Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement


Voices from front line

Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image

Published Date: 24 November 2007
THE rolling hills inland from Israel's busy coastal strip are dotted with towns and villages nestled under towers rising above the olive groves.
Looking closely, though, one sees that some towers are the minarets of mosques, while others are concrete lookout posts for Israeli troops guarding Jewish settlements in the West Bank.

These are uneasy neighbours and the future of the settlers, who have built on land occupied by Israel in 1967, is among the "core issues" Palestinians and Israelis must resolve if they are to make peace in negotiations to be launched at next week's US-hosted Middle East conference in Annapolis, Maryland.

Few around the settlement of Ariel see much chance of that - Israeli residents are determined to stay and build, whatever their government decides, but Palestinians insist that the settlers must go.

"My vision is ... to build here a city of 60,000 people," says Ron Nachman, mayor of Ariel, today home to about 18,000.

"As long as I live and I have the power and the strength, I'll do everything in order to fulfil this vision," Mr Nachman adds, in his office in the neat, hilltop industrial town, 25 miles east of Tel Aviv's beaches. "I want to live in peace with my neighbours."

A few hundred yards down the hill, that vision is not shared by Sadeq al-Khuffash, the mayor of Marda: "I don't dream of us living together. These are settlements built illegally. They should be removed. You can't expect me to live with the people who took our land by force."

The World Court says the settlements, home to about 270,000 Jews among 2.5 million Palestinians in the West Bank, are illegal.

The Israeli prime minister, Ehud Olmert, reiterated a pledge to curb expansion this week and wants to abandon outposts while arranging land swaps to make Ariel and other places part of Israel.

In Marda, home to 2,400 people, murals lauding Basque guerrillas painted by visiting activists from Spain brighten the dusty main street. Residents say Ariel and a string of smaller settlements cramp their life with security restrictions and by curbing access to water.

Mr Nachman brands as "a big lie" the charge that Ariel pumps up water from an underground supply and deposits its sewage on Palestinian land. "Untrue," says Mr Khuffash when told of Mr Nachman's assertion that Israel offers water to the Arabs on good terms.

Water is an increasingly scarce resource in the Middle East and is, in itself, a core issue for any future peace accord.

Mr Khuffash also complains his two-mile trip to the town hall from the insurance office he runs takes half an hour by car because of Israeli roadblocks. Locals in Marda say olives are rotting on the trees because Israeli troops prevent them harvesting groves close to Ariel.

Mr Nachman rejects charges the town he helped found in 1978 took any private land - "there was nothing, only boulders".

Pointing to daily attacks from the Gaza Strip, from which Israel withdrew in 2005, Mr Nachman believes Israel cannot be secure next to an independent Palestine. Giving up land in return for peace does not work, he insists.

Mr Olmert's readiness to end settlement under pressure from the US president, George Bush, and Tony Blair, the Middle East envoy, angers him: "The government asked me to come. So to say I'm an obstacle to peace, it's not only stupidity, it's evil."

Asked about an incident this week in which gunmen killed a settler nearby, Mr Khuffash says: "This is our home and resistance is a legal right. If there is no respect for agreements and international law, things will go on like this, with violence."

But neither violence nor an Israeli government withdrawal persuade Mr Nachman that Ariel's future is in doubt: "What I have done here is a fact," he says. "When Tony Blair has passed away, and President Bush, and I, this will remain."

Page 1 of 1

  • Last Updated: 23 November 2007 11:48 PM
  • Source: The Scotsman
  • Location: Edinburgh
  • Related Topics: Middle East conflict
 
1

bill2,

24/11/2007 09:00:05

And here we have the crux of the problem - illegal occupation.

Until this ends, there cannot be peace.

2

,

24/11/2007 10:13:03
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason: Scotsman Import, Original comment id: 1170002, Article id was mapped to record!
3

thatscottishwoman+00,

24/11/2007 10:37:59

HSH:

Continuing on from a previous thread.

In response to my assertion that the draft document for Annapolis does not address key aspirations of the Palestinian people. ( Note the word KEY)

You said:

"If the Palestinians continue to demand all or nothing., then they will continue to get nothing."

The Palestinian people are not demanding "all or nothing". The Palestinian people are asking that they be afforded the most basic of human rights including (but not exclusive to):

Freedom of movement

Access to water and other resources

The right to self determination (political and economic)

Clear and agreed territories and boundaries (which will require an end to the continuous land grabs by settlers)

Until these issues (and others) are tabled and addressed there will be no peace.

4

sandypunkin,

USA Transyl...... 24/11/2007 14:17:43

"Asked about an incident this week in which gunmen killed a settler nearby, Mr Khuffash says: "This is our home and resistance is a legal right. If there is no respect for agreements and international law, things will go on like this, with violence."

Is that not what Israel has been asking of the constant barrage of 'rockets' lobbed at them from Palestine for years and years?? And the 'suicide bombs' inside Israel??

5

bill2,

24/11/2007 14:41:40

4. sandypunkin

Palestine has every right to resist the occupation in any way they can, whereas Israel as the aggressor has no rights. Pretty obvious I would have thought.

6

Taz,

The Land of The Free. 24/11/2007 16:09:03

1. bill2 / 9:00am 24 Nov 2007
And here we have the crux of the problem - illegal occupation.

Until this ends, there cannot be peace.
.....................................................................

When you start and lose 5 wars there is a price to be paid. All the Israelis ever wanted was to live in peace and raise their families. When the Palestinians resorted to terrorism they lost any moral high ground whatsoever. Any land Israel paid for in Israeli blood and handed back to them was invariably used as a base against Israel. Would you tolerate the folks in free Ireland lobbing rockets into the occupied North?

I don’t care if my taxes are doubled in order to have Israel live in freedom. They are through marching into gas chambers like sheep to the slaughter. They’ve been there, done that. They have every right to defend themselves and intend to continue doing so.

7

SMG,

Beit Shemesh, Israel 24/11/2007 16:31:17

sandypunkin and bill2,

If Sadeq al-Khuffash claims the right to murder Israeli civilians such as Ido Zoldan, he is talking nonsense. There is no such right.

International law recognizes no right to resist "in any way they can" (as Bill2 put it). The whole idea of international rules such as the Geneva Conventions is to define and limit what is "acceptable" in war, and in particular to protect civilians. The idea that any party in a conflict has a right to do anything and everything, and whatever they please, up to and including the massacre of civilians, is exactly the opposite of what international law intends.

Re the idea that settlers are legitimate targets, see http://www.hrw.org/reports/2002/isrl-pa/ISRAELPA1002-04.htm :

"Palestinian armed groups that have targeted Israeli civilians argue that Israeli settlers in the Occupied Territories have forfeited their civilian status because they reside in settlements that are illegal under international humanitarian law.

...

"These assertions are inconsistent with international humanitarian law. The illegal status of settlements under international humanitarian law does not negate the rights of the civilians living there. The fact that a person lives in a settlement, whether legal or not, does not make him or her a legitimate military target. Under international humanitarian law, intentional attacks on civilians, or attacks that do not distinguish between military targets and civilians, are prohibited under all circumstances. Israeli civilians living in the settlements, so long as they do not take up arms and take an active part in hostilities, are noncombatants.

"When individual settlers take an active part in hostilities, as opposed to acting in legitimate self-defense, they lose their civilian protection and become legitimate military targets dur

8

Carolyn 1,

new england, usa 24/11/2007 16:48:57

The Palestinians are harnessed, not by Israel, but by leaders who tie them to a plough in the wrong field, and then watch them die under the weight of the harness and the depth of deceit

9

thatscottishwoman+00,

24/11/2007 17:00:47

The law graduates amongst us will recognise the adage "fast law is bad law".

If Annapolis brings the necessary protagonists back to the negotiating table then it will have achieved a positive outcome. However, if it attempts to reach a binding agreement on current "proposals", which are weak and do not address key issues of concern, it will fail both nations.

"Cinderella at Annapolis"

"Muddled expectations and mismanaged diplomacy may mean that the Annapolis peace summit achieves far less than its backers once hoped"

http://www.economist.com/opinion/displaystory.cfm?story_i...

"George Bush is the only man who can bring an independent Palestine closer" - Gasp:-))

http://www.economist.com/opinion/displaystory.cfm?story_i...

10

bill2,

24/11/2007 17:02:22

6. Taz


"All the Israelis ever wanted was to live in peace and raise their families."

Strange, that's all the Palestinians wanted to do, and then the Zionists came and wrecked everything.

11

bill2,

24/11/2007 17:23:36

7. SMG

International law recognizes no right to resist "in any way they can" (as Bill2 put it). The whole idea of international rules such as the Geneva Conventions is to define and limit what is "acceptable" in war, and in particular to protect civilians."

The Israeli occupation of Palestine, if it is a war at all, is assymetric warfare, and so the rules have limited application.

The Israelis, as invaders, have the option of withdrawing their troops or civilians from harm's way; the Palestinians do not have that option. The invading Israelis are troops, the Palestinians are civilians, and I would say that they have the right to use any methods available to protect themselves.

It is not war, it is self-defence. If the Israelis wish to protect their civilians, they can withdraw them to safety from the short range rockets, and keep Palestinians out of Israel to prevent suicide bombers.

Palestinians have no defence against the artillery, tanks, missiles, and helicopter gunships of the invader.

12

Home_Sweet_Home,

Who Cares 24/11/2007 17:45:27

#10 Bill Bill Bill

New day, same lie?

Zionists were there BEFORE the Arab invaders.
So why should they keep what they have stolen?

Oh yeah, because when they steal from Jews, it doesnt count as stealing in Racist Bills World.

13

Home_Sweet_Home,

Who Cares 24/11/2007 17:51:23

#3 Socttishwoman

Actually, these issues ARE being addressed in Annapolis.

The issue of Jewish Refugees is NOT.

But many supporters of the Palestinians, such as yourself, continue to lobby for their 'right' to all the lands of Jordan and Egypt from 67 as well as their 'right' to take half of the Jewish Capital as wll as their 'right' to territorial continuity (I suppose you may realize that connecting the West Bank to Gaza means Israel would not have territorial continuity?), etc etc ec.

As I continue to state and will, despite your assertions ans cut and paste quibbling, BOTH sides must compromise to achieve peace. The totality of Palestinian demands are NOT going to be met if they desire thei own state.
Israel has already come to terms with the fact that it will not keep the West Bank and Gaza. Hopefully the Palestinians and their misguided supporters will come to terms with the fact that they will not get everything they demand either.
But from reading your posts, it certain does not sound like it. Listening to you, the Palstinians would again demand 'all or nothing' and come away with nothing - which hopefully even you recognize is worse than something.

14

thatscottishwoman+00,

24/11/2007 18:21:35

#13 HSH:

"Actually, these issues ARE being addressed in Annapolis."

That is not my understanding, neither is it the understanding of others including the authors of the "cut and paste" links you refer to.

You are at liberty to interpret my posts in which ever way you please, albeit that your interpretation is, as usual, subjective and off the mark.

Enjoy what is left of your day.

15

Home_Sweet_Home,

Who Cares 24/11/2007 18:55:59

Scottishwoman

Once again you fail to prove anything and whenh challenged, you seem to prefer to run away in a snit.

The links you posted are OPINION pieces. As can clearly be seen in their links
http://www.economist.com/***opinion***/displaystory.cfm?story_i...

That their OPINION is that Annapolis WILL NOT address these issues is not the same thing as saying they are not 'on the table.' Even the editorials you posted do not say what you claim they say.

As to the rest, it is not anything but your repeated stance here, denying Hamas has any responsibility for their actions, laying all blame at the feet of the Israelis, refusing to ascribe to any Palestinians responsibility for their own actions, and the perpetual wail of the Palestinians of victims of Israel and not of themselves (as well and moreso)

No matter how many times you scream 'settlements', the facts speak louder. Israel gave up settlements in Sinai for peace. They gave up settlements in Gaza for the HOPE of peace.
Meanwhile, Palestinians have yet to stop their daily bombardment of Israeli civillians.
Setttlements are a red herring. They can always be uprooted for peace.
The Israelis murdered by Palestinians can not be exchanged for peace. They are murdered and dead.

The ongoing violence against Israel is a real issue, and one you seem to never want to address.

16

thatscottishwoman+00,

24/11/2007 19:38:53

#15 HSH:

Opinion pieces? Yes, of course. Read, analyse, put forward an informed, objective opinion in the hope that it will elicit further informed discussion and debate, not subjective emotive rantings.

I visit these fora to engage in dialogue with my peers so that I may increase my knowledge and understanding of international affairs, but that outcome is dependant on the level of ability and objectivity of other commentators.

As I said enjoy the rest of your day, I certainly intend to enjoy mine.

17

Carolyn 1,

in my office 24/11/2007 21:34:21

#16 TSW+00

you cloak yourself with arrogant self-rightousness and proclaim everything you speak as truth when the truth is you are an under-educated hypocrite with a keyboard and nothing more.

Never do you look for open debate or a free flowing of ideas

18

sandypunkin,

USA Transyl.... 24/11/2007 23:06:22

#5..bill2

Nothing is 'obvious' in that region, especially which of the two, Israelis or Palestinians, are the aggressor!

19

sandypunkin,

USA Transyl.... 24/11/2007 23:18:48

#17..Carolyn 1

I have read all of thatscottishwoman+00's
posts on this forum and find she IS looking for 'open debate' and 'a free flowing of ideas'!! Furthermore, i found no 'arrogant self-rightousness' in her writing and she certainly appears to be quite educated....Is it her views you disagree with or just....her?

BTW...I totally agree with your post at #8

20

Home_Sweet_Home,

Who Cares 24/11/2007 23:31:02

#16

You presented the opinion pieces as fact.
They are not. They are merely opinion.

If I find an opinion piece that says the Palestinians do not deserve a state of their own, that does not mean that the Palestinians do not deserve a state of their own, merely that the author of that piece thinks so.

So too, the opinions of the two authors is that the issues you feel should be raised will not be raised (in a meaningful way). But posting them as 'proof' that they are not on the table is disingenuuous or dishonest.

I too read many opinion pieces, but opinions are not facts. Presenting them as such does nothing to further dialogue. It only serves to show that there is no proof to your assertions.

21

SMG,

Beit Shemesh, Israel 24/11/2007 23:34:24

Bill, there is no exception to the protection of civilians for occupation and none for "assymetric warfare".

Israel's occupation of the West Bank only came after Israel was attacked and invaded from that territory. Also, Jews lived in the territory of the West Bank for thousands of years until they were forcibly removed when that territory was conquered by Transjordanian invaders. Thus, the whole "Israelis as invaders" thing is doubtful. While the wisdom of building Israeli settlements in Judea and Samaria is certainly open to question, it is unreasonable to expect that Israel would have enforced the patently illegal Jordanian ban on Jewish residence in the territory.

In any case, you are raising an irrelevancy. Even if what you say is true, the murderous attacks on Israeli civilians is a violation of their right to life and, as the Human Rights Watch put it, "inconsistent with international humanitarian law".

Bill2: "The invading Israelis are troops, the Palestinians are civilians, and I would say that they have the right to use any methods available to protect themselves."

Human Rights Watch, and international law, itself, say different. Some of the Israelis are combatants, others are civilians, just as some of the Palestinians are combatants and others are civilians. Combatant and civilian status depend on one's behavior -- what one actually does -- not one's nationality. To think otherwise is of course a form of racism. And, by the way, no one, whether a combatant or a civilian, can justify doing anything and everything -- whatever they please, including cold-blooded murder -- in the name of self-defence.

To take our example, the murderers of Ido Zoldan were not being attacked by him, and were not defending themselves from him. They, not he, were the attackers. Any other conclusion defies the law of causality and is a perversion of basic morality.

bill2: "It is not war, it is s

22

bill2,

24/11/2007 23:35:31

18. sandypunkin

Palestine the aggressor against Zionist invaders? That's a new one!

23

bill2,

24/11/2007 23:42:50

21. SMG

"Jews lived in the territory of the West Bank for thousands of years until they were forcibly removed when that territory was conquered by Transjordanian invaders. Thus, the whole "Israelis as invaders" thing is doubtful."

Very few Jews, and they were classed as Palestinians anyway.

Zionists were the invaders, Israel was their creature.

"Some of the Israelis are combatants, others are civilians, just as some of the Palestinians are combatants and others are civilians."

As far as I know, there are no Israeli civilians in Palestine. other than illegal settlers.

Also, the Palestinians are essentially civilians defending their land against invaders.

24

SMG,

Beit Shemesh, Israel 24/11/2007 23:50:34

bill2: "If the Israelis wish to protect their civilians, they can withdraw them to safety from the short range rockets, and keep Palestinians out of Israel to prevent suicide bombers."

First, thanks for the advice, but it is irrelevant. Yes, Israel could do this or that. But that doesn't obviate the Palestinian obligation to abide by international law.

Second, we were talking about a drive-by shooting, not short range rockets or a suicide attack.

You seem now to be referring to Palestinian attacks on Israeli cities such as Sderot, and you say that Israel should withdraw its civilians out of range of those attacks, This is ridiculous on so many levels, it boggles the mind. No country in the world would accept such a thing, nor should it. No, we will not withdraw, we will defend our borders. Better to reinvade and reoccupy Gaza if that is what is necessary. Better to move the Palestinian attackers out of range of the Israeli civilians they are attacking, rather than the opposite.

bill2: "Palestinians have no defence against the artillery, tanks, missiles, and helicopter gunships of the invader."

First, this isn't true. Second, it is, once again, irrelevant. Having an inferior army does not give one the right to murder civilians.

25

SMG,

Beit Shemesh, Israel 25/11/2007 00:15:14

bill2: "Jews lived in the territory of the West Bank for thousands of years until they were forcibly removed when that territory was conquered by Transjordanian invaders. Thus, the whole 'Israelis as invaders' thing is doubtful."

bill2: "Very few Jews, and they were classed as Palestinians anyway."

The number of Jews, and how they were "classed", depends on when one is measuring. For example, at the end of the Persian period and just before the Jewish Revolt, there were as many as 3 million Jews in what later came to be known as Palestine. (See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_ancient_Israel_an... ).

bill2: "Zionists were the invaders, Israel was their creature."

Zzzzzzzzzzz. Put it on a bumper sticker, bill, or roll it up and smoke it. I'm not interested in your meaningless slogans.

bill2: "As far as I know, there are no Israeli civilians in Palestine. other than illegal settlers."

1) It isn't up to you to decide whether they are legal or not.

2) This is yet another irrelevancy. As Human Rights Watch makes absolutely, positively, unambiguously clear, "The illegal status of settlements under international humanitarian law does not negate the rights of the civilians living there. The fact that a person lives in a settlement, whether legal or not, does not make him or her a legitimate military target. Under international humanitarian law, intentional attacks on civilians, or attacks that do not distinguish between military targets and civilians, are prohibited under all circumstances."

bill2: "Also, the Palestinians are essentially civilians defending their land against invaders."

Again, Human Rights Watch makes clear that, the minute they "take an active part in hostilities... they l

26

sandypunkin,

USA Transyl.... 25/11/2007 00:56:45

22-bill...

Well, bill, your opinion is as valid as any-even mine!!! We agree to disagree!

27

,

25/11/2007 01:47:36
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason: Scotsman Import, Original comment id: 1171348, Article id was mapped to record!
28

Fisher,

25/11/2007 02:13:04

17. Carolyn 1

Agreed.

Someone was posting the symptoms of Bush derangement syndrome yesterday and TSW definitely has it.

TSW is an arrogant left winger; she lost all credibility when she supported Djookers trolling here on the Scotsman. Not once did she ever denounce his trolling.

Its sad Sandy wants to be in their Clique.

29

sandypunkin,

USA Transyl...... 25/11/2007 02:37:07

#27...HSH.

I disagree with your premise!! I don't believe bill2 is a racist! Are you basing that on his views, because they differ from yours? Not a good thing!! Ya think?

30

sandypunkin,

USA Transyl...... 25/11/2007 02:42:03

#28...Fisher

What "cilque" are you referring to? I am not in anyones "clique"! I have an independent "conservative" view...Not to be confused with any "clique"!! I will not go along just to belong to a "clique"!!

31

,

25/11/2007 03:25:36
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
32

Home_Sweet_Home,

Who Cares 25/11/2007 03:41:15

#29 Sandy

Bill has repeatedly stated that all Jews should be considered as combattants. So he justifies the slaughter of 4 year old, so long as they are Jewish.

This is extremely racist.

There are many peope who I disagree with that are not racist.

As you actually trying to make a point, or just trolling?

33

sandypunkin,

USA Transyl...... 25/11/2007 04:09:39

#32-- I do not "troll"!!!..And i do not believe bill2 is a racist for he would never believe the slaughter of 4yr olds were justified as long as they are jewish!!! You would have to be a monster to believe that, and bill2 is NOT a monster!!

You are too smart to believe that!!

34

Home_Sweet_Home,

Who Cares 25/11/2007 04:18:30

#33 Sandy

You state youdo not troll, then declare that Bill does not say what he repeatedly says.

Hmmm.

35

Home_Sweet_Home,

Who Cares 25/11/2007 04:26:44

Sandy

In post #5 Bill states " Palestine has every right to resist the occupation in any way they can, whereas Israel as the aggressor has no rights."

In clear words, no matter what Palestinians do, they are justified. Black letter justification of the slaughter of innocents.

Call it what you wish. Make excuses till the end of time.

There is no 'justifying' this statement as anything BUT monstorous.

36

sandypunkin,

USA Transyl...... 25/11/2007 04:30:59

#34...HSH

I do not troll!!! and you know that!! I will not state what you want just to satisfy your whim!!! I do not believe bill2 is a racist!!! You may present proof of that if you can!! I don't believe you can!!

37

sandypunkin,

USA Transyl...... 25/11/2007 04:33:38

#35...HsH...

Prove me wrong!! If you can!!! I will welcome your proof!!!!

38

Home_Sweet_Home,

Who Cares 25/11/2007 04:35:40

#37

YOu have proven yourself a troll.
I did present proof, yet you want to pretend.

There is no pretense. You are just one more of the trolls patting each other on the back.

Now you can tell Bill - "Great Point' on each of his posts and pretend you are just posting, not trolling.

But trolls always prove themselves out - as you have just done.

39

,

25/11/2007 05:18:49
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
40

,

25/11/2007 05:20:57
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
41

,

25/11/2007 05:27:22
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
42

Insider,

Paris, France 25/11/2007 06:51:21

"You can't expect me to live with the people who took our land by force"
This Palestinian mayor sums it up : The jews, who have always lived in the region, even before the arabs invaded the place hundreds years ago, should pack and leave ??
How can you expect peace to come when local muslims share this Judenrein fantasy dream ?

43

thatscottishwoman+00,

25/11/2007 07:17:46

#20 HSH:

Well, whether or not you agree with my modus operandi, that is how I form my opinions on current affairs. I read the available information, analyse it, reach a conclusion then undertake further research for similar views and opinions to back up my assertions.

You have the right to disagree with my modus but you do not have the right to label it "dishonest or disingenuous".

Rather than simply stating that my modus "shows there is no proof to my assertions" I would prefer that you de construct my opinions, and the supporting opinions I use to back up my assertions, as a means to furthering discussion and debate.

44

thatscottishwoman+00,

25/11/2007 07:27:18

SMG:

What are your views on the possible outcomes of Annapolis?

45

bill2,

25/11/2007 08:17:56

42. Insider

"The jews, who have always lived in the region, even before the arabs invaded the place hundreds years ago, should pack and leave ??"

A ludicrous travesty of the truth, which is:

The Palestinians, who have always lived in the region, even before the Zionists invaded the place hundreds of years ago, should pack and leave ??

46

bill2,

25/11/2007 08:23:59

25. SMG

"Human Rights Watch makes clear that, the minute they "take an active part in hostilities... they lose their civilian protection and become legitimate military targets during the period of their participation... Palestinian militants who take an active part in armed conflict become legitimate military targets during that period"."

So you claim that defending yourself against an invader makes you a legitimate military target? I don't think so.

47

Insider,

Paris, France 25/11/2007 09:34:46

#45 bill2
Please, go back to school and don't make a fool of yourself : The arabs invaded the region in the year 648 and as far as I know, the jews were around for centuries...

48

oder,

Scotland 25/11/2007 10:38:25

47. Insider, Paris, France

Wrong! they were there for thousands of years.

49

,

25/11/2007 11:06:20
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason: Scotsman Import, Original comment id: 1171922, Article id was mapped to record!
50

bill2,

25/11/2007 12:02:12

49. thatscottishwoman+00

"the reality, today, is that both Palestine and Israel exist. Consequently we have to support both nations to reach a consensus that addresses the fundamental rights and freedoms of all citizens."

Well said.

I think that principles need to be discussed in Annapolis, rather than details. There is a lot of common ground to build on.

51

Insider,

Paris, France 25/11/2007 12:30:04

Both countries exist but only Israel allows people from other faiths, including israeli muslims to live in the country (arab-muslim israelis can live there without risking to be blown up, they can go the university, be elected in Parliament etc..), while no jew can survive without armed protection in palestinian-held lands.
That says a long about the difference of country envisionned in Israel and Palestine. Israel is a country where jews, muslims, or immigrant hindus or buddhists can live together while Apartheid-like Palestine wants to be a "Judenrein" land, ethnic-cleansed from all the jews, and has even been progressively forcing its dwindling Christian community to flee through violence, harrassment and threats.

52

Home_Sweet_Home,

Who Cares 25/11/2007 13:09:27

#49 Scottishwoman

If you follow the efforts which have led to this point, including the agreements the Palestinians have already made, they have not satisfied the most basic among them, ie the dismantaling of their terorirst infrastructure.

Peace takes a level of trust. Say what you want about water rights or the inconvenience of check poiints, but none of them compare with the slaughter of innocnets the Palestinians continue to try to engage in.

Shooting missiles at civillian cities is a War Crime. Inconveniencing people at a check point is not good, but it is not on the same planet, let alone scale.

The article you referemce also does not state how the Palestinians are going to deal with this critical issue. Nor does it state how the Arab states, who have foisted the refugee status on the Palestinians, will deal with the issue of the 800,000 Jewish refugees and their children and their childrens children (same rules for Jews as Arab, right?)

Until and unless the Palestinians come to terms with the fact that peace MUST mean the end of war, there can be no peace.

The IRA laid down its weapons as part of the peace process, as have countless others.

Compromises on both sides also means the Palestinians have to give up their goal of winning their state though blood rather than negotiation.

But as to earlier - you asked me to deconstruct your argument. I have no problem with that. But I DO have a problem with your attempt to use opinion as fact. If you wish to present facts to back up your position, then do so.
If I state that Annapolis will result in a great hug (which I dont believe) and use an opinion piece as proof, all I have proven is that there are at least two people who share my assertion.

The article from Haaretz, is from a source that I may question, but it is factual rather than opinion.

53

Home_Sweet_Home,

Who Cares 25/11/2007 13:11:38

#46 Bill

Are you really as raving as you seem?

Yes, when someone takes a rocket launcher and aims it at Israeli citizens, they cease being a civillian and become a legitamate military target.

Yes, when someone takes a rifle and aims it at another person they are no longer a noncombattant.

Where is your troll defending you, or was that just you in another alias?

54

,

25/11/2007 13:32:00
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason: Scotsman Import, Original comment id: 1172283, Article id was mapped to record!
55

,

25/11/2007 13:41:27
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason: Scotsman Import, Original comment id: 1172307, Article id was mapped to record!
56

,

25/11/2007 13:59:15
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason: Scotsman Import, Original comment id: 1172349, Article id was mapped to record!
57

thatscottishwoman+00,

25/11/2007 14:13:07

HSH (and others):

As an aside, have you noticed that as soon as individuals with somewhat polarised views begin to engage in dialogue that one of the individual's posts begin to disappear from the thread, and are you aware that this behaviour is an attempt to trigger the automated ID banning system that the Scotsman utilises?

Will you join me in condemning this behaviour?

58

SMG,

Beit Shemesh, Israel 25/11/2007 14:28:48

thatscottishwoman+00: "What are your views on the possible outcomes of Annapolis?"

I, like you, am not optimistic, but I support this and all attempts to achieve peace between the sides, however unlikely. And I think we need to take a "wait and see" attitude before dismissing Annapolis as failing to address the key aspirations of either people.

I don't have the time or space here to do a deeper analysis, but I recommend that people read the following two pieces:

Making the inevitable happen
By Bernard Avishai and Sam Bahour
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-op-avis...

Annapolis, November 2007: Hopes and Doubts
By Paul Scham
http://www.mideasti.org/files/Scham_PB.pdf

59

Fred & Ginger,

25/11/2007 14:35:48

TSW

Is that why you deleted the truth about you in comments 54 & 55??? You are pathetic!!! Get over yourself!!!

60

thatscottishwoman+00,

25/11/2007 14:37:19

#58 SMG:

Thank you for your comments and the links.

My major concern with Annapolis is that attempts may be made to force through agreements that neither nation is fully committed to.

61

Fred & Ginger,

25/11/2007 14:45:23

TSW, I guess you did not like hearing the truth about what the other poster said about how you were condescending on the other site also. There was more to the comment but we won't know now that you had it deleted.

Please stop deleting posts!

62

SMG,

Beit Shemesh, Israel 25/11/2007 14:55:27

SMG: "Human Rights Watch makes clear that, the minute they 'take an active part in hostilities... they lose their civilian protection and become legitimate military targets during the period of their participation... Palestinian militants who take an active part in armed conflict become legitimate military targets during that period'."

Bill2: "So you claim that defending yourself against an invader makes you a legitimate military target? I don't think so."

Don't put words into my mouth.

No, Human Rights Watch claims that people who "take an active part in hostilities... lose their civilian protection and become legitimate military targets during the period of their participation..."

I agree with Human Rights Watch. Not coincidentally, so does international law.

I doesn't matter to international law or to Human Rights Watch or to me whether the people who take an active part in the hostilities are Israelis or Palestinians. Nor does it matter whether they claim to be defending themselves against an invader (as, indeed, both sides claim) or not.

63

SMG,

Beit Shemesh, Israel 25/11/2007 15:08:40

thatscottishwoman+00: "My major concern with Annapolis is that attempts may be made to force through agreements that neither nation is fully committed to."

That's always a danger.

But there are dangers in the alternatives, as well. If we wait until we're sure that everybody is on board and fully committed, we may never get to an agreement. And in the meantime, a bad situation prevails and perhaps gets worse, positions become more entrenched, events on the ground reinforce old hatreds and mistrust, populations get further radicalized, and an agreement becomes even less likely.

Your well-justified fear that "attempts may be made to force through agreements that neither nation is fully committed to" could be interpreted as handing veto power to the most radical, extremist, rejectionist elements in both societies. I don't want to do that. Do you?

64

sandypunkin,

USA Transyl.... 25/11/2007 15:20:49

Syria has announced they will send their Deputy Foreign Minister to the Annapolis summit...I imagine with hopes the Golan Heights will be discussed...If so, where will that leave Iran? Will Syria play nice with Israel and leave Iran in the dust? also...Hamas has stated they have "larger warheads on their missles", and will strike Israel in protest of the Arab League attending the summit....All, according to FOXnews this a.m.....

I think Pres. Bush is using a 'squeeze play' here...If so and it works? Brilliant!!!!

65

SMG,

Beit Shemesh, Israel 25/11/2007 16:00:07

sandypunkin: "Hamas has stated they have 'larger warheads on their missles', and will strike Israel in protest of the Arab League attending the summit..."

I love it. If they don't like the Arab League attending, wouldn't it make more sense to attack the Arab League than to attack Israel?

Of course not. They hope that by attacking Israel, they'll force an Israeli defensive response, and that it will be embarrassing to the Arab League to negotiate with Israel while Palestinians in Gaza are "under Israeli attack".

Sickening, but that's the mentality...

66

,

25/11/2007 16:06:26
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
67

sandypunkin,

USA Transyl.... 25/11/2007 17:58:44

#65...SMG

Also, Hamas expects the media to play along, as usual, and place blame for the attacks at the door of the 'aggressor'-Israel....

"Sickening, but that's the mentality"
agreed!

68

thatscottishwoman+00,

25/11/2007 18:45:51

#63 SMG:

"Your well-justified fear that "attempts may be made to force through agreements that neither nation is fully committed to" could be interpreted as handing veto power to the most radical, extremist, rejectionist elements in both societies. I don't want to do that. Do you?"

Indeed I do not.

A double edged sword, whichever way we look at it.

69

thatscottishwoman+00,

25/11/2007 18:55:33

#64 Sandypunkin:

Whilst I believe that the Golan Heights will be a critical part of any negotiations I do not believe that Syria "will play nice". Syria needs to keep this issue alive, particularly the Shaba Farms, as part of its attempts to "control" Lebanon's destiny.

70

Home_Sweet_Home,

Who Cares 25/11/2007 21:02:15

#56 Scottishwoman

I am glad you agree. I did not mean to say that opinion pieces have no place, merely that they are only opinion and should not be used for factual back up.

As to Annapolis, I think the vagueness of the document is the only it CAN be agreed upon. Both sides need to come out with the ability to say to their own people that they did not cave on core issues (and since the core issues are mutually exclusivem there have to be compromises aka 'caving in'.)

The real test will be After Annapolis. To see if both sides honestly move foward with the confidence improving measures they agree to. I know you think settlements are the most important issue, but as I keep saying, settlements have been removed for peace before. Murdered Israelis do not come back.

There are many opinion writers who are predicting that the Palestinians will have to have a Civil War before they are ready for peace (Israel did not have one, but there was a fairly major conflict between the Haganah and the Irgun over the Aetlenea).
The Palestinians, like so many other peoples before them, are going to have to act like a country to become a country.

Do you think they can? Do you think they want to?

71

thatscottishwoman+00,

25/11/2007 21:53:19

#70 HSH:

Thank you. I am glad that we (finally) agree!

Judging by your comments above I am of the opinion that our views are not at polarised as I had previously thought.

The thing that saddens me most about this conflict is the death of innocents on both sides and the fear and hatred that such death has, and continues to, generate.

I hope that the predictions vis a vis civil war are wrong but I can see that this could be a possibilty. This is why I feel it is important that Abbas' hand is not forced.

The Palestinians need time and support to grow and develop both their governance structures and their economy, this will empower them to take the necessary steps to become a sovereign nation that can live in peace with its neighbours.

Both nations need time and support to to define and implement the changes that will bring them peace and security.

My wish is for a positive outcome that will bring an end to the conflict, an end to the fear and waste of live that is a daily occurrence for both peoples.

But, when all is said and done I, you and others, can wish all we like only the peoples of Palestine and Israel can take the necessary action to make peace happen.

Finally, I would like to thank you for this discussion, I have enjoyed the challenge and take heart that if we can reach consensus then so can others.

Goodnight.

72

sandypunkin,

USA Transyl..... 25/11/2007 23:52:37

#69...TSW+00

I do believe Syria will 'play nice' for i believe the Shaba Farms will indeed be part of the negotiations....I also believe Pres. Bush has made backroom deals amongst the 'players' to insure a decisive settlement-good for all...

A whole lot o positive thinking went into writing that!:)))

73

Home_Sweet_Home,

Who Cares 26/11/2007 01:06:29

#71 Scottishwoman

"Finally, I would like to thank you for this discussion, I have enjoyed the challenge and take heart that if we can reach consensus then so can others."

Amen

74

Al Sharpton Jr,

NY 26/11/2007 01:37:29

Sandy

Why the different login names? Obviously you have not been banned as I just followed the link above to a recent post by you. So what's the deal?

75

Home_Sweet_Home,

Who Cares 26/11/2007 02:05:47

#74

See the posts in the 30's. Sandy is a troll and trolls use multiple identities.

76

Al Sharpton Jr,

NY 26/11/2007 04:34:45

75. Home_Sweet_Home, Who Cares

I see above Sandy has ignored the multiple ID question all together, I wonder why?

HSH, by your definition then Sandy and thatscottishwomans friends - Djookers & Suck McCrunchie would also be trolls for running around using multiple IDs causing havoc.

77

Cutty Sark.,

The Kirkyard 26/11/2007 13:35:20

TSW is no longer welcome here.

78

James Donald,

Croix d' Torfin 26/11/2007 16:42:43

#76. Al Sharpton Jr, NY - HSH was formerly know as Tikun but he like other cannot disguise his "style" of posting any more than Djookers can. Trolling by the definition of the Scotsmans' own terms and conditions is described thus:
"Trolling is used to describe a post that is deliberately designed for the purpose of angering and insulting the members of a Forum. Posts of this nature are disruptive and say deliberately provocative things just to stir up trouble. It's not polite so please don't do it".
Who is to say what the intention is when an individual makes a post?

79

Lynne,

USA 26/11/2007 22:32:19

I still say..it would be nice for something to come of this meeting...but when Israel is not recognized as a Jewish state...what can come from this meeting?
The first step would be to recognize Israel.. Does anyone out there see this happening?
I, unfortunately do not.
Then you have Hezbollah saying they want a new President who hates Israel...and making threats that if Israel leaves the West Bank, they will continue to attack..
What can be gained from this meeting when the attitudes are this?
Again, this is another futile step...

80

Cutty Sark.,

The Kirkyard 26/11/2007 22:49:50

78. James Donald

Ever mind the Rule of Three, three times what thou givest returns to thee, this lesson well, thou must learn, thee only gets what thou dost earn.

81

bill2,

27/11/2007 09:46:26

79. Lynne

"The first step would be to recognize Israel."

You are right. A concurrent step in recognising Jewish Palestine aka Israel would be to recognise Arab Palestine.

The way would then be clear to negotiate the 1947 Partition Plan, so that Palestine could be divided equitably between the two parties.

I cannot see how anyone could object to this.


 

Comment on this Story

 

In order to post comments you must Register or Sign In

 
 
 
  

 
 


Sister Newspapers:
Press Complaints Commission

This website and its associated newspaper adheres to the Press Complaints Commission’s Code of Practice. If you have a complaint about editorial content which relates to inaccuracy or intrusion, then contact the Editor by clicking here.

If you remain dissatisfied with the response provided then you can contact the PCC by clicking here.