Sharon says Israel will remove settlements...

[hgc]

... as part of final peace deal. Haaretz

Now that's progress. Optimistic, anyone? Sharon will now have to surive a challenge to his party leadership from Netanyahu.

 

[Cleon]

Hold up there, Ace...He says "SOME settlements." No telling how many "some" consists of, or if they'll be actual settlements or just more of those unmanned outposts that the settlers set up in order to claim other people's land.

In other words, it's an empty statement.

 

[Cleopatra]

Some settlements are not enough I am afraid. The settlements should go otherwise there is no hope for serious negotiations.

 

[DanishDynamite]

Some settlements are not enough I am afraid. The settlements should go otherwise there is no hope for serious negotiations.

Well said. If only more Isrealies had your clarity of view.

 

[Grammatron]

Well said. If only more Isrealies had your clarity of view.

I think -- and that means it's in no way a fact -- a lot of Israelis do think like that, but the same people also think it's not going to stop the violence.

Let's look at the reality of the matter, they are negotiating with a leader who alleges has no control over groups that carry out the extremely violent attacks on the civilians population of Israel and Palestine with no visible remorse. What makes you think that giving up said settlements will stop groups like Hamas?

 

[Jocko]

Some settlements are not enough I am afraid. The settlements should go otherwise there is no hope for serious negotiations.

Funny, since they are expected to accept "some" reductions in terror bombings as "progress." Not that I feel Israel shouldn't dismantle any illegal outposts, but it keeps coming back to the double standard in my opinion.

That being said, I hope those who really pull the strings in the PA will be gracious enough to accept the token of good faith and encourage further such removals by not rewarding the Israelis with more dead civilians. A real reduction in violence will help bolster public opinion in Israel to continue to live up to their obligations, regardless of what Netanyahu says.

 

[svero]

It means *nothing* and I'm not at all encouraged. There won't be any serious moves towards a peaceful solution with Sharon in office because IMHO he doesn't want peace. He likes the status quo and all evidence points to him encouraging it whenever he can. One condition that has to be met before a move towards peace can occur, is that both parties have to actually want peace. Currently Sharon wants things the way they are, and the "terrorists" are playing right into his hands like the stupid chump suckers they are. Those idiot suicide bombers could go a long way towards helping their people out by stopping attacks against Israeli civilians. It only hurts them. Of course... pretty hard to say what should be done to apply pressure... Still the violence only gives the Israeli government a continued justification for their policies.

 

[dsm]

There won't be any serious moves towards a peaceful solution with Sharon in office because IMHO he doesn't want peace.

In the same way that Arafat doesn't want peace?

 

[svero]

In the same way that Arafat doesn't want peace?

I'm not sure what you mean by that. Obviously what Arafat wants and what Sharon wants are different.

I suppose you could make an argument that they both prefer the status quo over peace for thier own reasons so perhaps in that sense yes, in the same was as Arafat.

I find it harder to judge Arafat and I don't really have strong feelings about him one way or another because he's not as obvious as Sharon is. He's on the side that has significantly less power so you don't really see clearly what his actions are. Most of what you hear about him is Israeli propaganda. The Israeli govt use him as a scapegoat for everything (less so lately.. a lot more focus on hamas) so my view of him is blurred. I don't really have any illusions that that he's a morally superior man of peace or anything like that. But I have serious doubts that he's as much the ringleader of terrorism in the occupied territories as the Israeli govt would have us believe. To some extent I think it's in Sharon's best interest to keep him right where he is. It's good to have an obvious highly visible enemy for political purposes. I never really took too seriously threats to have him assasinated. That would be surprising.

 

[Mr Manifesto]

... as part of final peace deal. Haaretz

Now that's progress. Optimistic, anyone? Sharon will now have to surive a challenge to his party leadership from Netanyahu.

I have heard this tune before, and while I'm am cautiously optomistic and will always applaud any gesture towards peace; I have to say, I'll believe it when I see it.

 

[Cleopatra]

I reply to Grammatron and Jocko mostly.

The settlements were a big mistake from the beginning. Israel thought that it could keep West Bank because back then they haven't realized why they were sent in Middle East. Jews were not sent in Middle East by the Europeans to find peace but they were sent in order to keep the Arabs "busy". After 1967, Palestinians provided the same distraction to their people and this is how the tragedy started.

According to the plans of the Geneva initiative that are supported by fair negotiators from both sides, Israel will dismantle every settlement that has built after 1967 and Palestinians will deny the right to return.

I consider that the Palestianians are making a huge sacrifice. I wouldn't want to be in the place of somebody that wouldn't see his house again in his life. So, I belong to those that believe that a complete removal of the settlements and a real support to the future Palestinian State is essential.

I don't have illusions. The Arab leadership will always want to destroy Israel BUT fanatic religious Israelis would always want to occupy the territories of the West Bank.

Peace with Arafat and Sharon is not possible because those two men cannot function in a state of Peace. They are soldiers and they have the military mentality. As long as they are in charge and their mentality prevails do not expect too much.

My suggestion to those that they are interested in the Peace process is to have a look at the Geneva Initiative and if they think that there is a spec of reason in it to lobby for it in USA ,Europe and Australia.

 

[Grammatron]

I reply to Grammatron and Jocko mostly.

The settlements were a big mistake from the beginning. Israel thought that it could keep West Bank because back then they haven't realized why they were sent in Middle East. Jews were not sent in Middle East by the Europeans to find peace but they were sent in order to keep the Arabs "busy". After 1967, Palestinians provided the same distraction to their people and this is how the tragedy started.

According to the plans of the Geneva initiative that are supported by fair negotiators from both sides, Israel will dismantle every settlement that has built after 1967 and Palestinians will deny the right to return.

I consider that the Palestianians are making a huge sacrifice. I wouldn't want to be in the place of somebody that wouldn't see his house again in his life. So, I belong to those that believe that a complete removal of the settlements and a real support to the future Palestinian State is essential.

I don't have illusions. The Arab leadership will always want to destroy Israel BUT fanatic religious Israelis would always want to occupy the territories of the West Bank.

Peace with Arafat and Sharon is not possible because those two men cannot function in a state of Peace. They are soldiers and they have the military mentality. As long as they are in charge and their mentality prevails do not expect too much.

My suggestion to those that they are interested in the Peace process is to have a look at the Geneva Initiative and if they think that there is a spec of reason in it to lobby for it in USA ,Europe and Australia.

Hey, don't get me wrong, I'm all for anything that brings peace. However, lets say all the illegal -- and let's not forget that each faction views illegal in a different manner than others -- are removed and suicide attacks still happen. What should be the course of action then?

 

[a_unique_person]

It means *nothing* and I'm not at all encouraged. There won't be any serious moves towards a peaceful solution with Sharon in office because IMHO he doesn't want peace. He likes the status quo and all evidence points to him encouraging it whenever he can. One condition that has to be met before a move towards peace can occur, is that both parties have to actually want peace. Currently Sharon wants things the way they are, and the "terrorists" are playing right into his hands like the stupid chump suckers they are. Those idiot suicide bombers could go a long way towards helping their people out by stopping attacks against Israeli civilians. It only hurts them. Of course... pretty hard to say what should be done to apply pressure... Still the violence only gives the Israeli government a continued justification for their policies.

Not quite true, Sharon has never shied away from violence to get his ends, but his end is now in sight. Once he achieves it, I believe he will back off to a large extent, as long as the Palestinians peacefully aquiesce to whatever it is he has planned for them.

 

[dsm]

I'm not sure what you mean by that. Obviously what Arafat wants and what Sharon wants are different.

I suppose you could make an argument that they both prefer the status quo over peace for thier own reasons so perhaps in that sense yes, in the same was as Arafat.

I find it harder to judge Arafat and I don't really have strong feelings about him one way or another because he's not as obvious as Sharon is. He's on the side that has significantly less power so you don't really see clearly what his actions are. Most of what you hear about him is Israeli propaganda. The Israeli govt use him as a scapegoat for everything (less so lately.. a lot more focus on hamas) so my view of him is blurred. I don't really have any illusions that that he's a morally superior man of peace or anything like that. But I have serious doubts that he's as much the ringleader of terrorism in the occupied territories as the Israeli govt would have us believe. To some extent I think it's in Sharon's best interest to keep him right where he is. It's good to have an obvious highly visible enemy for political purposes. I never really took too seriously threats to have him assasinated. That would be surprising.

So what you're saying is that Arafat (and really all Palestinians) are puppets to Israel and, in particular, Sharon? That, even if it was in the Palestinians best interest, Arafat (et.al.) could not accept a good peace offer and do everything possible to ensure that no Palestinian breaks the peace? That Arafat has no understanding of world opinion and the devastating effect it could have on Israel if Israel were absolutely shown to be breaking a peace agreement? That Sharon (and Israel) have so much to gain by keeping the suicide bombers coming that peace is not worth exploring?

What's wrong with this picture??

 

[a_unique_person]

Hey, don't get me wrong, I'm all for anything that brings peace. However, lets say all the illegal -- and let's not forget that each faction views illegal in a different manner than others -- are removed and suicide attacks still happen. What should be the course of action then?

The same as now, diplomatic efforts towards peace. What other solution is there? The settlements are not there as part of a peace process and are know to be inflammatory.

 

[Jocko]

The same as now, diplomatic efforts towards peace. What other solution is there? The settlements are not there as part of a peace process and are know to be inflammatory.

You must be one boring guy in a barfight. I mean, you advocate diplomacy no matter how many times you get punched in the mouth. You're going to dimplomasize your way into an early grave at that rate.

Perhaps Arafat could actually put a muzzle on Hamas for a change, and let the Israelis not be rewarded with more murderous bombings? Not to mention he'd be saving Palestinian lives at the same time.

 

[a_unique_person]

You must be one boring guy in a barfight. I mean, you advocate diplomacy no matter how many times you get punched in the mouth. You're going to dimplomasize your way into an early grave at that rate.

Perhaps Arafat could actually put a muzzle on Hamas for a change, and let the Israelis not be rewarded with more murderous bombings? Not to mention he'd be saving Palestinian lives at the same time.

Yet you can conveniently ignore the attacks on Palestinians. Eg, a 30 year military occupation, people alive who have had their property taken from them with no compensation. How would you react to a military occupation, which is an act of war? Try to get on with your new masters as obediently as they require, or resist? If you had grown up your whole life under a military occupation, how long would you hold a grudge against those responsible for the occupation?

Norther Ireland is better off now than it was, but it still suffers from intermittent violence and much hatred. So it will into the future.

Israel, even if it gives the Palestinians everything they want, will still be subject to attacks. Get used to it. They asked themselves over there. The Palestinians didn't invite them in. Over time, with some luck and goodwill, there will be peace.

 

[Grammatron]

*snip*
Israel, even if it gives the Palestinians everything they want, will still be subject to attacks. Get used to it. They asked themselves over there. The Palestinians didn't invite them in. Over time, with some luck and goodwill, there will be peace.

This is THE -- and I can't emphasize THE enough -- dumbest thing you have ever said on this forum. In fact, you make Huzzington look smart with this statement. To give you an analogy in regards to what you just said..."There's no need for police to stop criminals, people should just get use to them. They move to the area with criminal themselves; criminals did not invite them. Over time, with some luck and goodwill the crime will stop." You see how dumb that statement you made is yet?

P.S. No I'm not equating all Palestinians to criminals, so you can STFU on that point right there.

 

[Jocko]

Israel, even if it gives the Palestinians everything they want, will still be subject to attacks. Get used to it.

So what's the point in granting them anything? If what you say is true, Israel will exterminate the Palestinians when they push hard enough. Get used to that.

There's more to being anti-semitic than just using ethnic slurs, AUP, and you're a living example of that.

 

[a_unique_person]

So what's the point in granting them anything? If what you say is true, Israel will exterminate the Palestinians when they push hard enough. Get used to that.

There's more to being anti-semitic than just using ethnic slurs, AUP, and you're a living example of that.

And I hope both sides will retain their humanity and it doesn't come to either side trying to obliterate the other. The point in granting them anything is that Israel is morally obliged to do so.

If you want to see what your attitude is, try the Rev Ian Paisley. Logically, he is right, the IRA has been guilty of murder, and other crimes. In the land of reality, we all have to learn to get along.