The New Israel: (is asking for trouble)

[donsu]

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/article354485.ece


The New Israel: Plans to redraw border on West Bank
Election victory gives Ehud Olmert a mandate to implement his controversial plan to redraw border and annex Palestinian territory



Ariel Sharon's successor, Ehud Olmert, began the task of building a workable coalition yesterday after Israelis voted, for the first time, to return a majority of MPs committed to dismantling settlements in the West Bank.

The Labour party's 20 Knesset members could become more influential than expected under its leader, Amir Peretz, in a new coalition, after Mr Olmert's Kadima party secured just 28 seats, significantly fewer than predicted.

Article Length: 1338 words (approx.)
---------------------------


are Israelis up for this??

they really want more mayhem?

[Xeric]

1. Why wouldn't they?

Who's going to stop them? They can steal as much land as they like. Our Christian Zionists will encourage them and run interference for them. They have no fear of the UN where the US will veto any resolution against them. And any resistance from the Palestinians will be used as an excuse to steal more land.

[xchrom]

2. the u.s. will never take an equitable stand re: israel

and the m.e. -- so yes -- they can do this and get away with it.

[papau]

3. Is there any other choice?- no deal that kepts a Jewish Israel is possible

the folks on the other side have said this over and over again.

They need final borders - and this is the only way to get those borders.

I am sure a border realignment agreement will be possible when there is someone to agree with.

[King Mongo]

4. The only way?

You mean that this the only way that Israelis will accept final borders, meaning that they will fight to the death and kill whom they want to kill until they get all of Jerusalem, as well as other parts of the West Bank.

Peace is always possible without war, theft or crime. Of course, Isrealis do have the advantage of being able to take some of what they want to have, for now, without anyone doing anything about it. There is no doubt in my mind that many more Palestinians are going to get killed.

[pelsar]

5. remind me again....

what was that what Hamas said?...oh yes...no place for israel in this part of the world.....and jews?...well only if their under muslim rule..

buy hey, small details

[King Mongo]

7. So, you believe that the US has the right to annex Iran.....

simply because of the hostile dialog shared by individuals on both sides.

The things that people say does not give one the right to grab their land. Palestinians can say anything in the world, but that is not a justification for Israel to annex their territory. Of course, it is understandable that people would use the words of others as a justification to cause them harm.

If, let's say, that words were a justification to annex territory, then both sides would have equal justifications to annex the land of the other.

[pelsar]

11. a little history?

1967...israel was threatened by all of the surrounding arab nation with being thrown into the sea....that was justification for winning the war and taking territory (and it was jordan that annexed the west bank, not israel)

i know..history, it really ruins the evil israel narration

hamas hostile dialog, is also part of their education system, unless of course you want to find an excuse for teaching hatred as well

[King Mongo]

12. Israel attacked....

... and won the war in just a few days. It doesn't appear to me as if Israel was threatened at all. Certainly, there were many small skirmishes over water which encouraged hostile dialog, but Israel has one damn good military and thus it was not seriously threatened at all.

There are many on both sides who educate children to hate and blame the other. For example, many argue that Egypt attacked even though it was actually Israel which attacked.

[pelsar]

13. and the IDF gambled....

and if thei IAF surprise wasnt a surprise?...and if the arab air forces were ready and waiting?.....the 6 day war wouldnt have been so...

and even though israel did win, i doubt the Egyptian Generals, etc believe that with their larger forces, they would lose...wars are gambles and israel took a huge one.

As far as teaching hate.....all sides have their fanatics....but its only one side whos TV and Radio regualary put forth real garbage for all of its population, its only one side whos media totally ignores the israelis...and its a controlled media.

as far as those who argue that israel started the 6 day war...well they're the same bunch that believe the moon landings were fake and israel did 9/11......same material

[King Mongo]

14. The gamble

Yes, they threatened each other, gambled and then Israel attacked. If Israel had not attacked, it is possible that Egypt would not have attacked. It was all a gamble. In my opinion, rather than having skirmishes with Jordan which later led to war, Israel should have worked in a more cooperative manner with Jordan in dealing with Palestinians. It is my understanding that Jordan was trying to work with Israel.

Given that the situation was a gamble, certainly it is fair to argue that occupied territory should not be annexed unless the people who live on the land are recognized as citizens of the occupying nation.

From my observations, there is much hatred being preached on the TV and radio on both sides. This is something that one can only expect when one side occupies the other.

You are saying that they preach hatred. Yet, certainly it could be possible for you to discuss the situation from a perspective which is more fair to both sides? I mean, the fact that Israel attacked simply means that Egypt may not have attacked and the fact that Israel attacked does not mean that Israel needed to transfer civilians to the occupied territory and annex land. The fact that one side wants the land without the people who live on it and that the people want to live on the land without being citizens of the other, means that it is indeed best for both to recognize that the other exists as an independent non-occupied nation, without annexing land from the other.

[pelsar]

15. your lacking in information..it clouds your viewpoint...

Your trying very hard to say that the situation is "even"...its not.

i hope some facts dont get in the way too much: pre 67 because of egypt and jorda and syria, etc israel had its port closed by egypt (an act of war in itself)...and all of israel was mobilized, that meant the country was a standstill. Not a problem for egypt etc, who had a large standing army....that in itself was an agressive act towards israel. Gambles can go bad....and then your situation is much worse....israel took a chance given the situation of full mobilization and constant threats of war was impossible to keep up.

Your understanding of jordan is wrong. though they werent "too excited" about joining in, they made it clear to israel that they had no choice...

again your observations on what goes on in the media is wrong. Palestenains are regulars on israeli tv and radio and are their politicians and even some of the jihadnikim...meaning israelis talk to them, debate with them, interviews them.

....the opposite is not true....the palestenains do not interview israelis, do not invite them to debate, seminars etc...and what they do show is poisonous.

and your out of date....israel has long ago accepted the palestenians and their state to be (the westbank was annexed by jordan, never by israel-wrong facts)...the question is what kind will it be and when. A failed state as in sudan, an islamic state as in iran will not bring about a peaceful relationship..but those minor details usually dont bother anybody but israelis....

[King Mongo]

16. I thought that you said that it was "they" who "teach hatred"...

While I attempt to look at the situation from a perspective which is fair for both sides, you blame one side while defending the other. Is that not a form of "teaching hatred"? You attempt to point out that "they" are bad and "they" are good, while strongly rejecting those views which seek to analyse the good and bad on both sides.

[pelsar]

23. i can be fair...

and see that things are not even...are you going to claim that Pot Pol had legit grievences?...The USSRs dictatorship was equal to that of the wests democracy?

i can very well blame one side that still sees me as a pig, a donkey, that refuses such a basic acknowledgment of my "humanis" by not inviting an israeli to discuss the situation on a palestenian talk show. I'm not talking about the politicians and their games, but the basic acknowledgement that comes from talking to one another. There is no better way than via the media, radio/TV etc yet the palestenains refuse to do such a basic "get to know you" kind of thing

israel does tons of stuiped and bad things, its people and its govt...so too does the palestenians. The difference is that the israeli media which reaches all israelis is constantly in touch with the palestenains....the opposite is not true, hence the palestenians (not select groups) as a people do not have the chance to see israelis as people...and that is wrong.

and there is no equivalent on the israelis side

[cali]

24. I don't see how you can believe that

you have a perspective that's fair to both sides. You are consistently one sided. Nothing wrong with that, but repeating over and over again that you're fair, while repeatedly damning only one side, is antithetical to ever reaching a "fair" perspective. The first step towards fairness is recognizing your own bias.

[methinks2]

17. tsk tsk pelsar

When i visite Isreal and Palestine I met with many brave and noble people from all of the sides who work tirelessly for peace between the people. If you can't find palestinians as well as israeli's who are currently working for peace, then you must not be looking very hard. The peace movement in Israel is huge. So is the movement in palestine. Open your eyes. The majority of people want peace. There is a minority on both sides who seem love their hatred. they don't want to give it up. But they are only the minority! And it is not fair to punish the majority because of the bad actions of the few. It also a little predujiced(typo) to try and lump all of a certain type people together and typecast them. We are made in the image of the divine and we all have a sacred spark. Try to look at other humans with love and compassion. You made be surprised at the wonderful people you will suddenly see. (I look forward to peace in I/P so I can visit again and eat some of the wonderful food. Even the fruits and vegetables tasted better there. I just loved those yellow and red cherries. I think they were called Queen Annes.)

[wellst0nev0ter]

20. What Justifications?

Yitsack Rabin himself told the Israeli cabinet at the time that the Egyptian military was still in defensive position (Decisions in Crisis pg. 104-118) a U.S. intelligence review said that there is no evidence that Egypt was planning to attack (Peace Process pg. 37) Even Abba Eban admitted that Iraeli intelligence said that Egypt had no plan for attack (Personal Witness pg. 395)

So basically Israel used the same type of reasoning that has put this country in Eye-Rack.

[pelsar]

22. oct 73....

israel intelligence said there would be no attack......

some were right, some were wrong...samething in 67 and 73

the justification was actually quite simple: egypt closed of the israeli port of eilat (an act of war) israel was at full mobilization, meaning the country was at a standstill....its economy was soon to be destroyed.

Egypt, Syrian, Jordan using their standing armies had no problem posturing for months, litle israel did not have that option.

[wellst0nev0ter]

25. 1967 and 1973 Were Quite Different Realities.

As for the Port of Eilat, not a single Israeli ship has used that port during the past two years and only 5 percent of Israeli trade went through that port (The Sinai Blunder p. 78). Also Egypt was under no obligation to keep that port open to Israel since it signed no international treaty concerning the strait. In any case, Egypt was prepared to negotiate in late May and early June and Nasser agreed to send over his vice-president over to Washington in order to explore diplomatic solutions (Warriors for Jeruselem p. 179) But the meeting never happened because Israel struck first and Secretary of State Dean Rusk was severely pissed off (As I Saw It p. 386-7)

Finally, there was no doubt Israel could easily defeat the Arab armies. Abba Eban reports that the CIA estimates that Israel would win any conflict with the neighboring Arab states within a week (Personal Witness, p. 385-389). The State Department was so sure of an Israeli victory that they made no contingency plans even for a protracted war, let alone an Israeli defeat (The Passionate Attachment, p. 55)

[Coastie for Truth]

26. You have some serious inaccuracies in your append

References:
1. Louis Henkin, Cases and Materials on International Law
2. Burdick Britton, International Law for Seagoing Officers
3. Mary Ellen O'Connell, International Law and the Use of Force: Cases and Materials
4. L. Oppenheim and Ronald Roxburgh, International Law: A Treatise
5.
6.


The closing of the Straits of Tiran is governed by the ICJ Decision in the Corfu Channel Arbitration.

The closing of the Straits was a causus belli

As for the Port of Eilat, not a single Israeli ship has used that port during the past two years and only 5 percent of Israeli trade went through that port.

Legally irrelevant!

Also Egypt was under no obligation to keep that port open to Israel since it signed no international treaty concerning the strait.

That is not the law. The obligation not to block international straits predates the relevant treaty (which only came into being after the 1967 law.)

In any case, Egypt was prepared to negotiate in late May and early June and Nasser agreed to send over his vice-president over to Washington in order to explore diplomatic solutions.

Legally irrelevant. The causus belli was closing the straits. Offering to negotiate as to a right conferred under "customary international law" is no remedy.

[wellst0nev0ter]

27. Um No.

Eisenhower himself said that such blockades constitutes no justification for the first Israeli attack and it certainly doesn't justify the second attack. The International Law Commission at the time found no rule that would govern the Strait of Tiran, and I've already said Egypt did not sign and is not governed by the Convention on Territorial Seas, and even if it was, the treaty does not guarantee innocent passage to "belligerent nations" which Israel has proven to be in the past to Egypt.

[Coastie for Truth]

28. I will stand by my position.

[papau]

10. No - the choice is imposed borders w/ wall or no border/no wall

there are other ways, but it requires an "other side" that can deal for real.

The Hammas current unified idea of an "Israel" with a majority Arab population is not going to sell to those in the current Israel.

[Name removed]

6. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

8. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Coastie for Truth]

9. The rest of the article

<<<SNIP (In OP)>>>

Mr Peretz's influence may in time be reflected in pressure on Mr Olmert to begin a negotiating process alongside his plans for withdrawal from settlements east of the 450-mile separation barrier, sections of which cut deep into the West Bank.

<<<SNIP>>>

In the following two to three years, Israel would build alternative communities for the settlers, either in the big West Bank settlement blocs that Israel intends to retain between the pre-1967 border and the 450-mile separation barrier or in areas in Israel. Mr Scheller insisted the new borders would allow a contiguous Palestinian state, though in the absence of a peace deal the Army would remain in the evacuated areas. "The wisdom of the plan is that there is no precise timetable," he added.

<<<SNIP>>>

That was reflected in the gains made not only by Labour but also by the Pensioners Party and the ultra-orthodox Shas, which took 11 seats. Labour reportedly contacted Shas and the Pensioners' Party last night in an attempt to form a "social bloc" for coalition negotiations that the senior Kadima Knesset member Haim Ramon said he expected to be completed soon after the Passover holiday in mid-April.

Mr Peretz has repeatedly made it clear that he wants to see negotiations with Mahmoud Abbas and that unilateral measures should only be taken as a last resort. Ismail Haniyeh, the new Hamas Palestinian Prime Minister said after his Cabinet was sworn in by Mr Abbas in Gaza yesterday that " whatever Mr Abbas presents to the people as a result of the negotiations serves our interests, then we will also redefine our position."

<<<SNIP>>>

FULL TEXT AT

[donsu]

18. thanks for posting this

nt

[Tom Joad]

19. Why one refuses to serve in an army of occupation.

This Wednesday, 5 Apr. 2006, conscientious objector Aviv Sela is going to report at the Israeli army’s Induction Base and refuse to enlist.

From Aviv’s declaration of refusal:

“I was brought up thinking that the State of Israel is a good country, a country with values, that does not hurt human beings, a country where the values of freedom and equality are fundamental and where there is no place for racism. I was reared on pride in this country and in its flag.

“About three years ago I started visiting the Occupied Territories regularly, and I saw that beyond the Green Line, all those things I was reared on do not exist”

“As an ordinary human being, neither naive nor evil, I have no intention to be a part of the Israeli army, performing war crimes in the name of the occupation policy of the State of Israel…”

Aviv will likely serve prison time. It is people like Aviv who can be a future leader in a new Israel.

[Coastie for Truth]

21. "Aviv will likely serve prison time."

It's about 4-7 months while the various bureaucratic appeals are working through the IDF and the courts.

Two of my cousins have gone that route.