an obstacle to peace. Q.E.D. Thus, it can be both a symptom of the occupation and an obstacle to peace.
But again, my bad. I know logic has no place intruding on irrationally one-sided righteous anger.
This is the equivalence of someone criticizing Jewish resistance groups in WWII, or the A.N.C, whilst choosing to completely ignore the bigger picture.
Your play with semantics is irrelevant, and kind of pathetic. You can attempt to wriggle out of what you said all day long. But it's there for all to see.
The elections involved no violence between the rival factions. The violence occurred approximately one year after the elections, during and after the U.S & Israeli backed coup attempt.
There were no Nazi soldiers inside the Warsaw ghetto either, but I'm pretty sure you wouldn't try and utilize your topsy-turvy logic to claim that therefore the Jews there were free?
Maybe you've forgotten the U.s & Israeli backed coup attempt that sought to overthrow the democratically elected government in Gaza? Maybe you've forgotten the almost daily incursions into Gaza, along with missile strikes, and extra-judicial assassinations that led to Hamas launching rocket attacks? Maybe you've also forgotten that Israel broke the ceasefire in November 2008 which led to the invasion of Gaza and deaths of approx 1000 Palestinian civilians?
No, I'm simply pointing out all of the glaring omissions in practically everything you say. Omissions which allow you to paint a picture of the situation which conforms to your self-serving interpretation of events.
The first terrorist attacks inside Israel occurred in 1994 did they not? How then does that fit into your scheme of things?
Interesting. So you believe that the answer to Palestinian violence is to place Israeli civilians in the line of fire? Please, go ahead and explain to me how that works. Maybe you can address the following points whilst your at it?:
Michael Neumann - 'The Case Against Israel' P107-108
'Some Israeli's may have seen the first Post-1967 settlements as outposts, advance warning stations guarding the new frontiers against possible attack. This never made a lot of sense: why not just have real advance warning stations, military positions, instead? No one has ever explained why a sprawl of civilian subdivisions and enclaves was required when, to all appearances, a few purely military outposts would have fulfilled any defensive functions at least as well, and at far less cost to both Israeli's and Palestinians. Dayan himself stated that "from the point of view of the security of the State, the establishment of the settlements has no great importance." Other officials shared his assessment:
"We have to use the pretext of security needs and the authority of the military governor as there is no way of driving out the Arabs from their land as long as they refuse to go and accept our compensation..."
http://www.haaretz.com/blogs/focus-u-s- ... g-1.422684
Norman Finkelstein bids farewell to Israel bashing
'It's become too easy,' says Norman Finkelstein, talking about his new and surprisingly optimistic book.
By Natasha Mozgovaya
04:19 05.04.12
In June, Norman Finkelstein will mark 30 years of criticizing Israel. He remembers the exact day - the beginning of the Lebanon war, which ended his indifference to the Middle East's troubles. He'll have a new book coming out - "Knowing Too Much: Why the American Jewish Romance with Israel Is Coming to an End" - that focuses on Jewish public figures who represent, in his view, the narrative of beautiful Israel that's coming to an end. He is sure to make a lot of people mad again.
Jobless since losing his tenure in 2007 at DePaul University's political science department in an ugly public fight with Alan Dershowitz, Finkelstein remains in demand as a speaker at universities.
Norman Finkelstein.
Yet if you happened to walk into one of his lectures, you might be surprised to hear him say he is "not going to be an Israel-basher anymore." It's not that he's changed his mind on the conflict, he just says blaming Israel has become too easy.
"Nobody really defends Israel anymore," he said in an interview. "If you go on college campuses, there are some Hillel faithfuls who are bringing an IDF soldier to try to explain that not all IDF soldiers are war criminals. And among the 60 to 100 people in the audience, there are Palestinian supporters who come with tape over their mouth, and when the soldier starts to speak, many people stand up and walk out.
"They've lost the battle for public opinion," he says. "They claim it's because American Jews know too little - I claim it's because they know too much about the conflict, and young liberal Jews have difficulty defending the use of cluster bombs in Lebanon or supporting the Israeli settlements. I was bashing Israel in the past because nobody else was exposing its true record. Many people are doing it now, so I switched hats from a critic of Israel to a diplomat who wants to resolve the conflict. I have not changed, but I think the spectrum has moved."
Finkelstein's book is suprisingly optimistic about the chances of settling the confict, and about changing the debate, even among American Jewry. The tide of public opinion is turning against Israel, he says, and once support for Israeli policy becomes widely unacceptable in the United States, the "self-designated voices for Israel," as he calls them, will quickly drop out. Meanwhile, American Jewish college students are having their eyes opened.
"The academic research on Israel is no longer the footnoted "Exodus," and younger Jews, when they go to college, are walking away with a very different picture of Israel," he said. "And the American Jewish community that for a long time was a huge obstacle to resolving the conflict is breaking up. If you put forth a reasonable and principled goal, I think a resolution is possible. We might be entering the endgame, but one that might take a long time."
Loyal to his tradition of combativeness, Finkelstein takes on not only Michael Oren, Jeffrey Goldberg, Benny Morris and others, but also Steven Walt and John Mearsheimer's book on the Israel lobby.
"I accept that the lobby is very influential and shapes [U.S.] policy on Israel-Palestine. But when Walt and Mearsheimer start generalizing about the influence of the lobby on Iraq, Iran policy and elsewhere - that's where I think they get it wrong. I just can't find any evidence for it."
Finkelstein describes the leadership of J Street as "hopeless". "It's simply the loyal opposition. Politically they identify themselves mostly with Kadima."
Yet he recently clashed with those to the left of J Street, attacking the goals of the BDS (boycott, divestment and sanctions ) movement.
"I've written a little book on Gandhi, and one of the significant insights of his is that it's important not only for your tactics to be perceived as moral, the public also has to see your goal as moral. And the problem with BDS is the ambiguity of the goal. Their official position is: 'We take no position on [the legitimacy of] Israel.' While BDS is a legitimate tactic to force Israel to accept the two-state solution, it has to have a just goal, which means it has to include recognition of Israel as a state. I received mostly hostile reactions from the BDS activists, and that's OK - I am not out there to please."
Leftist-turned-rightist historian Benny Morris, who gets a whole chapter in the book, said once that "for Finkelstein the only good Israeli is an evil Israeli." Is he right?
"I don't claim to know Israel. I don't speak Hebrew, my contacts are pretty limited. But I didn't know Vietnam, I didn't know Nicaragua, El Salvador or Honduras. It doesn't mean you can't reach your conclusions. I don't study cafe life in Tel Aviv. I visited Israel every year for 16 years until I was denied entrance in 2008. I don't feel particularly attached to Israel - nationalism, as Noam Chomsky said, is not my cup of tea - but I feel no particular need to demonize it. I do feel a certain amount of disgust, that's for sure. If my focus was on any other country's human rights violations, I would be as appalled and disgusted. It's just unacceptable, and you can't make excuses for that with 'other people do it.' You probably will find the comparison offensive - it's like going to my parents in the Warsaw ghetto and asking, what do you think about the Volkswagen? Isn't it great? Don't ask people in Iraq or Afghanistan to praise Hollywood, or whether Whitney Houston did a beautiful rendition of the "Star Spangled Banner."
Why does he put the blame solely on Israel?
"Because I don't think both sides are equally responsible. If I were a Palestinian I wouldn't have accepted what was offered at Camp David. On the critical issues, the Palestinians have been willing to make far greater concessions than they are required to by [international] law - 60 percent of settlers to remain in place, largest Jerusalem in Israel's history. How can a rational person conclude that the Palestinians bear responsibility for the non-resolution of this conflict?"
How about the violence against civilians they turned to after Camp David?
"International law says people fighting for self-determination can use force in order to achieve their independence."
And targeting civilians?
"They do not have the right to target the civilian population. But now more and more Palestinians are turning to various forms of civil resistance and civil disobedience. This tactic of fasting in prison is going to spread."
"I do not see any other reasonable basis for resolution of this conflict other then the international law. What else can you use? To say, I have the rights, and solve it by force? Or based on needs - but who decides what are the needs? Dennis Ross decided Israel needs whatever it says it needs - and the Palestinians get everything that is left over. It's a political problem, so it's up to the international community to apply sufficient pressure to Israel to accept this map that is fair, within the parameters of law - and reasonable. And then the conflict can be solved. With the regional changes, there will be pressure applied by Egypt and Turkey however things settle with the Arab Spring, there will be pressure applied by the Palestinians and the international community, that is weary of this conflict, to resolve it on the basis of international consensus," he said.
The statement "rockets were launched into Israel" is a statement of historical fact. On its own the statement makes no argument or value judgment. You are imputing an argument to the statement (I assume the argument is that the rocket fire is illegitimate, and that you disagree). You then proceed to argue against the argument you imagine is being made by claiming that the simple factual statement is "false" because you believe that it is being used to support an argument that you reject. So basically, the truth of the statement is not fixed, but is to be determined by the argumentative use to which it is put. Thus, you are able to claim that the basic statement "rockets were launched into Israel" is false, even though it is historically true, because you disagree with the argument that you believe the statement is meant to support.
What's the significance of your point? Hamas consolidated power in Gaza by murdering their rivals. That is generally not a good indicator of legitimate democratic rule. What does it matter whether they murdered them during the election or only afterwards. And what exactly are you talking about when you refer to a US and Israeli backed coup attempt?
Again, you are replacing one term for another and responding not to the factual accuracy of the statement but to the argument that you imagine the statement is meant to support. A simple statement was made; "Israel withdrew from Gaza." It refers to the fact of an historical change. Israel had settlers living in Gaza and soldiers permanently stationed there, then they "withdrew" those settlers and soldiers. There was a change; we went from "settlers and soldiers in Gaza" to "no settlers or soldiers in Gaza." The statement does nothing more than acknowledge the fact of that change. You seem to imagine that this simple factual statement is meant to support an argument that would, I gather from your response, be that Israel, post-withdrawal, is no longer responsible for any of the hardships of the people in Gaza. You clearly disagree with this argument (which again, is an argument you are infering from what is nothing more than a plainly factual statement). You disagree, it would seem, because you feel that Israel's subsequent actions have maintained a situation of non-freedom for Gazans. Whatever the merits of your argument, it has nothing to do with the factual veracity of the statement "Israel withdrew from Gaza." But, yet again, because you imagine that this factual statement is being used to support an argument with which you disagree you claim that it is a false statement, despite the fact that it is historically true.
Forgive me, but first, you did not say "those facts are true, but lest anyone draw the wrong conclusions from those facts here are other relevant facts that were omitted." You said "those facts are false." The facts are not false. They are entirely true. What you mean is that you disagree with the interpretation that you imagine those facts are meant to support, but which was not in fact made. Again, what you are doing is trying to enlist the authority of "truth" in support of your own interpretation of facts by labelling as "false" all statements of fact, no matter their historical veracity, that you suspect may support an interpretation different from your own. That is, to put it plainly, a dishonest method of argument.
No, the first terrorist attacks inside Israel did not occur in 1994. If you actually knew the history of this conflict (and not just the portions of it that serve to support your pre-concieved notions) you'd be well aware of that. Palestinian violence against Jews in Israel/Palestine goes back at least to the 1920's if not earlier. If you're only talking about organized terrorism as we think of it today, then Palestinian terrorism against Israel goes back to at least the early 1950's (well before the occupation). Here's a list (not sure if it's complete) of terrorist attacks in Israel that predate the six-day war (and therefore the occupation, not to speak of 1994)(I've highlighted a few that stand out in the Israeli collective memory):
Jan 01, 1952 - Seven armed terrorists attacked and killed a nineteen year-old girl in her home, in the neighborhood of Beit Yisrael, in Jerusalem.
Apr 14, 1953 - Terrorists tried for the first time to infiltrate Israel by sea, but were unsuccessful. One boat was intercepted and the other escaped.
Jun 07, 1953 - A youngster was killed and three others were wounded, in shooting attacks on residential areas in southern Jerusalem.
Jun 09, 1953 - Terrorists attacked a farming community near Lod, and killed one of the residents. The terrorists threw hand grenades and sprayed gunfire in all directions. On the same night, another group of terrorists attacked a house in the town of Hadera. This occurred a day after Israel and Jordan signed an agreement, with UN mediation, in which Jordan undertook to prevent terrorists from crossing into Israel from Jordanian territory.
Jun 10, 1953 - Terrorists infiltrating from Jordan destroyed a house in the farming village of Mishmar Ayalon.
Jun 11, 1953 - Terrorists attacked a young couple in their home in Kfar Hess, and shot them to death.
Sep 02, 1953 - Terrorists infiltrated from Jordan, and reached the neighborhood of Katamon, in the heart of Jerusalem. They threw hand grenades in all directions. Miraculously, no one was hurt.
Mar 17, 1954 - Terrorists ambushed a bus traveling from Eilat to Tel Aviv, and opened fire at short range when the bus reached the area of Maale Akrabim in the northern Negev. In the initial ambush, the terrorists killed the driver and wounded most of the passengers. The terrorists then boarded the bus, and shot each passenger, one by one. Eleven passengers were murdered. Survivors recounted how the murderers spat on the bodies and abused them. The terrorists could clearly be traced back to the Jordanian border, some 20 km from the site of the terrorist attack.
Jan 02, 1955 - Terrorists killed two hikers in the Judean Desert.
Mar 24, 1955 - Terrorists threw hand grenades and opened fire on a crowd at a wedding in the farming community of Patish, in the Negev. A young woman was killed, and eighteen people were wounded in the attack.
Apr 07, 1956 - A resident of Ashkelon was killed in her home, when terrorists threw three hand grenades into her house. Two members of Kibbutz Givat Chaim were killed, when terrorists opened fire on their car, on the road from Plugot Junction to Mishmar Hanegev. There were further hand grenade and shooting attacks on homes and cars, in areas such as Nitzanim and Ketziot. One person was killed and three others wounded.
Apr 11, 1956 - Terrorists opened fire on a synagogue full of children and teenagers, in the farming community of Shafrir. Three children and a youth worker were killed on the spot, and five were wounded, including three seriously.
Apr 29, 1956 - Egyptians killed Roi Rotenberg, 21 years of age, from Nahal Oz.
Sep 12, 1956 - Terrorists killed three Druze guards at Ein Ofarim, in the Arava region.
Sep 23, 1956 - Terrorists opened fire from a Jordanian position, and killed four archaeologists, and wounded sixteen others, near Kibbutz Ramat Rachel.
Sep 24, 1956 - Terrorists killed a girl in the fields of the farming community of Aminadav, near Jerusalem.
Oct 04, 1956 – Terrorists killed five Israeli workers in Sdom.
Oct 09, 1956 - Two workers were killed by terrorists in an orchard of the youth village, Neve Hadassah, in the Sharon region.
Nov 08, 1956 - Terrorists opened fire on a train, attacked cars and blew up wells, in the North and Center of Israel. Six Israelis were wounded.
Feb 18, 1957 - Two civilians were killed by terrorist landmines, next to Nir Yitzhak, on the southern border of the Gaza Strip.
Mar 08, 1957 - A shepherd from Kibbutz Beit Govrin was killed by terrorists in a field near the Kibbutz.
Apr 16, 1957 - Terrorists infiltrated from Jordan, and killed two guards at Kibbutz Mesilot.
May 20, 1957 - A terrorist opened fire on a truck in the Arava region, killing a worker.
May 29, 1957 - A tractor driver was killed and two others wounded, when the vehicle struck a terrorist landmine, next to Kibbutz Kisufim.
Jun 23, 1957 - Israelis were wounded by terrorist landmines, close to the Gaza Strip.
Aug 23, 1957 - Two guards of the Israeli Mekorot water company were killed by terrorists near Kibbutz Beit Govrin.
Dec 21, 1957 - A member of Kibbutz Gadot was killed by terrorists in the Kibbutz fields.
Feb 11, 1958 - Terrorists killed a resident of Moshav Yanov who was on his way to Kfar Yona, in the Sharon area.
Apr 05, 1958 - Terrorists lying in ambush shot and killed two people near Tel Lachish.
Apr 22, 1958 - Jordanian terrorists shot and killed two fishermen near Aqaba.
May 26, 1958 - Four Israeli police officers were killed in a Jordanian terrorist attack on Mt. Scopus, in Jerusalem.
Nov 17, 1958 - Syrian terrorists killed the wife of the British air attache in Israel, who was staying at the guesthouse of the Italian Convent on the Mt. of the Beatitudes.
Dec 03, 1958 - A shepherd was killed at Kibbutz Gonen. In the artillery attack by terrorists that followed, 31 civilians were wounded.
Jan 23, 1959 - A shepherd from Kibbutz Lehavot Habashan was killed by terrorists.
Feb 01, 1959 - Three civilians were killed by a terrorist landmine near Moshav Zavdiel.
Apr 15, 1959 - A guard was killed by terrorists at Kibbutz Ramat Rahel.
Apr 27, 1959 - Two hikers were shot at close range by terrorists and killed near Massada.
Sep 06, 1959 - Bedouin terrorists killed a paratroop reconnaissance officer near Nitzana.
Sep 08, 1959 - Bedouins terrorists opened fire on an army bivouac in the Negev, killing an IDF officer, Captain Yair Peled.
Oct 03, 1959 - A shepherd from Kibbutz Heftziba was killed by terrorists near Kibbutz Yad Hana.
Apr 26, 1960 - Terrorists killed a resident of Ashkelon south of the city.
Apr 12, 1962 - Terrorists fired on an Egged bus on the way to Eilat; one passenger was wounded.
Sep 30, 1962 - Two terrorists attacked an Egged bus on the way to Eilat. No one was wounded.
Jan 01, 1965 - Palestinian terrorists attempted to bomb the National Water Carrier. This was the first attack carried out by the PLO's Fatah faction.
May 31, 1965 - Jordanian terrorists fired on the neighborhood of Musrara in Jerusalem, killing two civilians and wounding four.
Jun 01, 1965 - Terrorists attack a house in Kibbutz Yiftach.
Jul 05, 1965 - A Fatah terrorism cell planted explosives at Mitzpe Massua, near Beit Guvrin; and on the railroad tracks to Jerusalem near Kafr Battir.
Aug 26, 1965 - A waterline was sabotaged by terrorists at Kibbutz Manara, in the Upper Galilee.
Sep 29, 1965 - A terrorist was killed as he attempted to attack Moshav Amatzia.
Nov 7, 1965 - A Fatah terrorist cell that infiltrated from Jordan blew up a house in Moshav Givat Yeshayahu, south of Beit Shemesh. The house was destroyed, but the inhabitants were miraculously unhurt.
Apr 25, 1966 - Explosions placed by terrorists wounded two civilians and damaged three houses in Moshav Beit Yosef, in the Beit Shean Valley.
May 16, 1966 - Two Israelis were killed when their jeep hit a terrorist landmine, north of the Sea of Galilee and south of Almagor. Tracks led into Syria.
Jul 13, 1966 - Two soldiers and a civilian were killed near Almagor, when their truck struck a terrorist landmine.
Jul 14, 1966 - Terrorists attacked a house in Kfar Yuval, in the North.
Jul 19, 1966 - Terrorists infiltrated into Moshav Margaliot on the northern border and planted nine explosive charges.
Oct 27, 1966 - A civilian was wounded by a terrorist bomb on the railroad tracks to Jerusalem.
Jan 14, 1967 - Terrorists laid a land mine that at a soccer game, which exploded killing 1 and injuring 2.
The settlements were a mistake from the very beginning and do not add to Israeli security. That said, the presence of the IDF in the West Bank allows Israel to control the ability of terrorists to attack and harm Israelis much more than would be possible if they were not present there. The occupation thus provides security to Israelis in Israel proper, by preventing, for example, the firing of rockets from the West Bank into downtown Tel Aviv. Israelis will only be willing to give up this security if they are reasonably sure that the result will be peace. Palestinian terrorism does exactly the opposite of this. It only reenforces the impulse among Israelis to put security first, and is therefore counterproductive to Palestinian aims (in addition to being, in most cases, shockingly immoral).
So I'll ask again, why are you so quick to defend Palestinian violence? How is it that you think that such violence advances the cause of peace?
That's very smug of you.
O.k, I was thinking of suicide bombings.
It's perfectly clear and unambiguous for any honest and reasonable person to understand.
And Fatah also murdered many members of Hamas during the U.S & Israeli backed coup attempt. As for what I'm 'talking about', it's no secret that the U.S & Israel supported and encouraged Fatah's failed coup attempt. Or are you also going to pretend that isn't the case?
Is your convoluted slippery lawyers-speak supposed to impress me? Because it doesn't. I actually find it somewhat ridiculous.
A 'fact' can be interpreted as false when that fact is presented in such a way as to give a misleading impression as to it's inherent truth. Your comment was that "withdrawal from the Gaza Strip in 2005 [...] allowed Hamas to move into the vacuum and launch rockets into Israel." First of all this comment completely fails to show that the 'withdrawal' did nothing to alleviate the suffering of the civilian population of Gaza, as Gaza was effectively turned into a big prison. It also falsely claims that after 'withdrawal' Hamas simply moved in to Gaza and began firing rockets at Israel, thereby omitting the fact that Israel had begun launching attacks on Gaza almost as soon as the so-called 'withdrawal' took place. So, in that sense, it is a false comment.
A comment can be considered false by the way in which it is presented and by what it omits. I.e, If I say that 'The Jews were guilty of murdering Germans in the 1940's'. This statement is essentially true. But it can be considered false and misleading by the way it's presented and by what it omits to mention. But then you know this already.
Though I do find it intriguing that someone who likes to harp on about 'context' and 'nuance', chooses to completely reject both of these elements when it suits him.
But then I'm also not really surprised that slippery lawyers tactics and playing with semantics are all that Israel's apologists have left in their arsenal. I've been aware of such tactics for a long time now. Looks to me like a pretty pathetic form of desperation.
Second, "The Jews were guilty of murdering Germans in the 1940's" would actually be factually false, not misleading for omitting context. "The Jews" as a group could not really be said to have done anything relative to the Germans (aside from be killed by them). A better phrase would have been "Some Jews..."
Third, I'm actually quite happy that you think I'm resorting to "slippery lawyer tactics." I am in law school after all. I would call it well reasoned logic (as opposed to cut and paste articles that never fail to present only one perspective). I also consider it to generally be a good sign when my debate partners start hurling the ad hominem attacks rather than responding to my points. It tends to indicate they're lacking for a good rejoinder.
Fourth, I haven't failed to notice that you have studiously avoided answering any of my questions. Why is that? Palestinian violence; how is it not an obstacle to peace?
And a better phrase on yur part would have been "Israel's partial withdrawal from the Gaza Strip in 2005 was accompanied by an overall tightening of it's grip on the area - restricting the movement of essential goods and services into the area, effectively transforming Gaza into a large prison - and by an escalation of military incursions and extra-judicial assassinations, one result of which was the retaliatory launching of rockets into Israel by Hamas."
This doesn't surprise me . You'd make Alan Dershowitz proud. Though as for 'well reasoned logic', there's nothing reasonable in resorting to oily sophistry and self-serving semantics. I see nothing reasonable in such blatent artifice and dishonesty at all.
Oh, the irony.
Bullshit. I answered your question 2 or 3 pages back. The fact that my answer may not have been to your liking does not constitute 'not answering it'.
This encapsulates exactly what I'm talking about. Your agenda is to cast Israel in a negative light (I say that without making any value judgment regarding the merits of your argument). To that end you keep insisting that any discussion of Israel's withdrawal from Gaza that doesn't include an indictment of Israel's actions subsequent to the withdrawal is factually inaccurate. My point is that that is simply not true. Israelis interpret events differently than you do. They will therefore choose to emphasize certain facts over others. That doesn't mean that the facts as stated are false. It just means that you disagree with the conclusions being drawn because you choose to emphasize a different set of facts more strongly.
Israelis emphasize the facts they do because from their perspective the primary significance of the Gaza withdrawal is that once the IDF was no longer physically controlling Gaza there was an opportunity for terrorists in Gaza to act with greater impugnity, the result being the thousands of rockets that have been fired into Israel. For you, the primary significance of these events is the effect on the Palestinians, so you choose to emphasize that aspect of the history.
The problem is that you are thinking in totalitarian terms. Rather than treating facts as preceding interpretation, you treat interpretation as preceding facts, so that any set of facts that don't lead to your preferred interpretation are "false." You aren't happy simply disagreeing with someone. It isn't enough for you to trust that you have the better argument. You seem to be compelled to insist that any interpretation of events that is different from your own, and any facts that support that interpretation, are completely lacking validity. You have to be absolutely, categorically, totally and incontravertably right, which requires you to insist that everyone who disagrees with you is not only wrong in their interpretation of the facts, but that their facts are fundamentally not facts at all.
That's why it's entirely pointless discussing anything with you, because you refuse to even recognize a neutral set of facts that can serve as the basis for a discussion. The only facts that you're willing to recognize as valid are those that are presented in a manner that support your own established perspective. Everything else is "false."
And once again you miss the point. It wasn't a case of the IDF exiting Gaza, thereby allowing Hamas to act with impunity, upon which Hamas took it upon themselves to start firing rockets. This just totally ignores what actually happened. Your comments are 'misleading', and so the overall picture you paint is 'false'. And this is not merely my own interpretation, I'm simply referring to the factual, historical record - something you clearly have a problem with. Though I can understand why you'd much rather engage in swapping opinions and personal interpretations.
The facts I presented above were from studies carried out by the respected human rights organizations B’Tselem, and Human Rights Watch, and by 'the world’s leading authority on the Gaza Strip, Sara Roy of Harvard University'.
Their findings, which I presented, have nothing to do with 'interpretation' on my part. But clearly, once again you're trying to turn this discussion into being all about me, and all about whatever preconceived notions, or biases, you imagine I have. Though again, I understand why it would benefit you to drag this discussion down to the personal level while failing to honestly address any of the points I've presented.
Also, you accused me earlier of studiously avoiding answering any of your questions, which as anyone who reads this thread can see is utter bollocks.
On the other hand, I asked you a question before which you have still failed to answer, so I'll ask it a second time:
Why do you believe that the answer to Palestinian violence is to place Israeli civilians in the line of fire, by constructing more illegal Jewish-only settlements?
As for the findings you presented, I haven't said the facts they present are false. They just don't address my point, which is about how Israelis perceive events, how that perception informs their current political decision-making, and the opportunities that exist for Palestinians to constructively play a role in shifting the calculus in that process. You aren't interested in that discussion, though, because the initial premise (that Israelis have a perspective different from your own) is apparently so alarming to you that you have to attempt to disprove their perspective (which is, of course, absurd) by labelling the facts that inform that perspective as false (which they're not) or so incomplete as to be false (which is only the least bit sensical if one starts from the presumption that your opinion of what facts are essential to the constitution of a "true" picture of reality is categorically determinative).
So you keep saying, yet in the same breath you defend the settlements by saying that they are there for security reasons, and that seeingas, in your opinion the Palestinians can't be trusted, then the settlements should remain in place.
In other words, you choose to have it both ways.
Really? You're going to pretend that you've never said the settlements are there for security reasons? I would scroll through your posts to find the numerous instances where you've equated the settlements with security if I could be bothered, but I can't.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/8478022.stm
Benjamin Netanyahu: Israel will never quit settlements
Monday, 25 January 2010
The Israeli prime minister has taken part in tree-planting ceremonies in the West Bank while declaring Israel will never leave those areas.
Benjamin Netanyahu said the Jewish settlements blocs would always remain part of the state of Israel.
His remarks came hours after a visit by US envoy George Mitchell who is trying to reopen peace talks between Israel and Palestinians.
A Palestinian spokesman said the comments undermined peace negotiations.
"Our message is clear: We are planting here, we will stay here, we will build here. This place will be an inseparable part of Israel for eternity", the prime minister said.
Mr Netanyahu's comments have angered Palestinians, who want a state in the West Bank, Gaza Strip and east Jerusalem.
"This is an unacceptable act that destroys all the efforts being exerted by Senator Mitchell in order to bring back the parties to the negotiating table", Palestinian spokesman Nabil Abu Rudeina told the Associated Press.
Meanwhile, in the Jordanian capital Amman, Mr Mitchell emphasised the US commitment to the creation of an independent Palestinian state.
"We intend to continue to pursue our efforts until that objective is achieved", he told AP.
US attempts to revive peace talks have stalled over the Jewish settlement issue.
Palestinians say they will not return to peace talks unless Israel stops settlement building in the West Bank.
Israel has a long-standing commitment under an existing peace plan to stop settlement growth.
But the Israeli government has temporarily curbed construction as a goodwill gesture, though not in East Jerusalem.
The two sides appear no closer even to sitting in the same room, says the BBC's Tim Franks in Jerusalem.
All settlements in the the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, are considered illegal under international law, though Israel disputes this.
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
Regarding the article about Netanyahu...planting trees is a symbolic act, nothing more. I don't put weight in symbolism. The current Palestinian government continues to name streets after terrorists that have murdered Israelis. Friends of mine more to the right of me on these issues are apt to point to this as evidence of Palestinian intrasagence and hatred; my response to them, as it is to you now, is that such acts are only symbolic, and they're not what really matter. As to the concrete issues, I've said repeatedly that I don't support the current government, and that I believe all settlement construction should be immediately halted.
I've never said that the settlements, per se, serve Israel's security. I've said that the presence of the IDF in the West Bank serves Israel's security. The settlements and the IDF are not the same thing. One could have the IDF in the West Bank without the settlements. I've also repeatedly said that I'd like to see the occupation as a whole (settlements and IDF presence) end, but that I recognize that most Israelis will not support the withdrawal of the IDF from the West Bank until they have sufficient trust that doing so will lead to peace rather than a renewed wave of violence. My hope is that a rational Israeli government will at least take steps to begin the removal of settlers from the West Bank. I think a majority of Israelis would support this immediately, if it was done through incentives rather than force. I don't think the Israeli majority will be willing to endorse the forced removal of settlers except in the context of a final peace agreement.
Finally, and maybe this is where your confusion is coming from, I've argued that Israel has valid reasons for wanting to retain control of a small percentage of the West Bank in any final peace agreement (which they would presumably do by transferring control over an equivalent amount of land to the Palestinians). The land I'm referring to is essentially a narrow strip running along the green line. One reason Israel would want to retain this land is security; this strip of land runs along the heights that directly overlook Israel's coastal plain. The coastal plain contains all of Israel's most important economic and population centers, and is basically only about ten miles wide between the coast and the West Bank. It's really not very complicated to understand the security rational for not wanting a hostile neighbor to control the high ground from which they could basically spit into your most important cities at will. Another reason Israel would want this strip of land is that it is dense with settlements, so that retaining that strip would allow Israel to avoid having to deal with removing a large percentage of the settlers from their homes without negatively impacting the contiguity of a Palestinian state. Now, let me be clear, I'm not saying that these settlements were justified in being built because they happen to sit on strategically valuable land. I'm saying that given that these settlements do exist, Israel, because of their location, has a valid security reason for wanting to retain them.
I'd really prefer not to have to go through this again, so please, in the future, at least have the courtesy to read me carefully, because frankly you have a shockingly poor record when it comes to accurately conveying my positions.
im sure there are times during this discussion when even youve rolled your eyes and chuckled a little.
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say