Elections 2009 / Livni: These elections are about peace

[oberliner]

"These elections are about peace," said Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni on Monday as she made a case for the policies she represents at the 9th annual Herzliya Conference.

Speaking ahead of the general elections, scheduled for Feb. 10, Livni said "these elections will decide whether we are ready to take that next step toward peace, and that is up to the citizens of Israel to decide."

"The choice will be between a Jewish state and a bi-national state. Will we be a state of fear or a state of hope?" Livni asked.

"What kind of country will we have?" asked Israeli Foreign Minister and Prime Minister candidate in the upcoming elections, Tzipi Livni, as she made her case for the policies she represents at the 9th annual Herzliya Conference.

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1060932.html

[MacBookPro]

1. Livni, despite her good intentions, is being naïve.

There will be absolutely no peace as long as Hammas, Hezbollah, and their sources of funding are still working to exterminate every man, woman, and child in Israel.

[Alamuti Lotus]

2. anyone who thinks she *has* good intentions is being naive..

but that's just me.

Really, far too much talk of "peace" from certain quarters; do not trust the word when careerist politicians employ it as a euphemism of 'war', too cowardly to often speak without veiled fists.

[MacBookPro]

3. Peace is an admirable goal.

However, continually taking abuse in order to preserve a one-sided "peace" is suicidal.

[Idealism]

4. If you think Israel is innocent in all this

perhaps you should read more.

Israel has over 300 UN resolutions against them for a reason.

[MacBookPro]

5. I'm extremely well-read, but thank you for your suggestion.

Many members of the UN are explicitly against Israel's well-being.

[Idealism]

6. It is all a plot then?

Those 191 countries just hate Israel for her freedoms, don't they?

What members of the U.N. Security Council are blatantly against "Israel's well-being?" The US, UK, China, or Russia -the ones with veto-power- and hence all the power?

[oberliner]

10. There are not 300 UN Security Council resolutions against Israel

You are probably thinking of the General Assembly.

[Idealism]

13. I am stating in general

I believe the number to be 360 or so, a mix of UNGA, UNCHR, UNSC, among others.

[azurnoir]

12. no No NO

thats not it they hate Israel because they are all antisemitic:sarcasm: :sarcasm:

[LeftishBrit]

47. They are neither 'all antisemitic' NOR an unbiased moral or legal court

They are political entities, pursuing their own political alliances and agendas.

Most of the criticisms of Israel are justified - but most of the countries doing the criticizing are at least equally deserving of such criticisms - and rarely get them. The number of resolutions against a country the UN has little to do with whether it's a 'better' or 'worse' country than others. Or the USA, UK, Russia, China, etc., would get a lot more critical resolutions than they do.

[azurnoir]

66. Perhaps you choose not to understand

the meaning of sarcasm

[LeftishBrit]

67. I fully understood that you were being sarcastic.

However, it came across as though your implication was that anyone, who doesn't think that the UN's resolutions are proof that Israel is an exceptionally bad country, must think they are just antisemitic. No doubt some people do think so. But there are other possible views than just those two!

[azurnoir]

71. My meaning was that the charge of antisemitism is frequently

leveled at any of Israel's critics as a means of deflection

[LeftishBrit]

73. And my point is really...

that BOTH the charge of antisemitism and the charge of false accusations of antisemitism often turn into deflection. Antisemitism exists; and so do false suspicions of antisemitism. But many pro-and anti-Israel views have little to do with either, and a great deal to do with other political considerations.

Many pro-Israel people:

Consider Israel as a general strategic ally in America's or the EU's interests

Consider Israel as a base in the fight against the Muslim world/ Islamic states/ Iran/ in the past, Communism

Consider Israel as a necessary part of the rush to Christian prophecy fulfilment and ultimately Armageddon


Many anti-Israel people:

Are American isolationists who don't want ties with any other country

Are members of, or sympathetic with the Muslim states, which currently tends to imply opposition to Israel

Want ties with Arab oil-producing states

Are 'mirror-image-ists' who react to Bush's division of the world into 'good guys' and 'the Axis of Evil', but reverse the roles.


None of these things are necessarily connected with either antisemitism or the suspicion of antisemitism; and excessive focus on either can deflect from some of the real points.

[GoesTo11]

68. For a reason

There is certainly a reason Israel has 300 UN resolutions against them.

[Alamuti Lotus]

7. What is your definition of the word?

I find it to be so mutilated that any hack demagogue-wannabe can work it into any speech as if it were a word for all occasions. Elaborate, please.

[MacBookPro]

9. My definition, in this case, is the politico/socio definition.

Roughly, it is the abstention of fighting and antagonism between two or more parties or nations. This abstention is usually laid out in a peace-treaty, along with the consequences of breaking it.

[azurnoir]

8. Yes the people of Gaza have been taking quiit a bit of abuse

blockades os all air and water access that are acts of war being perpetrated by Israel, not to mewntion blockades of humanitarian aid so yes any peace that does not included Israel cooperating is pretty useless

[MacBookPro]

11. Self-defense is not an act of war.

The greatest humanitarian enemy to the Palestinian people (and to Muslims worldwide) is the implicit sanctioning of the barbarous acts committed by radicals. The radical Islamists are the initiators of force and the ones directly responsible for putting otherwise peace-loving people into a deadly situation.

[azurnoir]

14. Ah yeah like the peace loving people that cheer on IAFs bombing

your self defense doesn't work anymore how is denying baby formula to infants self defense, how is denying medicine to the sick and injured self defense, how is denying food to a hungry civilian population self defense, how is wanton destruction of farmlands, olive groves, and fruit orchards self defense.........

[MacBookPro]

15. How, exactly, is war supposed to be waged?

War is an absolutely brutal and horrific event. Considering how, in this particular situation, the primary tactic of the enemy was to be deeply entrenched in civilian areas in order to maximize bloodshed, it is no mystery why such acts you mentioned have been observed.

[azurnoir]

16. Yeah your heart bleeds n/t

[MacBookPro]

17. Yes, it does.

But I don't shed a single tear for any terrorist or terrorist state.

[azurnoir]

20. Your willness to cheer on collective punishment

speaks for who you consider a terrorist

[MacBookPro]

22. Using that logic,

Your willingness to turn a blind eye toward the initiators of force speaks for you, also.

[Idealism]

23. Your willingness to only believe the Israeli viewpoint blinds you to history period

[azurnoir]

32. No I am not turning a blind eye to anything

including who initiated force or never really stopped using it

[MacBookPro]

34. Who, then, initiated the force?

//

[azurnoir]

44. Who never stopped using it? n/t

[MacBookPro]

45. Hammas, Hezbollah, and the other militant Islamists.

//

[azurnoir]

50. LOL how predictable n/t

[Alamuti Lotus]

70. "we" are fine; "they" are the problem

Couldn't see that one coming, no sir.. not from a mile away, certainly not no.

[LeftishBrit]

75. I don't shed many tears for actual terrorists...

but what you define as a 'terrorist state' will always include lots of innocent bystanders. Don't you shed a tear for them if they get killed or maimed?

[Howardx]

24. yawn

youre here a little late there friend, we have already heard the justifiers of the palestinian genocide parrot these talking points ad nauseum.

[MacBookPro]

26. Yawn indeed.

Your usage of the word "genocide" is both inaccurate and intellectually lazy.

[Howardx]

29. your lack of approval

is a badge of honor.

[MacBookPro]

30. Unsurprising.

With nothing else to value, it is easy to cherish dissention.

[Howardx]

35. blah blah blah

is obfuscation and bloviation the only weapons you apologists have? seems so.

[MacBookPro]

37. Claiming that you value nothing other than dissention is not obfuscation.

You seem to enjoy fighting yet you are offering no alternative to my claims other than insults.

[Howardx]

39. im sure you would like nothing better

than to involve me in a long drawn out thread which has nothing to do with the topic at hand, im not a noob here, i dont play apologists games.

[MacBookPro]

40. Then allow me to be the first one to bow out of this conversation with you.

I can gain nothing of value from it or from you.

[LeftishBrit]

51. IMO, you and your opponent represent two sides of the same coin

The same coin that has been in operation between both sides for far too long - and done no good to either.

The parties can blame each other from here to kingdom come, and there's certainly plenty of blame to go round, but what good does it do? We should be looking for ways of making peace, not yet more war.

[MacBookPro]

53. If this was a relativist debate, I would agree with you.

The fact is, however, it is not. Post-Enlightenment civilization cannot be honestly compared with barbarism.

[LeftishBrit]

55. War is barbarism, not post-enlightenment civilization

Post-enlightenment civilization is an admirable thing, but it cannot be imposed or created at gunpoint; that's a contradiction in terms.

[MacBookPro]

57. Israel has never attempted to create civilization at gunpoint.

They aim their guns at those who desire to destroy civilization.

[LeftishBrit]

59. I don't think that's even what they claim...

they claim self-defence against those who are threatening the lives of residents of some Israeli cities. They certainly claim that their enemies are dangerous to them (and they are, but IMO their own tactics DON'T make them safer in the long run). But they don't claim that Hamas or other enemies are 'destroying civilization'.

[MacBookPro]

60. They do not explicitly claim it. You are correct.

But that is the essence of the entire problem with Islamic Totalitarianism. Israel is just another battleground. It is in their self interest that they defend their civilizations from this menace.

[LeftishBrit]

62. You sound like a Republican 'culture warrior' frankly, seeing the world as a battleground.

Which IMO is not in Israel's self-interest - or for that matter in anyone's.

[MacBookPro]

64. Republicans are idiotic, religious children.

The world is not a battleground. However, it is absolutely impossible to claim that the areas where these militants are does not eventually become a battleground. These militants are the enemy to the West and to the 1.2 billion Muslims whose name and religion they defile.

[LeftishBrit]

54. Have the recent wars resulted in any sort of long-term peace?

[MacBookPro]

65. No.

The recent wars have been despicably short-sighted and pointless. They do not identify or attack the source of this ideology and those funding it.

[Alamuti Lotus]

69. so now we arrive at the real point: bomb Iran?

[azurnoir]

18. So livni claims the elections are about peace?

as shown by this statement:

Meanwhile, in what may have been a veiled criticism of Barak, Foreign Minister and Kadima leader Tzipi Livni blasted those seeking to reach a settlement with Hamas.

"There are those sitting with the Hamas regime who want to reach understandings with the group, and there are those working to bring an end to the Hamas regime," she told cabinet ministers. "A settlement with Hamas would give it legitimacy, and those working for that with the Egyptians need to understand that."

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=123330464904...

sounds like a recipe for same old same old

[MacBookPro]

19. Do you believe that Hammas deserves legitimacy?

//

[Howardx]

25. hamas recieved legitimacy via elections

whether you and your ilk like it or not.

[MacBookPro]

27. The Romans voted to kill Caesar.

Does that legitimize the action?

[Howardx]

31. wtf?

typical apologist bullshit.

try and stick to the topic at hand.

[MacBookPro]

33. What is typical about my "apologist bullshit"?

My reply was extremely relevant to the topic at hand.

[Howardx]

36. im sure you thought it was

extremely relevant to your mission of disruption, hijacking and propaganda.

[MacBookPro]

38. Reality is reality, regardless of how I may think about it.

The same goes for you, as well.

[LeftishBrit]

52. So did the Israeli government , And so did Ronald Reagan, and the first Bush, and Thatcher, etc.

(I leave out Dubya for obvious reasons.)

A government can be legitimately elected, and still be crap.

[azurnoir]

72. Hamas has to dealt with on a political level

whether or not they're believed to "deserving" of this, the fact is they are a major player in this and one with enough power to make or break the deal to refuse to deal with them is merely an under handed way of maintaining the status quo.

[oberliner]

21. Livni is willing to reach a compromise that will lead to a two-state solution

I believe she is saying that Netanyahu is not willing to do so.

[azurnoir]

28. The piece I posted said clearly

she was going after Barak.

[oberliner]

41. But the piece I posted has her going after Netanyahu

It's tough being in the center!

[azurnoir]

46. Livni is a politician who wants to win

and says what she must to obtain that end and righ now it seems attacking Gaza is a big seller in Israel


HERZLIYA, Israel (AP) -- Israel's foreign minister threatened Monday to keep hitting Hamas as long as it attacks Israel, ruling out negotiations with the Islamic rulers of Gaza just eight days before national elections in which she is running for prime minister.

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/M/ML_ISRAEL_PALESTINIANS?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2009-02-02-17-47-10i]

[Jefferson23]

42. Peace, yea right. Livni and her definition of peace would never match

that of Webter's definition. Just more campaign bullshit from her, she is promising deterrence aka war is peace.

"I just want you to know that, when we talk about war, we're really talking about peace." George W. Bush

[MacBookPro]

43. Livni is a pragmatist.

She will change her principles as needed; much like any populist. Take what she says about peace with a grain of salt.

[azurnoir]

48. Oh I do especially given her

"spot changing leopard" story in regards to the settlements

[MacBookPro]

49. I agree with you.

She is very much a Western politician; pandering to the emotions of her voting bloc to receive the most votes. She is, in my opinion, an extremely poor potential leader for Israel. That said, however, the others aren't much better.

[LeftishBrit]

56. I'd agree with you there

While I would like to see Meretz win, I know there is no chance; and I think Livni is better than Netanyahu - partly because I think she *is* pragmatic and not an ideologue.

[MacBookPro]

58. Pragmatism is very dangerous, though.

It is far easier to trust an ideologue, regardless how bad the ideas are, because you know what to expect. Pragmatists swing from one ideal to another, leaving no change of trust or expectation from anyone who attempts to work with them.

[LeftishBrit]

61. I disagree here - most of the world's most dangerous leaders have been ideologues, not pragmatists

It's true that a pragmatist MIGHT, under the influence of popular pressure, act in a dangerously violent way. But I would rather have the possibility of danger than the certainty.

I suppose the ultimate in being a pure ideologue rather than a pragmatist is a suicide bomber - would you rather work with suicide bombers than diplomats, as your argument would logically imply?

[MacBookPro]

63. You make an excellent observation and I should correct my wording.

With an ideologue, one knows what to expect. With an Islamist suicide bomber or a neo-conservative general, you know exactly what they will do, how they will approach a problem, and from there one can form a way of dealing with them.

A pragmatist, however, can very easily change their spots. Livni, to use our current example, can espouse peace and work on diplomatic relations on a Monday, only to drop a nuclear weapon on Tehran on a Tuesday. She is not honest. There is far too much wiggle-room in what she says for her to be taken seriously on anything.

[Violet_Crumble]

74. Peace? Well that's right up there with saying there's no humanitarian crisis in Gaza n/t...