Quote:

---

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

---

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

---

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)

---

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....

---

Quote:

---

Israel never actually holds up to these agreements anyways

---

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

---

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

---

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?

---

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"

---

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.

---

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.

---

Quote:

---

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

---

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

---

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

---

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.

---

Quote:

---

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

---

Quote:

---

Do you want to get into the problems with Israel ?

---

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.

---

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

---

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...

---

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.

---

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.

---

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.

---

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.

---

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

---

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...

---

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

---

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.

---

Quote:

---

I disagree, regime change is the endgoal with Israel.

---

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

---

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?

---

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...

---

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

---

Quote:

---

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

---

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.

---

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?

---