Is Abbas Again Planning to Walk Away from Direct Negotiations?

[Apocalypse]

It only seems simple and obvious to you because of your attitude towards the Palestinians and your attitude towards Israel. Were Israel to insist that there would not be a two-state solution the Palestinians would just as likely have abandoned talks. Does that mean the precondition of demanding a two-state solution as the result was undermining the talks?

Nope, it seems obvious to me because it is obvious by every kind of human logic.
Really, a three years old could tell that when one party sets a precondition to another party and demands it to unconditionally fulfill said condition before talks can go on between the two parties, it undermines peace the peace talks. Why? Because if this demand is not unconditionally fulfilled, said party would destroy the peace talks, hence it is the unavoidable conclusion that said party has destroyed the peace talks. Simplicity itself.

Prove that arms smuggling and tunnel digging were violations of the truce.

I have no need to prove that an invasion to Israeli land by Hamas terrorists is a violation of a cease fire, it should be obvious to anyone with but a shard of logic in his mind, but what should be more obvious is that the rockets launching from Gaza into Southern Israel that were going on for the months before Israel has launched an attack on a tunnel dug up by Hamas into Israeli land to try and kidnap an Israeli soldier, and for the months after it.
There is pretty much no possible way to blame the break of the truce between Israel and the terrorists with Israel's actions, considering the rockets and the invasion that came before the raid.

 

[Demon of Light]

Really, a three years old could tell that when one party sets a precondition to another party and demands it to unconditionally fulfill said condition before talks can go on between the two parties, it undermines peace the peace talks. Why? Because if this demand is not unconditionally fulfilled, said party would destroy the peace talks, hence it is the unavoidable conclusion that said party has destroyed the peace talks. Simplicity itself.

So are you saying that the Palestinians demanding as a precondition that Israel endorse a two-state solution undermines the peace talks?

I have no need to prove that an invasion to Israeli land by Hamas terrorists is a violation of a cease fire

How about you prove irrefutably that it was an invasion? Of course, simply intruding on Israeli land is hardly worth killing people over and is certainly nothing when Israel does not even allow Palestinians in Gaza to get to parts of their own land.

There is pretty much no possible way to blame the break of the truce between Israel and the terrorists with Israel's actions, considering the rockets and the invasion that came before the raid.

The rockets were fired by groups like Islamic Jihad and, as I recall, the Al-Aqsa Martyr's Brigade. Hamas was who Israel had a truce with and ultimately they did not fire any rockets during the ceasefire. While Hamas should have and did stop these groups from firing rockets, the fact someone was able to launch a rocket or mortar into Israel is hardly reason to claim Hamas was violating the truce or that Israel bears no responsibility. Cease-fires survive even when the parties of them violate it. If cease-fires died because some third party engaged in violence against one of the parties no truce would ever survive.

Holding Hamas directly responsible for what these other groups do is no more reasonable than holding Israel directly responsible for what the settlers in the West Bank do. Both have a responsibility to prevent or punish such actions, but they are not responsible for the actions themselves. They are not omnipresent and expecting them to stop every single action is absurd.

 

[Apocalypse]

So are you saying that the Palestinians demanding as a precondition that Israel endorse a two-state solution undermines the peace talks?

Nope, I'm saying that a three years old would understand that when one party sets a precondition to another party and demands it to unconditionally fulfill said condition before talks can go on between the two parties, it undermines peace the peace talks. Why? Because if this demand is not unconditionally fulfilled, said party would destroy the peace talks, hence it is the unavoidable conclusion that said party has destroyed the peace talks. Simplicity itself.

How about you prove irrefutably that it was an invasion? Of course, simply intruding on Israeli land is hardly worth killing people over and is certainly nothing when Israel does not even allow Palestinians in Gaza to get to parts of their own land.

Those are not mere people, those are terrorists, Hamas militants. I have no more sympathy for them than I have for al-Qaeda or Hezbollah militants.
And an invasion to Israeli land is indeed a violation of the truce, as are the rockets launching at Israeli civilians.

The rockets were fired by groups like Islamic Jihad and, as I recall, the Al-Aqsa Martyr's Brigade. Hamas was who Israel had a truce with and ultimately they did not fire any rockets during the ceasefire. While Hamas should have and did stop these groups from firing rockets, the fact someone was able to launch a rocket or mortar into Israel is hardly reason to claim Hamas was violating the truce or that Israel bears no responsibility. Cease-fires survive even when the parties of them violate it. If cease-fires died because some third party engaged in violence against one of the parties no truce would ever survive.

Holding Hamas directly responsible for what these other groups do is no more reasonable than holding Israel directly responsible for what the settlers in the West Bank do. Both have a responsibility to prevent or punish such actions, but they are not responsible for the actions themselves. They are not omnipresent and expecting them to stop every single action is absurd.

Hamas is directly responsible for the rockets launching from the Gaza strip and they were clear violations of the truce, as was the digging of a tunnel into Israel in the attempt to kidnap a soldier.
Both were violations of the truce that came before Israeli response and the attack on the terrorists' tunnel.

The truce is designed to halt Israeli incursions into the Gaza Strip, and to stop missiles being fired from Gaza into southern Israel.

BBC NEWS | Middle East | Israel and Hamas ceasefire begins

 

[Demon of Light]

Nope, I'm saying that a three years old would understand that when one party sets a precondition to another party and demands it to unconditionally fulfill said condition before talks can go on between the two parties, it undermines peace the peace talks. Why? Because if this demand is not unconditionally fulfilled, said party would destroy the peace talks, hence it is the unavoidable conclusion that said party has destroyed the peace talks. Simplicity itself.

So are you saying it is not a precondition for the Palestinians to demand Israel accept the two-state solution before talks can begin?

Those are not mere people, those are terrorists, Hamas militants. I have no more sympathy for them than I have for al-Qaeda or Hezbollah militants.

Call them whatever you like, but if they do not pose an imminent threat it is not worth the consequences of killing them.

And an invasion to Israeli land is indeed a violation of the truce, as are the rockets launching at Israeli civilians.

Prove that there was any intrusion. Calling it an invasion is just hyperbole.

Hamas is directly responsible for the rockets launching from the Gaza strip and they were clear violations of the truce, as was the digging of a tunnel into Israel in the attempt to kidnap a soldier.

Hamas was a party to the truce, not these other groups. All the same Hamas did take action to prevent any attacks. Expecting a 100% success rate is unreasonable for any situation.

 

[MSgt]

Arms smuggling is not an attack on Israel, nor is digging a tunnel. If military preparations and build-ups had been part of the truce then Israel would have been in constant violation as well.

So we are to faithfully believe that the noble people of "Palestine" digged a trunnel to smuggle weapons for vast Elk hunting? Israel has a standing recognized military and has every right to protect itself from its aggresors. Like I stated, most countries would have wiped a neighbor like "Palestine" off the map by now.

I don't care about violations. What I focus on is truth. And the truth is that from the Arab wars to the PLO to Fatah and to Hamas, Palestinian representation has never wanted true peace. 20years from now, people like you will be at a key board insisting that peace is around the corner if only "Israelis" (or Americans) would wave the magic wand.

 

[Demon of Light]

So we are to faithfully believe that the noble people of "Palestine" digged a trunnel to smuggle weapons for vast Elk hunting? Israel has a standing recognized military and has every right to protect itself from its aggresors.

Do you believe people outside government have a right to arm themselves for protection? If so I fail to see why you would not think Hamas has the same right. Arming themselves is in no way a violation of any ceasefire.

20years from now, people like you will be at a key board insisting that peace is around the corner if only "Israelis" (or Americans) would wave the magic wand.

I do not rule that out as a possibility, though obviously I have a different idea of why that might be the case.

 

[MichaelW]

Figuratively speaking, Hamas is a de facto legitimate government but any "army" they could muster would more likely be a militia like group.

Abbas needs thesseif he wants to remain in power and ensure Hamas stay out of the West Bank. He cannot rely on Fatah or the Palestinian security forces for much longer.

 

[MSgt]

Do you believe people outside government have a right to arm themselves for protection? If so I fail to see why you would not think Hamas has the same right. Arming themselves is in no way a violation of any ceasefire.

Protection from what? The hoards of Israeli armies that agress across borders for no reason decade to decdade? Or is this the other way around? Palestinians are armed enough. They prove it all the time. I think if Mexico were launching rockets into California or Texas and murdering Americans weekly and monthly you sing a different tune about a celebration of Mexican armament.

I do not rule that out as a possibility, though obviously I have a different idea of why that might be the case.

Yeah, but your idea smacks history across the face. Israel's mistrust of Palestinians is a repercussion of decades of effort on the Palestinian side. They refused the two state solution offerred to them by outsiders at the insistence of Arabs who wanted bloodshed. They later grew radical and were slaughtered by other Muslims in Jordan and Lebanon (Where the PLO managed to suck the Shia into the Arab mess.) And today they insist that it is Israel that denies them a two state solution. It's a tragic circle that Arabs, Shia, and Palestinians created.

 

[Demon of Light]

Protection from what? The hoards of Israeli armies that agress across borders for no reason decade to decdade? Or is this the other way around? Palestinians are armed enough. They prove it all the time.

Do you think they prove it by getting their territory destroyed by aircraft they have no defense against and shelled by ships they can't sink? Also neither side can really be said to aggress across borders decade to decade with "hoards" of anything. Israel has launched two major aggressive actions in 1956 and 1967. In 1973 Arab armies sought to reclaim territory lost in the previous act of aggression by Israel. Israel's invasions into Lebanon have to this point been defensive or retaliatory in nature. Conflict with Palestinians inside the occupied territories is a somewhat recent phenomenon partly brought on by the violent crackdown of the First Intifada.

I think if Mexico were launching rockets into California or Texas and murdering Americans weekly and monthly you sing a different tune about a celebration of Mexican armament.

No Israeli has died due to acts by groups in Gaza since the Gaza War, even then only a few died. Before the Gaza War no Israeli had been killed for at least the past six months. The current situation along the U.S.-Mexico border is far worse and deadly yet we have not launched any major military operation. Many countries around the world see more serious incidents along their borders every year without launching massively destructive invasions.

Yeah, but your idea smacks history across the face. Israel's mistrust of Palestinians is a repercussion of decades of effort on the Palestinian side. They refused the two state solution offerred to them by outsiders at the insistence of Arabs who wanted bloodshed.

It was not about wanting bloodshed. Let's toss out the hyperbole here. At the time the Jews were mostly recent immigrants from Europe whose ancestors had likely not lived there since a thousand years before. Arabs in Palestine refused to give away part of the territory they had been living in continuously for centuries to some foreigners. If the recent immigrants from Mexico demanded they be allowed to separate from the United States would you consider this a reasonable offer?

They later grew radical and were slaughtered by other Muslims in Jordan and Lebanon (Where the PLO managed to suck the Shia into the Arab mess.)

I make no defense of Lebeanon's treatment of Palestinians but Jordan did not "slaughter" them.

And today they insist that it is Israel that denies them a two state solution.

That is because Israel is denying them a fair two-state solution.

 

[washunut]

I make no defense of Lebeanon's treatment of Palestinians but Jordan did not "slaughter" them.

.

Then what was "Black september".

 

[Demon of Light]

Then what was "Black september".

An attempt by the PLO, in collusion with Syria, to remove the pro-Western Jordanian government that nearly plunged the region into a major war. Jordan cracked down and expelled the PLO who had been using their territory to attack Israel inviting Israeli retaliatory operations that killed innocent Jordanians. Palestinians have claimed exorbitant casualties, but that is most likely pure nonsense.

 

[MSgt]

Do you think they prove it by getting their territory destroyed by aircraft they have no defense against and shelled by ships they can't sink? Also neither side can really be said to aggress across borders decade to decade with "hoards" of anything. Israel has launched two major aggressive actions in 1956 and 1967. In 1973 Arab armies sought to reclaim territory lost in the previous act of aggression by Israel. Israel's invasions into Lebanon have to this point been defensive or retaliatory in nature. Conflict with Palestinians inside the occupied territories is a somewhat recent phenomenon partly brought on by the violent crackdown of the First Intifada.

Their territory gets destroyed because their "government" insists on blodshed. Why do you people always insist on lying about these matters? Why do you people insist that Arabs are always just standing around and get sucker punched?

1956....

In 1955, Egyptian President Gamal Abdel Nasser began to import arms from the Soviet Bloc to build his arsenal for the confrontation with Israel. In the short-term, however, he employed a new tactic to prosecute Egypt's war with Israel. He announced it on August 31, 1955:

Egypt has decided to dispatch her heroes, the disciples of Pharaoh and the sons of Islam and they will cleanse the land of Palestine....There will be no peace on Israel's border because we demand vengeance, and vengeance is Israel's death.

The escalation continued with the Egyptian blockade of the Straits of Tiran, and Nasser's nationalization of the Suez Canal in July 1956. On October 14, Nasser made clear his intent:

I am not solely fighting against Israel itself. My task is to deliver the Arab world from destruction through Israel's intrigue, which has its roots abroad. Our hatred is very strong. There is no sense in talking about peace with Israel. There is not even the smallest place for negotiations.

Less than two weeks later, on October 25, Egypt signed a tripartite agreement with Syria and Jordan placing Nasser in command of all three armies. The Suez War of 1956

Yet, you choose to pretend that Israel "aggressed" for no reason at all.

1967

- Jan - March 1967

In the first quarter of 1967 there were over 270 border "incidents" causing rising concern in Israel.

- Feb 22nd 1967

President Attassi of Syria: “it is the duty of all of us now to move from defensive positions to offensive positions and enter the battle to liberate the usurped land…Everyone must face the test and enter the battle to the end.” [1]
April 8th 1967

Syria’s information minister Mahmoud Zubi: “(this battle will be)…followed by more severe battles until Palestine is liberated and the Zionist presence ended.” [1]

- May 7th 1967

Syria shells Israeli village of Ein Gev in Israel - The New York Times

- May 13th 1967

Anwar Sadat arrives back from Moscow with the information he gives to Nasser that Israel is massing 10-12 brigades in preparation for an attack on Syria, supposedly to take place May 17. He was told to expect "an Israeli invasion of Syria immediately after Independence Day, with the aim of overthrowing the Damascus regime" [10] The information is false, as were several similar previous Soviet warnings.

- May 16th 1967

Egypt moves it forces eastward across the Sinai desert towards the Israeli border.

Nasser demands withdrawal of 3,400 man UN Emergency Force
Six Day War - timeline

Of course this and much more was all before Israel's "aggression" to dare defend itself. But we don't like to talk about these matters do we? We like to pretend that Israel woke up and simply decided to go to war for absolutely no reason at all. And when 1973 rolls around you are all about willing to forgive Arab aggression because it was merely looking to re-gain lost territory? Territory they would not have lost had they simply behaved before? Territory that would not be even in question if the same Arab aggressors for "Palestine": had butted out and allowed Palestinians tocreate a statealong side Israel in 1948? Given that you can't seem to get these two very understood and historical things straight I'm not sure you should keep mouthpiecing for Palestinians.

Many countries around the world see more serious incidents along their borders every year without launching massively destructive invasions.

Bull ****. Decades of this crap. But why do you give a damn anyway? Why is it that Israel has you so focused? What is it about this Jewish nation that has you obsessed with defending whoever and whatever it faces? Iran's probably just misunderstood too.

It was not about wanting bloodshed.

Bull ****. Over a thousand years of Arab and Ottoman stewardship, "Palestine" was never given independence or soveriegnty. The Arab war in 1948 was about ensuring that Jews wouldn't get a state in their Muslim lands. In the end, Palesitnians would have been just as oppressed as Arab governments if Arabs got it their way.

If the recent immigrants from Mexico demanded they be allowed to separate from the United States would you consider this a reasonable offer?

No where near the same thing. There were no recognized borders in the territory. Merely tribes bickering over their rights. In the end, you either ****ed the Palesitnans, ****ed the Jews, or try to make them share. Arabs refused to share.

I make no defense of Lebeanon's treatment of Palestinians but Jordan did not "slaughter" them.

Black September. Even Muslims are very well aware of this event and they label it a slaughter.

That is because Israel is denying them a fair two-state solution.

It was fair when it was first offerred decades ago. Today, they get to prove they can be trusted long after all aggressor Arab states have abandoned them, the Soviets abandoned them, and Europeans walked away. Even the PLO has called BS over their behaviors in screwing over Palestinians.

 

[MSgt]

Then what was "Black september".

You know the joke of this was that 72 Palestinians fled towards Israel and surrendered to the IDF rather than face Jordanian Muslim forces. Oh, but Israel is supposed to be the region's evil isn't it? Many of these same 72 Palestinians were focused on destroying Israel just a week prior. Now they saw them as their saviors. Israel is a scapegoat.

You see, the idea is to condemn Palestinians when Jordanians fought them for their radicalisms, but defend them when they direct their radicalisms towards the Jew nation.

 

[MSgt]

I am so sick of this two state distraction and the never ending quest for victimhood by Palestinians. They refused a state in 1948. Jews were welcome as long as they fell under Arab roofs. But the treat of a Jewish nation sent hoards of Muslims into the embarrising and decades long humiliating fray. Today, apologists seek to blame Israel for the absence of a Palestinian state even as the original Arab insighters of war have one by one agreed on Israel's right to exist and shook hands. Today's Palestinians have inherited the mess of their fathers and no extremist movement turned government is going to change a thing. After decades of failure, have outside Arabs proven to be smarter than local Palestinians?

The closest any place on earth comes to comparing to the Palestinian/Israeli affair is possibly India/Pakistan. During the independence era, the people of India insisted that they be divided into two separate nations. The Hindu wanted the south and Muslims wanted the north. The British argued against this, but gave into their wants. Hence the creation of today's India and today's Pakistan. Of course, Pakistan is of the most dissapointing states that have tried democracy, but even they recognized that tribes need their own borders.

In the end they are going to have to trust each other. And it has to start with Palestinians.

 

[donsutherland1]

The closest any place on earth comes to comparing to the Palestinian/Israeli affair is possibly India/Pakistan. During the independence era, the people of India insisted that they be divided into two separate nations. The Hindu wanted the south and Muslims wanted the north. The British argued against this, but gave into their wants. Hence the creation of today's India and today's Pakistan. Of course, Pakistan is of the most dissapointing states that have tried democracy, but even they recognized that tribes need their own borders.

In the end they are going to have to trust each other. And it has to start with Palestinians.

Unfortunately, the Palestinians are not likely to make serious moves toward peace until the international community stops enabling their intransigence. The current demand for preconditions for continuing talks aimed at establishing a Palestinian state is a good example. Completion of the negotiations would lead to an agreement on boundaries. That agreement would mark areas where settlements would not be constructed and where they would be removed. Instead, the Palestinians are seeking prepayment in the form of a freeze on construction within existing settlements, even if that blows up the talks. To be constructive, the international community should place intense pressure on the Palestinians to refrain from withdrawing from the negotiations. Instead, the international community is taking the opposite course, pressing Israel to make unilateral payment to the Palestinians. Needless to say, that only hardens Palestinian intransigence and complicates prospects for a peace agreement.

The reality is that all parties to the historic dispute are victims of history. Neither has a monopoly on victimhood. The courageous and rational thing to do is to find a compromise that accommodates each side's core needs. Israel is willing to go far to ensure that the Palestinians attain a sovereign state. The Palestinians are again threatening to cease negotiations, even as the Palestinians would have much to gain from such talks. The Palestinians have already squandered two historic opportunities for a final settlement in the last decade. It appears that they are about to undermine prospects of a third such opportunity from boycotting talks. Tragically, many in the international community are cheerleading that new bout of Palestinian intransigence by calling on Israel to make unilateral concessions. If Israel were to do so, one can expect new preconditions to follow in what has been an all too predictable pattern by the current Palestinian leadership. In the meantime, prospects for a peace agreement will be cast in ice and both Israelis and Palestinians will suffer from having to forego the benefits of peace on account of the continued short-sighted decision making in Ramallah.

 

[donsutherland1]

Many countries around the world see more serious incidents along their borders every year without launching massively destructive invasions.

Which country was bombarded in less than a year by more than 2,000 rockets and missiles and refrained from a military response? Certainly, if the above is correct, then the list should be lengthy.

 

[MSgt]

Unfortunately, the Palestinians are not likely to make serious moves toward peace until the international community stops enabling their intransigence.

Absolutely. This is exactly what I have been stating for years. "Peace in the Middle East" has three obstacles - Arabs elsewhere, Persians elsewhere, and outsiders who legitimize ongoing feuding by offerring Palestinians their head pats and unquestioned forgiveness. I believe Palestinians have grown accustomed to the victim status the world has thrusts upon them. It is far easier to destroy than to build. And as long as Palestinians are allowed to pretend that they have no decisions or the ability to change matters, it means that they don't have to take responsibility. It means they don't have to go through the pain of building a prosperous society and creating their own desitiny. Instead, Palestinians have grown to accept that they can always blame the next door neighbor for all their woes and get away with it.

The reality is that all parties to the historic dispute are victims of history. Neither has a monopoly on victimhood.

Again, absolutely. But people don't want to see this. Palestinians are victims of their own Arab and Persian people. Israelis are victims of Arabs and Persian people. All of them are victims of European meddling and indecision. Palestinians got in bed with the wrong side in 1948 (religiously motivated to a great degree) and the world pretends that laying in it makes no sense. Leaders of the PLO have even voiced their mistakes in squandering legitimate opportunities at peace with Israel. Every time, radicals await in the wings for their chance to disrupt talks and to remind people that conflict is a duty. This third opportunity will be no different. In the mean time, outsider critics of Israel will rally their cheers for Palestinians while pretending to give a damn about their future.


I firmly believe that if Israel were a nation of any other tribe, most of the world wouldn't even know what a Palestinian is. What goes on today is the same garbage that went on down through the Crusades, the Black Plague, and the holocaust. Over zealous criticizers of Israel just don't realize it. They think that because Jews have an army now that they can hate legitimately.

 

[MSgt]

Which country was bombarded in less than a year by more than 2,000 rockets and missiles and refrained from a military response? Certainly, if the above is correct, then the list should be lengthy.

There is no list. And it's not confined to a year. It's been decades. It's just another impractical dismissal of what Israel goes through and a blind support towards the aggressors. Like I stated, if Israel were anything but a Jewish nation, the vast majority of critics wouldn't even know what a Palestinian is. I've also stated that if "Palestine" were a neighbor of any other nation, "Palestine" would have ceased to exist a long time ago.

Do people think that even an Arab neighbor would standby and allow Palestinians to breathe for long after a constant barrrage of rocket attacks? And we are talking some 60 years of it. Hell, history has seen what the Jordanians, the Lebanese, and the Syrians won't stand for. Israel's restraint is unheard of in every other region and amongst all the tribes on the planet. But no critic of Israel recognizes that, do they? Just a 9/11 saw America take out to countries. I wonder how long "Palestine" would have lasted if they shared a border with the U.S., the Soviet Union, China, etc. That whole Middle East would look completely different by now.

 

[donsutherland1]

There is no list. And it's not confined to a year. It's been decades. It's just another impractical dismissal of what Israel goes through and a blind support towards the aggressors.

I had assumed that the reference concerned the events leading up to Operation Cast Lead (Dec. 2008-Jan. 2009). After all, the notion that Israel should have restrained itself from military action during what proved to be its major wars e.g., 1967 war, is patently absurd. No sovereign state would neglect to try to safeguard its survival under the circumstances involved in those wars. Unfortunately, Israel's patience and its repeated efforts to seek peace with its neighbors is ignored by many in the international community (especially the seemingly misnamed UN Human Rights Council that carries out an unrelenting political agenda against Israel but all but ignores some of the world's great human rights abuses, some of which originate in member states of that body). Hence, a poisonous mythology of "Israeli aggression" masks the underlying cause of the conflict (Arab rejectionism) that will need to be addressed if peace is to be achieved on a regional basis. Egypt and Jordan have made peace. To date, others may occasionally "talk the talk" but they have shown all too little substantive willingness to put concrete action behind that talk. Contrary to public perception, the Palestinians fall into that category of having shown little serious effort to achieve a peace agreement. Otherwise, their leadership would not be going through all kinds of contortions to manufacture excuses to avoid negotiations. Perhaps if their creativity behind excuses for avoiding negotiations were harnessed in their diplomatic effort, peace would already have been achieved between Israel and the Palestinians.

 

[Demon of Light]

The current demand for preconditions for continuing talks aimed at establishing a Palestinian state is a good example.

What about their precondition that Israel accept the two-state solution as a basis for talks? That is a precondition and it actually prejudices the outcome of talks, unlike the settlement freeze. Yet Israel accepted it without any demand being issued and no one said that undermined talks.

Instead, the international community is taking the opposite course, pressing Israel to make unilateral payment to the Palestinians. Needless to say, that only hardens Palestinian intransigence and complicates prospects for a peace agreement.

Do not misrepresent the situation. The U.S. and other members of the international community have been pressuring both sides to concede the matter.

Israel is willing to go far to ensure that the Palestinians attain a sovereign state.

No they are not. Israel wants the Palestinians to have independence on paper, but not in reality.

If Israel were to do so, one can expect new preconditions to follow in what has been an all too predictable pattern by the current Palestinian leadership.

Funny, where exactly are these new preconditions? I seem to recall the Palestinians only insisting on a freeze in the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, and even then they eventually caved and stopped insisting it extend to East Jerusalem, where it can also do the most damage to a resolution, before entering negotiations. After negotiations they only insisted that the freeze Israel had agreed to be extended. You insist they will issue new preconditions, but they never did. Of course, having been so seriously snubbed by the Israelis this time they just might demand new preconditions. The sooner Israel reinstates the freeze the less likely that scenario becomes.

Which country was bombarded in less than a year by more than 2,000 rockets and missiles and refrained from a military response? Certainly, if the above is correct, then the list should be lengthy.

Just like your insistence on the phrase "newly re-established state of Israel" this is just more obfuscating language on your part. Your characterization of these attacks as a year-long "bombardment" of the country is just completely wrong no matter how you look at it. First of all, the vast majority of Israel, including its major population centers have not been hit by these attacks. Second, though I do not have precise figures, a sizable portion of these rockets and mortars do not hit any population centers. Third, when you look at it over a year on average it amounts to at most 10 rockets and mortars a year only some of which actually hit anything but dirt and grass. Fourth, you have to consider the fact that there are escalations and lulls throughout the year. In 2008 you had a ceasefire that was strongly in place for four months before an Israeli operation undid it. After that you had an escalation of rocket attacks including a war. A large amount of that figure you gave was accounted for in 2008 by that period. Fifth, actual deaths are incredibly rare. Even during the Gaza War only three Israeli civilians were killed with none having been killed for months before the war. In comparison Israel responded to a situation where it had suffered no casualties with a war the claimed hundreds of innocent civilians in Gaza.

Of course, your demand for an example if impossible to satisfy because you will only accept an example that is identical to the situation here, which is just an absurd demand intended to make it appear as though Israel uniquely suffers above all others in the world and restrains itself like no country ever would. Just like your many other obfuscating tactics, occasionally including blatantly false claims, it is intended to inflate the moral image of Israel and deflate the moral image of Palestinians.

You insist others feel Israel should be held to higher standards when in fact they are just holding it to equal standards with other nations of the world bringing them down from the pedestal you have placed them upon.

I can direct you to situations where a country has sunk the ship of another country's military claiming over a hundred people without serious consequence. There are conflict lines where sporadic gunfire occurs everyday and actually deaths occur only somewhat less frequently. Far from Israel being a unique victim in the world, its situation is not only common-place but less serious than that of many other countries. You want to appeal to the notion of Israel being bombarded non-stop by rockets and missiles that largely result in superficial damage while refusing to accept actual deaths as a more reasonable justification for violence that is rarely used by nations around the world.

I played this game with you before and I am not interested in a repeat.

 

[MSgt]

Oh no, no, no. See, you don't get to toss a few lies around about the history of this and then spice it up with venom and run. You made a statement and shaped it around the same typical unfair criticism towards that evil underhanded Jew nation you always do......

Many countries around the world see more serious incidents along their borders every year without launching massively destructive invasions.

You were asked a question in return that is quite clear....

Which country was bombarded in less than a year by more than 2,000 rockets and missiles and refrained from a military response? Certainly, if the above is correct, then the list should be lengthy.

And this was your response?...

Just like your insistence on the phrase "newly re-established state of Israel" this is just more obfuscating language on your part. Your characterization of these attacks as a year-long "bombardment" of the country is just completely wrong no matter how you look at it. First of all, the vast majority of Israel, including its major population centers have not been hit by these attacks. Second, though I do not have precise figures, a sizable portion of these rockets and mortars do not hit any population centers. Third, when you look at it over a year on average it amounts to at most 10 rockets and mortars a year only some of which actually hit anything but dirt and grass. Fourth, you have to consider the fact that there are escalations and lulls throughout the year. In 2008 you had a ceasefire that was strongly in place for four months before an Israeli operation undid it. After that you had an escalation of rocket attacks including a war. A large amount of that figure you gave was accounted for in 2008 by that period. Fifth, actual deaths are incredibly rare. Even during the Gaza War only three Israeli civilians were killed with none having been killed for months before the war. In comparison Israel responded to a situation where it had suffered no casualties with a war the claimed hundreds of innocent civilians in Gaza.

Because they have bad aim most of the rockets don't count? 70 years of this activity and your Palestinian defense is that their bad aim makes them non-threatening? Well hell, nations should have no problems with neighbors launching rockets into their nations as long as they hit nothing, right? North Korea should just make a habit of launching into the Red Sea, because no harm done, right? Iran and Iraq should go ahead and start exchanging rocket fire as long as they hit nothing, right? At this point I really have to ask how much they pay you. And check it out...you still ran from your original declaration that "many countries around the world see more serious incidents along their border every year without launching massively destructive invasions." The fact is that an extremely far less amount of violence upon a border will see another defend itself. I have repeatedly told you that Israel has shown considerable and impractical restraint against this region's antagonists. And that no other nation on earth would stand by after 70 years and take it in the ass. You ignore this too, because it would mean that you would have to agree that despite Israel's eventual retaliations, it's nothing compared to what the rest of the world would have done by now. But we aren't in the business of supporting Jew nations no matter what, are we?

 

[donsutherland1]

Just like your insistence on the phrase "newly re-established state of Israel" this is just more obfuscating language on your part.

Israel had existed in the past. Hence, in generally acceptable usage of the English language, the prefix "re" is both appropriate and accurate.

Your characterization of these attacks as a year-long "bombardment" of the country is just completely wrong no matter how you look at it. First of all, the vast majority of Israel, including its major population centers have not been hit by these attacks. Second, though I do not have precise figures, a sizable portion of these rockets and mortars do not hit any population centers. Third, when you look at it over a year on average it amounts to at most 10 rockets and mortars a year only some of which actually hit anything but dirt and grass. Fourth, you have to consider the fact that there are escalations and lulls throughout the year.

That the rockets are relatively crude does not change the nature of the attacks. The rocket attacks constituted indiscriminate bombardment. Indiscriminate bombardment is prohibited under the Laws of War. Israel, like any other sovereign state, has an inherent right of self-defense.

I can direct you to situations where a country has sunk the ship of another country's military claiming over a hundred people without serious consequence.

The sinking of a ship is but a single incident. It is not an example of unrelenting attacks. Prior to Operation Cast Lead, the rocket fire was intensifying. It had not stopped. Had a volley of rockets been fired and then ceased, I highly doubt Operation Cast Lead would have been launched. After all, in every single month in 2008, one or more rockets was fired, but no military operation was launched.

 

[Demon of Light]

Oh no, no, no. See, you don't get to toss a few lies around about the history of this and then spice it up with venom and run.

I don't mind responding to you about it. However, someone who thinks the sinking of a naval ship resulting in nearly four dozen deaths (I got that confused with the fact there were over a hundred people on board) is not a sufficient justification for war when zero deaths is more than enough for Israel does not seem to show signs of the amount of open-minded reason needed to have a real discussion about the issue with.

You were asked a question in return that is quite clear....

I was asked a deceitful question and refused to play the game. He essentially asked if any country suffered an identical situation knowing full no one has suffered an identical situation. The point of the question is to get me to tell the simple truth that no other country is in an identical situation and then twist that answer around to say something completely different. I mean, if Syria or Hezbollah sunk an Israeli navy ship killing four dozen sailors does anyone here honestly think that Israel would not launch a massive invasion?

Because they have bad aim most of the rockets don't count?

The point is that throwing out the number is pure deception. It creates an entirely different impression when you look at the entire situation in context rather than just throwing out figures.

Well hell, nations should have no problems with neighbors launching rockets into their nations as long as they hit nothing, right?

I am not saying they should not have problems with it, but that does not mean they should launch wars that kill a thousand people.

And check it out...you still ran from your original declaration that "many countries around the world see more serious incidents along their border every year without launching massively destructive invasions."

I did not run from it at all. Rather I simply see no need in rehashing the issue with don because I found no example worked and ultimately he and others involved would just shift the goal posts every single time I made a good point.

The fact is that an extremely far less amount of violence upon a border will see another defend itself.

Here is an idea: how about you give an example of that alleged situation?

Israel had existed in the past. Hence, in generally acceptable usage of the English language, the prefix "re" is both appropriate and accurate.



That the rockets are relatively crude does not change the nature of the attacks. The rocket attacks constituted indiscriminate bombardment. Indiscriminate bombardment is prohibited under the Laws of War. Israel, like any other sovereign state, has an inherent right of self-defense.



The sinking of a ship is but a single incident. It is not an example of unrelenting attacks. Prior to Operation Cast Lead, the rocket fire was intensifying. It had not stopped. Had a volley of rockets been fired and then ceased, I highly doubt Operation Cast Lead would have been launched. After all, in every single month in 2008, one or more rockets was fired, but no military operation was launched.

I notice you completely ignored the rest of my post where I clearly noted the flaws of your logic and false claims you made on the actual subject matter of this thread.

 

[donsutherland1]

I don't mind responding to you about it. However, someone who thinks the sinking of a naval ship resulting in nearly four dozen deaths (I got that confused with the fact there were over a hundred people on board) is not a sufficient justification for war when zero deaths is more than enough for Israel does not seem to show signs of the amount of open-minded reason needed to have a real discussion about the issue with.

I never made any such suggestion. I merely pointed out the difference between that situation and the rocket bombardment facing Israel. Just so it is clear, I wrote:

The sinking of a ship is but a single incident. It is not an example of unrelenting attacks. Prior to Operation Cast Lead, the rocket fire was intensifying. It had not stopped. Had a volley of rockets been fired and then ceased, I highly doubt Operation Cast Lead would have been launched. After all, in every single month in 2008, one or more rockets was fired, but no military operation was launched.

My position is and always has been that every sovereign state has an inherent right of self defense. There is no qualification on that. How a state chooses to respond depends on numerous factors including the nature of the incident(s), the nature of the threat, the balance of power, etc., but those factors that might shape how it responds does not in any way abridge its inherent right of self defense.

I was asked a deceitful question and refused to play the game.

There was no deceitful question. The claim that other states have tolerated far more than Israel is completely bogus. Otherwise, there would be myriad examples of states not responding with force when faced with similar or worse sustained attacks than what Israel experienced. "Similar" or "worse," which deal with the severity of the attacks, does not mean "identical."

The reality is that Israel has exercised enormous restraint under repeated assault. Israel withstood an intensifying bombardment for more than a month before it finally launched Operation Cast Lead. Moreover, it issued repeated warnings in advance of Operation Cast Lead that it would respond militarily if the rocket bombardment were not stopped.

Like any other sovereign state, Israel had a right to put an end to the indiscriminate rocket bombardment of its people. That is not a standard that is different from that which pertains to any other sovereign state. Whether the country facing aggression were Israel, France, Germany, the U.S., etc., makes no difference. Each country has the same right to defend itself. No responsible leader could shirk his or her basic responsibility to try to protect the lives of his/her citizens. Israel was no exception.

 

[Demon of Light]

I never made any such suggestion. I merely pointed out the difference between that situation and the rocket bombardment facing Israel. Just so it is clear, I wrote:

The sinking of a ship is but a single incident. It is not an example of unrelenting attacks. Prior to Operation Cast Lead, the rocket fire was intensifying. It had not stopped. Had a volley of rockets been fired and then ceased, I highly doubt Operation Cast Lead would have been launched. After all, in every single month in 2008, one or more rockets was fired, but no military operation was launched.

My position is and always has been that every sovereign state has an inherent right of self defense. There is no qualification on that. How a state chooses to respond depends on numerous factors including the nature of the incident(s), the nature of the threat, the balance of power, etc., but those factors that might shape how it responds does not in any way abridge its inherent right of self defense.



There was no deceitful question. The claim that other states have tolerated far more than Israel is completely bogus. Otherwise, there would be myriad examples of states not responding with force when faced with similar or worse sustained attacks than what Israel experienced. "Similar" or "worse," which deal with the severity of the attacks, does not mean "identical."

The reality is that Israel has exercised enormous restraint under repeated assault. Israel withstood an intensifying bombardment for more than a month before it finally launched Operation Cast Lead. Moreover, it issued repeated warnings in advance of Operation Cast Lead that it would respond militarily if the rocket bombardment were not stopped.

Like any other sovereign state, Israel had a right to put an end to the indiscriminate rocket bombardment of its people. That is not a standard that is different from that which pertains to any other sovereign state. Whether the country facing aggression were Israel, France, Germany, the U.S., etc., makes no difference. Each country has the same right to defend itself. No responsible leader could shirk his or her basic responsibility to try to protect the lives of his/her citizens. Israel was no exception.

Once more you ignore most of my post, including the part where I noted you ignoring most of the previous post.