Halt Settlements and We’ll Talk: PA

[Darranar]

OCCUPIED JERUSALEM, 2 November 2003 — Palestinian leaders yesterday welcomed Israeli offers to resume peace talks but said any negotiations must come with efforts to halt Jewish settlement building on occupied Palestinian land.

New Israeli-Palestinian contacts would likely try to pick up the stalled US-backed road map for peace, which aims to end three years of fighting and create a Palestinian state alongside Israel. Progress on the first stages of the plan withered amid weeks of new fighting and the failure of both sides to meet their key obligations.

Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon said earlier this week that he was willing to hold talks with Palestinian Prime Minister Ahmed Qorei, reversing previous Israeli suggestions that it would not deal with the new Palestinian prime minister because he was too close to President Yasser Arafat. Both Israel and the United States have sought to sideline Arafat.

Qorei said yesterday that while no meeting with Sharon was immediately forthcoming there were contacts between the two sides.

http://www.arabnews.com/?page=4§ion=0&article=34503&d=2&m=11&y=2003

[GabysPoppy]

1. Let me ask you an off topic question please

Have you ever prayed at the Kotel?

[Darranar]

2. No...

Never.

[GabysPoppy]

6. One more question

Is it ever your desire to do so?

[Darranar]

7. If things calm down, yes...

but I'd sacrifice that desire for peace any day.

[GabysPoppy]

8. Just one small suggestion

Since you are proposing that Israel should return to the pre 1967 borders, get your praying done before your "dream" becomes realized.
Jews were forbidden entry to that part of Jerusalem prior to 1967.

I still remember the stories and pictures of IDF soldiers, rifles slung over their shoulder, praying by the Kotel, tears streaming down their face. I've seen pictures of soldiers laying don their arms for the momentary experience of donning tefillin at the Kotel also for the first time in history.

I also remember the desecration of Christian and Jewish places of worship during that time. One only has to recall the recent desecration in Bethelem should you require a LINK.


I may be wrong, but I think that part of history was before you were born. Rather than a knee jerk reaction of agreement everytime you hear "1967 borders" are mentioned, I suggest and hope you become more knowledgeable about what you are agreeing with.

Be careful of what you wish for, you might get it.

Before a safari is started and everyone jumps on their respective horses, donkeys, asses, camels or kangaroos.

I want a PEACEFUL resolution of this conflict.
I want settlements existing on a future Palestinian State dismantled.
I want Hamas and ALL other terrorist organizations disbanded.
I then want border restrictions lifted and Palestinians allowed to make a living within the State of Israel if they choose to. Without Israel's cooperation in this area the Palestinian State has no chance to survive. Decades of history have shown that other Arab/Muslim States have shown little inclination to help the Palestinian people.

If I have forgotten something above, TOUGH. It's not my inclination to solve all the Middle East problems on a beautiful Sunday afternoon.

[Darranar]

9. I'm very well aware of all of that, thank you...

The Geneva Accords make sense to me in regard to Jerusalem. Letting Israel keep all of it doesn't make sense, but I'd let the Palestinians have the whole thing if it would bring peace, jews allowed inside or not.

[GabysPoppy]

10. So sad

[ForestsBeatBushes]

12. Does the name 'Neville Chamberlain' ring any bells?

[Darranar]

13. Note the "-if it would bring peace" part....

I didn't know world war II was peace.

[bemildred]

16. I believe the implication is that you are an "appeaser"

or some such thing. It is worth noting that historical opinion
on what Chamberlain was up to is mixed, some aver that he was
buying time for a Britain that desperately needed it to rearm.

In any case it is a ridiculous comparison, and the notion that one
should never appease anyone is a form of non-thought.

[Darranar]

17. Personally, I think it was foolish...

it was Germany that was rearming at the time, not Britian.

But as you pointed out, the comparison is worthless and off-topic.

[bemildred]

18. Britain was trying to catch up, I can assure you.

The question is: to what extent was it a deliberate
political charade, and to the extent that is was, was
Mr. Chamberlain in on it? Since he was PM at the time,
one would think so. But it's all opinion, once you get
past Mr. Churchill's comments and the facts of British
airplane production at the time. The demonizing of Mr.
Chamberlain appears to me to have been political theater
aimed at justifying the "Unconditional Surrender" demands
made later, not unlike the hyperbolic rhetoric we see
trotted out here to try to fend off compromise.

[The Magistrate]

23. Though It Is A Little Off The General Topic, My Friend

Allow me to suggest a work: "The Deadly Embrace" by Messers Read and Fisher, focusing on the diplomacy behind the Hitler-Stalin Pact. Mr. Chamberlain made some solid contributions there, and deserves the scorn he has received.

That said, there is no reasonable application of the "lessons" of Munich to the present day Middle East. But you will find that work an interesting read, Sir, if you have not already come across it.

[bemildred]

33. Thank you Sir, I'll look it up.

I've been reading Mr. Orwell's essays from the period,
and he takes the UK goverment to task for most of the
1930's, but then he knew a totalitarian when he saw one.

[The Magistrate]

34. It Is Fairly Clear, Sir

Chamberlain would have preferred financing Hitler in a war against Stalin to almost any other conceivable outcome during the late thirties, and did what he could to contrive that circumstance. He just was not any good at the work....

[bemildred]

35. Indeed, it was a great folly.

Mr. Orwell spends a certain time discussing exactly that attitude,
and the persistence of the notion that Hitler was not really such a
bad fellow, that he was someone you could do business with, etc.
He explicitly mentions that they hadn't learned a thing since WWI,
and were still fighting the last war.

One cannot say much for Mr. Stalin's judgement in the case either.

The point is that Neville did make an excellent fall-guy and
scapegoat, and he played his part well, and though a fool, he was
also a patriot. Or that is the story anyway, and I find it an
interesting speculation.

If one were trying to buy time and throw Hitler off it is hard to
think of a better act than the dog-and-pony show Neville put on with
Munich. Of course this was all rather unfortunate for Czechoslovakia,
and so on.

[bemildred]

46. I should make clear I do not especially advocate such a view.

One of the things I find striking about that whole period
before and leading into WWII is the wide variety of opinion
one can find about it. Munich in particular is trotted out
as exemplary of every lesson to be learned in politics, and as
the touchstone and guide - in a negative sense - for any and
all problems that might crop up anywhere in the World.

Historians and wannabe historians of every stripe grovel over
the papers and the details and come to a variety of incompatible
conclusions about which details were important and which were
not. It was in that context that I found the "Chamberlain as
hero" theory interesting.

My own conclusion, which is not of much direct use to an historian,
is that leaders frequently are very confused as to what they are
about and as to what the important factors in the affairs of their
nation are; that they are nevertheless generally convinced that
they know just what they are doing; and that this confusion often
bleeds over into the historical accounts.

It is instructive in this context to consider Mr. Diamonds perspective
on what matters (in "Guns, Germs and Steel"), or Mr. Zinnser - I
believe it was - that you mentioned the other day in "Rats, Lice, and
History".

Mr. Chamberlain, seen in his context and by his own assumptions
looks better than when seen in retrospect based on the results.
This is fair in that one should be judged by results, and unfair
in that the situation as it existed in the UK in the pre-war years
was not solely Mr. Chamberlain's doing, he had a good deal of help,
and in that the description of the results is often subject to dispute.
In fact he seems very representative of the British ruling class
of the time.

Hitler can easily be argued to be a great fool too, as may Stalin
and a long list of others. Nothing is more dangerous than great
success. One reason I give grudging respect to Churchill is that
he often had the right of it as things actually turned out, and
he obtained the necessary results. One must give similar respect
to Mr. Roosevelt.

You must forgive this diatribe, I think the most requisite attribute
of great leadership is humility, a sense of how tenuous one's grip
on the levers of the world truly are, and it is an attibute sadly
lacking in most any direction one chooses to look.

[Darranar]

51. Every leader can be depicted as a great fool...

only some of which truly were.

One could make the argument, for instance, that Mr. Roosevelt and Mr. Churchill were great fools for letting Stalin take over Eastern Europe. In doing so, however, they ignore the fact that neither Roosevelt nor Churchill had the very rare gift of mind-reading. Mistakes were certainly made on their part; that can't really be questioned. But no leader can know the future with certainty.

Good leadership is a combination of humility and cunning; while one must not be as arrogant as to believe that he actually has powerful control over the levers of the world, at the same time one must have the capability to use them, and use them wisely. Few have managed such a combination; both Roosevelt and Churchill did well in those areas, though they were far from perfect. Both Bush and Sharon fail miserably on both accounts.

Chamberlain's deepest failure seems to me to have been arrogance; whether or not he specifically believed he could contain Hitler, he failed in doing whatever he intended to do, though it appears likely to me that "whatever he intended to do" would likely have been wise for a more influential and powerful leader.

[bemildred]

52. OK.

Nobody is perfect, eh?

[Darranar]

53. Basically.

[ForestsBeatBushes]

38. I don't think it's a form of non-thought

to NOT appease while 11,000,000 people are murdered

[Darranar]

39. Uh... 11,000,000?

Who exactly killed eleven million people?

[bemildred]

49. You are correct, Sir.

Clearly that is not a form of "non-thought".

[sushi]

14. I would have thought

that when peace comes both sides will be allowed inside whatever or wherever inside is.

[GabysPoppy]

19. No property rights for Lebanon's refugees

It's not only past history of Arab non-help for Palistians. The following article is from Aljazeera lest someone accuse me of a "Pro-Israeli" source.

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/9DC5B37F-A3FB-4781-9642-0126711DA4A7.htm

Abu Umar is a Palestinian refugee and amendments to a Lebanese property law in 2002 forbid the acquisition of real estate by non-Lebanese persons “who do not possess citizenship issued by a state recognised by Lebanon.”

snip

Targeting Palestinians

Palestinian refugees are not specifically mentioned, but the aim is widely acknowledged to be to prevent the permanent settlement of about 390,000 Palestinians in Lebanon.

Half of these refugees live in squalid conditions in 12 camps throughout the country with no medical, social or educational services from the Lebanese government.

snip


"Bring me your tired, your poor......"

Never mind

Oh, if anyone cares to start a thread with this article, feel free.

[Darranar]

20. What the Arabs have done to the Palestinians is horrible...

and what the Israelis have done to the Palestinians is also horrible.

At least the Lebanese don't kill them, raid them, bulldoze their houses, and build walls on their land...

[GabysPoppy]

21. Why did I think it was impossible

For someone to make this Israels's fault or to have this kind of reaction?

:shrug:

[Darranar]

22. This isn't Israel's fault...

nor did I say it was.

I was simply pointing out that teh Israelis are far from innocent.

[Resistance]

29. the spin is amazing isnt it

[tinnypriv]

28. Replying to yourself with an irrelevant "but the Arabs do it too!" post

Is, um, interesting.

You keep it up. To think, you even had a point earlier in the thread.

[GabysPoppy]

30. You be the one to tell Abu Umar he is irrelevant

You keep it up. To think even you had no point in your thread.

[tinnypriv]

31. Maybe you ought to read your own links

"All of our endeavours and actions are geared toward achieving the right of return. An apartment won’t prevent me from returning to Palestine"

I'll tell him he's irrelevant, you tell him to get the fuck away from Israel. Deal?

[GabysPoppy]

32. Sorry, I don't make deals with people who don't live up to them

Fool me once, shame on you.

Fool me twice, shame on me.

[tinnypriv]

37. Alright

You just tell him to get the fuck away from Israel, his only crime being that he was likely driven to Lebanon by military conquest.

Saves me trying to figure out the Lebanese phone code I guess.

Have fun!

[bemildred]

3. The Palestinians, the ones that want to talk,

all seem to be more or less on the same page:

http://www.democraticunderground.org/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=116&topic_id=2159

[The Magistrate]

4. In Situations Like This, My Friend

The best thing to do is to call, and see if your opponent is bluffing. Halt settlement expansion, and see if the other side follows through. If they do not, it is clear who is making the problem continue.

[Darranar]

5. I agree...

though it does seem to me that if the GOI accepts a visible concession such as this one, along with tearing down the land-grab wall, the push for real talk among the Palestinian people and the PA itself will increase.

If an Abbas-like person manages to gain some power and is backed by a consdierable portion of the Palestinian populace, he may be able to accomplish something useful in helping to stop the terrorism, while at the same time not alienating his own people or falling victim to Arafat's underminings, if the GOI lends him considerable support in the form of concessions.

[ForestsBeatBushes]

11. I believe that's been tried more than once. It didn't work.

Is my memory correct, GabysPoppy?

[tinnypriv]

15. Israel has never halted settlement expansion

Ever.

I'm sure GabysPoppy would agree with that. If not, he's wrong.

[rini]

24. try the

roadmap, settlements were dismantled; to no availe.

[Darranar]

25. LOL...

Sharon never freezed settlements. NEVER.

He dismantled a few outposts as new houses were built everywhere else.

[tinnypriv]

27. The question was:

"Has Israel ever halted settlement expansion"?

You must have mistook that for:

"Has glorious Israel ever took down a couple of caravans"?

Answer your own question if you like, but I'd prefer to deal with reality. :dunce:

In case you prefer purty images:

[tinnypriv]

36. Oh yeah

Note the doubling from 1993 onwards.

[The Magistrate]

26. You Are Correct, Mr. Priv

There have been ebbs in the rate of expansion, but never halts to it.

[ForestsBeatBushes]

40. Well, then, case closed.

"If not, he's wrong."

So, I did some hunting and found this:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=124&topic_id=19120#20224

If GP can't get through to you or Darranar or a lot of the others here, I certainly won't try.

[Darranar]

41. You'll note...

that he (GP) never replied to a post of mine once in that thread.

The argument he was in was about his personal perspective on the settlements, and has no bearing on the current conversation.

[GabysPoppy]

45. I am terribly sorry I didn't respond to your posts.

Here are your three contributions to the thread.

Darranar (1000+ posts) Sat Oct-18-03 08:47 PM
Response to Reply #126

127. That's probably true...

Edited on Sat Oct-18-03 08:47 PM by Darranar
with the worsening situation in Iraq, foreign policy will most likely be focused in that regard, and as was said, national elections are too big a deal for anything else to be taking place.

I don't quite think that that point of "anything that happens between now in then is window dressing" has yet been reached. When the Democratic nominee is chosen, that will certainly mark that it has come. Bush isn't yet on the defense to so much of an extent, and he has no one to focus his offense on, so until he is and he does, I don't think we have yet reached "window-dressing" stage. Approached it, yes, but not quite there yet.

But the exact point really isn't important.

Not that I really expect US foreign policy in regard to Israel to change much regardless of the election...


and this one

Darranar (1000+ posts) Wed Oct-08-03 07:24 PM
Response to Reply #65

67. "Empty?"


LOL.

I guess the Palestinians really don't exist.

and finally this one
Darranar (1000+ posts) Wed Oct-08-03 09:46 PM
Response to Reply #69

70. I do...


I just dont read racist propaganda pieces.

That statement you made keeps on making me want to both laugh and cry.

Which one did you expect an answer or a reaction to?

Post #1 was your response to Tinnypriv

Posts #2 and #3 was your response to Rini

Maybe had you asked me something directly, you could and should have expected a reaction from me. That is the way a usual discussion happens to work. But despite the obvious, I sincerly apologize if your feelings were hurt.

[Darranar]

48. What in the...?

ForestsBeatsBushes said that I was arguing with you. I wan't. That was my point.

[GabysPoppy]

50. My bad

I apologize

[tinnypriv]

42. Er

What the fuck does that have to do with the question?

[ForestsBeatBushes]

43. Er

I'm just sayin' that GabysPoppy has already debated with you and it seems to have been a waste of his time, judging by that link.

round and round and round and round and round and round and round - not productive

[Darranar]

44. Er...

you'll note that most of the debate wasn't about israel's settlement policies, but rather about GabysPoppy's position on Israel's settlement policies?

[tinnypriv]

47. Oh right

If you notice, there are several couple thousand word posts of mine in that thread where the debate was productive.

Draw the appropriate conclusions. If a poster warrants a substantial post in response to their points, they usually get it. If their argument warrants the words 'off' and 'fuck' in another order, I'll do my best to oblige.

I also made clear I was not discussing facts, but interpretation. GP just doesn't like being called on his "settlements must go" fraud, a standard phrase used by many to create the impression of pro-peace bono fides.

That just happens to be BS, because the obvious and necessary next question is: "what settlements"?

I made perfectly clear that if I got an answer to that question (which is the crucial one on this topic), I would retract my previous interpretation of his views (as is the nature of debate).

If GP (or you) want to take that as a waste of time, I couldn't give a fuck to be honest. You should reserve that opinion for the idiotic attempts by various posters (on both 'sides') to steer discussions in off-topic directions.

That's a real waste of goddamn time. :eyes: