Tweet
Sharon will be gone in 2 years. It's his last term.
-
And then?“Now we declare… that the law-making power or the first and real effective source of law is the people or the body of citizens or the prevailing part of the people according to its election or its will expressed in general convention by vote, commanding or deciding that something be done or omitted in regard to human civil acts under penalty or temporal punishment….” (Marsilius of Padua, „Defensor Pacis“, AD 1324)Comment
-
Originally posted by HershOstropoler
LOTM:
"My suspicion is that something like 20% to 30% of euros would, in this hypothetical, support A."
I don't think so. No matter how much the likudnik lobby hammers along about supposed european racism, most people have a problem with occupation and settlements, not with Israel as such. I think broad support would rather be for C. in that case. D. is nonsense in itself - how does "changing the borders" make Israel more secure? Unless you want to do a little ethnic cleansing.
I dont want to see ethnic cleansing. Thats one reason I DONT want to see an agreement that leaves Israel so insecure as to invite further conflict. Especially under an Pal leadership that seems to be interested in pursuing the conflict. Especially in circumstances that would lead Pals to think that terrorism and rejectionism pay.
But IF Israel were to sign on the demand that seem to be what the European left considers would ensure an end to the conflict (Pal statehood, with few limitations on soveriegnty, with the pre-1967 armistice lines as borders) and the conflict were to be renewed by the Palestinians, there would be HEAVY pressure in Israel for ethnic cleansing. I suspect, under those circumstances, the debate would be about the extent (do we just expel people ONLY from places where we want to moderately rectify the border, or from everyplace west of the Jordan? Do we do it as humanely as possible, or Serb style? )
I think those who advocate not a territorial compromise, but the minimalist Israeli position, have an obligation to recognize the legitimate Israeli fear that maximal concessions WONT end the conflict, and articulate what they would do should that eventuality arise. Their is a strong sense among Israel supporters that in Oslo the Israelis withdrew from large areas in return for a lessening of the conflict, and that the implicit promise from the world was that if the Pals escalated the conflict any Israeli return to the territories would be accorded an international legitimacy that the earlier occupation did not have. This does not seem to have proven to be the case wrt to Europe, where the 2nd intifada is seen as if Oslo never happened. Only in the case of the US is that different. I suspect one of the main reasons AMericans see the 2nd intifada so differently from Europeans is that Pres Clinton was so involved in the Oslo process, and Americans took that process more seriously than europeans did."A person cannot approach the divine by reaching beyond the human. To become human, is what this individual person, has been created for.” Martin BuberComment
-
depends very much on the pal side.Originally posted by HershOstropoler
And then?
I arafat is in power, and no independent Pal PM can arise, and the PA is working with Hamas, then Bibi probably gets elected PM. If Arafat is history, and a credible Pal PM is promising to give up the RoR, and is showing signs of seriously cracking down on terrorism, you probably get a Labor PM, most likely in coalition with moderates and others. A peace deal along the lines of Taba probably gets coalition approval. A deal along the lines of the recent Geneva deal (somewhat more generous to the Pals then Taba - no inclusion of Ariel or Gush Etzion in Israel, IIUC) probably leads to a split in the Israeli govt."A person cannot approach the divine by reaching beyond the human. To become human, is what this individual person, has been created for.” Martin BuberComment
-
hes gone in 2 years at most.Originally posted by Azazel
Sharon will be gone in 2 years. It's his last term.
If a credible Pal PM, independent of Arafat, who is cracking down on Hamas and IJ, makes the offer that was presented in Geneva, and Sharon outright rejects it, Shinui probably leaves the coalition and theres a govt crisis in Israel. To avoid which Sharon probably DOESNT reject outright, but presents a counteroffer - more generous than anything hes put on the table before - to play for time. Semi-good faith negotiating."A person cannot approach the divine by reaching beyond the human. To become human, is what this individual person, has been created for.” Martin BuberComment
-
Then, Either Nethaniyahu, or a Barak comeback ( I don't believe that any of the current Labor leaders has the stuff needed for it, besides him). Both of them will accept, with minor changes, 67' borders. Let us not forget that most of the settlers can be easily placed under Israeli sovereignity, and take a very small territory.Originally posted by HershOstropoler
And then?
Why don't they get a couple of Israeli arab villages, instead?
The interesting part is any implementation of the peace deal on the palestinian side. This means civil war. That's why this entire ****ing question is hypothetical.Comment
-
First, there should be transitionary limitations on pal sovereignty, but that's very difficult to implement in the current situation. 2nd, renewing the conflict if there is a border to defend - why did Israel retreat from South Lebanon then? Why is it not reoccupying it?Originally posted by lord of the mark
But IF Israel were to sign on the demand that seem to be what the European left considers would ensure an end to the conflict (Pal statehood, with few limitations on soveriegnty, with the pre-1967 armistice lines as borders) and the conflict were to be renewed by the Palestinians, there would be HEAVY pressure in Israel for ethnic cleansing.
"This does not seem to have proven to be the case wrt to Europe, where the 2nd intifada is seen as if Oslo never happened."
It has more to do with the circumstances under which the 2nd intifada started.“Now we declare… that the law-making power or the first and real effective source of law is the people or the body of citizens or the prevailing part of the people according to its election or its will expressed in general convention by vote, commanding or deciding that something be done or omitted in regard to human civil acts under penalty or temporal punishment….” (Marsilius of Padua, „Defensor Pacis“, AD 1324)Comment
-
Many people say that it was a mistake to withdraw from South Lebanon, and led to the 2nd intifada by leading the pals to believe that violence worked. Why have they not reoccupied it? I suppose because the violence has been relatively insignificant. A few katsushas along the northern border are not worth going back in. Katushas falling on West Jerusalem would be something else again.Originally posted by HershOstropoler
First, there should be transitionary limitations on pal sovereignty, but that's very difficult to implement in the current situation. 2nd, renewing the conflict if there is a border to defend - why did Israel retreat from South Lebanon then? Why is it not reoccupying it?
"."A person cannot approach the divine by reaching beyond the human. To become human, is what this individual person, has been created for.” Martin BuberComment
-
Easy. It's above South Korea...Originally posted by Verres
Bear in mind most Europeans probably don't even know where Norh Korea is...
Comment
-
BTW why was my 60% Anti-Semite thread closed? Sure it uses the same subject matter as this thread, however the point is that Israelis/Jews always bring out the Anti-Semite card the moment anything negative is said against them in a completely unreasonable manner. Perhaps that is why Palestine is so controversial right now, this whole 'us against the rest of the world' attitude...
Anyway, here we are...Comment
-
I think you can always bring up the point here, Mobius, where the Israelis are hanging out.(\__/) 07/07/1937 - Never forget
(='.'=) "Claims demand evidence; extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence." -- Carl Sagan
(")_(") "Starting the fire from within."Comment
-
It has to do with why everybody pays attention and why people don't like it when you tramp on the guy who isn't getting a few billion a year from uncle sam. It's not a justification, it's an explanation as to why people say "Israel" when asked the question. Obviously it's a stupid answer, but there you go...Originally posted by Azazel
Because you're taking money from a certain someone.
How on earth does this have to do with anything?
12-17-10 Mohamed Bouazizi NEVER FORGET
Stadtluft Macht Frei
Killing it is the new killing it
Ultima Ratio RegumComment
-
Obviously I can't because they all seem to have buggered off - I guess they have the good sense to realise that calling people anti-semitic at the drop of a hat is a really anti social thing to do...Originally posted by Urban Ranger
I think you can always bring up the point here, Mobius, where the Israelis are hanging out.
Comment
-
Btw, people, lately "Israelis" has been reduced to "Azazel".
It has to do with why everybody pays attention and why people don't like it when you tramp on the guy who isn't getting a few billion a year from uncle sam. It's not a justification, it's an explanation as to why people say "Israel" when asked the question. Obviously it's a stupid answer, but there you go...
I REALLY fail to understand your point.
Comment
-
Fine by me, you always seemed like one of the better Israeli posters...Originally posted by Azazel
Btw, people, lately "Israelis" has been reduced to "Azazel".
I'll take quality over quantity any time...
Comment
Comment