Israeli govt no longer an impediment to peace?
The mouse that roared... Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu’s long overdue concession of the need for Palestinian statehood is being reported in the Murdoch press as both a “grudging agreement” with, and a “throwing down the gauntlet” to, US President Obama’s recent speech in Cairo.
Well whatever, but meanwhile Australian foreign affairs minister Stephen Smith entertains a sliver of hope that the Israeli government will no longer hinder the ‘peace process’:
“What Prime Minister Netanyahu’s speech reflects today is there is now a basis for a peace process for negotiations to commence,” he said. “We welcome the fact that Prime Minister Netanyahu has, for the first occasion, indicated that peace in the Middle East has to be based on a two-state solution.”
It’s unclear from Mr Smith’s comments, however, whether it’s more a hope than a prayer...
“That is the only basis on which enduring and just peace can be found in the Middle East,” Mr Smith told Sky News. “People should now get back to the peace process in earnest.”
Perhaps Mr Netanyahu could “get back” to President Obama’s call for a halt to expansion of Israeli settlements in the West Bank.
Labels: Middle East
posted by Jacob A. Stam at 6/15/2009 11:40:00 AM
22 Comments:
As long, of course, as this new state is "disarmed".
Middle East + "disarmed" = pie in sky.
An offer one could only refuse: A state without the state apparatus of coercion. Moreover, a state where the neighbouring state monopolises the state apparatus of coercion.
A "state" within the uber-state apparatus of coercion? Neat! Actually, quite resembles the present status quo.
Naturally, no people with nationalist aspirations could possibly agree to such a proposition.
An Israeli settler was interviewed this week on one of the news programs, saying an armed Palestinian state would be like having a ticking time bomb in your backyard.
One wonders how the Arabs of British Mandated Palestine felt while blow-in European Zionists talked up the expulsion of Arabs from the proposed Jewish state. But that's clearly a non-question these days.
"One wonders how the Arabs of British Mandated Palestine felt while blow-in European Zionists talked up the expulsion of Arabs from the proposed Jewish state."
As usual your obnoxious offensiveness is only exceeded by the depth of your ignorance. You are not worth debating. I've said it before and I'll say it again. You are not qualified to participate in this discussion. That at least is one thing all parties in the Middle East would agree on.
That goes for that other dickhead as well.
Worthless fuckwits. You don't even know enough to know when to keep your slack jawed, battle, sword, shit and blood drooling faces shut.
Guff, if that really is you, I can't tell you how crushed I feel that an irrelevant clown such as yourself will not condescend to 'debate' on this blog. (Notwithstanding which, you've already employed your standard 'debating' methods.)
Why not toddle off back to Webdiary and shine your irrelevance there?
You could regale them again with your tales of how the British gave "strategic support" to the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem; never mind that the British actually wanted the Grand Mufti dead.
Or you could again try to mitigate the 1946 bombing of the King David Hotel by asserting it was a reprisal for the 1948 assault by the Arab Legion.
Then, in the next breath, you could say with a straight face how you "condemn unconditionally" the King David bombing.
Theodor Herzl, a Hungarian blow-in, and David Ben-Gurion, a Polish blow-in, both spoke of the necessity of expelling the Arabs. You know this shit, yet insist on remaining wilfully 'ignorant'.
So, yes please, fuck off and stop trying to 'debate' here.
I'd just like to know what a "battle face" or "sword face" is. Clearly the Guff algorithym is using a different form of English from the norm.
Nice to see, if it is Geoff, that the vast repository of roiling and foetid bile has yet to reach bottom. He truly is full of it.
If Guff said to me the earth is round and revolves around the sun, my gut reaction would be to consider the entire edifice of Copernican cosmology deeply suspect and in need of urgent review.
The earth is round and revolves around the sun.
Official.
Geoff.
You will no doubt do what you said you would do thus proving my point about how your feeble and fevered your sweaty mind works. Probably your next trick will be to actually claim you really could give a flying fuck about the Palestinians.
As for the other dickhead. Hey mate, I will not bother to dispute your point about the bile. You are a world class expert on the subject, apparently even in the rare moments you are sober. But whatever you say about me, at least I don't get my rocks off fantasing about men in short skirts, lubricated with blood and shit, sticking swords and spears into one another.
Er, it was a joke, Guff. You know... humour?
At your expense, of course, which might explain the cognitive dissonance you're experiencing.
But if you want to be literal (a common deficiency in sub-standard algorithms), then do please note that I did say it would only be "my gut reaction". Obviously upon further reflection, my higher thought processes would compensate for the Guff Factor.
"about how your feeble and fevered your sweaty mind works"
Dearie dearie. Syntax, Guff, syntax!! Obviously your own "feeble and fevered your sweaty mind" has maxed out the limits of its tortured algorithm. Time for de-tox, again? Actually my advice would be to go the whole course of rehab.
Really, Guff, don't you ever ask yourself why you do this shit? I mean, you only come across as an attention-seeking, ignorant, bigoted crank and absolutely nobody worth mentioning gives you any creedence.
Must be a wonderful life Geoff. All that vile and vicious hatred underpinned by a nice line in bigotry. So much vitriol, so many targets and so little time.
Must be wonderful nursing that impaccable hatred that so informs your world view.
I'm quite comfortable with what "gets my rocks off" Geoff. Your attempt at ridicule, delivered in "high juvenile", simply paints large your complete ignorance of the subject.
Careful not to run out of people to hate and malign Geoff. Got to be a reason to get out of bed you know.
I'm having fun. Aren't you?
Poor dears.
Hot diggety, Guff, this is as much fun as pissing down a drain.
You know, 'debating' with Guff is a lot like wrestling a pig. You both get covered in shit. And the pig loves it.
Seriously though, I've been wondering...
How many "fringe ratbags and intellectual defectives" of any peoples and nations believe that the British gave "strategic support" to the Nazi-cuddling Grand Mufti of Jerusalem?
Astonishingly, this 'thinking' is mainstream among certain Australian pseudo-intellectuals, particularly those whose first name starts with G and last name starts with P.
The only good Moabite is a dead Moabite.
Seriously though,
"How many "fringe ratbags and intellectual defectives" of any peoples and nations believe that the British gave "strategic support" to the Nazi-cuddling Grand Mufti of Jerusalem?"
Jesus Christ! The Brits appointed the cunt for fucksake! Yep. Picked him out from the lunatic section of the howling mob and made him chief mullah, even adding the "Grand" bit to his tag. Now that's what I call srategic support.
He might have spent the war years hanging around with his good pal Adolph, jew hunting on weekends, and later more time in Damascus and Cairo than what might be seen as seemly for a Jerusalem official, but he still called the shots in Palestine. Literally. The Brits or the French could have taken him out at anytime.
In Palestine he murdered more Arabs than Jews. Many more. It was him that set the face of Palestinian "nationalism'. Easy. Just slaughter any Arab who looked like wanting an accomodation with the Jews.
His last victim was Abdullah I bin al-Hussein, King of Jordan. Murdered in the streets of Jerusalem by the by then deposed Grand Mufti who wanted his old job back. Later it was hisnephew who called the shots. Literaly.
Oh ye gods and ferfucksake, Guff, I thought you said I was "not worth debating"!!!!!
Have we had a relapse, Guff...? a little faultering on the steps to 'recovery', huh...?
Well okay, the Brits indeed did appoint His Grandness, but AS I SAID TO YOU SOME TIME AGO, the Mufti of Jerusalem had, since the Ottoman Empire, been appointed by whichever imperium controlled Palestine.
Why do I have to repeat myself, Guff?? Can't you fucking read????
"Picked him out from the lunatic section of the howling mob and made him chief mullah"
He was the half-brother of the previous appointee. It's not what you know...
"He might have spent the war years hanging around with his good pal Adolph"
Oh sure, he "might have", but from memory he met with Adolphs Hitler and Eichmann once each WHILE HE WAS ON THE RUN FROM THE BRITS.
"jew hunting on weekends"
Really? Source??
"... and later more time in Damascus and Cairo than what might be seen as seemly for a Jerusalem official ..."
Oh, precisely! BECAUSE HE WAS ON THE RUN FROM THE FUCKING BRITS, for his fucking life, you DICKHEAD!!!
On 'better blogs,' opinion is free; opinion based on facts is better:
«Without justice, there can be no peace. He who passively accepts evil is as much involved in it as he who helps to perpetrate it.»
-- MLK.
«Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.»
-- Albert Einstein.
«Religion is a by-product of fear. For much of human history, it may have been a necessary evil, but why was it more evil than necessary? Isn't killing people in the name of God a pretty good definition of insanity?»
-- Arthur C. Clarke.
In any particular situation, there is just the one truth, but many possible lies.
-- Me.
Nice to see you boys having fun. The 'particular situation' here is the so-called modern state of Israel, and the single truth is that it is *not* a legitimate state. True, it was established by the UN, but if Israel wishes to claim UN authority as legitimation, then it must bind itself to the UN body of law - which Israel quite plainly does not, being in violation of huge numbers of UN resolutions, or had UN resolutions vetoed on its behalf (mostly by the US, who else? But you can do your own googling.) Then there's the moral argument; here I turn to Bertrand Russell:
«The tragedy of the people of Palestine is that their country was "given" by a foreign power to another people for the creation of a new state. The result was that many hundreds of thousands of innocent people were made permanently homeless.»
On the legal side, I say that the only defensible laws are just laws (turfing the Palestinians out was by no means just), and the moral side follows that injustice. As an extra-legal state then, Israel has no 'right to exist' per se, and it follows that since the land they occupy is illegally occupied, they obviously have no 'right to defend' such stolen land. This is not to say that individual Israelis have no rights, merely that they should assert their rights elsewhere - if they can find an appropriate jurisdiction.
In clear text: the Zionists saw (pre-'47, say) that legally purchasing bits of Palestine was either taking far too long or not working at all. So they decided on deploying force, and have done so ever since. But deploying force in order to acquire something is nothing other than armed robbery; in this case armed robbery with actual, dead bodies all over Palestine mass-murdering.
(Without restoring all property to the original (legal!) owners, or at least making full and fair recompense, both versions of the 'right of return,' there can be no justice. To 'recognise' Israel under any other circumstance would mean continuing injustice, so any 'two-state solution' is no solution at all. Of course, that's the reason that Zionists insist on 'recognition.')
Having embarked on the criminal course, there are only two possible ways out; a) renounce force and go for peace-with-justice, or b) continue the genocide until the Palestinians are all killed.
So. If one were to stick to facts, there'd be little or nothing to argue about; it follows that arguments are far more often over non-truths, aka lies. Since it's also perfectly obvious (at least to me) - that it's pointless arguing over lies - i.e. with liars - then there's something not quite right with this thread as it existed before I arrived. Cheers!
"Oh, precisely! BECAUSE HE WAS ON THE RUN FROM THE FUCKING BRITS, for his fucking life, you DICKHEAD!!!"
Gee you're cute when you get angry. And boy do you ever get angry when you lose. The angrier you are,the bigger loser you are, and the cuter you are.
Let me tell you something true. It was not the Brits he was worried about.
And I was right from the start. You're not worth debating. Nor is this new bloke. Read a book or two on the subject. There are heaps of them around.
"Er, it was a joke, Guff. You know... humour?"
Humour? You?
Ha heh ha Ha haaah HA HAAAAHH!!
That's the funniest thing I've read all day.
In obsessed and corrosive's own words: "... not worth debating," not a single fact written; proves my point perfectly. I took the hint and looked around for a book. Found a film, actually a trailer; glimpsed a long a time ago.
Three-quarter shot of tall, bronzed and handsome Charlton Heston, rifle clutched in both firm, strong hands. He says "From My Cold, Dead Hands ... "
Camera tracks backwards; there's a dead Palestinian woman at his feet, clearly heavily pregnant – blood still oozing from a single bullet wound. In the middle-distance a sign can just be made out "Deir Yassin."
This is exactly Israel's founding myth; Exodus = Heston = armed robbery with murder. And of course, it's via Hollywood; dream factory = total unreality.
One may prove a truth, but can never prove a lie; the truth is there for all to see - for those with an eye and a wish to do so; DPs = dead/displaced people/Palestinians.
The Zionists are currently erecting illegal settlements, oddly enough perhaps, recognised by the entire world as illegal. The Zionists do it on the theory of establishing 'facts on the ground.'
There's only one truth - and one reality; no book or any other 'interpretation' is needed to explain alien invaders on the ground, displaced Palestinians off the ground, dead Palestinian people in the ground. Cheers!
Bop bop da di da - bop bop da di da...
Mmmmmm here we are, somewhere in the alimentary canal of cyberspace - the bowel I think. Lunch was on my mind but for some reason I’ve lost my appetite.
At least that is all I have lost, not arms of legs nor brothers or sisters.
This game of nastiness just goes round and round, wastes moments and diverts energy to places best untravelled.
What motivates our games of nastiness? That’s for us (as individuals) to consider.
Of course we don’t have to play nasty games, if we so choose.
It’s sad when you see people you respect playing games that are emotional and unnecessary.
It would be better to spend time with your kids, or faithful old dog.
Cheers dears
J
JO
I have to report that my best mate ever died quietly in my arms last Thursday on the local Vet's table after going into shock from internal bleeding. I spoke to him and held the gasmask in place to the last heartbeat while the vet injected the overdoses and while the veterinary assistant held me. Then I walked out without a word.
Ten minutes later I had to phone the local GP and drive my tough old mum down "the back way" so the doctor, whose assistant was waiting for us, could administer her a valium shot right there in the car.
He was loyal, trusting and brave to the end.
I will never forget him. Thank you for your recent thoughts about him.
Sorry to hear that Geoff, my above comment was poorly timed - apologies and sympathies old mate.
Submitted by Geoff XXXXXX on June 22, 2009 - 11:44pm.
How on earth do you justify publlishing this foul personal abuse here given your self righteous claims set out in your rules and your routine censorship of other posters?
I really would appreciate an explanation. I know for sure you would not publish anything from me in this vein. You know where I am. Answer please. I post here in my own name which due to the obvious can be immediately tracked to me and my family in a simple Google search. Park (incidentally obviously drunk) knows this. That's why he uses my surname here as much as possible. Another breach of WD rules. He of course is exempt from this concern. There must be 10 million Parks in the world.
Right now I feel like testing this in court. You publish guidelines and rules and then ignore them, putting people at some risk or at least anxiety. Including complete innocents.
Answer please. Soon. You know where I am.
Pathetic.
You carry on as you have here, then want to stand on 'principle'?
Testing in court? Given your record of conduct, you'd be dismissed as a vexatious litigant.
Oh but of course you don't use your precious surname here and elsewhere, do you?
So how is it a breach of WD rules to use your surname when each of your posts there identifies your surname?
Park's details, of course, are linked to posts they've published there, so it wouldn't tax a 12 year old to identify him out of all the other Parks in the world.
Do you take everyone to be stupid?
Anyway, I'm shutting this down. I'm absolutely sick of your shit. You can go start a little hate site of your own, it wouldn't tax a 12 year old.
<< Home