Soccer Dad

The Arab leaders(rulers) are scared stiff of loosing their business as usual status in the middle east. They do not have popular support amongst their lots. Iran. Hmmm. An ambitious nation. Technologically they show a flair disturbing to Arab leaders that rely on everything western. These Arab Lords today will be toppled some day. Even Iran will loose its hymn of being a religious state. Freedom is first rule of growth. Iranians will get that. Just time. So The U.S must take on Iran as a partner. Israel ? A pitiful case. When you hurt people bcause you had been hurt that is transferred aggression. Always having sleepless nights. Big QUESTION.. Cant ISRAEL AND IRAN resolve the problem theirselves ? yes they can. First Israel drops its arogance and Iran stubborness will dissipate. Everybody loves peace. Imagine. Even insane men sleep. That is the nature's law

When you hurt people because you had been hurt that is transferred aggression

You are confusing aggression with self-defense.

Out of curiosity, what do you call it when a nation gets terrorist groups to do the dirty work for them and bomb schools and civilians of another nation indiscriminantly?

Since the author doesn't understand why Arab governments need Israel to take the issue of Palestinian statehood seriously, I'd like to help: The Arab governments, no matter how repressive and un-democratic, can still be overthrown or de-stabilized as Pakistan is being destabilized if they are seen by their population as being pawns of the Israeli gov't. It is clear that Israel doesn't understand this concept from their unwavering demand that Hamas formally and publicly acknowledge Israel's right to exist and renounce violence before Israel will even negotiate directly with them. The political rise of Hamas (who won, fair and square, a democratic election in Gaza) was quite obviously the result of the Palestinian Authority having lost the faith of the Gazans and being seen as corrupt and unwilling to stand up to Israel, even when Israel broke promise after promise after promise.... It will only benefit Israel to recognize that any partner for peace can only remain legitimate for so long and capitulate so often with the Israeli gov't before the Palestinians believe that they have stopped fighting for the people and have been bought out by Israel. Abbas had quite a while, but there's still no Palestinian state. If Hamas and Fatah reconcile their differences, Israel needs to recognize the dawn of a new window to achieve peace before disillusionment sets in. (Oh, and keeping right-wing politicians from intentionally provoking an intifada and then using it as an excuse to get themselves elected would be helpful too.) Just fyi, you know.

This is typical of the Obama administration, the highest ranking diplomat has no experience and no finesse. These statements of Clinton's are transparently crude, and nonsensical to boot. The Arabs will act in their own interests and protect themselves, as one would expect, without regard to Palestinians.
And, with whom and about what should Netanyahu negotiate? The Palistinian, and particularly Hamas positions are non-negotiable regarding the existence of Israel.

the writing is on the wall...the israeli game is almost over...the way i figure it, you have about 18 months to get off occupied lands. did you really think you were going to keep this land forever...lmao, you did...didnt you. fools!

As far as the 'constructive critic' goes, allow me to help you in return.

The threat that Arab countries face from Iran has nothing to do with Israel, but rather with Iran's own plans for influence in the region.

If you seriously think that Israel owes it to Hamas to deal with them on an equal basis, then you do not consider the bombing of schools to be a terrorist act and we already do not see eye-to-eye. The fact you write vaguely about Israel breaking multiple promises, while ignoring the multiple times Israel withdrew from land--most recently unilaterally withdrawing from Gaza is another indication that you and I will get nowhere.

Even assuming that Hamas won fair and square, etc, that in no one obligates Israel to recognize them as anything other than terrorists, based purely on Hamas's actions against both Israel and their fellow Palestinian Arabs.

You apparently feel that Palestinian leaders have capitulated often to Israel--that is news to me. Please feel to elaborate and give your list.

George,

Come on now--if Gaza and the West Bank are occupied, whose land do you think it is? Surely not the Palestinian Arabs who have never had a sovereign state on that land.

Before 1967, the land had been occupied in the true sense of the word by Egypt and Jordan who took land that had previously been under the control of Great Britain as per the Mandate--the Egyptian and Jordanian occupations were not generally recognized by other countries. Before that, it was under the control of the Ottoman Empire.

Historically, the land was never Palestinian Arab land. The fact Palestinian Arabs say the land is occupied simply doesn't make it so.

Daled Amos - you missed my point apparently.... I never said that the Arab governments really cared about the fate of the Palestinians not that they didn't fear Iran. What I said was that the Palestinian Occupation is a rallying cry for Islamic Militant groups throughout the world. Specifically, I used the example of Pakistan. If the Arab governments, democratic or authoritarian - it matters not the tiniest bit - are successfully branded as capitulating to Israel, they can be assured of something resembling the Cultural Revolution in Iran. They don't want their government taken over by Al Qaeda, Hezbollah, Hamas, et cetera MORE than they fear Iran. Even if they can't be voted out of power, they can still be assassinated or overthrown. By the way, when Fatah doesn't send suicide bombers into Israel, that's capitulation. It seems to escape your understanding that they have little real control, since Israel controls their borders and occupies their land with a far advanced military. Any people in that position would expect their leaders to fight with whatever means available. Are the Iraqi people not better off? It doesn't matter - having a foreign military occupying your land is an affront. Please, just try to empathize with the Palestinians or at least recognize them as human beings. It doesn't even matter whether the Palestinians have a valid argument because their condition fuels militant recruitment and is threatening the stability of many governments across the globe. If you want peace, you must work with them. It might suck, but it IS the way things are.

So, if I misunderstood you, then let's take a second look:

The Arab governments, no matter how repressive and un-democratic, can still be overthrown or de-stabilized as Pakistan is being destabilized if they are seen by their population as being pawns of the Israeli gov't. It is clear that Israel doesn't understand this concept from their unwavering demand that Hamas formally and publicly acknowledge Israel's right to exist and renounce violence before Israel will even negotiate directly with them.

This seems to imply that out of concern for unstable Arab countries Israel should deal with terrorist groups like Hamas?

Israel has already been forced into concessions at the behest of the previous government that have only weakened it--releasing terrorists that go back to killing will do that, you know.

As far as occupation goes, saying it is an occupation does not make it so--there has never been a sovereign Palestinian Arab state (outside of Jordan). The fact that the Palestinian Arabs claim the land is occupied does not affect this fact.

If Arabs are that concerned about appearing to have capitulated to Israel, then obviously they are not in a position to honestly negotiate peace, are they. At the very least, they will use that appearance of capitulation as a club to force more concessions from Israel. No thanks.

As far as: "when Fatah doesn't send suicide bombers into Israel, that's capitulation"--hmmm, sounds like the makings of a great song, to the tune of 'That's Amore'. But rest assured that the Fatah based groups in Gaza that still brag about firing rockets at Israel are hard at work: so no worries there.

It seems to escape your understanding that they have little real control, since Israel controls their borders and occupies their land with a far advanced military

Oh, so Israel should relinquish control and let Fatah bomb them...gotcha.

It doesn't even matter whether the Palestinians have a valid argument because their condition fuels militant recruitment and is threatening the stability of many governments across the globe.

Oh, so that's it. The Palestinian argument is irrelevant. The whole point is that Israel should roll over for the sake of the world because Islamists around the world know how to protest...and kill people.

On the contrary, it is time for the world to get some backbone, no sacrifice another country.

Over 450 innocent Palestinian children killed in Operation Cast Lead.

And where did you get that number from?

The Palestinians are trapped in abject poverty, subjected to the whims of the Israeli security forces in the name of "national defense," yet
in every statement that we see outside Israel, the sufferings of the Palestinians are dismissed.

As far as the abject poverty part, see here.

And to say that "in every statement that we see outside Israel, the sufferings of the Palestinians are dismissed" is absurd--since when have the media done anything but talk about alleged Palestinian Arab poverty etc.

You act like they aren't even human. How
many Israelis were killed by Hamas rockets? How many Gazans were killed in Operation Cast Lead? "The effectiveness of the rockets isn't the
issue!" No, but you complain that they target civilians, that Israelis can't be expected to just stand by and live in fear. When the so-called "Anti-Israel Critics" say these same things about the Palestinians, you mock them and claim that they aren't valid arguments. Perhaps you honestly aren't capable of seeing your own evil, but the rest of the world can.

Wow! Talk about your straw-man arguments!! Are you referring to me personally or merely to all living Israelis? Just curious.

The terrorists are working with primitive weapons. They don't have a conventional army to fight you with. They can't hope to win agaist your high-tech American arsenal, so they use the only
techniques available.

Really?! Maybe they should just go back to their supplier, Iran. Maybe they can get more of those longer range more accurate rockets they have been aiming at schools.

In a hostage situation, if the criminals are using hostages as shields, the police don't just switch to larger rounds to penetrate both; they wait, persevere, and find a way to kill the criminal without killing the hostage.

Really, and when Israel tries to limit supplies to Gaza that are used for weapons--without the intent to kill anyone, the world screams. I guess they don't buy your analogy any more than I do. You ignore the fact that in the real life example, rockets are fired on a regular basis.

But no one dare call Israelis monsters for fear of an aggressive campaign to label them an anti-semite, holocaust denier, and closet Nazi.

No one??? You. Must. Be. Kidding.

Which international laws do you claim Israel is in violation of--especially seeing that Palestinian violations do not seem to bother you.

But it's all good--you already said the Palestinian arguments are irrelevant. It is all about Israel rolling over for the sake of world peace.

Constructive critic is right... but its probably a waste of time trying to convince dedicated Zionists that Palestinians are human, or even that they should be treated as human beings. We've all heard enough of the rhetoric of the "settlers" to realize that the ruling forces in Israel...perhaps even the majority of Israelis...want the land (ALL of it) more than they ever wanted peace.

If peace ever comes, it will probably be Israelis who initiate it, but it won't be the radical land-grabbers, and it won't happen until the majority in Israel realize they are committing national suicide by intransigence and greed.

Okay:
1.) The point was not that Arab gov'ts were worthy of Israel's actions for peace, it was that Hamas will simply be replaced by the [blank] Liberation Army or [blank] Brigades if they decide to accept your terms: They'll lose the support of the people. Under your terms, there can never be a valid bargaining partner because the moment they meet them, they lose control to a party which advocates resistance.
2.) My straw-man arguments are simply the many responses I've heard: They aren't made up, just typical responses. And I'm not talking about all living Israelis, just the ones who seem to swarm to defend Israel's actions, no matter what they might be.
3.) Over 450 children : U.N. - you know, the international body who supports most of the Gazan population and was actually there to witness and confirm.
4.) I said it doesn't matter "if" - I also seem to encounter a large number of Israeli apologists who strongly feel that the "occupation" issue is without factual basis. My statement was to say that their views need not change for my argument to remain valid. It was in no way to say that I agree with their Zionist rewriting of history. (Yes, I'll admit I am not pro-zionist; I do, however, differentiate between zionist and jew, so don't take that to mean I'm anti-jew. About 1/4 of my family is Jewish and I am not, in any way, anti-semitic.)
5. I do, very much, have a problem with Palestinian violations, but Israel puts me in a bad position when Hamas agrees to work with a U.N. investigation of possible war crimes and the Israeli gov't refuses to cooperate and immediately states that it will defend its soldiers from prosecution. Not only does that make any investigation completely one-sided, but also sounds like the actions of someone who knows they are guilty. Doesn't it?
6. Is there any point in mentioning illegal settlements? The worst part about that is that I really empathize with the Israeli families who will one day be kicked off of land they've owned for fifty years because the gov't didn't care to do anything sooner.
7. When I said "statements outside Israel," I meant by Israelis. The whole point of the statement was the perception of Israel. The Israeli gov't never acknowledges any validity to Palestinians' claims: Everything is apparently justified by a handful of suicide bombers who kill a handful of people. When is the last time a rocket killed more than a hundred people... waiting.... No, I meant one fired by a Palestinian militant, not the IDF....

All I would like, honestly, is for those who so adamantly defend Israel's actions, no matter how horrible, to really give the matter serious, open-minded thought. I don't ask that anyone join the Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade or anything, in fact that would just add to the problem. Just come out of "Zionist Idalism Land" and join the rest of the world in reality. I don't know if you realize that the settler-mentality is no less radical than the Islamic Jihad mentality, probably not. Is it worth living under a constant, endless series of existential threats to never back down and never reconsider? I don't see media reports and think "Wow, the militants are so reasonable and great," but I do ask myself whether the 200 police officers at the graduation ceremony hit at the beginning of Cast Lead were all die-hard jihadists or whether many of them just wanted a job so they could support their families. I don't buy the argument that every individual listed on the membership rolls of a militant organization holds to the extreme views of that organization and would rather die than recognize Israel's right to exist. I don't buy the argument that all militants are driven by ideology: I can't imagine a scenario where most of them weren't driven by social pressure and terrible experiences. I also can't imagine a situation where many of the parents whose children were killed in Gaza, Lebanon, the West Bank and elsewhere would just accept it and move on, meaning I can't imagine these military campaigns doing anything but harm to Israel. I'm not pro-Palestinian or pro-Israeli, just pro-peace and I think it's the responsibility of the one who is holding all the cards to accept that peace is in their best interest and work toward it. The situation gets more complicated with time, not less and inflexible ideologies will never allow for peace, only eternal escalation.

Responding to your points in turn:

1. I still think your construction of the argument obligates Israel to demand and expect less so as not to upset the radicals. I do not buy that.

2. The problem is that those were more than just straw man arguments made by Israelis:

You act like they aren't even human...Perhaps you honestly aren't capable of seeing your own evil, but the rest of the world can.

That is you making some heavy-duty accusations--accusations that seem to include me. Snide remarks are one thing, claiming that I act like I am not human and that I am evil: that is something else entirely.

3) Do I really need to get into the UN record here--or have you forgotten their accusation about Israel bombing a school, an accusation that the UN had to retract.

4)Aren't you trying to have it both ways--using the "occupation" argument and then backing off that it may not be true, but that does not really matter? If you think it is true: prove it. If it is not true, there is no reason to bring it up without the qualifications you make only much later.

5)Hamas agrees to work with a U.N. investigation of possible war crimes and the Israeli gov't refuses to cooperate and immediately states that it will defend its soldiers from
prosecution.

Do you have a source--I'd like to check the context.

6)Need I mention that the accusation that the settlements are illegal is exactly that--an accusation and not an established fact.

Here are three articles that address the issue on the basis of international law, not emotion, why the settlements are not illegal

7) Are you forgetting the numbers of Israelis killed by suicide bomber attacks? And keep in mind that the difference in numbers is in no small amount due to the bunkers Israelis build for their people and the obvious disregard Hamas has for theirs.

And while you are on the subject, when was the last time an Israeli rocket killed 100 Palestinians, on purpose. I'll wait.

All I would like, honestly, is for those who so adamantly defend Israel's actions, no matter how horrible, to really give the matter serious, open-minded thought.

Do you know how many those people are? Me neither, but you neatly sidestep the issue of how many serious, open-minded, people there are out there arguing Israel's case.

Just come out of "Zionist Idalism Land" and join the rest of the world in reality.

Um, no thanks. I've seen what passes for reality in the media and elsewhere.

I don't know if you realize that the
settler-mentality is no less radical than the Islamic Jihad mentality, probably not.

Comparing the history of the 'settlers' who rebuilt the land with the long and bloody history of jihad is just plain silly. You go out of your way to attempt to explain what you 'imagine' is going through the mind of suicide bombers, but shrug off settlers and the reasons why those settlements are not illegal without a second thought.

Is it worth living under a constant, endless series of existential threats to never back down and never reconsider?

Ask Israelis--and the Jews who continue to make Aliyah, and did so even during the darkest hours of the suicide bombings. You don't understand.

I'm not pro-Palestinian or pro-Israeli,
just pro-peace and I think it's the responsibility of the one who is holding all the cards to accept that peace is in their best interest and work toward it.

Nice metaphor, but it just comes across as one more argument that Israel should make all the concessions--like releasing terrorists who kill again.

Imagine an entire Palestinian state filled with people like that.

I read your three links, but I find many of the conclusions rather dubious. First, it is acknowledged that the ICRC is the established authority on the Geneva Conventions and that they, in their authority, ruled that article 49 applies to the occupied territories. Second, the resolution 242 orders the parties to reach a just and lasting peace. It also involves a provision for defining boundary lines pursuant to legal claim of Arab parties. I'm sure I don't need to tell you about the recent article in Harretz (I think that's the spelling) detailing the investigation by the Israeli government into the disputable territories. Third, it's interesting that all three articles are from 2001 or before, thus (intentionally?) not including any details related to the Annapolis Agreement or the "road map" forming its basis which was agreed to by the Israeli government. You fail to mention that Israel never seriously attempted to cease settlement. Personally, I believe that many quasi-legal actions are just what they appear to be - land grabs intended to ensure the inclusion of specific territory in any final agreement.

Considering their refusal to accept the Magen David Adom, the question of objectivity is obvious--and as you no doubt read in one of the articles, the ICRC's:

decisions, unlike legal opinions on any other issues, are made in secret, without any form of due process...

[Its] history with relation to Jews is nothing to be proud of. During World War II, it was reluctant to investigate concentration camps, massacres, brutality and human-rights abuses. When it did visit some of the camps, its reports whitewashed Nazi atrocities.

So yeah, I agree: the conclusions of the ICRC are dubious.

BTW, no--I don't know which article in Ha'aretz (that's the correct spelling) you are referring to. Please provide a link.

If you really think that the Road Map and Annapolis have any import on the true nature of Resolution 242, which was established years earlier, please explain.

As far as ceasing settlement: if it is not illegal, why stop--especially if it applies pressure on the Arabs to come to the table and deal.

The bottom line--which you do not mention--is that as Eugene Rostow writes:

Resolution 242, which as undersecretary of state for political affairs between 1966 and 1969 I helped produce, calls on the parties to make peace and allows Israel to administer the territories it occupied in 1967 until "a just and lasting peace in the Middle East" is achieved. When such a peace is made, Israel is required to withdraw its armed forces "from territories" it occupied during the Six-Day War--not from "the" territories nor from "all" the territories, but from some of the territories, which included the Sinai Desert, the West Bank, the Golan Heights, East Jerusalem, and the Gaza Strip.

You call it quasi-legal. But according to one of the people who wrote Resolution 242: there is nothing quasi about it at all.

Considering their refusal to accept the Magen David Adom, the question of objectivity is obvious--and as you no doubt read in one of the articles, the ICRC's:

decisions, unlike legal opinions on any other issues, are made in secret, without any form of due process...

[Its] history with relation to Jews is nothing to be proud of. During World War II, it was reluctant to investigate concentration camps, massacres, brutality and human-rights abuses. When it did visit some of the camps, its reports whitewashed Nazi atrocities.

So yeah, I agree: the conclusions of the ICRC are dubious.

BTW, no--I don't know which article in Ha'aretz (that's the correct spelling) you are referring to. Please provide a link.

If you really think that the Road Map and Annapolis have any import on the true nature of Resolution 242, which was established years earlier, please explain.

As far as ceasing settlement: if it is not illegal, why stop--especially if it applies pressure on the Arabs to come to the table and deal.

The bottom line--which you do not mention--is that as Eugene Rostow writes:

Resolution 242, which as undersecretary of state for political affairs between 1966 and 1969 I helped produce, calls on the parties to make peace and allows Israel to administer the territories it occupied in 1967 until "a just and lasting peace in the Middle East" is achieved. When such a peace is made, Israel is required to withdraw its armed forces "from territories" it occupied during the Six-Day War--not from "the" territories nor from "all" the territories, but from some of the territories, which included the Sinai Desert, the West Bank, the Golan Heights, East Jerusalem, and the Gaza Strip.

You call it quasi-legal. But according to one of the people who wrote Resolution 242: there is nothing quasi about it at all.

Would it be too uncalled for to mention that there's a reason the eyes of the world are focused on Israel? this little place is the pivot point for everything that will shortly come to pass ............and the opinions of all the arabs and all the jews will not stop it...GOD gave that land to the Israelites (remember Moses?)and HE said HE would scatter them for their idol worship; and that is what happened! HE said HE would bring them back to the land of their fathers; and that is what happened! HE said that all the middle eastern nations would come against Israel with the help of the "kings of the north and the kings of the east"; and that is what's happening! Read more about these prophecies in Revelation, Ezekial, Isaiah, and Daniel; and then turn on your tv and watch them being fulfilled.