The Israeli-Palestinian conflict

BCC Aug 4, 2015 at 08:53am:

Hundreds of rockets and mortar shells rained down on Israel just from 1 Jan 2014
to the start of the war on 8 July 2014. Only the fact of Israel's Iron
Dome success prevented far more dead Israelis.
What other country wold have put up with that before taking forceful action.
As to 'rogue' elements, which 'rogue' element spent millions to build
those tunnels that Protective Edge destroyed and what was their
purpose? Tourism?

Every rocket from Gaza fired at Israeli civilian targets was/is a war crime. That was the conclusion of the UN Commission of Inquiry on the Gaza War:

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/23/world/middleeast/israel-gaza-report.html?_r=0

With regard to rockets fired by Islamic Jihad and Salafist groups between 1
Jan 2014 and 30 June 2014 -- there were a total of 181 rockets fired, of
which more than 60 occurred in June, compared with 80 Israeli
airstrikes on Gaza that month and 65 in March. Israel increased its
airstrikes in June in response to the abduction of 3 Israeli teenagers,
and in March there was battle with IDF forces near the Gaza fence,
which accounted for many of the rockets and mortars that month.

No Israelis were killed by Gaza rockets during the 1 Jan - 30 June period.

None of the rockets were fired by Hamas until June 30 when Hamas facilities
and personnel were attacked by 34 Israeli airstrikes. Hamas had not
fired any rockets at Israel since a cease-fire was declared in November
2012.

With regard to the tunnels, Hamas had assembled thousands of rockets and
built military facilities, like the tunnels, but did not employ them until attacked by
the IDF on June 30. The IDF attack on Hamas was preceded by weeks of incitement
against Hamas by PM Netanyahu who said Hamas was responsible for the
kidnapping of 3 Israeli teenagers. The real purpose of his incitement
and the IDF attacks, in my opinion, was to destroy the cooperation agreement
between Hamas and Fatah (headed by Mahmoud Abbas, head of the PLO and
the Palestinian Authority) that had been reached in April, which on paper made
Hamas subservient to the Palestinian Authority.

Hamas obliged Netanyahu by unilaterally responding to the IDF attacks with
rockets without consulting the PA, making a mockery of its agreement with Fatah.

And the Gaza war of 2014 was underway.

paulsurovell said:

BCC Aug 4, 2015 at 08:53am:

Hundreds of rockets and mortar shells rained down on Israel just from 1 Jan 2014
to the start of the war on 8 July 2014. Only the fact of Israel's Iron
Dome success prevented far more dead Israelis.
What other country wold have put up with that before taking forceful action.
As to 'rogue' elements, which 'rogue' element spent millions to build
those tunnels that Protective Edge destroyed and what was their
purpose? Tourism?

Every rocket from Gaza fired at Israeli civilian targets was/is a war crime. That was the conclusion of the UN Commission of Inquiry on the Gaza War:
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/23/world/middleeast/israel-gaza-report.html?_r=0
With regard to rockets fired by Islamic Jihad and Salafist groups between 1
Jan 2014 and 30 June 2014 -- there were a total of 181 rockets fired, of
which more than 60 occurred in June, compared with 80 Israeli
airstrikes on Gaza that month and 65 in March. Israel increased its
airstrikes in June in response to the abduction of 3 Israeli teenagers,
and in March there was battle with IDF forces near the Gaza fence,
which accounted for many of the rockets and mortars that month.

No Israelis were killed by Gaza rockets during the 1 Jan - 30 June period.

None of the rockets were fired by Hamas until June 30 when Hamas facilities
and personnel were attacked by 34 Israeli airstrikes. Hamas had not
fired any rockets at Israel since a cease-fire was declared in November
2012.
With regard to the tunnels, Hamas had assembled thousands of rockets and
built military facilities, like the tunnels, but did not employ them until attacked by
the IDF on June 30. The IDF attack on Hamas was preceded by weeks of incitement
against Hamas by PM Netanyahu who said Hamas was responsible for the
kidnapping of 3 Israeli teenagers. The real purpose of his incitement
and the IDF attacks, in my opinion, was to destroy the cooperation agreement
between Hamas and Fatah (headed by Mahmoud Abbas, head of the PLO and
the Palestinian Authority) that had been reached in April, which on paper made
Hamas subservient to the Palestinian Authority.

Hamas obliged Netanyahu by unilaterally responding to the IDF attacks with
rockets without consulting the PA, making a mockery of its agreement with Fatah.

And the Gaza war of 2014 was underway.

'Hamas obliged Netanyahu by unilaterally responding to the IDF attacks with rockets without consulting the PA, making a mockery of its agreement with Fatah.

And the Gaza war of 2014 was underway. '

You left out:

This from the Guardian, no friend of Israel:
'8 July Israel launches a military campaign against Hamas in Gaza after heavy rocket fire (emphasis mine) on Israeli cities.'

So you finally agree the war started on
July 8th, and either way, Hamas started it.

'With regard to the tunnels, Hamas had assembled thousands of rockets and built military facilities, like
the tunnels, but did not employ them until attacked by the IDF on June 30. '

What was the purpose of the tunnels? Construction wasn't started on June 30th.

No country would put up with tunnels being built under their territory by a neighbor who had been
attacking them for years, yet you attempt to justify them.

'Here's a pop quiz about the six-nation nuclear pact with Iran, signed last week: Which Israeli official called it a "horrible deal, one that will go down as the tragedy of the ages"?

If you guessed Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, you're wrong. The correct answer is opposition leader Isaac Herzog, Netanyahu's chief political rival. "With regard to security, I am more extreme than Netanyahu," Herzog said.

Indeed, the Iran deal has managed to unite, however briefly, thecountry's fractious political class. Other critics of the deal include Tzipi Livni, who served as Netanyahu's justice minister before breaking with the premier to join a center-left coalition, andAvigdor Lieberman, leader of the ultranationalist Yisrael Beiteinu
party, who condemned the pact as "total capitulation to unrestrained terrorism."

To an American, the most surprising opposition is on the left. For the last few days I've been meeting with liberal politicians and academics as part of a visiting delegation of American professors. Almost all of our hosts told us they detested Netanyahu and the Iran deal.

http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-0719-zimmerman-israel-iran-20150719-story.html

Put this here instead of the Iran thread to avoid starting another thread drift. Your threads. If you prefer it on the Iran thread I will move it.

Another post office thread?

BCC said:

'Here's a pop quiz about the six-nation nuclear pact with Iran, signed last week: Which Israeli official called it a "horrible deal, one that will go down as the tragedy of the ages"?

If you guessed Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, you're wrong. The correct answer is opposition leader Isaac Herzog, Netanyahu's chief political rival. "With regard to security, I am more extreme than Netanyahu," Herzog said.

Indeed, the Iran deal has managed to unite, however briefly, thecountry's fractious political class. Other critics of the deal include Tzipi Livni, who served as Netanyahu's justice minister before breaking with the premier to join a center-left coalition, andAvigdor Lieberman, leader of the ultranationalist Yisrael Beiteinu
party, who condemned the pact as "total capitulation to unrestrained terrorism."

To an American, the most surprising opposition is on the left. For the last few days I've been meeting with liberal politicians and academics as part of a visiting delegation of American professors. Almost all of our hosts told us they detested Netanyahu and the Iran deal.

http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-0719-zimmerman-israel-iran-20150719-story.html


Put this here instead of the Iran thread to avoid starting another thread drift. Your threads. If you prefer it on the Iran thread I will move it.

I think this goes on the Iran thread. How about a rule of thumb that if the post relates at all to the Iran deal it should go on the Iran thread? I'll wait until you re-post it to reply.

Fair enough.

This thread only goes downhill from here

dave23 said:
Another post office thread?

Dammit, now I got coffee all over my screen.

Israel is now further isolated in the world, if that is possible.

Netanyahu appears to be trying to tell the world that of course
he's been lying about his support for a two-state solution and that
his negative election day remarks about Arabs and the two-state were
not in the heat of the moment, but from the heart.

To anyone paying attention, that's been obvious since Netanyahu's
condemnation of the Oslo Accords in 1993.

http://www.haaretz.com/misc/article-print-page/.premium-1.671166

Netanyahu to appoint Danny Danon as Israel's next UN envoy

Israel's current science minister strongly opposes a two-state solution
and has expressed support for the annexation of the West Bank. He is
also an ally of Rick Perry, one of Obama's most outspoken critics.

By Barak Ravid
Aug. 14, 2015 | 12:36 PM

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu announced Friday that he
will appoint Science, Technology and Space Minister Danny Danon as
Israel's next ambassador to the United Nations due to the UN
platform's current significance.

"The UN platform is very important at this time, and I'm sure Danny
will fight with all his might to present the truth in the international
arena," Netanyahu said.

"Houston, we have a problem," the Zionist Union said following
Danon's appointment, calling it "another nail in the coffin of Israel's
foreign relations."

Danon has served as an MK since 2009, and has served as chairman of
the World Likud organization for nine years, where he is responsible for
the party's international relations.

He previously served as a Jewish Agency emissary in Florida. The
married 44-year-old father of three holds a B.A. in International
Affairs from Florida International University, and an Master's degree in
public policy from the Hebrew University in Jerusalem.

Danon is considered of the leading officials of the Likud's far-right
wing. He strongly opposes a two-state solution and the establishment of
a Palestinian state, and has expressed support for an Israeli
annexation of the West Bank.

In recent years, Danon has been one of the most outspoken Likud MKs
against U.S. President Barack Obama. He has forged alliances with the
conservative, right-wing elements of the Republican Party, headed by
Texas Governor Rick Perry.

In September 2011, outside of the UN General Assembly, Danon and
Perry held a joint press conference expressing opposition to the
establishment of a Palestinian state and severely criticized Obama's
Middle East policy as dangerous, naive and misguided. Danon called on
Obama to "stop the policy of grovelling to the Palestinians."

Danon's appointment as UN envoy is designed to solve a series of
political problems for Netanyahu within his party. When Danon heads to
the UN in October immediately following the UN General Assembly, Danon
will give up his place in the cabinet, allowing Netanyahu to fulfill
promises made to Likud MKs Tzachi Hanegbi and Benny Begin, effectively
allowing them to serve as government ministers.

Further, Danon has served as chairman of the Likud Central Committee,
a post from which he rebelled against Netanyahu more than once,
challenging his leadership. Upon Danon's departure to New York,
Netanyahu could push to appoint a more suitable appointment for Likud
Central Committee chairman.

dave23 said:
Another post office thread?

Nicely done.

Seriously though. I feel like this is the thread where who-was-wrong-first™ will be settled once and for all, leading to a lasting peace (on MOL, not the region).

This item just appeared from the editor of the Times of Israel, David Horovitz. I share his sentiment. This story is going to have huge repercussions:

http://www.timesofisrael.com/danny-danon-dismally-is-the-true-face-of-netanyahus-israel/

The real issue is that Danon’s appointment appears to confirm everything
Netanyahu’s critics at home and abroad have asserted about his true
intentions with respect to the Palestinians. And since those critics are
headed by the president of Israel’s main ally — with whom Netanyahu is
already in open dispute over the deeply flawed accord with Iran — it is
hard to conceive of a more short-sighted, shameful, self-defeating and
damaging appointment. Not just for Netanyahu and his government, but for
all of Israel.

Undeniably, now, by the prime minister’s own decree, Danny Danon is
the true face of Netanyahu’s Israel.

Yair Lapid endorses the Arab Peace Initiative. Absolutely.

http://www.timesofisrael.com/lapid-endorses-saudi-initiative-for-two-state-solution/

This comes a day after a Saudi leader says cooperation will not happen as long as Palestine is occupied.

http://www.timesofisrael.com/saudi-official-we-wont-cooperate-with-israel-as-long-as-palestine-is-occupied/

All of this taking place within an emerging crisis between Israel and the Arab world -- including Jordan, Egypt and Saudi Arabia -- over the status quo on the Temple Mount and recent deployment of Israeli police there.

http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/.premium-1.676506

http://www.timesofisrael.com/on-the-temple-mount-a-morass-a-month-in-the-making/

Israeli Arab members of the Knesset are meeting with Jordan's king and are headed for talks in Turkey.

http://www.jpost.com/Arab-Israeli-Conflict/Jordans-King-tells-visiting-Joint-List-Arab-MKs-al-Aksa-only-open-for-Muslim-prayer-416687

There is zero leadership coming from Netanyahu. His focus has been to increase the penalties for stone-throwing and to bomb Hamas for rockets fired by Salafists.

Paul, do you feel Jews should be allowed to pray on the Temple Mount freely and without restriction?

paulsurovell said:
Yair Lapid endorses the Arab Peace Initiative. Absolutely.
http://www.timesofisrael.com/lapid-endorses-saudi-initiative-for-two-state-solution/
This comes a day after a Saudi leader says cooperation will not happen as long as Palestine is occupied.
http://www.timesofisrael.com/saudi-official-we-wont-cooperate-with-israel-as-long-as-palestine-is-occupied/
All of this taking place within an emerging crisis between Israel and the Arab world -- including Jordan, Egypt and Saudi Arabia -- over the status quo on the Temple Mount and recent deployment of Israeli police there.
http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/.premium-1.676506
http://www.timesofisrael.com/on-the-temple-mount-a-morass-a-month-in-the-making/
Israeli Arab members of the Knesset are meeting with Jordan's king and are headed for talks in Turkey.
http://www.jpost.com/Arab-Israeli-Conflict/Jordans-King-tells-visiting-Joint-List-Arab-MKs-al-Aksa-only-open-for-Muslim-prayer-416687
There is zero leadership coming from Netanyahu. His focus has been to increase the penalties for stone-throwing and to bomb Hamas for rockets fired by Salafists.

BubbaTerp said:
Paul, do you feel Jews should be allowed to pray on the Temple Mount freely and without restriction?

paulsurovell said:
Yair Lapid endorses the Arab Peace Initiative. Absolutely.
http://www.timesofisrael.com/lapid-endorses-saudi-initiative-for-two-state-solution/
This comes a day after a Saudi leader says cooperation will not happen as long as Palestine is occupied.
http://www.timesofisrael.com/saudi-official-we-wont-cooperate-with-israel-as-long-as-palestine-is-occupied/
All of this taking place within an emerging crisis between Israel and the Arab world -- including Jordan, Egypt and Saudi Arabia -- over the status quo on the Temple Mount and recent deployment of Israeli police there.
http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/.premium-1.676506
http://www.timesofisrael.com/on-the-temple-mount-a-morass-a-month-in-the-making/
Israeli Arab members of the Knesset are meeting with Jordan's king and are headed for talks in Turkey.
http://www.jpost.com/Arab-Israeli-Conflict/Jordans-King-tells-visiting-Joint-List-Arab-MKs-al-Aksa-only-open-for-Muslim-prayer-416687
There is zero leadership coming from Netanyahu. His focus has been to increase the penalties for stone-throwing and to bomb Hamas for rockets fired by Salafists.

No, I don't advocate religious war.

paulsurovell said:

BubbaTerp said:
Paul, do you feel Jews should be allowed to pray on the Temple Mount freely and without restriction?

No, I don't advocate religious war.

Right. So I guess you also don't advocate Israel agreeing to a Palestinian right of return, or ceding part of Jerusalem to the PA (or, well, Hamas, since Abbas is 80 years old and not planning to run again).

BTW, Yair Lapid does not "absolutely" endorse the Saudi initiative at all. He considers it a basis for negotiation. From your own link:

Like Netanyahu, Lapid said a future Palestinian state must be demilitarized, but did not go into details on contentious issues such as the right of return for Palestinian refugees and their descendants, Jerusalem, and control over holy sites.

Lapid admitted failings in the Saudi initiative but said it must form the basis for future negotiations.
“The sides agree in advance on the main thing: separation which will lead Israel to coalesce to the large settlement blocs, clearly defined security measures and the creation of a demilitarized independent Palestinian state,” he said.

He also recently had some choice words for the folks in Reykjavik.

Hey, do you think Hamas would agree to demilitarization, giving up on Jerusalem, and no ROR? Because that would be really cool.

JCSO said:
paulsurovell said:

BubbaTerp said:
Paul, do you feel Jews should be allowed to pray on the Temple Mount freely and without restriction?No, I don't advocate religious war.Right. So I guess you also don't advocate Israel agreeing to a Palestinian right of return, or ceding part of Jerusalem to the PA (or, well, Hamas, since Abbas is 80 years old and not planning to run again).

The Palestinian Right of Return will include the right to return to the new Palestinian state. The number of Palestinians allowed to return to what is now Israel will be determined by Israel.

East Jerusalem will be the capital of the new Palestinian state. Read Alan Dershowitz's book, "The Case for Peace."

BTW, Yair Lapid does not "absolutely" endorse the Saudi initiative at all. He considers it a basis for negotiation. From your own link:
Like Netanyahu, Lapid said a future Palestinian state must be demilitarized, but did not go into details on contentious issues such as the right of return for Palestinian refugees and their descendants, Jerusalem, and control over holy sites.
Lapid admitted failings in the Saudi initiative but said it must form the basis for future negotiations.
“The sides agree in advance on the main thing: separation which will lead Israel to coalesce to the large settlement blocs, clearly defined security measures and the creation of a demilitarized independent Palestinian state,” he said.
He also recently had some choice words for the folks in Reykjavik.
Hey, do you think Hamas would agree to demilitarization, giving up on Jerusalem, and no ROR? Because that would be really cool.

Yes, I used the word "basis" to describe Lapid's endorsement of the Arab Peace Initiative. The word "absolutely" was my reaction to his endorsement.

With regard to Reykjavik, my understanding is that they are modifying their boycott to target products of settlements, not Israel. To reiterate -- boycotts of settlement goods are not boycotts of Israel. Settlements are not part of Israel. That's an elementary concept that's not too difficult to understand.

I doubt that Hamas will agree to demilitarization and no Right of Return. However, if Israel accepts the Arab Peace Initiative, Hamas will face the entire civilized word and will either consent or will be forced to consent.

And I'm not sure if your comment "Right" means you agree that the status quo should be maintained for the Temple Mount, or you meant it sarcastically because you are siding with the fanatics who want to start a Middle East religious war (my guess is that you support the status quo, but your post is ambiguous)

I find it hard to believe a liberal progressive wouldn't support free right to religious expression on the Temple Mount. So a Jew would be barred from ascending and praying?

Paul, is it worth asking why a Jewish person praying would start a religious war? Who is the intolerant and hateful group involved? Why would simple prayer to a higher power be cause for a war? So Muslims can show no tolerance either religiously, or nationally (Jew Free Palestine) but woe be the Jew who wants to visit the actual real estate where the two Jewish Temples stood, and pray there (Temples built centuries before Islam even exsisted)

Settlements are a part of Israel, and moreso, the blocs that Israel will retain in ANY deal, including Ariel, all part of Israel.

The Temple Mount status quo needs to change obviously as more and more Jews now wish to pray on top of the Mount and why shouldn't they? A Jew can pray at the Vatican and at any number of religious sites around the world, none of which were actual "The Temple"s.

The civilized world forcing Hamas to do something. They're not forcing Hamas to stop terrorism now, why should there be any change later on?

paulsurovell said:

JCSO said:
paulsurovell said:

BubbaTerp said:
Paul, do you feel Jews should be allowed to pray on the Temple Mount freely and without restriction?No, I don't advocate religious war.Right. So I guess you also don't advocate Israel agreeing to a Palestinian right of return, or ceding part of Jerusalem to the PA (or, well, Hamas, since Abbas is 80 years old and not planning to run again).

The Palestinian Right of Return will include the right to return to the new Palestinian state. The number of Palestinians allowed to return to what is now Israel will be determined by Israel.
East Jerusalem will be the capital of the new Palestinian state. Read Alan Dershowitz's book, "The Case for Peace."

BTW, Yair Lapid does not "absolutely" endorse the Saudi initiative at all. He considers it a basis for negotiation. From your own link:
Like Netanyahu, Lapid said a future Palestinian state must be demilitarized, but did not go into details on contentious issues such as the right of return for Palestinian refugees and their descendants, Jerusalem, and control over holy sites.
Lapid admitted failings in the Saudi initiative but said it must form the basis for future negotiations.
“The sides agree in advance on the main thing: separation which will lead Israel to coalesce to the large settlement blocs, clearly defined security measures and the creation of a demilitarized independent Palestinian state,” he said.
He also recently had some choice words for the folks in Reykjavik.
Hey, do you think Hamas would agree to demilitarization, giving up on Jerusalem, and no ROR? Because that would be really cool.

Yes, I used the word "basis" to describe Lapid's endorsement of the Arab Peace Initiative. The word "absolutely" was my reaction to his endorsement.
With regard to Reykjavik, my understanding is that they are modifying their boycott to target products of settlements, not Israel. To reiterate -- boycotts of settlement goods are not boycotts of Israel. Settlements are not part of Israel. That's an elementary concept that's not too difficult to understand.
I doubt that Hamas will agree to demilitarization and no Right of Return. However, if Israel accepts the Arab Peace Initiative, Hamas will face the entire civilized word and will either consent or will be forced to consent.
And I'm not sure if your comment "Right" means you agree that the status quo should be maintained for the Temple Mount, or you meant it sarcastically because you are siding with the fanatics who want to start a Middle East religious war (my guess is that you support the status quo, but your post is ambiguous)

paulsurovell said:
Yes, I used the word "basis" to describe Lapid's endorsement of the Arab Peace Initiative. The word "absolutely" was my reaction to his endorsement.

No, I used the word "basis." This is what you said:

paulsurovell Sep 20, 2015 at 09:54am
Yair Lapid endorses the Arab Peace Initiative. Absolutely.

And this is what Lapid said:

The advantage of [the Saudi] initiative is that it doesn’t look to reach an agreement only with the Palestinians, but full and normal relations—diplomatic and economic—with the whole Arab world. Not only a trade zone but diplomatic relations and cooperation in energy and water, a joint struggle against Iran and its terror proxy.

Even if we don’t agree with every word in the Saudi initiative, and it has problematic clauses that I cannot accept, it is an important initiative that can serve as a viable framework for negotiations.
Israel should not have left it unanswered for 13 years. The lack of a response causes the world to think that we’re not really looking for a solution, only excuses to avoid an agreement.

Despite our objections to certain clauses we should congratulate the Saudis on their serious and comprehensive work and their willingness to take a political risk and a positive stand out of a desire to lead to the end of the conflict.

As I said, there will be clauses and paragraphs that we will want to change during the negotiations—but the initiative is the right framework to manage the talks. In other words, the sides agree in advance on the main thing: separation, which will lead Israel to coalesce to the large settlement blocs, clearly defined security measures, and the creation of a demilitarized independent Palestinian state.

For the record, I've always liked Lapid. His banging on Netanyahu at this point is partially correct. But it's also transparently opportunistic; he hopes to succeed Bibi, and now that Iran, ISIS et al. have realigned or clarified interests in the middle east, this (and not 13 years ago) is the moment to reassess the capacity for Sunni despots to compromise on issues Israel will never, ever budge on.

Your condescending, naive prattling about the civilized world imposing something or other on Hamas is irrelevant to all of this. It is not the civilized world which will constrain Hamas, Hizballah, Iran, ISIS, and so on. It is only the uncivilized world that has the capacity to do that--see Egypt's flattening of over 3,200 homes and schools, part of its ongoing leveling of Rafah bordering Gaza: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/22/world/egypt-destroying-far-more-homes-than-buffer-zone-plan-called-for-report-says.html?ref=topics&_r=0.

There's a time, and it is either now upon us or will be soon, for Israel to hold hands more hands in the uncivilized world. But that time wasn't yesterday.

Oh by the way, where's that Icelandic boycott of Egyptian goods, and why is the NYT link I just provided attached to a perfectly shocking story buried far, far away from the front page?

JCSO said:

paulsurovell said:
Yes, I used the word "basis" to describe Lapid's endorsement of the Arab Peace Initiative. The word "absolutely" was my reaction to his endorsement.

No, I used the word "basis." This is what you said:
paulsurovell Sep 20, 2015 at 09:54am
Yair Lapid endorses the Arab Peace Initiative. Absolutely.
And this is what Lapid said:
The advantage of [the Saudi] initiative is that it doesn’t look to reach an agreement only with the Palestinians, but full and normal relations—diplomatic and economic—with the whole Arab world. Not only a trade zone but diplomatic relations and cooperation in energy and water, a joint struggle against Iran and its terror proxy.

Even if we don’t agree with every word in the Saudi initiative, and it has problematic clauses that I cannot accept, it is an important initiative that can serve as a viable framework for negotiations.
Israel should not have left it unanswered for 13 years. The lack of a response causes the world to think that we’re not really looking for a solution, only excuses to avoid an agreement.

Despite our objections to certain clauses we should congratulate the Saudis on their serious and comprehensive work and their willingness to take a political risk and a positive stand out of a desire to lead to the end of the conflict.

As I said, there will be clauses and paragraphs that we will want to change during the negotiations—but the initiative is the right framework to manage the talks. In other words, the sides agree in advance on the main thing: separation, which will lead Israel to coalesce to the large settlement blocs, clearly defined security measures, and the creation of a demilitarized independent Palestinian state.


For the record, I've always liked Lapid. His banging on Netanyahu at this point is partially correct. But it's also transparently opportunistic; he hopes to succeed Bibi, and now that Iran, ISIS et al. have realigned or clarified interests in the middle east, this (and not 13 years ago) is the moment to reassess the capacity for Sunni despots to compromise on issues Israel will never, ever budge on.
Your condescending, naive prattling about the civilized world imposing something or other on Hamas is irrelevant to all of this. It is not the civilized world which will constrain Hamas, Hizballah, Iran, ISIS, and so on. It is only the uncivilized world that has the capacity to do that--see Egypt's flattening of over 3,200 homes and schools, part of its ongoing leveling of Rafah bordering Gaza: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/22/world/egypt-destroying-far-more-homes-than-buffer-zone-plan-called-for-report-says.html?ref=topics&_r=0.
There's a time, and it is either now upon us or will be soon, for Israel to hold hands more hands in the uncivilized world. But that time wasn't yesterday.
Oh by the way, where's that Icelandic boycott of Egyptian goods, and why is the NYT link I just provided attached to a perfectly shocking story buried far, far away from the front page?

Tsk, tsk, Paul, are you starting to change words again. When you start adding, leaving out, or changing words to modify or to turn on it's head what someone wrote, it usually means you're in trouble.

Makes it kind of difficult to have a discussion with you.

paulsurovell said:
And I'm not sure if your comment "Right" means you agree that the status quo should be maintained for the Temple Mount, or you meant it sarcastically because you are siding with the fanatics who want to start a Middle East religious war (my guess is that you support the status quo, but your post is ambiguous)

I do not remotely support Jewish fanatics who would tear down the Haram al Sharif and rebuild the Temple. But the Temple will not get rebuilt as a consequence of prayer, and thus I do not remotely support Muslim fanatics who wish to continue to prevent Jews from praying at Judaism's holiest site (or for that matter, buy up houses in Silwan in order to establish a Jewish majority there). Islamic control of the site in itself is a provocation--long enshrined, yes, but a provocation nonetheless.

There is already a middle east religious war going on, you know, on a scale that makes the Islamist threat to throw a tantrum over exclusive ownership of the Temple Mount trivial. You will couch your arguments in terms of tinderboxes, but I have the impression you feel that Muslims have a some sort of natural right to maintain authority over who can step foot on the TM, and by extension, have a capital in Jerusalem; I don't. Nor do I respect the claim of right by Orthodox Jews to govern who may daven at the Kotel, nor would I endorse the authority of the Eastern Orthodox patriarch to announce that henceforth only Catholics may enter the Church of the Holy Sepulcher.

If the Israeli government tomorrow issued an edict disenfranchising haredi control over the Western Wall, there would be a religious war as well. I would hope that such an insurrection would be summarily crushed, and that is what I would expect should happen to Muslims making similar trouble--whether under the aegis of the Waqf and arrangements with Jordan, or not.

Paul, are you seriously claiming that Jews being allowed to pray at the Temple Mount would be inciting a religious war? And not those who actually start killing people?

If so, this combined with your prior comments about how Israel should act belie a serious double standard.

Thank you for articulating that so succinctly. Why shouldn't Jews be allowed to pray on top of the mount?

ParticleMan said:
Paul, are you seriously claiming that Jews being allowed to pray at the Temple Mount would be inciting a religious war? And not those who actually start killing people?
If so, this combined with your prior comments about how Israel should act belie a serious double standard.

ParticleMan said:
Paul, are you seriously claiming that Jews being allowed to pray at the Temple Mount would be inciting a religious war? And not those who actually start killing people?
If so, this combined with your prior comments about how Israel should act belie a serious double standard.

Well said.

JCSO said:

paulsurovell said:
Yes, I used the word "basis" to describe Lapid's endorsement of the Arab Peace Initiative. The word "absolutely" was my reaction to his endorsement.

No, I used the word "basis." This is what you said:
paulsurovell Sep 20, 2015 at 09:54am
Yair Lapid endorses the Arab Peace Initiative. Absolutely.
And this is what Lapid said:
The advantage of [the Saudi] initiative is that it doesn’t look to reach an agreement only with the Palestinians, but full and normal relations—diplomatic and economic—with the whole Arab world. Not only a trade zone but diplomatic relations and cooperation in energy and water, a joint struggle against Iran and its terror proxy.

Even if we don’t agree with every word in the Saudi initiative, and it has problematic clauses that I cannot accept, it is an important initiative that can serve as a viable framework for negotiations.
Israel should not have left it unanswered for 13 years. The lack of a response causes the world to think that we’re not really looking for a solution, only excuses to avoid an agreement.

Despite our objections to certain clauses we should congratulate the Saudis on their serious and comprehensive work and their willingness to take a political risk and a positive stand out of a desire to lead to the end of the conflict.

As I said, there will be clauses and paragraphs that we will want to change during the negotiations—but the initiative is the right framework to manage the talks. In other words, the sides agree in advance on the main thing: separation, which will lead Israel to coalesce to the large settlement blocs, clearly defined security measures, and the creation of a demilitarized independent Palestinian state.


For the record, I've always liked Lapid. His banging on Netanyahu at this point is partially correct. But it's also transparently opportunistic; he hopes to succeed Bibi, and now that Iran, ISIS et al. have realigned or clarified interests in the middle east, this (and not 13 years ago) is the moment to reassess the capacity for Sunni despots to compromise on issues Israel will never, ever budge on.
Your condescending, naive prattling about the civilized world imposing something or other on Hamas is irrelevant to all of this. It is not the civilized world which will constrain Hamas, Hizballah, Iran, ISIS, and so on. It is only the uncivilized world that has the capacity to do that--see Egypt's flattening of over 3,200 homes and schools, part of its ongoing leveling of Rafah bordering Gaza: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/22/world/egypt-destroying-far-more-homes-than-buffer-zone-plan-called-for-report-says.html?ref=topics&_r=0.
There's a time, and it is either now upon us or will be soon, for Israel to hold hands more hands in the uncivilized world. But that time wasn't yesterday.
Oh by the way, where's that Icelandic boycott of Egyptian goods, and why is the NYT link I just provided attached to a perfectly shocking story buried far, far away from the front page?

Yes, you are correct, Lapid used the word "basis" and I did not when I posted the link about his speech. My apologies. However, I used the sentence "Absolutely" to describe my reaction to his endorsement of the Arab Peace Initiative, which was obviously tentative, not to describe the degree to which he endorsed the initiative.

With regard to Egypt's flattening of 3,200 homes and schools, are you comparing that to land and property taken by Israel from Palestinians when constructing the Wall (not to mention building the settlements) or the destruction of buildings during the various Gaza wars (which led to thousands of deaths in addition to loss of property)? The other difference between Egypt's "flattening" and Israel's "flattening" and confiscation, is that Egypt is conducting a security measure within its own territory, among its own people, whereas Israel's comparable actions have been directed outside its borders against a foreign people.

These factors may have something to do with Iceland's different reactions to Egypt and Israel.

JCSO said:

paulsurovell said:
And I'm not sure if your comment "Right" means you agree that the status quo should be maintained for the Temple Mount, or you meant it sarcastically because you are siding with the fanatics who want to start a Middle East religious war (my guess is that you support the status quo, but your post is ambiguous)

I do not remotely support Jewish fanatics who would tear down the Haram al Sharif and rebuild the Temple. But the Temple will not get rebuilt as a consequence of prayer, and thus I do not remotely support Muslim fanatics who wish to continue to prevent Jews from praying at Judaism's holiest site (or for that matter, buy up houses in Silwan in order to establish a Jewish majority there). Islamic control of the site in itself is a provocation--long enshrined, yes, but a provocation nonetheless.

There is already a middle east religious war going on, you know, on a scale that makes the Islamist threat to throw a tantrum over exclusive ownership of the Temple Mount trivial. You will couch your arguments in terms of tinderboxes, but I have the impression you feel that Muslims have a some sort of natural right to maintain authority over who can step foot on the TM, and by extension, have a capital in Jerusalem; I don't. Nor do I respect the claim of right by Orthodox Jews to govern who may daven at the Kotel, nor would I endorse the authority of the Eastern Orthodox patriarch to announce that henceforth only Catholics may enter the Church of the Holy Sepulcher.
If the Israeli government tomorrow issued an edict disenfranchising haredi control over the Western Wall, there would be a religious war as well. I would hope that such an insurrection would be summarily crushed, and that is what I would expect should happen to Muslims making similar trouble--whether under the aegis of the Waqf and arrangements with Jordan, or not.

The "long enshrined" part of your response is what matters.

ParticleMan said:
Paul, are you seriously claiming that Jews being allowed to pray at the Temple Mount would be inciting a religious war? And not those who actually start killing people?
If so, this combined with your prior comments about how Israel should act belie a serious double standard.

This has been official Israeli policy since 1967 precisely to avoid a religious war.

We can have a discussion about double standards imposed by Israel to see who is advantaged and who is disadvantaged more, but that's kind of obvious.