Unless it makes compromise possible by easing the occupation, and freezing - or better yet demolishing settlements - serious compromise on the part of the Palestinian leaders will be impossible and politically dangerous. The Palestine Papers have already shown, for all those who have their eyes open, who can see reality for what it is, without hiding in ideological or partisan subterfuges, that even when Palestinians are willing to make serious compromises regarding land swaps, East Jerusalem and the refugees issues, Israel's administrations are unwilling to actually to make compromises of their own, to seriously negotiate, to do something to enable a real Palestinian state to emerge, even when doing so would do wonders, as the Saudi plan envisaged, to facilitate Israel's relations with its neighbors. Having all this in mind, all publicly known facts, how can you construe the situation the way you do? It's Israel who's the occupying power, the country that has one of the most powerful armies in the world under its control, and plenty of support from the global economy's powerhouses (the US and Germany). It's Israel who has leverage over the Palestinians, not the other way round. It's Israel who can decide whether or not to pay attention to negotiations and make concessions, not the people it is occupying.

As for Kessler's article, I'm afraid to read it. I don't know what to expect from a writer who wrote such glowing things of that Kahanist terrorist Michael Ben-Ari.

Unless it makes compromise possible by easing the occupation, and freezing - or better yet demolishing settlements - serious compromise on the part of the Palestinian leaders will be impossible and politically dangerous. The Palestine Papers have already shown, for all those who have their eyes open, who can see reality for what it is, without hiding in ideological or partisan subterfuges, that even when Palestinians are willing to make serious compromises regarding land swaps, East Jerusalem and the refugees issues, Israel's administrations are unwilling to make their own concessions, to seriously negotiate, to retribute good faith with good faith, to do something to enable a real Palestinian state to emerge, even when doing so would do wonders, as the Saudi plan envisaged, to improve Israel's relations with its neighbors. Having all this in mind, all publicly known facts, how can you construe the situation the way you do? It's Israel who's the occupying power, the country that has one of the most powerful armies in the world under its control, and plenty of support from the global economy's powerhouses (the US and Germany). It's Israel who has leverage over the Palestinians, not the other way round. It's Israel who can decide whether or not to pay attention to negotiations and make concessions, not the people it is occupying.

As for Kessler's article, I'm afraid to read it. I don't know what to expect from a writer who wrote such glowing things of that Kahanist terrorist Michael Ben-Ari.

ciao

Unlike Israel the United States of America can point to the treaties that ceded that territory to the union.

Treaties make it legal.

The lack of a treaty makes it "the acquisition of territory by war", and that's quite illegal.

There are many differences between Israeli settlements and the American southwest. First of all, the American southwest is actually a part of America, the West Bank is not part of Israel. Second, the residents of the American southwest are citizens of the United States, Arabs in the West Bank are not citizens of any country and do not have and rights. The issue as I see it is about the indigenous peoples of the west bank and their lack of rights and self determination at the hands of an oppressive force.

The Palestinians already have a settler free territory run entirely by them. Obviously the settlements are not what is keeping them from democratic self-rule.

What has Hamas done in the role of leaders of their de facto Palestinian state? Put the entire population in a state of siege and ruled by fear. Rather take any kind of steps to ensure peaceful co-existence with Israel, they lob rockets indiscriminately at them, blatantly smuggle in heavy weapons and avoid any kind of negotiations.

As long as Gazans are in a war footing, Hamas never has to worry about things like responsible statescraft or providing any kind of legitimate leadership to its people.

Of course none of this would have been an issue had Arafat not used suicide bombers as negotiation tools in 1997. There would have already been a peaceful Palestinian state economically linked to Israel, Egypt and the rest of the Middle East.

AMOSYARKONI: "sorry what treaty was signed with the Apache, Navajo, the Pawnee, and the Sioux for their land and agreement to be sequestered in dumps in Wyoming and other low to no-income 'reservations.' "

OK, I'll look again to see if I said that the essential difference was that the USA was *fair* in its dealings, while Israel is *unfair*.....

Nope, nowhere did I even hint that the essential difference between the two examples given had to do with the fairness of the outcomes.

I said what I said i.e. the essential difference is that the USA possesses a LEGAL DOCUMENT (a.k.a. a "treaty") wherein the Apache, Navajo, etc acknowledges the sovereignty of the USA over that territory, while Israel has no such document.

"Just like the treaty with Mexico, these treaties could never have been signed under duress or due to military force....."

Oh, dear.

It is axiomatic that all treaties signed between
1) the victor and
2) the defeated
in the aftermath of a war have been "signed under duress or due to military force".

Such treaties are perfectly legal.

The prohibition on "signing under duress" has to do with having a gun held to your head even as the pen is being shoved in your hand, it has nothing to do with the relative power possessed by the two protagonists.

Honestly, *do* you know anything? Anything at all?

Honestly, does it get any dumber than this?

According to YOUR take on this then:
a) signing the Articles of Surrender on Tokyo Bay in 1945 was an illegal act, precisely because the victor has "forced" the Japanese to sign.
b) signing a Peace Treaty (let's say, the Treaty of San Francisco, 1951) is also an illegal act because, you know, the Japanese were under a belligerent occupation at the time.....

Indeed, according to your (hahahah!) "logic" then peace in the middle east is impossible, precisely because
1) Abbas can't "legally" sign a peace treaty while the West Bank is under Israeli military occupation, and
2) Israel won't even think about ending that occupation until a comprehensive peace treaty is signed.

Catch-22, anyone?

I have a tip for you, in the hope that it helps you make sense of this wild and wacky world.

Here it is: international law regards "armed conflict" as A Bad Thing.

So bad, in fact, that it pretty much prefers anything else to that "armed conflct".

So bad, indeed, that it pretty much will sanctify any agreement that is made between the two protagonists - no matter how "unfair" the terms or how "forcibly" they have been led to that point - if the alternative to having those signatures is that The Armed Conflict Continues On.

It's a shocking thought, isn't it?

AMOSYARKONI: "Never mind that the Native Americans didn't even recognize the authority of the US government at the time. "

Remind me again how you can:
a) sign a treaty, but
b) not recognize the authority of the person who co-signs it?

How does that work, exactly?

AMOSYARKONI: "How about the Israelis just whip up a "treaty" and get some Palestinian stooge to sign it. I guess that would make it legal too!"

Unfortunately for your argument, no, that would not be "legal".

There was an exchange of letters in 1991 between the Chairman of the PLO and the Prime Minister of Israel, wherein both made legally-binding commitments.

Arafat, for one, pledged that the PLO recognized the state of Israel (ahem, see above)

Rabin, for the other, pleadged that Israel recognizes of the PLO as "the representative of the Palestinian people and commence negotiations with the PLO within the Middle East peace process"

Sorry, but unless Israel can somehow (how, exactly?) manage to "do an AIPAC" on the PLO leadership then it can't "legally" do what you suggest.

Since, apparently, you didn't read it.

The quote was this:
"Ariel's purpose was to offset Israel's slender waistline (10 miles across at its narrowest) and obstruct a Jordanian invasion route in any future war."

The question that statement raises is this:
Q: Is that - or is that not - an acknowledgement that the state of Israel established Ariel in order that the residents would act as human shields in the event of a Jordanian invasion?

RR: "no johnboy. ariel residents WANT to be there...."

Annnnnd?
Soooooo?

That the residents of Ariel WANT to be there is utterly irrelevent to the question of why the state of Israel wants them to be there.

According to the quote above the state of Israel wants them to be there is because they make excellent human shields. That the residents of Ariel are A-OK with that fact - or even simply ignorant of that fact - is neither here nor there.

"The PLO was established as a terrorist LIBERATION group in 1964, 3 full yrs PRIOR to there being any so called occupied territories."

Your forgot to mention the original terrorist groups:

The Haganah, Palmach, and Irgun who forced the Palestinians off their land. Zionazis then and Zionazis today.

Zionazi-the belief that total strangers can move to a foreign country with the aim of taking it away from the local population, and then refuse to partially rectify the crime by giving some of it back, or letting some of the displaced back, because to do so would threaten the security or dominance of the theiving group.

Smearing respected individuals such Helen Thomas, or others who disagree with Israels failed policies is transparently bogus and intended solely to stifle intelligent discourse on a vital subject.

And when zionazis, like you, of any cause have to stoop to such tactics, it reveals that they are defending an increasingly weak case.

Why do you use such ugly tactics? The answer is simple: the case you are defending is so weak that you cannot rely on facts, logic, and claims of justice to win the day.

That distinctive brew of left-baiting, Obama-hating, poorly veiled racism, clergy-driven jingoism, clergy-fanned derision of the Supreme Court, the Likudite insertion of anti-government bile where an ideology should go, a majority which feels victimized and discriminated against and threatened by minorities of indeterminate legal status - it's all here. It just speaks Hebrew.

Your rhetorical hasbara strategies fail and will continue to fail. We are not Rachel Corries that you can bulldoze over and kill with insults and personal attacks.

One of the key reasons that the Israeli government have lost so much influence all around the world in recent years, and especially among well-educated sectors of Europe and the United States, is because they tend to rely heavily on “arguments” like the one you just made—personal attacks and smears, and especially wild distortion of the facts that are out there with just a touch to Google.

Political movements which are standing on solid ground, and which have facts, reason and morality on their side, do not stoop to these methods. It’s a sign of desperation and general intellectual bankruptcy.

Resorting to character assassination, personal attacks, or unwarranted accusations is always the strategy of cheesy Israeli hasbaric apologists.

Go back to israel, your ilk are not wanted here anymore.

Dude, I have the solution for your problems! To open your medication bottle, you need to push the top DOWN, then twist! There, that should do it.

first of all, rachel corrie was a whore.

I noticed you didnt answer the issue of 1964, which was my main point.

also, your counter spew doesnt deal with the FACT that the UN, approved of israel in 1948.

you can use your idiotic zionazi crap all day long, it doesnt change the facts.

That your writing is so well thought out and supported that it must be done by professional writers who are propagandising.

So Betz, in your excrecably inane way, you are saying that people who disagree with you are well read and intelligent enough that they must be doing this sort of thing to make a living.

Same can't be said about your POV. I don't think anyone would bother waste a dime having foaming at the mouth wackadoodles to represent them online.

"Johnboy seems to forget his own country's history of ranches, outposts, and wagon trails.....I forgot these were "pioneers of the west" so it can't be similar at all!"

The first line of defence for an Israeli apologist is this: It's OK for Israel to be doing this because - gosh, darn it - everyone does this! Examples then follow.

Those examples are, almost inevitably, from the 18th and 19th century.

You know, the Age of Empire and the period of Colonial Expansionism.

Sunshine, it ain't the 19th century any more, and so e.v.e.r.y.b.o.d.y. has long-since stopped doing this.

Well, everybody except one little recalcitrant.....

The British no longer Build Empires.
European countries no longer scramble over each other to colonize foreign soil.
The USA no longer believes it has a Manifest Destiny to keep sprawling north and south.

"Oh, and there are "treaties" where the natives signed away their rights to live piss poor on reservations, so its all good now!"

Again, the point here is that international law is an evolving beast, and so treaties that seemed reasonable Way Back Then would not pass muster in The Here And Now.

But the other thing about international law is that it is not retrospective i.e. a treaty signed in the 19th century is still a treaty, and if the USA had managed to coerce a signature out of the Mexicans, or the Canadians, or the Native Indians then those treaties can not be abrogated now merely because they now look More Than A Little Unfair.

This is a fact: the USA's expansion in the 18th and 19th century was perfectly legal in the 18th and 19th century, and so the legality - and thus the consequences - of those actions (e.g. the addition of New Mexico or Texas to the Union) can not be challenged in the 21st century.

Or, long story short: Israel missed the boat by, oh, around about a century. Sorry.

Actually Johnny, nobody here has actually defended the settlements per se. Its just some people know an ignorant anti-semitic screed when it comes up.

I don't think the settlements are a good idea, but I think the overwhelming majority of the anti-Israel crowd on this site are a bunch of ignorant, mouthbreathing bigots.

Of course if there is always "the Gaza option". Removing the settlements and completely isolating the West Bank on all sides (Jordan would love this!). Of course it would leave the West Bank completely screwed.

Obviously the settlements have to be part of negotiations. But the problem being, there is no expectation the Palestinians will act in good faith. If the Palestinians still can't agree to stipulate upon the national existence of the party across the negotiation table then its just a waste of time to consider talks.

SPOOD: "Actually Johnny, nobody here has actually defended the settlements per se."

Actually, nobody has so much as addressed the point that I made i.e. the quote indicates that Ariel was established so that its civilians would serve as a human shield against the Royal Jordanian Army.

SPOOD: "Its just some people know an ignorant anti-semitic screed when it comes up."

*sigh* The last refuge of the hasbarist scoundrel. *sigh*

I produced a quote.
I pointed out that this quote acknowledges that the state of Israel created Ariel *so* *that* the residents would act as human shields against a Jordanian invasion.
I pointed out that Israel itself is quite vocal about the evils of "human shields"

That's what I originally said, and I've just repeated it.

Explain to me, please, just what is "anti-semitic" about those sentences?

SPOOD: "I don't think the settlements are a good idea, but I think the overwhelming majority of the anti-Israel crowd on this site are a bunch of ignorant, mouthbreathing bigots."

And that statement is relevent to my original post...... how, exactly?

SPOOD: "Of course if there is always "the Gaza option". Removing the settlements and completely isolating the West Bank on all sides (Jordan would love this!). Of course it would leave the West Bank completely screwed."

Again, the relevency of that statement to my post rather escapes me....

SPOD: "Obviously the settlements have to be part of negotiations. But the problem being, there is no expectation the Palestinians will act in good faith. If the Palestinians still can't agree to stipulate upon the national existence of the party across the negotiation table then its just a waste of time to consider talks."

Well, I guess once you have spun off into an irrelevency then you may as well run with it as hard as you can, heh?

After all, that's hasbarah 101, isn't it......

All that shtick simply doesn't work, yet you keep on tryin' it on.

Don't. Bother.

AMOSYARKONI: "No, its that the history of nations is built on blood and war and territorial conflicts and migratory patterns."

And that's H.I.S.T.O.R.Y. you are talking about, not the modern-day policies of monder-day countries.

Hold that thought.....

AMOSYARKONI: "This is the normal course of the world."

Nooooo, that WAS the normal course of the world.
You know, back in the days of H.I.S.T.O.R.Y.

But normal countries no longer behave in that manner, and there is only one singularly abnormal country that continues to insist that it has a "right" to behave as a 19th century colonial expansionist power.

Only. The. One.

AMOSYARKONI: "Kosovo and South Sudan are modern examples."

Of what, exactly?
Of the right of conquest?
Of the right to colonial expansionism?

Gosh, I must have missed that one.....

AMOSYARKONI: "When Iraq splits apart it will serve as another example."

Of what, exactly?
Of the right of conquest?
Of the right to colonial expansionism?

Gosh, I must have missed that one too.....

AMOSYARKONI: "Even the Arabs conquered and invaded the places they now occupy, which includes Berber, Kurdish, and Coptic lands."

Yeah, they did. Back in the days that count as H.I.S.T.O.R.Y.

But in the modern-day world of the here-and-now they don't do that, and the only dimwit who thought it was worth trying on got smacked down not once but twice.

Go figure, hey?

AMOSYARKONI: "Israel using the residents of Ariel as human shields?"

There is no need for the question mark.

Ariel was established as a barrier to a Jordanian invasion.

That means that the PURPOSE behind having a civilian population right *there* is so that those civilians would shield Israel itself from the Royal Jordanian Army.

Why are you even arguing that point, when it is so obviously true?

AMOSYARKONI: "A country is not supposed to use the people it is at war with as human shields. A country can do whatever it likes with its own population, which includes the residents of Ariel."

No, that argument is wrong in two ways:

ONE: All civilians are "protected persons" under international humanitarian law, and so you can no more use your own civilians as a means of holding onto occupied territory than you can tie the civilians who are under your occupation to the fender of your jeeps.

TWO: A country can do whatever it likes with its own civlian population INSIDE its own territory, but when you start "settling" your civilians OUTSIDE your own territory then that is Colonial Expansionism, and that ceased to be legal a long time ago.

AMOSYARKONI: "Second, Ariel simply expands the territorial waist of Israel."

And *that* concept is called "the acquisition of territory by war" (a.k.a. "conquest"), and it is also highly illegal.

"In the event of an invasion it would obviously be evacuated of civilians and reinforced with Soldiers, as was the Golan civilian centers during 1973."

*chortle*

You really believe that, do you?

Then why do you need "civilians" there at all?

Just build an army base, stock it with munitions and supplies, and leave it in the care of a skeleton staff of non-coms.

After all, it stands to reason that it'll be a whole lot quicker rushing IDF conscripts eastward if the roads they need to use to get there aren't being choked with panicked refugees trudging westward.