Israeli former PM Olmert on his peace offer to the Palestinians

POSTED BY: kpo
UPDATED: Friday, October 9, 2009 00:43
VIEWED: 2635
PAGE 1 of 1

KPO

Saturday, October 3, 2009 1:15 AM

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00n4fw3

I watched this interview and found it interesting, though it may only be accessible to UK viewers...

some key points of the offer:

- Return of around 94% of the West bank to the Palestinians
- Shared, neutrally administered Jerusalem
- Limited 'symbolic' right of return for palestinian refugees (a few thousand over five years)

Ehud Olmert: "I went a long way - longer than any government in Israel would ever go," he told me. "There will never be… I promise you, and I know something about politics… there will never be a plan for peace between us and the Palestinians that will be more far-reaching than the one I proposed."

Interviewer Stephen Sackur's article on the interview: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/8273336.stm

Heads should roll

KPO

Saturday, October 3, 2009 2:27 AM

Bump, cause this has dropped like a stone..

Heads should roll

GINOBIFFARONI

Saturday, October 3, 2009 3:45 AM

How is he in a position to offer anything?

It sounds good and all, but Israel is notorious for offering concessions then finding a reason to renege...

Would Israel consider matching right to return Palestinians to new immigrants to Israel on a 1:1 ratio?

Jerusalem under international supervision is an idea I floated here some time ago, the big question is who... my idea would involve a situation similar to the Vatican and Italy, with the UN moving its headquarter there.

but I don't think he could have delivered last year, much less do anything now...

so what is this then... posturing maybe?

" I don't believe in hypothetical situations - it's kinda like lying to your brain "

" They don't hate America, they hate Americans " Homer Simpson

Lets party like its 1939

KPO

Sunday, October 4, 2009 12:01 AM

Quote:
but I don't think he could have delivered last year, much less do anything now...

It's past tense - he offered the deal last year, and the palestinians rejected it. Now he's disclosing the details of the deal.

I'm addressing/challenging the view, popular here, that Israel as 'occupier' is solely responsible for the preservation of the status quo, and ongoing sufferings of the palestinian people.

Olmert's suggestion to the palestinians then and now is that they accept the peace plan and declare their intention to move forward on it, thus putting the ball in Israel's court. Whether or not it succeeds from there would be a test of Israel's democracy, in front of the watching world and Israel's electorate, both of whom have the power to hold those decision makers to account.

Perhaps there are other reasons that I don't know about, why the palestinians would choose to dismiss the peace plan out of hand instead.

Heads should roll

FREMDFIRMA

Sunday, October 4, 2009 12:22 AM

Being that Olmert's a liar, a crook, generally fulla shit, and that Israel never actually holds up to these agreements anyways ?

I mean, after ENOUGH times someone laughs up their sleeve and goes right back to shooting at you, while still taking all the concessions you offered to stop it, and reneges on their own...

At some point you stop believing them, don't you ?

Kinda like that friend you've been loaning money for a decade, who's never paid a penny back, you DO cut them off, right ?

The only way to hold Israel to an agreement is to strap a great big gun to their forehead and threaten to pull the trigger - that's not being antisemetic, it's simply demonstrated fact.

If we were an honest broker, which we're not, we'd start yanking/withholding financial and military aid every time they break these agreements, but no, we just sigh, look the other way, and keep handing it right on over.

The US doesn't have, and doesn't deserve, any credibility in this issue, and I am angry as hell with our supposed representatives for putting us in that position to begin with by working AGAINST the will and interests of their constituents for an "ally" who's done naught but harm to us, some of it actively and intentionally.

Sorry, but I see Olmerts comments as kinda like the Klan saying "Well, if you bring us some rope, we'll stop lynching you, heh heh heh..." - it's so obviously false it's insulting.

And I'd lay good odds the Palestinians feel exactly the same way.

-Frem

It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

GINOBIFFARONI

Sunday, October 4, 2009 12:48 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by kpo:
Quote:
but I don't think he could have delivered last year, much less do anything now...

It's past tense - he offered the deal last year, and the palestinians rejected it. Now he's disclosing the details of the deal.

I'm addressing/challenging the view, popular here, that Israel as 'occupier' is solely responsible for the preservation of the status quo, and ongoing sufferings of the palestinian people.

Olmert's suggestion to the palestinians then and now is that they accept the peace plan and declare their intention to move forward on it, thus putting the ball in Israel's court. Whether or not it succeeds from there would be a test of Israel's democracy, in front of the watching world and Israel's electorate, both of whom have the power to hold those decision makers to account.

Perhaps there are other reasons that I don't know about, why the palestinians would choose to dismiss the peace plan out of hand instead.

Heads should roll

from your article

"But at the time the offer was made, Mr Olmert was already a lame-duck prime-minister, laid low by scandal. The Palestinians refused to believe he could deliver."

If it sounds too good to be true....

" I don't believe in hypothetical situations - it's kinda like lying to your brain "

" They don't hate America, they hate Americans " Homer Simpson

Lets party like its 1939

NEWOLDBROWNCOAT

Sunday, October 4, 2009 1:49 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by kpo:

some key points of the offer:

- Return of around 94% of the West bank to the Palestinians
- Shared, neutrally administered Jerusalem
- Limited 'symbolic' right of return for palestinian refugees (a few thousand over five years)

Haven't looked at the clip yet, but even the offer sounds unbelievable. I will have to look, check it out.
I can't see the Israeli security hawks giving up much of the West Bank without iron-clad guarantees they'll never get, let alone be able to enforce, and without reneging on the first, tiniest violation.
Similarly with Jerusalem-- folks who have been praying , " Next year in Jerusalem," for 2 millenia aren't going to give up a square foot of it to possible armed enemies, except under the supervision of someone they can trust absolutely, and NO candidate comes to mind. Even the UN isn't really Israel-friendly anymore, being dominated by anti-USA and pro-Arab factions.
If the UN Headquarters relocated there, maybe, although Israel would have to be watching for Arab nations to smuggle in fighters as diplomats or guests. But the UN ain't gonna do that-- as much as they bitch about the USA being bad, they ain't gonna pull up stakes and leave the luxury and pleasure of New York City to go ANYWHERE, especially not anywhere as non-luxurious, imperfect, and dangerous as Jerusalem.

And I'm pro-Israel, at that...

DREAMTROVE

Sunday, October 4, 2009 2:06 AM

I trust Olmert as much as the next genocidally bigoted money laundering embezzling rapist. Just curious, did he make the offer from prison?

KPO

Sunday, October 4, 2009 2:27 AM

Quote:
from your article

"But at the time the offer was made, Mr Olmert was already a lame-duck prime-minister, laid low by scandal. The Palestinians refused to believe he could deliver."

If it sounds too good to be true....

I wouldn't blame them for pessimism, having low expectations about the deal going through on Israel's side - but is that a reason to say no to it? Saying no means that you don't want peace on these terms. saying the Israelis cant/won't deliver sounds like an excuse - what have they got to lose? If they call Israel's bluff surely Israel comes out of it worse.

Quote:
Israel never actually holds up to these agreements anyways

Well I don't know much about the history of Israel doing this, but I can see this might be a worry - Israel holds all the power, and the palestinians have to sign on faith that Israel will hand over all the things on its side of the deal. My guess is that whenever Israel reneges they have an excuse - the palestinians failing to control rocket fire (and hence not adhering strictly to their own part of the deal) etc. Unfortunately there will always be extremists on both sides striving to escalate things - I guess that's why they say you need strong men to make peace.

Quote:
The only way to hold Israel to an agreement is to strap a great big gun to their forehead and threaten to pull the trigger

That's your slightly different interpretation of the way things are. Personally, I've never understood this view of the Israeli state as completely evil, it just doesn't add up to me - until you factor in some radical religious thinking that says 'Israel is the instrument of satan' or somesuch. Then sure, I can see why you (the religious extremist) think everything Israel does must be evil. And I also see why you see necessary to deny the holocaust, as why would satan kill 6 million of his own people?

But to me, Israel is a liberal western democracy, populated by human beings who want to live in peace (predominantly) - and I believe it's government's actions has to reflect some of this..?

Not saying democracy is perfect, just that it places limits on how evil you can be as a state.

Heads should roll

ANTHONYT

Sunday, October 4, 2009 2:36 AM

"Not saying democracy is perfect, just that it places limits on how evil you can be as a state."

Hello,

A nation can become a hateful mob, and the good people of a nation can become very very quiet.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Springfield_Race_Riot_of_1908

If a city can go mad, so can a nation.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

FREMDFIRMA

Sunday, October 4, 2009 4:56 AM

KPO, do me the favor not throwing accusations at me which have no basis in fact or fantasy.

1. I am no religious extremist whatever, in fact the only thing *about* religion which draws my annoyance is the irrational extremists, which are present in unfortunately every belief system.

2. WTF ? I call Israel out on their actual behavior and suddenly I am 'denying the holocaust?'.

Looks to me like you came into this discussion with a pre loaded deck, and just tipped your hand without actual cause.

My issue with Israel isn't about theory, it's about stuff they've actually done, and a concern over the mass social and political psychosis they seem to suffer from, basically emulating the very abuse they suffered at the hands of others in the name of "security" - and my real worry is that sixty, eighty years down the road, we might see Palestine doing the exact same to some other people.

Why is it that when someone calls them out on things they actually did, many of them even admitted to, that suddenly the dynamic of the discussion changes, hmm ?

Of course, the big give-away that you didn't want a discussion at all, but to bang an agenda drum was your comments regarding the UN.

Give it up, you tipped your hand early, the mask slipped, and you are revealed as a shill.

Next!

-F

GINOBIFFARONI

Sunday, October 4, 2009 6:52 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by kpo:
Quote:
from your article

"But at the time the offer was made, Mr Olmert was already a lame-duck prime-minister, laid low by scandal. The Palestinians refused to believe he could deliver."

If it sounds too good to be true....

I wouldn't blame them for pessimism, having low expectations about the deal going through on Israel's side - but is that a reason to say no to it? Saying no means that you don't want peace on these terms. saying the Israelis cant/won't deliver sounds like an excuse - what have they got to lose? If they call Israel's bluff surely Israel comes out of it worse.

Quote:
Israel never actually holds up to these agreements anyways

Well I don't know much about the history of Israel doing this, but I can see this might be a worry - Israel holds all the power, and the palestinians have to sign on faith that Israel will hand over all the things on its side of the deal. My guess is that whenever Israel reneges they have an excuse - the palestinians failing to control rocket fire (and hence not adhering strictly to their own part of the deal) etc. Unfortunately there will always be extremists on both sides striving to escalate things - I guess that's why they say you need strong men to make peace.

Quote:
The only way to hold Israel to an agreement is to strap a great big gun to their forehead and threaten to pull the trigger

That's your slightly different interpretation of the way things are. Personally, I've never understood this view of the Israeli state as completely evil, it just doesn't add up to me - until you factor in some radical religious thinking that says 'Israel is the instrument of satan' or somesuch. Then sure, I can see why you (the religious extremist) think everything Israel does must be evil. And I also see why you see necessary to deny the holocaust, as why would satan kill 6 million of his own people?

But to me, Israel is a liberal western democracy, populated by human beings who want to live in peace (predominantly) - and I believe it's government's actions has to reflect some of this..?

Not saying democracy is perfect, just that it places limits on how evil you can be as a state.

Heads should roll

at the same time there was only the American sponsored "road map" negations. Perhaps they didn't want to abandon a process they signed on to for something they felt could not go anywhere.

As for Israel, they try and succeed in playing above the rules everyone else does.

Look at their complaints about Iran over their nuclear program. Iran is in FULL compliance with the NPT and the IAEA... and they are still the frigging whipping boys on this issue with sanctions and threat of attack

Israel on the other hand refuses to even sign the treatys, much less allow any inspections...

where are the sanctions?

Do you want to get into the problems with Israel ?

could make this thread rather lengthy

" I don't believe in hypothetical situations - it's kinda like lying to your brain "

" They don't hate America, they hate Americans " Homer Simpson

Lets party like its 1939

KPO

Sunday, October 4, 2009 4:16 PM

Quote:
Personally, I've never understood this view of the Israeli state as completely evil, it just doesn't add up to me - until you factor in some radical religious thinking that says 'Israel is the instrument of satan' or somesuch. Then sure, I can see why you (the religious extremist) think everything Israel does must be evil. And I also see why you see necessary to deny the holocaust, as why would satan kill 6 million of his own people?

Yikes... Sorry Frem I worded this very badly, what I was saying about religious extremists (just an aside really) wasn't meant to be directed at you. I switched from addressing you to this hypothetical religious extremist, but absolutely failed to make that clear... I should've said in the brackets 'you the religious extremist, not *you* Frem'

Sorry about that. All I was saying against you is that your view of Israel doesn't add up in my mind - without this heavy dose of religious extremism, which I never suspected you of - you have other ways of making it add up/explaining things.

Quote:
a concern over the mass social and political psychosis they seem to suffer from, basically emulating the very abuse they suffered at the hands of others in the name of "security"

Right so I think this is how it adds up for you (to the Israeli state acting evil and out of control)? My calculation is that the memory of the Holocaust will make the Israelis very security conscious, and possibly over-defensively trigger-happy, but I struggle to imagine a subconscious desire to emulate the Nazis. So it still doesn't add up for me.

I'm by nature a peaceful guy, non-religious and with a heart for the palestinian people, but put in an Israeli's shoes I can imagine myself supporting the sometimes brutal actions their government takes - if it would keep me and family safe. Some of this would be hopelessly short-term thinking, some of it might be coloured with hate - but that's just regular flawed humanity for you, no elaborate theory of mass social psychosis is really necessary, to my mind. The main reason why democracies are not perfect is that flawed human beings are involved in the process - and scared/hateful human beings = even moreso.

Quote:
Of course, the big give-away that you didn't want a discussion at all, but to bang an agenda drum was your comments regarding the UN.

That wasn't me.

Heads should roll

CANTTAKESKY

Sunday, October 4, 2009 5:43 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by kpo:
but is that a reason to say no to it? Saying no means that you don't want peace on these terms. saying the Israelis cant/won't deliver sounds like an excuse - what have they got to lose? If they call Israel's bluff surely Israel comes out of it worse.

Ah, that is where you have it wrong. Because Israel won't give all that goodness up for free. No...there is a price, and you have to pay it FIRST before they deliver. Now after being jipped so many times, you go, how about you give us the stuff you promised the last 12 times we paid first?

And if they had said that, Mr. Olmert would probably have interpreted that as a "rejection."

They'll say anything to get Palestinians to stop fighting and accept Israeli tyranny like docile slaves they should be. So what do you lose if you agree to yet another "cease fire"? You lose ground, you lose time.

Quote:
Personally, I've never understood this view of the Israeli state as completely evil,

How much Israeli Arab history have you read?

Here is some reading you can do right now. Incidentally, the first 3 are Israeli or Jewish websites, so you can see the OTHER point of view from Israeli citizens themselves (who can't be accused of being anti-semitic).

1. Courage to Refuse (628 Israeli soldiers have refused to fight in the War of the Settlements. Read in their own words why.)
http://www.seruv.org.il/english/news.asp

2. Btselem (Israeli human rights org)
http://www.btselem.org/English/index.asp
(Here, go into the Archives. I've been subscribing to their newsletters since 2005 when they started. You get a broader picture when you look at their reports over the years.)

3. Not in My Name (Jewish org to end occupation)
http://www.nimn.org/index.php
(Go to Perspectives and read some of the articles there.)

4. If you can, read a book called Blood Brothers by a Palestinian priest named Elias Chacour. Read what happened to his family and his father's orchard from a first person perspective. Now he is a pacifist and holds no hatred for Israel despite what happened. But you can imagine how someone who is not a saint would feel in his shoes.

5. USS Liberty survivors talk about Israel's attempt to murder them. Needless to say, they are not too fond of the state of Israel.
http://www.gtr5.com/

Hopefully, those sources can help you understand better why the state of Israel won't win any popularity contests.

KPO

Sunday, October 4, 2009 8:46 PM

Quote:
Hello,

A nation can become a hateful mob, and the good people of a nation can become very very quiet.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Springfield_Race_Riot_of_1908

Nah, the Israeli state operates with a parliament and plenty of public debate - not like a mob. The comparison with the 1908 springfield mobs doesn't fit, nor does that of the German people under the nazis. The best example of democratic public hysteria I can think of that could be labelled at Israel is the US rush to war and invasion of Iraq - public fear and anger in the wake of terrorist attack (combined with bad leadership).

No, there is always the potential for hateful mobs forming inside a democracy - but the whole state acting like one?

Heads should roll

GINOBIFFARONI

Sunday, October 4, 2009 9:03 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by kpo:
Quote:
Hello,

A nation can become a hateful mob, and the good people of a nation can become very very quiet.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Springfield_Race_Riot_of_1908

Nah, the Israeli state operates with a parliament and plenty of public debate - not like a mob. The comparison with the 1908 springfield mobs doesn't fit, nor does that of the German people under the nazis. The best example of democratic public hysteria I can think of that could be labelled at Israel is the US rush to war and invasion of Iraq - public fear and anger in the wake of terrorist attack (combined with bad leadership).

No, there is always the potential for hateful mobs forming inside a democracy - but the whole state acting like one?

Heads should roll

I look at it more like this,

NATO bombed the crap out of Serbia over Kosavo,
yet the Serbians never went as far against Kosavo as the Israelis have against the Palestinians... for decades

if one was wrong enough to go to war over... why does the other get a pass

oh, and if you were thinking the PLO caused the attacks look up what the KLA did.

Democracy or not, it doesn't matter

actions speak louder than words

" I don't believe in hypothetical situations - it's kinda like lying to your brain "

" They don't hate America, they hate Americans " Homer Simpson

Lets party like its 1939

KPO

Sunday, October 4, 2009 9:28 PM

Quote:
at the same time there was only the American sponsored "road map" negations. Perhaps they didn't want to abandon a process they signed on to for something they felt could not go anywhere.

From what I've read, the road map lay in tatters after the Israeli-Gaza and Israel-Lebanon wars of 2006.

Quote:
As for Israel, they try and succeed in playing above the rules everyone else does.

The first responsibilty of a nation's leaders is the security of the state - or at least this is the case if a nation faces an existential threat. If determined enemies on all sides wanted to wipe out my country I would want my leaders to go down fighting, and not necessarily obeying international rules...

Maybe Israel is the exception (playing by its own rules) because it is forced to make choices that no other country is, and not because it is evil.

Quote:
Do you want to get into the problems with Israel ?

Yes - the explanations for its apparent evilness and determination not to make peace, despite being a liberal democracy. I would prefer arguments how and why, rather than history from anti-israel textbooks that simply attempts to show how evil Israel is, time after time. Don't especially want to wade into that kind of debate... Besides, just because Israel's leaders may have acted this way in the past, doesn't automatically mean all future (or present) ones will. There has to be a good explanation to expect consistent evilness.

Heads should roll

KPO

Sunday, October 4, 2009 9:36 PM

Quote:
I look at it more like this,

NATO bombed the crap out of Serbia over Kosavo,
yet the Serbians never went as far against Kosavo as the Israelis have against the Palestinians... for decades

if one was wrong enough to go to war over... why does the other get a pass

oh, and if you were thinking the PLO caused the attacks look up what the KLA did.

Interesting point, I'll look into this.

Heads should roll

GINOBIFFARONI

Sunday, October 4, 2009 10:15 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by kpo:

From what I've read, the road map lay in tatters after the Israeli-Gaza and Israel-Lebanon wars of 2006

Sure it is is tatters, but Obama and Hillary keep referring to it as the present effort

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Road_map_for_peace

Quote:

The first responsibilty of a nation's leaders is the security of the state - or at least this is the case if a nation faces an existential threat. If determined enemies on all sides wanted to wipe out my country I would want my leaders to go down fighting, and not necessarily obeying international rules...

So, then there should be no criticism of Iran if they declare the intent to build nukes right?
The US and Israel have both made threats to attack them, and further the US invading Iraq right next door under a false pretense...

Besides Israels actions towards Palestinians is not against a external threat, there is no real separate state when Israel controls their borders, water, electricity, money, etc. I would argue that makes these people and their condition Israels responsibility, and if they have recreated the Warsaw ghetto, or a new form of apartheid they must be answerable to that as well

Quote:

Maybe Israel is the exception (playing by its own rules) because it is forced to make choices that no other country is, and not because it is evil.

I don't agree, that gives them a free pass to act however they like with no consequence at all. South Africa felt they also had a right to such exceptions, international pressure was applied none the less and they were forced into reforms

Quote:

Yes - the explanations for its apparent evilness and determination not to make peace, despite being a liberal democracy. I would prefer arguments how and why, rather than history from anti-israel textbooks that simply attempts to show how evil Israel is, time after time. Don't especially want to wade into that kind of debate... Besides, just because Israel's leaders may have acted this way in the past, doesn't automatically mean all future (or present) ones will. There has to be a good explanation to expect consistent evilness.

Israel by its actions have driven this since its creation and even before, in a way they were in the same boat as the Palestinians pre 1948...

but I would blame the UN and the western powers for not intervening against them sooner, if their bad acts had of been curbed at the time, the conflicts with their neighbors may not have even happened. The " free ride " they have received over their ethnic cleansing has been the catalyst for at least %80 of the violence in the region.

It is like watching a young child in a supermarket, running amok throwing cans, screaming,bothering people. And the parent does nothing...

" I don't believe in hypothetical situations - it's kinda like lying to your brain "

" They don't hate America, they hate Americans " Homer Simpson

Lets party like its 1939

FREMDFIRMA

Sunday, October 4, 2009 10:28 PM

Ah, looks like we both mistook each other, KPO, meh, happens.
Apologies for mistaking the UN comment, I was bombed on pain meds at the time and didn't see the split between posts/posters.

Re: religious extremism - unfortunately you got it comin from both ends out there, with the Zionist/Likudniks on one end, and radical Islamic factions on the other, both of which despite their flaws, got a history of "getting the job done" (foundation and expansion of Israel, kicking the Shah and western puppetmasters out of Iran) and so the folks tend to go with the devil they know.

Quote:
Right so I think this is how it adds up for you (to the Israeli state acting evil and out of control)? My calculation is that the memory of the Holocaust will make the Israelis very security conscious, and possibly over-defensively trigger-happy, but I struggle to imagine a subconscious desire to emulate the Nazis. So it still doesn't add up for me.

I don't think there is, and if you point out the similarities to them, they become offended and horrified, but also then roll the victim card and start howling antisemitism.

It's kinda like how an abused child winds up unwittingly and unconsciously emulating their abuser, only writ large on a national scale, and it bothers me greatly cause I can see the next link in the chain forming even this far ahead, you know ?

Quote:
I'm by nature a peaceful guy, non-religious and with a heart for the palestinian people, but put in an Israeli's shoes I can imagine myself supporting the sometimes brutal actions their government takes - if it would keep me and family safe. Some of this would be hopelessly short-term thinking, some of it might be coloured with hate - but that's just regular flawed humanity for you, no elaborate theory of mass social psychosis is really necessary, to my mind.

There's both more to it, and less to it, than that.

Israel was formed in absolute desperation that caused folk on both sides to act in fashions they would have never otherwise done, the Jewish people felt they were at risk of extinction and desperately needed land, NOW, and to hell with the morals and principles...

The Palestinians see a people they had a history of offering shelter and hospitality driving a knive into their back, and trying to push them into the sea and exterminate THEM...

And both sides, blinded by their hatred, and using the others atrocities as an excuse for their own, took this conflict into downright horror.

And along comes the big bold USA, backing one side without question while coming down on the other with a boom - THAT offends me, horribly so.

I got issues enough with some of the espionage that Israel has done against us, shooting up the USS Liberty*, and their involvement in the trafficking of Ecstacy to the point of their intel folks being involved and subverting american communications on a grand scale (Comverse/Amdocs) which also created a tremendous security breach exploitable by others.

Thing is, taken in the long view, the current conflict is a pittance, less than a hundred years - between two peoples that have a MUCH longer history of being allies, it wasn't THAT long ago that Palestine and other middle eastern nations were offering the jews refuge from christian persecution, you know ?

Hell, Mohammeds Compact of Medina was one of the first written agreements between muslims, christians and jews to live on the same ground in peace, and as I understand it, lasted a goodly while - something I like reminding all three factions of at any chance.

So it CAN be done.

The problem is that our interference in the conflict has unbalanced it, and Israel has become fully dependent on that support, expecting it unconditionally, and using both espionage and aid exploitation to bend our politicians to THEIR will, which is a breach of trust I cannot abide, not when they are bribing our politicians with aid we sent em, to send more aid - it's a vicious cycle, and worse, by that unconditional support makes us complicit in abuses of the palestinian people and Is

GINOBIFFARONI

Tuesday, October 6, 2009 6:17 AM

Not really a policy post, but you get a feel for how some Palestinians feel

'Israel has to be held accountable'
By Sousan Hammad

The UN vote on the report into the war on Gaza has been postponed to March 2010 [GALLO/GETTY]

The postponement of the UN Human Rights Council vote on the findings of Richard Goldstone's report into Israel's recent 22-day war on Gaza has raised many questions.

Sahar Francis, a Palestinian Israeli and a human rights lawyer who testified before the UN fact finding mission led by Goldstone, spoke to Al Jazeera about the move and its fallout.

Al Jazeera: On Friday, the Palestinian leadership backed moves to postpone a vote on the findings of Richard Goldstone's report. What does this decision mean for Palestinians?

Sahar Francis: It was such a disappointing step by the Palestinian Authority (PA). I think it is a very wrong move as Palestinians have been fighting for human rights for so long.

It's also very disappointing that whenever we come close to the position of ending [Israel's] immunity, politics comes in the way of implementing international law.

Why do you think the PA are denying that US pressure played a role in their decision to withdraw support for a resolution endorsing the report?

[PA officials] don't have any justification for their own people. It is really sad that we are at this point where the people have lost all their trust in the Palestinian leadership.

Susan Rice, the US ambassador to the UN, called Goldman's report "unbalanced" and "unacceptable". What are your thoughts on whether this report has any relevance or importance for the advancement of Palestinian rights?

We believed this time... we would put an end to Israel's... long, long history of immunity. But unfortunately our very own leaders damaged the whole issue.

In the end, at the international level, any decision - even the most powerful legal document - is meaningless without the political will and support. In the end, international law is built on international relations and [the] balance of power between the different states.

This is first time in the history of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict that a commission headed by a person like Goldstone came to investigate war crimes. This was an opportunity to show the world that international law and human rights is for everyone and that there is no immunity for any perpetrator.

Unfortunately, like it happened in the [International Court of Justice's] ruling on the wall, and other decisions in the UN, when it comes to the Palestine-Israel conflict, Israeli leaders are always managing to get the political support needed to escape accountability.

PA sources said they wanted "unanimity" in the Human Rights Council on the report, and noted discussion on the matter would have a negative influence on peace negotiations. What does this mean?

It was very obvious that the US and Israel, in the name of peace, were actually trying to push the point that any kind of accountability measures against Israel will affect negotiations. But how can you reach peace without giving justice to the people?

This is the sad thing with Mr. Abbas, the Palestinian president. I don't think he accepts this position fully. I don't understand how he can reach for peace without justice. But this is politics. And as Palestinians, we are always on the weak side in the negotiations. This is the outcome.

The US announced that it will postpone any discussions over the Goldstone report for another six months until the next Human Rights Council meeting convenes in March 2010. Why do you think this report is being shelved?

I think by delaying the debate, they think people will forget, that nothing will come out of the report and no legal procedures will be taken.

As human rights activists, we should not accept this fact. We should keep doing our work to push the view of this report and try to use it in other ways. It is the individual's responsibility.

By using universal jurisdiction we can take cases of personal victims from the war on Gaza to

GINOBIFFARONI

Tuesday, October 6, 2009 6:42 PM

http://english.aljazeera.net/news/middleeast/2009/10/20091039613281857
.html

US 'pressured Abbas on UN report'

Israel was heavily criticised in Richard Goldstone's report into the 22-day war [File: EPA]

Hillary Clinton, the US secretary of state, urged the Palestinian Authority (PA) not to accept the findings of a UN report into Israel's war on Gaza because of fears it might scupper attempts to restart peace talks, Palestinian sources have told Al Jazeera.

Clinton reportedly called Mahmoud Abbas, the Palestinian president, on Thursday to encourage him to withdraw PA support for the report, which heavily criticised the conduct of Israeli forces during the December-January conflict.

The UN Human Rights Council had been due to vote on Friday on the report by Richard Goldstone, an investigator appointed by the world body.

Though the PA did not reject the Goldstone report, it backed moves to postpone a vote on the findings until March, triggering widespread condemnation from Palestinian groups and human rights organisations.

Gaza crimes

More than 1,400 Palestinians, at least one-third of them women and children, were killed in the December-January conflict, when Israel attacked Gaza to ostensibly end Palestinian rockets from being intermittently fired into its territory.

Ten Israeli soldiers and three Israeli civilians were killed during the 22-day conflict.

Of its 31 chapters, only one related to alleged war crimes by Palestinian fighters.

Analysts say the postponement in the vote lets Israelis off-the-hook for alleged war crimes.

Goldstone's findings were meant to be passed on to the UN Security Council after the planned vote. Israel and the Palestinians would have then got six months to impartially investigate the war crimes allegations.

While Hamas has already promised investigations, Israel has been loath to undertake any such exercise, fuelling accusations that Tel Aviv is indifferent to "excesses committed by its troops".

Hamas 'shocked'

Various Palestinian groups and human rights bodies have reacted strongly to the PA decision to back a delay in the vote.

"We were shocked today," Khaled Meshaal, the political chief of Hamas, said.

"Is it reasonable for Israel to commit all these crimes against Gaza, all this destruction, all this devastation, all this killing of civilians, all these institutions, mosques, and universities it has demolished, these war crimes which Israel has committed and the white phosphorus?

"We wanted this process to be carried through to label the Israeli actions as criminal and the Israelis as war criminals"

Sameh Habeeb,
Palestine Telegraph founder and editor

"... after this a Palestinian voice emerges and asks for delaying looking into the results reached by the fact-finding committee, despite the few reservations we have on it, but a Palestinian voice comes to ask the world to postpone discussing it? What a shame"

Another Palestinian group, the Islamic Jihad, in a statement said the postponement was against Palestinian interests.

It said the move underlined "the Palestinian Authority's defeatism, lack of will and inability to shoulder responsibility towards the suffering of our people".

Ekmaluddin Ihsan Oglu, the secretary-general of the Organisation of the Islamic Conference, said that the delay was agreed after a deal was reached between the US and the PA.

Lamis Andoni, a Middle East expert, observed that Abbas had succumbed to US pressure.

"The deferment has relieved the unprecedented pressure on Israel to face the consequences of its actions," she said.

"The decision has only given Israel and the US time to defuse the international outcry."

She said that many in the PA had been against the move and that Abbas had broken an agreement with the Fatah Central Committee by failing to consult the the newly elected body before making his decision.

"Abbas may have not wanted to alienate Obama, but the American president already squandered his credibility among the Palestinians when he dropped his demand for an Is

GINOBIFFARONI

Wednesday, October 7, 2009 9:35 PM

http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,653777,00.html

Gaza Love Story
The Bride Who Crawled Through a Tunnel

May and Mohammed together in Gaza.

He lived in the Gaza Strip, she in the West Bank. It seemed as though the Israeli blockade would prevent their marriage. Then May risked her life to crawl through a smugglers' tunnel into Gaza and join Mohammed. Now they face an uncertain future together.

When Mohammed Warda first took his bride in his arms she looked "as if she had just stepped out of a grave that was filled with earth." He had spent an hour sitting nervously by a big hole in the ground in the Gaza Strip, while May crawled backwards through the tunnel, keeping her eyes closed because of the sand that trickled from the roof. Her groom had to pay $1,500 (€1,021) for her to be smuggled through a tunnel from the Egyptian side of the border to the Gaza Strip. And 23-year-old May knew the whole time that the risky undertaking could cost her her life.

Mohammed had been honest with her when he phoned her, telling her of the dangers she faced. First of all there were the Egyptians who were trying to cut off the tunnels, sometimes by throwing gas grenades down the shafts. Dozens of people working on the tunnels had been killed in recent months by these methods. Furthermore there were the Israeli air strikes to contend with: Ever since Israel failed to halt the smuggling during the Gaza war they launched at the beginning of the year, its air force had taken to sporadically striking the border with Egypt.

And then there was the danger that the tunnel could simply collapse. "I knew that I could be buried alive at any moment," May says. After almost an hour underground she staggered into Mohammed's waiting arms. "I was shocked," the 26-year-old says. "I felt so bad that she had gone through this ordeal for me."

Internet Engagement

May and Mohammed's story began one evening three months earlier. The entire clan had gathered in the Warda family's humble apartment in the Nuseirat refugee camp in the Gaza Strip. Ten family members were sitting in front of their most prized possession: a computer with a webcam that kept them in touch with their relatives in the West Bank. A red-faced Mohammed Warda was holding the mouse, and his cousin May appeared on the screen surrounded by her relatives. "Why are you so red?" was the first question May asked the man her family had agreed would be her future husband. Mohammed mumbled something before the fathers took over the conversation. "Are you agreed?" they asked. Mohammed and May smiled at each other via the webcam and nodded. The families cheered.

An engagement contrived by one of the fathers, spouses who are already second cousins: So far, the story of Mohammed and May sounds like an everyday tale from the Arab world. However, their story differs from those of the many other couples who enter into arranged marriages in a few vital ways. First of all, the two fell in love in the weeks following their online engagement. May and Mohammed got to know each other by phone, webcam and e-mail and a virtual romance blossomed. Secondly the barrier to their love and marriage was formed by politics of the highest order.

The Gaza Strip has been sealed off by an Israeli blockade ever since the radical Islamist group Hamas had prevailed in a violent power struggle there in 2007. One and a half million people are trapped in one of the most densely populated areas on Earth, according to the United Nations. The fact that the Palestinians living there are forbidden from leaving the Gaza Strip or moving to the West Bank has been described by the UN as "collective punishment."

That meant that if the couple were going to marry, it would have to be May who left the West Bank. She and her mother took a shared taxi to Jordan and then travelled on to Egypt. She then had to bid her mother farewell at the Egyptian side of the border with Gaza. She didn't know if she would ever see her family again. And she kn

KPO

Thursday, October 8, 2009 2:46 PM

Quote:
Sure it is is tatters, but Obama and Hillary keep referring to it as the present effort

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Road_map_for_peace

The road map seems to me to be most of all a plan to bring the two parties step by step to the table, towards the ultimate goal of a final peace plan. Olmert seemed ready to offer this final peace plan, the Palestinians turned it down.

Whether or not Olmert would've been able to follow through on his end, he made the point that had the Palestinians embraced a peace plan offered by Israel, endorsed by the international community (as he claims), this would've had a profound effect on the outcome of Israel's then approaching elections - giving a party the chance to run on the platform of peace and the electorate a chance to vote directly for it.

Quote:
Quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The first responsibilty of a nation's leaders is the security of the state - or at least this is the case if a nation faces an existential threat. If determined enemies on all sides wanted to wipe out my country I would want my leaders to go down fighting, and not necessarily obeying international rules...

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So, then there should be no criticism of Iran if they declare the intent to build nukes right?
The US and Israel have both made threats to attack them, and further the US invading Iraq right next door under a false pretense...

It's not quite the same, whichever way you look at it. Israel has to accept that however it acts and behaves itself, short of commiting suicide, there will always be lots of people calling and acting for its oblivion. It is a unique case. Iran faces the threat of regime change at worst, and some degree of occupation - but not oblivion.

Both Iran and Israel have an aggressive tone in their security rhetoric and actions I think it is fair to say: Iran has the option of toning down this aggressiveness as a way of diffusing the threat against it. If Israel attempted the same, scrapping its nukes, taking out checkpoints and security fences as goodwill gestures, not detaining and striking at suspected palestinian terrorists - unlike Iran this new peacable approach comes at a highly increased short-term risk to its security.

Quote:
South Africa felt they also had a right to such exceptions, international pressure was applied none the less and they were forced into reforms

The two are only comparable as far as their actions are/were motivated by racist (or religious) imperialism. Israel's actions are motivated to a large extent by a desire for security - therefore it's harder for the international world to be as judgemental about them.

Heads should roll

GINOBIFFARONI

Thursday, October 8, 2009 3:04 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by kpo:

Iran faces the threat of regime change at worst, and some degree of occupation - but not oblivion. Both Iran and Israel have an aggressive tone in their security rhetoric and actions I think it is fair to say: Iran has the option of toning down this aggressiveness as a way of diffusing the threat against it. If Israel attempted the same, scrapping its nukes, taking out checkpoints and security fences as goodwill gestures, not detaining and striking at suspected palestinian terrorists - unlike Iran this new peacable approach comes at a highly increased short-term risk to its security.

I disagree, regime change is the endgoal with Israel. As for Iran, looking at their history and the hostility of the US, they have had a dictator installed on them twice, been massively attacked ( with US support ) ( the Iran/Iraq war )
been verbally threatened for violating international treatys that they were really in compliance with ( Obama recently )
Perhaps it is US rhetoric that needs to be toned down

And what would it cost Israel to sign the NPT treaty anyway? or comply with IAEA inspections as the west seems to think everyone else should?

I'm getting the feeling you think Israel is justified in doing anything, I don't think they are a unique case, law is law, morality is morality... so let me ask these questions of your views then... in general, no special case answers or excuses

Is torture justified ?

Is ethnic cleansing justified ?

Should the law be applied equally on all people ?

Should people be denied the necessitys of life ( food, water, shelter )

Should countrys been able to control the resources on their own land ?

I'm sure I'll think of a few more

" I don't believe in hypothetical situations - it's kinda like lying to your brain "

" They don't hate America, they hate Americans " Homer Simpson

Lets party like its 1939

KPO

Thursday, October 8, 2009 4:50 PM

Quote:
I disagree, regime change is the endgoal with Israel.

In what sense, a one-state solution that is palestinian/arab dominated, and the Jewish people are minority? Do you think Israelis would accept that, or think that it should be forced on them? Remember they lived for a long time as a minority in other people's countries and it never worked out well for them. Perhaps you think this fate would be just, and right for the Jewish people - but do you think it is achievable? Do you think a plan to force national/cultural suicide on a country that is nuclear-armed is likely to succeed?

Once you accept that this can never happen, we can begin to move forward on a solution that is best for the future good of the Israeli and Palestinian people.

Quote:
As for Iran, looking at their history and the hostility of the US, they have had a dictator installed on them twice, been massively attacked ( with US support ) ( the Iran/Iraq war )
been verbally threatened for violating international treatys that they were really in compliance with ( Obama recently )
Perhaps it is US rhetoric that needs to be toned down

I never argued that Iran is not under threat, only that the nature and severity of that threat, and the options it has, are profoundly different to Israel's.

Quote:
And what would it cost Israel to sign the NPT treaty anyway? or comply with IAEA inspections as the west seems to think everyone else should?

It's a decision every country has to make. Any country can pursue a nuclear weapons programme, and then the international community can (and should) judge them on it. You protest that Israel has not been judged harshly enough by people like me, I respond that the special circumstances in Israel's case (history of having experienced holocaust before, and current existential threat) means that I judge them less harshly than Iran, which has less justification in its need for a deterrent (it has some justification, but much of that is due to its own *pursuit* of that deterrent).

Quote:
I'm getting the feeling you think Israel is justified in doing anything, I don't think they are a unique case, law is law, morality is morality...

I don't justify everything Israel has done. Like settlements for instance, I don't see how they can be justified. But I feel I should warn you about moving this conversation in a philosophical direction, I have quite unique philosophy on morality - not murky and ill-defined, but probably quite strange - we may be operating on a different set of principles. My simple set of answers to your questions would be that it is possible to break the law and still be 'moral', and that in general morality of an action can only be divined through inference of the motivations of the person/entity acting (justifications - hence a double standard on nukes for Israel vs North Korea).

As for Israel's ongoing dealings with the Palestinians, I condemn any action that is motivated purely by hate/religious imperialism (military war crimes/zionistic settlement building), I criticise folly/short-sightedness, but I am sympathetic regarding the measures Israel feels necessary to take to protect itself. So there you have it: a mixture of condemnation, criticism and sympathy. And if you want to ask me about any specific action in Israel's history I will do my best to research it, divine the motivations and separate them into these three types, and then judge Israel accordingly.

I think you may say my interpretation of things is over-elaborate, but I say that in general, truth is complicated, nothing is simple, and my understanding of things makes more sense than Israel (a liberal democracy) as a sadistic, out of control, spoilt child or senseless bully.

Heads should roll

GINOBIFFARONI

Thursday, October 8, 2009 5:49 PM

quote " I respond that the special circumstances in Israel's case (history of having experienced holocaust before "

that is not really true is it?

If we give Israel a exception for their behavior under this pretext, we would also have to give the same to

The Armenians, the Kurds, the Ukrainians, the Tutsis, and so on

" In what sense, a one-state solution that is palestinian/arab dominated, and the Jewish people are minority? Do you think Israelis would accept that, or think that it should be forced on them? Remember they lived for a long time as a minority in other people's countries and it never worked out well for them. Perhaps you think this fate would be just, and right for the Jewish people - but do you think it is achievable? Do you think a plan to force national/cultural suicide on a country that is nuclear-armed is likely to succeed? "

Does a country ran by a minority, subjecting the majority to persecution and worse for the sake of the minoritys security have a chance to stand on their own, especially when that countys economy survives on US aid and handouts.

Israel as it stands now is doomed, the longer this situation exists the less likely a compromise involving any co-habitation occurring.

And further, by its actions I question if Israel has the right to exist as a state.

" I think you may say my interpretation of things is over-elaborate, but I say that in general, truth is complicated, nothing is simple, and my understanding of things makes more sense than Israel (a liberal democracy) as a sadistic, out of control, spoilt child or senseless bully. "

But, as the west punishes others, once again for the same actions and allows its error in creating Israel and politics to allow them a free pass on human rights abuses, nuclear arms proliferation, etc, etc, etc

I find it unlikely peace will be possible, this will go on until Israels main defender ( the United States ) is either unable or unwilling ( looking at the economy and military situation today it won't be long ) to come to Israels defense. Then the folk who have suffered to provide Israels security will look to gain a little security of their own ( as Frem has said ) and it will be ugly, and in my view justified....

and sadly not completely the fault of the main players as if the international bodys and the western powers had of acting in a fair and unbiased manner to begin with the problem would have been dealt with years ago

" I don't believe in hypothetical situations - it's kinda like lying to your brain "

" They don't hate America, they hate Americans " Homer Simpson

Lets party like its 1939

GINOBIFFARONI

Thursday, October 8, 2009 8:20 PM

" In what sense, a one-state solution that is palestinian/arab dominated, and the Jewish people are minority? Do you think Israelis would accept that, or think that it should be forced on them? Remember they lived for a long time as a minority in other people's countries and it never worked out well for them. Perhaps you think this fate would be just, and right for the Jewish people "

The Palestinian people were the majority before being driven off their land, and subjected to a wave of Jewish colonization.

Should that have been forced on them?

Is this fate just and right for them?

" I don't believe in hypothetical situations - it's kinda like lying to your brain "

" They don't hate America, they hate Americans " Homer Simpson

Lets party like its 1939

KPO

Friday, October 9, 2009 12:31 AM

Quote:
If we give Israel a exception for their behavior under this pretext, we would also have to give the same to

The Armenians, the Kurds, the Ukrainians, the Tutsis, and so on

Well remember I gave two 'pretexts', or circumstances that were unique in Israel's case, this is only one of them.

And I'm talking about judging them less harshly on the issue of acquiring nukes because their intentions it would seem to me are more defensive than say North Korea's, or even Iran's. Hence the double standard. If a power hungry dictator is trying to acquire nukes I take a firm line with them, compared to a people who are concerned for their very existence. Morality is flexible where law by its nature, cannot be.

Quote:
Israel as it stands now is doomed, the longer this situation exists the less likely a compromise involving any co-habitation occurring.

Well the future doesn't look good for the Israeli people under this assessment. Though I think this is wishful thinking on your part. I hope Palestinian negotiators who reject Israeli peace plans are not vainly holding out for this dream, of the land one day all to themselves. That would be a criminal betrayal of the suffering Palestinian people. Hopefully both states eventually would be viable - if not I would want the international community to step in with money, as they do already.

Why do you reject the idea of a 2 state solution, out of interest, when that would seem to be the only solution with a chance of working?

Quote:
I find it unlikely peace will be possible, this will go on until Israels main defender ( the United States ) is either unable or unwilling ( looking at the economy and military situation today it won't be long ) to come to Israels defense.

Well I don't see a determined and nuclear armed Israel disappearing very easily, so I don't know what kind of future bloodbath you are prophesying/looking forward to. Myself, I'm going to hold out hope for negotiated peace and a 2 state solution.

Heads should roll

KPO

Friday, October 9, 2009 12:43 AM

Quote:
The Palestinian people were the majority before being driven off their land, and subjected to a wave of Jewish colonization.

Should that have been forced on them?

Is this fate just and right for them?

I honestly don't know how to morally resolve the historic claims by the two different peoples to the same land.

But rather than trying to undo history I focus more on finding what is the best course of action for the future, for both Israelis and Palestinians.

Heads should roll