|
Grex > Agora41 > #178: Current IDF negotiating position? | |
|
| Author |
Message |
bdh3
|
|
Current IDF negotiating position?
| 
May 13 07:11 UTC 2002 |
From a wire service story:
'An independent Palestinian government might eventually be
possible, Netanyahu said in his speech.
"But a state with all the rights of a state, this cannot be, not
under Arafat, nor under another leadership, not today, nor
tomorrow," he said. '
Leaves a whole hello a lot of negotiating room doesn't it.
|
| 66 responses total. |
bdh3
|
|
response 1 of 66:
|
May 13 07:13 UTC 2002 |
On the one hand it is hard to negotiate with someone who wants to
make you not exist. On the other hand its hard to negotiate with
someone who thinks you don't have a right to exist.
|
logger
|
|
response 2 of 66:
|
May 13 09:49 UTC 2002 |
Absolutely. I think it's outrageous that Israel feel justified in what they
are doing, and the same goes for suicide bombers. If the sides involved really
wanted to find an honest conclusion to the conflict, it would have happened
a long time ago, IMHO.
|
aruba
|
|
response 3 of 66:
|
May 13 17:21 UTC 2002 |
Just because it's hard, doesn't mean they don't want it.
|
tsty
|
|
response 4 of 66:
|
May 15 06:51 UTC 2002 |
so israel did the job that arafat was shpposd to do - figgers, arafat
is afraid to attemtp the work. israel is not. more power to them.
,
|
lk
|
|
response 5 of 66:
|
May 17 06:44 UTC 2002 |
See item 125 for info on why a peace treaty wasn't concluded at Camp
David nearly 2 years ago.
Netanyahu's position does make sense. If a Palestinian Arab state were
to behave in the chaotic fashion that defines the Palestinian Authority,
such a state would quicly join the ranks of Iran, Iraq, Syria and Libya.
It would be a great disservice not just to the civilized world, but to
the people living in such a state.
Ironically, the bigger news this week were the announced reforms of the
Palestinian Authority. Elections that had previously been called off have
now been scheduled. Security officials will have term limits rather than
becoming chieftans with private armies funded by the Authority. Monetary
transparency will assure that western assistance goes into the intended
projects and not into purchasing arms or the private Swiss bank accounts
of corrupt officials.
It's the first step in the right direction, but not only does it need to
be followed up as deeds, simply having an election (with effectively one
candidate) does not make a democracy. There should be real candidates and,
with some luck, none of them will be named Yasser Arafat.
Just think, Arafat's claim to fame could be that he was the first Arab
leader in modern times (ever?) to retire.
|
klg
|
|
response 6 of 66:
|
May 18 03:31 UTC 2002 |
lk-
They didn't announce reforms. They announced (at most) an intention
to make reforms. There's a monumental difference between the 2!
|
lk
|
|
response 7 of 66:
|
May 18 04:48 UTC 2002 |
You are correct. I think I meant to say "announced reforms to be".
Which is why I said that it is but the "first step in the right direction"
and needs to be "followed up as deeds".
What I fear, though, is the usual Arafat charade: repeat that he WILL
do something (future tense) and then claim that he DID (past tense)
without ever having DONE (present tense).
Less than 24-hours after the initial announcement and already these reforms
are being taken off the beaten path: A PA official announced on Friday
that the PA will only implement (some of?) these reforms in response to
unilateral Israeli concessions.
Excuse me? Aren't these reforms intended for the benefit of the Palestinian
Arab people he rules? So now, if these reforms are never implemented, it
will be Israel's fault?
|
bdh3
|
|
response 8 of 66:
|
May 18 05:16 UTC 2002 |
Of course. Both sides play the 'see what you made me do' game
pretty well.
|
lk
|
|
response 9 of 66:
|
May 19 03:01 UTC 2002 |
More of a "see what you made me NOT do" in Arafat's case. But the point
stands. Why should reforms -- ostensibly for the benefit of the Palestinian
Arabs -- be preconditioned on unilateral Israeli concessions? Is Arafat
now holding his own populace as hostages?
|
gull
|
|
response 10 of 66:
|
May 20 01:34 UTC 2002 |
Well, it's sorta hard to have elections when people are forbidden to travel,
isn't it?
|
lk
|
|
response 11 of 66:
|
May 20 04:12 UTC 2002 |
Who is forbidden to travel? (Other than during short periods of military
action. Are American troops in Afghanistan somehow precluding elections?)
The last elections in the territories were held while the entire area was
under Israeli administration. (Coincidence? I don't think so!)
My point stands. Can you imagine the US declaring that it will take away the
right to free speech of Bin Laden doesn't come forward? That Saudi Arabia
will announce that it will grant some rights to its citizens -- but only
if the US gets out of Daharan?
Why is overdue reform of the PA being conditioned on Israel doing anything?
Does Arafat view Palestinian Arabs as nothing more than pawns and hostages?
|
gull
|
|
response 12 of 66:
|
May 20 12:44 UTC 2002 |
I'm not sure it matters anyway, now that the Israeli government is taking
the position that a Palastinian state has no right to exist. (Isn't this
what Israel is always complaining that Arab states say about *them*? So
much for the moral high ground, I guess.)
|
lk
|
|
response 13 of 66:
|
May 20 13:36 UTC 2002 |
It doesn't matter that what you uttered a few hours ago is totally wrong?
Will you soon say the same about #12?
The Israeli government has NOT taken that position. Only the Likud party
has done so, and since Israel is not a dictatorship (unlike the surrounding
Arab states) there is a difference between a party and the state.
In fact, Likud isn't even the ruling party (it shares power in a fragile
coalition) and this plank was opposed to by the Likud member who currently
serves as Prime Minister -- Ariel Sharon.
So this is much like Pat Robertson managing to insert anti-Abortion
language into the Republican platform, over the opposition of Pres. Bush.
Once again we see that there is the truth and the anti-Israel propaganda
lies that some people are all too gullible or happy to believe and repeat.
Not "spin" but outright falsehoods.
|
slynne
|
|
response 14 of 66:
|
May 20 16:44 UTC 2002 |
FWIW, every news report I heard said it was the Likud party and also
that Sharon opposed their position. They didnt explain, however, that
the Likud party is not the government but rather only one political
party. How many parties does Israel have anyway?
I found those reports to be both disappointing and encouraging.
Disappointing because it is a shame that people in Israel have the view
that there should be no Palestinian state but encouraging that Sharon
publicly opposed the position.
|
lk
|
|
response 15 of 66:
|
May 20 19:03 UTC 2002 |
Thank you for your honesty, Lynne, but there might be one part that you
missed: it's not so much that the Likud hard-liners opposed an independent
entity akin to a state, they opposed this entity having the FULL
functionality associated with independent states: e.g. if the state
wanted to invite an Iraqi army division to come sit on Israel's border....
There are two major parties in Israel (Labor & Likud), but between them
they only account for about a third of Knesset (parliament) seats. A few dozen
other parties exist:
Ahdut Ha'avodah Meretz
Aguddat Israel Moledet
Arab Democratic Party National Democratic Alliance
Arab Movement for Change National Religious Party
Centrist Party National Unity Party
Citizen's Rights Movement New Israeli Party Formed
Degel Hattorah One Israel Party
Democratic Choice One Nation
Democratic Movement for Change Rafi
Gahal Shas
General Zionists/Liberal Party Shinui
Gesher Tehiya
Hadash Third Way
Israeli Communist Party Tzomet
Labor Party United Arab List
Likud Party United Torah Judaism
Mapai Yisrael Ba'aliya
Meimad Yisrael Beitenu
Herut
In the 1999 elections, Labor won 20% of the vote, Likud 14% and Shas 13%.
Twelve other parties received enough votes to win seats in the Knesset.
No party has ever won an outright majority of seats and thus Israel has
always been ruled by a coalition government.
|
klg
|
|
response 16 of 66:
|
May 21 00:12 UTC 2002 |
re: "They didnt (sic) explain, however, that the Likud party is not the
government but rather only one political party." In other words, a lot of
folks have no idea whatsoever is really going on over in the Middle East,
although they talk as if they do.
re: "it is a shame that people in Israel have the view that there should be
no Palestinian state" This is a good example. To be accurate, you should
have written the word "some" between "that" and "people." Or did you intend
to give an erroneous impression?
|
scott
|
|
response 17 of 66:
|
May 21 01:39 UTC 2002 |
Presumably the Likud party is one of the major powers (it's their prime
minister, after all) because they are supported by a lot of voters in Israel.
|
lk
|
|
response 18 of 66:
|
May 21 03:38 UTC 2002 |
Do you understand what the term "coalition" means? Did you miss in #13
that "their prime minister" opposed this plank? That this is a plank of
the party, which in Israel (like the US and unlike the surrounding Arab
countries) is different than the position of the government? Why are you
again trying to convolute what has already been explained? Why are you
trying to confuse a party in a coalition as being powerful even after
it was detailed in #15 that they only received 14% of the vote (and are
represented accordingly)?
|
scott
|
|
response 19 of 66:
|
May 21 12:36 UTC 2002 |
Re 18:
It seems there are two conflicting ways of viewing what you say, Leeron.
Either the Likud party is a majority (or at least plurality) part, and so its
hardline stance is representative of Israeli opinion,
or the Likud party is really some small coalition party at odds (and therefore
not able to gain a great many supporters) with Israeli public opinion.
So which is it, Leeron? Is the Israeli public against the Likud party
platform, or is the Israeli public with the Likud?
|
gull
|
|
response 20 of 66:
|
May 21 12:47 UTC 2002 |
Re #16: It may be a majority. I haven't seen figures for how many Israelis
oppose the creation of a Palastinian state, but 40% are now in favor of
"ethnically cleansing" Israel by expelling all the Palastinians from Israel
and the West Bank. (They use the euphemism "transfer", though.) The Likud
party is in favor of revoking the citizenship of Arab citizens of Israel, as
well.
It's kind of shocking to hear this from a group that was itself oppressed
in the past.
|
tsty
|
|
response 21 of 66:
|
May 21 13:02 UTC 2002 |
uhhhh, transfer is subtly different from , oh, say .... gassed.
|
happyboy
|
|
response 22 of 66:
|
May 21 13:17 UTC 2002 |
are you *gassed* again?
|
slynne
|
|
response 23 of 66:
|
May 21 16:52 UTC 2002 |
re#16 I did mean "some" people rather than "all of the" people. I can
see that adding "some" would make my wording more clear.
|
lk
|
|
response 24 of 66:
|
May 21 17:23 UTC 2002 |
Scott:
>Either the Likud party is a majority (or at least plurality) part,
From the figures I provided, the obvious answer is no (and no).
>or the Likud party is really some small coalition party
Ah, so you don't have a clue what a "coalition" government (not party) is.
There are many things in both the Republican and Democratic platforms with
which many Republicans and many Democrats (let alone the majority of
Americans) don't approve or don't agree with. So the Likud, after a great
internal debate, adopted a controversial plank not to your liking. So what?
Why are you misrepresenting this as the policy of the Israeli government?
|