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.

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.

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.

Just because it's hard, doesn't mean they don't want it.

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.
,

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.

lk-
They didn't announce reforms.  They announced (at most) an intention
to make reforms.  There's a monumental difference between the 2!

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?

Of course.  Both sides play the 'see what you made me do' game
pretty well.

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?

Well, it's sorta hard to have elections when people are forbidden to travel,
isn't it?

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?

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.)

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.

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. 

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.

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?

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.

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)?

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?

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.

uhhhh, transfer is subtly different from , oh, say .... gassed.

are you *gassed* again?

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. 

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?

When push comes to shove, most Repubs or Dems will toe the party line, under
pressure from their leadership.  That is, after all, the whole point of a
political party.  You're suggesting that's not true of the Likud?

So what exactly are you claiming, Leeron?  That Likud is out of touch with
the wishes of the Israeli public?  But we've already seen that at least 40%
of the Israeli public favors ethnic cleansing!

The "official" story from germany during WW2 was that they were
"transfering" jews to newly conquered territory behind the eastern
front.

So you are suggesting that if Arabs are transferred to Arab countries they
will be gassed by their own Arab brothers?

David, the US is a two-party system. Israel is not. As was pointed out in
this very item, the Prime Minister opposed this plank in his party's own
platform. I doubt he's going to call on them to toe the line.

So, David, even in the US two-party system, with a Republican as president,
is the Republican platform opposing abortion synonymous with US Law?
Of course not. In Israel's multi-party system, the plank of a party (which
only has 14% of the popular vote) is even less relevant.

Another round, and rather than renounce earlier falsehoods they are being
expanded. Now instead of convoluting the Likud plank as government policy
and misrepresenting that plank as opposing any Palestinian Arab self-rule,
those who self-profess to having a hard to ascertaining the "truth" are
seem to have no problem introducing/repeating lies: the Likud plank said
nothing at all about transferring the Arab population.

Incidentally, for those who find history as challenging as the truth,
the idea of a "transfer" was introduced at least as early as the 1930s
and was suggested by the Royal Peel Commission.  (In Winter Agora, Scott
even cut & pasted some out-of-context quotes from Moshe Sharett (then head
of the Jewish Agency's political party and Israel's second prime minister)
who he didn't realize was voicing opposition to the idea of a mutual
population transfer -- then viewed as an acceptable solution, one which
had & would later be carried out in Europe and in India/Pakistan.)

The irony is that even Yasir Arafat dismissed this as internal Israeli
politics that were irrelevant to the peace process. Yet the anti-Israel/
anti-Zionist/Anti-Semitic voices in the west and on Grex just can't get
enough of this, even though the points they raise are LIES.

> So, David, even in the US two-party system, with a Republican as president,
> is the Republican platform opposing abortion synonymous with US Law?

It would be, if the Supreme Court weren't in the way.

Maybe a better example would be the party plank opposing assisted suicide,
which has been given the force of law essentially by one individual
(Ashcroft).

Last I heard, the DOJ failed to overturn Oregon's suicide law.
Or do you know something I don't?

This item presents a perfect example how myhts are recklessly bandied about
and when pointed out are simply replaced with new falsehoods:

David, #10:

> it's sorta hard to have elections when people are forbidden to travel

As I asked in #11, who is forbidden to travel?

David, #12:

> the Israeli government is taking the position that a Palastinian
> state has no right to exist.

Now that I've clarified for you that this position was adopted by one
party, not the government, do you still maintain this falsehood?

> (Isn't this what Israel is always complaining that Arab states say
> about *them*?  So much for the moral high ground....)

Since your premise is false, I guess Israel retains the moral high ground.

David, #20:

> The Likud party is in favor of revoking the citizenship of Arab citizens
> of Israel.

I hadn't heard this. Can you provide us with a link to a western news source?

> It's kind of shocking to hear this from a group that was itself oppressed
> in the past.

Well, let's first establish that this is true, ok? What is shocking is that
you don't seem to have ever met an anti-Israel rumor that you didn't choose
to believe. Shocking, but not surprising, coming from a man who has yet to
see an Israeli government -- left, center or right, to his liking and who
states that there is no difference between Barak and Sharon (akin to saying
that there is no difference between Carter and Reagan because both were
concerned with American security).

Yet when these rumors are shown to be false, David is unphased and simply
asserts that that issue doesn't matter (#12).

David, #25:

> When push comes to shove, most Repubs or Dems will toe the party line,
> under pressure from their leadership. ...that's not true of the Likud?

As was pointed out, Ariel Sharon, the head of the Likud party who currently
serves as Prime Minister of Israel, opposed this plank.  Are you expecting
him to pressure others on something with which he disagrees?

Do you understand that if the government would adopt this position, the
coalition would likely falter -- the government would be out of office?

Are we to understand that your condemnation in #12 of the current Israeli
government is based on something that *might* (even if unlikely) happen
in the future?

> As I asked in #11, who is forbidden to travel?

With checkpoints only grudgingly letting *emergency vehicles* through, you
don't think ordinary citizens are having a hard time?

>> The Likud party is in favor of revoking the citizenship of Arab citizens
>> of Israel.

> I hadn't heard this. Can you provide us with a link to a western news
> source?

I can't find one now, though I was pretty certain I heard a statement to
that effect on NPR.  Since I can't find a source, though, I'll assume you're
correct and that's not a party position at this time.

> What is shocking is that you don't seem to have ever met an anti-Israel
> rumor that you didn't choose to believe.

You've never seen anything that spoke badly of Israel that you *did*
believe, or anything that spoke badly of an Arab state that you didn't.  You
carefully select your sources to make sure only the best is presented, then
call us anti-Semites when we try to bring up other issues to balance things
out.

The Likud party aside, do you deny that nearly half of Israelis are in favor
of "transfer"?  Do you really feel there's nothing disturbing about that?

David, 

>> As I asked in #11, who is forbidden to travel?

> With checkpoints only grudgingly letting *emergency vehicles* through, you
> don't think ordinary citizens are having a hard time?

So you can't specify who is forbidden travel, or how this would preclude
elections, instead convoluting half-truths from a short-term military
operation and applying it in general.

>>> The Likud party is in favor of revoking the citizenship of Arab citizens
>>> of Israel.

>> I hadn't heard this. Can you provide us with a link to a western news
>> source?

> Since I can't find a source, though, I'll assume you're correct and that's
> not a party position at this time.

How gracious, but why only "at this time"? Has it ever been a plank?
Was it ever proposed? 

>> What is shocking is that you don't seem to have ever met an anti-Israel
>> rumor that you didn't choose to believe.

> You've never seen anything that spoke badly of Israel that you *did*
> believe, or anything that spoke badly of an Arab state that you didn't.

Whereas you seem to accept that you choose to believe any anti-Israel rumor
you chance upon, your counter-accusation is not true.

> You carefully select your sources to make sure only the best is presented,
> then call us anti-Semites when we try to bring up other issues to balance
> things out.

Actually, I've generally responded to myths that have been entered by others,
then repeated a month later. Your false equivalencies aren't "balance", they
are what I'm countering. (I've also used a variety of sources.)

> The Likud party aside, do you deny that nearly half of Israelis are in favor
> of "transfer"?  Do you really feel there's nothing disturbing about that?

Yes, it's disturbing, but the real question is how relevant it is. As I've
pointed out, this is true *now*, after 20 months of incessant violence and
terrorism, after THOUSANDS of terrorist attacks (not one day). That this
followed a peace process of 7 years and was ignited following Arafat's
rejection of not just specifics but of compromise itself has disenchanted
many Israelis with the (political) peace process. How can you make peace
with someone who won't stop trying to kill you even as you try to negotiate?

This is not a long-term trend and just because many say they see this as a
solution in a survey doesn't mean that they actually favor implementation.
It remains true that a majority of the Israeli public supports the peace
process and the establishment of a Palestinian Arab state.  (Hmmm, look who is
trying to focus on one out of context fact -- and who is providing "balance"!)

Doesn't it disturb you that some Grexers are calling for the "transfer" of
Jews out of Judea -- to finish the job begun in 1948 when Arab armies
illegally attacked Israel?

>> Since I can't find a source, though, I'll assume you're correct and
>> that's not a party position at this time.
>
> How gracious...

I thought so, seeing as I've *never* seen you cede a point, even when
the weight of evidence was against you.

> Doesn't it disturb you that some Grexers are calling for the "transfer"
> of Jews out of Judea -- to finish the job begun in 1948 when Arab
> armies illegally attacked Israel?

It's not about the fact that they're Jews.  It's about the fact that
they're being used by Israel to annex land outside of the borders that
were set down for it.  If Iraq started creating "settlements" in Kuwait
I suspect we'd have something to say about it.  (Of course, we have
something to say about it when Iraq refuses to allow entry to UN
inspectors, but we let Israel get away with it.  Israel can always rely
on the U.S. having a double standard.)

To be clear, Likud actively opposes a Palestinian state. Ariel Sharon
has indicated that he would "support" a statelet on no more than 42% of
the occupied territories, with no control over its borders or natural
resources.

http://www.haaretzdaily.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=166604

gull, you may have heard about this:
http://www.haaretzdaily.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=154731

re:  "> As I asked in #11, who is forbidden to travel?
 With checkpoints only grudgingly letting *emergency vehicles* through, you
don't think ordinary citizens are having a hard time?"

You believe that "forbidden" and "hard time" are synonymous?  Do you have
information that there are checkpoints on all roads in Judea/Samaria, or have
you just seen news showing that there are some checkpoints and are assuming
that they are everywhere?

re:  "The Likud party aside, do you deny that nearly half of Israelis are in
favor of "transfer"?  Do you really feel there's nothing disturbing about
that?"
Considering that the citizens of Israel live every day with the uncertainty
as to whether they or their children might be the next victims of a suicide
bomber, mortar shell, or sniper, I'd say that one might consider it as being
charitable that they aren't asking for something more severe.

re:  "It's about the fact that they're being used by Israel to annex land
outside of the borders that were set down for it."  And what might those
borders be?

re: If Iraq started creating "settlements" in Kuwait"  Iraq and Kuwait are
both sovereign countries.  Israel, under international law, is administering
an area it acquired as a result of a war of self defense.

Exactly. The irony is that David is resorting to the part of UN Resolution
181 which established Israel's initial boundaries (which were immediately
violated by Arab countries who illegally and in violent contravention of
this UN Resolution attacked Israel in an effort to destroy it), while
rejecting those parts of the resolution that guaranteed Jews the right
to live in Judea, Samaria and Gaza. David also seems to willfully ignore
that Israel accepted 181 while the Arab world (including the Arab Higher
Committee, which represented the Arabs of Mandate Palestine) rejected it.

As per the currently relevant UN Resolution 242 (incorporated as the basis
of the Oslo Agreement, a treaty), Israel's boundaries need to be negotiated
as part of a comprehensive peace settlement.  (Israel has already achieved
such understandings with Egypt, Jordan and Lebanon -- even though Hezbollah
continues to violate this internationally recognized border, as certified
by the UN.)

Leeron, do you agree that as part of a negotiated settlement that
allows Israel to exist secure within the borders as defined by
what it accepted when it became a state that all territorial 
claims outside those borders should be given up just as all
arab claims to territory of the now state of Israel?  A simple
yes or no will suffice. 

I suppose that then, when the Arab states launch another attack, Israel 
can just capture the land again, and fight another thirty years of slow 
war?

- Backtalk version 1.3.30 - Copyright 1996-2006, Jan Wolter and Steve Weiss