Jewish Federation finds Palestinian flag offensive

[Sirotnikov]

I don't mind if he puts a flag saying "yay to palestinian statehood" or "ney to settlements". But just plain supporting one country over another seems inappropriate for such an official.

i don't think that pedophelia is a comparable issue, and i think you know it as well.

CyberGnu, since when justice and morality are mentioned in the same sentance as the PA?

And the only hate monger around is you, preaching death to israelis, since you see them as agressors just because they dared declare independance.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Sirotnikov

However, if he's a member of the govt. and has a private opinion which can cause him to discriminate on the basis of his personal beliefs - it's not right.

Obviously he can think what ever he wants and talk about it in private.

But he shouldn't make moves as a private person, during his office.

I'm not talking about legality here. I don't think I mentioned the word "legal".

Got shocking news for ya --- President Bush is very much a PUBLIC figure in the United States and in the world.

[Imran Siddiqui]

However, if he's a member of the govt. and has a private opinion which can cause him to discriminate on the basis of his personal beliefs - it's not right.

<- (that is all I have to say to you)

[CyberGnu]

I don't mind if he puts a flag saying "yay to palestinian statehood" or "ney to settlements". But just plain supporting one country over another seems inappropriate for such an official.

I think the distinction between the two is negligible. I also think you have realized that you have made an error and is trying to backpedal without admit that you were wrong...

CyberGnu, since when justice and morality are mentioned in the same sentance as the PA?

Whether the PA is full of nice people or not is beside the issue. The PA didn't occupy palestine, Israel did.

Furthermore, it is generally acknowledged that De Gaulle was a complete bastard. That doesn't detract from the justness of the french resistance.

[CyberGnu]

i don't think that pedophelia is a comparable issue, and i think you know it as well.

Why not? It is repugnant, reprehensible, usually carried out by someone much stronger on a weak victim and the perpetrator usually doesn't understand why he is being labeled a bad guy... Sounds like a perfect description of Israel.

[CyberGnu]

[quote]And the only hate monger around is you, preaching death to israelis, since you see them as agressors just because they dared declare independance.
[/quote

Ahh, I guess that puts me in the company of other well known hate mongers such as Churchill and Roosevelt. How dare they oppose such innocent practices such as occupation and genocide...

[Richelieu]

Originally posted by CyberGnu about pedophilia
Why not? It is repugnant, reprehensible, usually carried out by someone much stronger on a weak victim and the perpetrator usually doesn't understand why he is being labeled a bad guy... Sounds like a perfect description of Israel.

Touché!

A lot more than that that has to be considered here and i don't agree with you on this matter...but i have to admit that the comparison does strike a nerve.

[Ned]

CyberGnu, I thought Europe was officially neutral on the PA vs. Israel situation. Isn't this right?

[CyberGnu]

Richelieu, thanks :-)

Ned, I'm not sure there is an 'official' european policy... What are you getting at?

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

However, if he's a member of the govt. and has a private opinion which can cause him to discriminate on the basis of his personal beliefs - it's not right.

<- (that is all I have to say to you)

How eloquent.


But seriously, I support Israel, but it embarrasses me when some Israelies almost appear to be anti-American or anti-European.

Extremists among the Palestinians is what has caused me to support Israel in their cause.
I would hate to see extremists among Israelies cause me to reconsider.

[Ned]

Originally posted by CyberGnu
Richelieu, thanks :-)

Ned, I'm not sure there is an 'official' european policy... What are you getting at?

CyberGnu, Below is a link to the Mitchell Report. The report notes that it is "American Policy" that the settlements stop.

On the issue of EU policy, I thought that the official EU position was the the cycle of violence in Palestine was caused in part by both parties: Israel by continuing to build settlments and the PA by the contining to use terrorism (by at least doing nothing effective to stop it). This actually is the same as the U.S. policy, is it not?

I'm just suggesting that we all try to seek common ground and focus on solutions, not blame.

http://www.cmep.org/MitchellReport.html

[CyberGnu]

Ahh, I see. Yeah, I think that part is identical. The difference between the EU and US policy seems to be about Israels use of violence (the US has repeatedly declared that they 'respect Israels right to defend themselves, while the EU has unequvocally condemned both the assassinations and 'defensive shield'), and how much Arafat/PA is to blame for past and future terrorist acts.

The US policy is that Arafat is to blame for terrorist acts, regardless of whom carries them out. I find that view baffling... Israel spent a month carefully picking apart the PA, and 24 hours after retreating Bush was back to calling for Arafat to act...


I've already outlined my views on a solution. Implement the Saudi plan, full return to the green line, solve the ROR by either portion of a part of Israel or by reimbursement to nations allowing the refuges to go there, some kind of UN/US monitoring force in the palestinian state to make sure they comply with the treaty and most importantly, a US promise to intervene on the palestinian side if Israel breaks the treaty again.

The treaty will never hold as long as Israel keeps assassinating, reoccupying and closing down roads on palestinian territory. A strict compliance where Israeli troops can't enter palestinian territory for ANY REASON is a must to keep the peace process on track. Otherwise Sharon and his ilk WILL use the slightest provocation as an excuse to kill the pece process again.

[CyberGnu]

Oh, and possibly making jerusalem an independent entity...

[Ned]

Originally posted by CyberGnu
Ahh, I see. Yeah, I think that part is identical. The difference between the EU and US policy seems to be about Israels use of violence (the US has repeatedly declared that they 'respect Israels right to defend themselves, while the EU has unequvocally condemned both the assassinations and 'defensive shield'), and how much Arafat/PA is to blame for past and future terrorist acts.

The US policy is that Arafat is to blame for terrorist acts, regardless of whom carries them out. I find that view baffling... Israel spent a month carefully picking apart the PA, and 24 hours after retreating Bush was back to calling for Arafat to act...


I've already outlined my views on a solution. Implement the Saudi plan, full return to the green line, solve the ROR by either portion of a part of Israel or by reimbursement to nations allowing the refuges to go there, some kind of UN/US monitoring force in the palestinian state to make sure they comply with the treaty and most importantly, a US promise to intervene on the palestinian side if Israel breaks the treaty again.

The treaty will never hold as long as Israel keeps assassinating, reoccupying and closing down roads on palestinian territory. A strict compliance where Israeli troops can't enter palestinian territory for ANY REASON is a must to keep the peace process on track. Otherwise Sharon and his ilk WILL use the slightest provocation as an excuse to kill the pece process again.

I don't fully agree on all your points, but I do agree we need an interim neutral force between Israel and Palestine for obvious reasons.

The only entity that Israel respects is the U.S. So it looks like U.S. troops will be required. Bush now is against it, but perhaps he could be pursuaded.

On the other issues, they should all be compromised. Neither side should insist that they get 100% of their going-in positions.

[CyberGnu]

Well, that is actually a problem. How do you define the starting positions? Maybe the negotiations should start with that... So the pre-negotiations should start with Israel claiming all of palestine, while the palestinians claim all as well.

Leaving 28% of palestine to the palestinians sounds a lot more reasonable from that perspective, doesn't it?

And this was actually one of the major flaws at Camp David. Arafat said already before the negotiations started that he didn't have any room to manouver in. He didn't want to go to Camp David for that very reason. And lo and behold, after CD he got accused for not negotiating... 'Refusing the very generous offer of a bantustan'.


Nevertheless, I think the barest minimun for a negotiation is what was agreed upon in the Oslo accords. That leaves the ROR, jerusalem and palestinian sovereignty to be negotiated, IIRC.