Educating yourself to become more balanced in understanding the
conflict is *your* job. You seem to have developed a purely one-sided
pro-Palestinian viewpoint favoring the terrorists, peace
obstructionists,Holocaust deniers and revisionist historian positions
(Hamas, Arafat, Iran, and Finkelstein) over the positions of the
Israelis who have consistently made peace agreements and have refrained
from terrorist activity and prosecuted anyone who has engaged in it.

Of course you may see yourself as the voice of the downtrodden. But
the Israelis have been abused in more unsavory ways by the bus bombs
and rocket attacks not only by the Palestinians but by all of their
other neighbors at one time or another many of whom have in their
charters and core ideology a denial of Israels very right to existence.
The suffering has been on both sides. But the ways of
trying to resolve the problems have been quite different. Israel
negotiates and Hamas, Al-Aqsa, Islamic Jihad, Hezbollah bomb.

You ask me to be open-minded and I oblige. I am always willing to
consider different points of view. I do understand and sympathize with
the Palestinians. That is why I feel that they really should have
accepted the Camp David 2000 proposal. The one which the chief
negotiator David Ross has described. (inexplicably dismissed by
voileazur even though Ross was the principal party brokering the
negotiations and Clinton and Malley support his description of the
offer). You describe it as "cantons" even though Ross for one has
explicitly stated that such a description is false.

So, I respectfully suggest that you reconsider your own biases!

In the best of cases, your comments are pure projection. They perfectly apply to your attitude: you haven't commented or exchanged on any of the points I have proposed, other than this obstinate 'We're right and the rest of the world is wrong' clichés rebuttal of the Israeli extreme right flavour (and there is a lot more to Israel than its extreme right, however loud they may be).

Here is the quintessential single-doctrine filter through which YOU view everything:
«... You seem to have developed a purely one-sided
pro-Palestinian viewpoint favoring the terrorists, peace
obstructionists,Holocaust deniers and revisionist historian positions
(Hamas, Arafat, Iran, and Finkelstein) over the positions of the
Israelis who have consistently made peace agreements and have refrained from terrorist activity and prosecuted anyone who has engaged in it...»

If we don't agree with the extreme delusions you and the extreme positions espoused by the Israeli extreme right share,
- total disregard for Intermnational Law and Human rights violations in the settlements as clearly documented and supported by B'TSELEM, The Quartet of Nations, the UN, the current US administration, and a large and growing majority of US and Israeli Jews,
- we become targets of your calumnious, empty, and totally gratuitous accusations of ONE-SIDED PALESTINIAN SUPPORTERS, HOLOCAUST DENIERS, and HISTORY REVISIONISTS.

If you can't bring yourself to realize that Israel, being driven by the far right factions, is totally denying its violations of International and Human Rights laws, of course Israel in your eyes is blameless. But who are you and your little friends to decide unilaterally that you are beyond the respect of International laws, and Human Rights violations.

And that is the case for closed-mindedness: incapable of seeing one's own biases, where one is always right, and where the 'other' is always wrong!!!

In that light, who are you to gratuitously accuse people of of being one-sided!?!?!? of being holocaust deniers and history revisionists!!?!?!?

It's elementary 'Watson', you discard everything that doesn't agree with your position, and I mean everything, and then go on to accuse people of being close-minded!?!?!? Sounds like the pyromaniac fireman!!!

Finkelstein is a highly respected scholar and a PhD, whom is an authority in the matter of the Israelo-Palestinian conflict.
He is the son of holocaust survivors, and has lost nearly all members of his extended family to the Nazi concentration camps. Who are you to call him a holocaust denier!?!?!?

Should you put your money where where your mouth his, you would be sued for libel.

There is nothing to support such hateful accusations. Finkelstein finds it disgusting that people like you and your friends Foxman and Dershowitz, reduce the pain and suffering of holocaust victims to a mere cliché'd caricature ONLY TO EXPLOIT THE COMMERCIAL AND MONEY MAKING ASPECTS OF IT.

Anti-semitism should never be reduced to a mere commercial 'trademark', as the Foxmans, Dershowitzs and certain Jewish American Lobbies of the world treat it, and profit from it.

Shame on you for not even questioning their 'corrupted' positions.

Simply be very clear that you are not to insinuate that I, or the likes of Finkelstein, are holocaust deniers, or anything of the sort which would so conveniently serve yours and your friends corrupted views.

If you haven't noticed, there is a just, peaceful, and prosperous future for the Jewish community of the world, and the Nation of Israel BEYOND THE EXTREME AND ANTIQUATED ZIONIST DOCTRINES.

We are in an era where it is possible to discuss the abuse and shortcomings of Zionism, the fascist role it has played in the past and is still playing now, as a totally distinct phenomenon from the sanctity of the Jewish People worldwide, and the contemporary sovereign State of Israel!!!

Whether or not those whom have indecently profited from the situation agree or not, IT IS NOW PERFECTLY HEALTHY TO CRITICIZE THE FASCIST AND DOGMATIC ELEMENTS OF THE ZIONIST MOVEMENT, AS MOST DETRIMENTAL AND PROFOUNDLY COUNTERPRODUCTIVE TO THE CAUSE OF ISRAEL, without exposing ourselves to empty / fascist accusations of anti-Semite, holocaust deniers, and anti-Israel.

This is where the discourse is at.

No one should be exposed to the stigmatizing and calumniously unfounded attacks you and your closed-minded friends perpetrate, against those whom legitimately criticize the corrupt, extreme and counter productive positions and views of Zionism.

Should you keep up with your line of unfounded attacks, it would right for anyone to qualify your comments and accusations of being downright fascist.

P.S.: Reminding you of your own moral: 'Educating yourself 's1lowhand', to become more balanced in understanding the CURRENT stakes of the conflict is *your* job'.

As I have provided in the references above there is a compelling
and real case to be made that Israel is not violating international
law. Human rights abuses have occurred on both sides but I would
argue that the Palestinian abuses have been much more egregious using
their own people as human shields, cafe bombings, firing rockets
into civilian areas, teaching hatred in their elementary
school textbooks, and advocating suicide bombing as a political
tactic. What could possibly be worse than that?!

Checkpoints?

Border closures? Cargo Inspections?

Fence building?

Anti-Israel (Anti-Zionist) rants won't sway anybody or even get
anyone excited except bigots.

I haven't attacked anyone. I am a live and let live type of person.
However, that does include the Israelis who should be left alone to
live and prosper and all the Palestinians have to do is nothing.
Stop terrorism, make peace and they could prosper too.

However, violence is never the path toward peace.

There is no basis for your claims. It is extreme right doctrine.

But, in a group of Nations, of which Israel is a member, there is consensus and binding obligation to uphold the 'rule of law'!!!

That is the ONLY possible basis for a 'COMPELLING CASE', as you put it.

In the domain of the rule of law, and with respect to the group of Nations which have agreed to uphold it, it is The International Court of Justice that hears and renders verdicts in matters of violations of International law.

The ICJ is the only official organe we have to establish violation or non-violation when it comes to crimes of war against humanity, or violation of human rights.

With respect to Israel, and the case of the settlements in general, and East Jerusalem in particular, the verdict has fallen, and it is clear. Israel violates human rights in the settlements, and violates International Law in East Jerusalem.

Your opinion, the opinion of the far right, or the opinion and claims of its extreme right leader 'Bibi', matter absolutely not.

Follow the rule of law: build your case, present it to the I.C.J., and convince it to change its verdict!!! That is how 'rule of law' works!!! You don't like the law?!?!? TOUGH!!! You must abide by it, while you may argue that it should be changed, and may act to attempt to change it!!!

Until then, the law is the law!!! And Israel is now in violation International law and Human Rights conditions.

If you consider that yours, or Israel's extreme right opinion rule over and above The ICJ, then anyone else's opinion will be just as valid as yours.

This is not about YOUR CASE or the EXTREME RIGHT'S CASE, this is about our obligations and responsibilities in upholding the rule of law as a fundamental tenet of our just and free societies.

Since 1967, Israel has been illegally occupying land, and East Jerusalem is very much part of that illegally occupied land.

As I stated way back 's1lowhand', I have no intentions of convincing you of anything.
You obviously have a right to your opinion, however much I disagree with it, and, it clearly appears that there is no room to discuss anything outside of your opinion.

The objective problem I see with this, is that there is no official consensus for your opinion.

Your friends of the extreme right, and the current extreme right coalition administering the Knesset at the moment, DOES NOT CONSTITUTE OFFICIAL CONSENSUS IN OUR INTERNATIONAL RULE OF LAW, WHICH TO WHICH ISRAEL SUBSCRIBE.

These opinions have no say in the matter of establishing 'OFFICIALLY' whether or not there are violations with respect to International Law.


I would join most Israelis in finding disgusting, your treating of the far right Israel abuse of human rights in the occupied territories, a simple 'laughing' matter!!!




There you go again!!! You suffer from delusional abuse of language. Who are you calling Anti-Isreal and Anti-Zionist???

You either don't understand, and that wouldn't your fault, or you are acting in the worst of bad faith, resorting to cheap and hypocritical hateful clichés when you have nothing to intelligent to say.

I take personal offense to your using such language in our discussions. I am there is nothing in my discourse that is anti-Israel or anti-Zionist. I denounce far right or far left extremist fanatic factions which can be found in all legitimate groups. Zionists and Israelis are against extremists in the highest of proportions. Your simpleton defense of extremism, without any regard of the rule of law, doesn't have a leg to stand on.

Ultimately, your comments can easily be construed as being counterproductive towards achieving a peaceful and prosperous Israel for both the Jewish and Palestinian Nations.

Although I wouldn't indulge in the abuse of the terms such as you do, YOUR COMMENTS could accurately qualify as anti-Israel and anti-Zionist !!!



Repetitive gratuitous hypocritical and unfounded insinuations of 'anti' this and 'anti', most definitely end up being attacks. If not, I ask you to retract your empty insinuations, and debate the substance of this exchange.



In my humble opinion, your blind and obsessive defense of the far right's position which denies the verdict of International Law, and violations of Human rights by Israel, suggest that you only TALK the talk!!!



There you go again!

Very clear, the Palestinian will never be right in committing acts of terrorism, and there is unanimous International consensus in condemning such.

AND THERE IS EQUAL (UNANIMOUS) CONSENSUS TO CONDEMN ISRAEL'S PERSISTENT DENIAL OF INTERNATIONAL LAW, AND VIOLATIONS OF HUMAN RIGHTS.

It takes two to tango. Palestinians have a responsibility in the outcome of the conflict. But wake-up 's1lowhand', SO HAS ISREAL.




That's right, and as much as the 'rocket' attacks are inexcusable, denial of International Law and persistent violations of Human Rights are just as inexcusable.

If anyone else is following this exchange, sincerely seeking to go beyond the demagoguery and political propaganda, in a sincere effort to objectively understand the conflict and its possible solutions, I strongly invite you to view the following clips :

1) An interview with Norman Finkelstein, giving his impressions of the Clinton's and Netanyahu's comments in front of AIPAC, a few days ago.

http://www.democracynow.org/2010/3/23/norman_finkelstein_responds_to_clinton_netanyahu

2) A most enlightening interview with Norman Finkelstein, sharing his views on the 'Next Steps Towards Resolution in Israel-Palestine'.

3) The complete Bill Moyer Interview of Richard J. Goldstone

Richard J. Goldstone: (born October 26, 1938), a former South African Constitutional Court judge who served as the chief prosecutor of the United Nations International Criminal Tribunals for the former Yugoslavia and for Rwanda from 15 August 1994 to September 1996, and in 2009 led an independent fact-finding mission created by the United Nations Human Rights Council to investigate international human rights and humanitarian law violations related to the Gaza War.

Judge Goldstone signed the Goldstone Report, investigation of the Gaza war during the winter of 2008-2009 .

Part 1:
Judge Goldstone signed the Goldstone Report.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Iya6reWxxg0&feature=related

Part 2 :
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mM4x_YCJppg&feature=related

Part 3 :
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xD-SFXpXqGU&feature=related

Part 4 :
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t6CAYrANXSI&feature=related

Part 5 (conclusion):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QiZfvC0_7vs&feature=related

Regardless of all the demagogic and totally unsubstantiated denial from far left adversaries, the following scholars and official organizations:
- The International Court of Justice,
- Justice Godlstone and the Goldstone Report,
- B'Tselem (Israel's Human Rights organization)
- an overwhelming number of International Human Rights Organizations,
- Norman Finkelstein,
- Avi Shlaim,
- Raul Hilberg,
- Noam Chomsky,
- the current US administration, and a large proportion of the Israeli population and political representatives,

CANNOT ALL BE TARGETS OF GRATUITOUS AND PREPOSTEROUS 'ANTI-SEMITE', 'ANTI-ZIONISTS', 'ANTI-ISRAEL', 'HOLOCAUST DENIERS', AND 'JEW HATERS'!!!

The 'far right' agenda, and its monopoly on the media and public opinion is flat out wrong. In a democracy, acting reasonably and objectively on those wrongs, through reasonable and factual dissension is nothing other than our moral duty.

There is never going to be a resolution to this nonsense. Neither side has any reason to move forward and come to a peaceful conclusion. The state of war makes both sides money. Arafat died a multi- millionaire for christ sake.

You're are right that specific corrupt individuals, political factions, biased lobbies would stand to loose billions, were there a settlement to the conflict.

That being said, those extreme and self-serving minority groups have no integrity in the ultimate outcome. Their money buys them time, THAT'S IT!!!

There is a vast military industrial complex that doesn't just belong to Israel or the Palestinians.

This is much larger than the 2 parties directly involved.

We pay Israel $3 Billion per year. We pay Egypt and Jordan almost as much to keep the peace with Israel. Roughly $2 billion to Egypt $1 billion to Jordan. Crisis in the middle east puts money into the pockets of the oil rich Arab emirates. It makes western oil companies billions in profits opposed to far less during times of tranquility.

Conflict manipulation or proxy war proliferators don't care about who wins or loses as long as they fight as long as it's profitable to those that control the money and arms or oil..

Repeating "international law violations" does not make it so.
There's a very clear discussion which refutes the slur that Israel is
violating international law in my posts above. But here is some
more: http://www.jcpa.org/jl/vp470.htm

=-=-=-=

Israeli Rights in the Territories

Under UN Security Council Resolution 242 from November 22, 1967 -- that has served as the basis of the 1991 Madrid Conference and the 1993 Declaration of Principles -- Israel is only expected to withdraw "from territories" to "secure and recognized boundaries" and not from "the territories" or "all the territories" captured in the Six-Day War. This deliberate language resulted from months of painstaking diplomacy. For example, the Soviet Union attempted to introduce the word "all" before the word "territories" in the British draft resolution that became Resolution 242. Lord Caradon, the British UN ambassador, resisted these efforts.10 Since the Soviets tried to add the language of full withdrawal but failed, there is no ambiguity about the meaning of the withdrawal clause contained in Resolution 242, which was unanimously adopted by the UN Security Council.

Thus, the UN Security Council recognized that Israel was entitled to part of these territories for new defensible borders. Britain's foreign secretary in 1967, George Brown, stated three years later that the meaning of Resolution 242 was "that Israel will not withdraw from all the territories."11 Taken together with UN Security Council Resolution 338, it became clear that only negotiations would determine which portion of these territories would eventually become "Israeli territories" or territories to be retained by Israel's Arab counterpart.

Actually, the last international legal allocation of territory that includes what is today the West Bank and Gaza Strip occurred with the 1922 League of Nations Mandate for Palestine, which recognized Jewish national rights in the whole of the Mandated territory: "recognition has been given to the historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine and to the grounds for reconstituting their national home in that country." The members of the League of Nations did not create the rights of the Jewish people, but rather recognized a pre-existing right, that had been expressed by the 2,000-year-old quest of the Jewish people to re-establish their homeland.

=-=-=-=



Also failure to recognize the qualitative and quantitative
difference between inconveniences such as checkpoints, fences,
inspections and crimes against humanity such as bus bombings and
indiscriminate rocket attacks on civilians makes assertions about
Israeli human rights abuses absurd.

Even the checkpoints, fences, inspections would not be necessary
if the Palestinians refrained from attacks on civilians.

The Goldstone report is another discredited laughing matter.



Among it's many flaws are:

=-=-=-=-=

# The report violates international standards for inquries, including UN rules on fact-finding, replicating earlier UNHRC biased statements.
# The Commission systematically favored witnesses and evidence put forward by anti-Israel advocates, and dismissed evidence and testimony that would undermine its case.
# The commission relied extensively on mediating agencies, especially UN and NGOs, which have a documented hostility to Israel; the report reproduces earlier reports and claims from these agencies.
# At the same time, the Commission inexplicably downplayed or ignored substantial evidence of Hamas’ commission of war crimes, crimes against humanity and crimes of terror, including specifically its victimization of the Palestinian population by its use of human shields, civilian dress for combatants, and combat use of protected objects like ambulances, hospitals and mosques.

http://www.goldstonereport.org/

The U.S.Congress recognizes the lack of value of the Goldstone
report and condemned it:

US Congress condemns UN Goldstone Report, 344 to 36

http://blog.unwatch.org/?p=511

=-=-=-=-=

So yes, the other sources are heavily biased against Israel's well
known and well supported positions on the matter and the anti-Israel
arguments are easily refuted. And it is amusing to see obviously
pro-Palestinian arguments being repeatedly put forth as if they
were the only acceptable point of view. When they are not even a
reasonable point of view.



What is really unconscionable is the support some of these anti-Israel arguments give to those militant groups such as Hamas,
Islamic Jihad, Hezbollah, Al-Aqsa martyrs brigade which encourage
them in their true crimes against humanity - perpetuating the
violence and forcing the Israelis to defend themselves militarily.
The blood of many innocent parties on both sides of the conflict
is on the hands of these groups and they use such arguments (as
easily discredited as they are) to support their jihad.

Unfortunately, after all the terrorist attacks such as 911, The Madrid and London train bombings, the Breslan school hostage crisis, the Bali nightclub bombing, and the attacks in Mumbai and Delhi, the world will not tolerate such terrorist attacks and
recognizes them and the now familiar arguments used to justify
these crimes.

's1lowhand',

I don't care to insult you, but you need to regroup.

Maybe you personally find your sources of information the 'be all, end all', but it can't be taken seriously. Maybe that explains your nervous use of laughing emoticons.




The Jerusalem Center of Public Affairs:

« focuses on the main issues affecting Israel's security and international standing in order to wage the war of ideas in global opinion"[1] and "has developed and implemented an array of cutting-edge programs to present Israel's case to the world »

Come on 's1lowhand', you don't want to there!!!

The JCPA is an independent Public Relations task force. A public opinion 'spin' squad!!!

You can read, use, and quote The Jerusalem Center of Public Affairs work all you want, but how do you honestly expect anyone to take your claims seriously in this exchange, when you propose this organization's 'OPINIONS', in OPPOSING the official verdict of the International Court of Justice???

The fact that you and your friends don't like the verdict of the only official International Court of Law, which holds full Authority in dealing with such matters, and the fact that you keep repeating your disagreement, TRULY DOESN'T MAKE YOUR UNOFFICIAL OPINIONS SO! ... to paraphrase a formula of yours.

The verdicts of the International Court of Justice on the other hand, DOES PRECISELY MAKE IT SO!!!

And given all the words you have against terrorist actions, I doubt you yourself would support such anarchic and terrorist position that would refuse to recognize the simple principles of 'rule of law' which govern our free and democratic societies.



'INCONVENIENCES!?!?!?' And I suppose the overall occupation, intensification of construction in occupied Palestinian territories, and the Gaza War are also more of those simple inconveniences!?!?!

No further comment your honor!!!




=-=-=-=-=


Your comments above, give me the impression those are the round about attacks you resort to when you don't have any other PR stuff to throw around!!!

Enough said.

If anyone else is following this exchange, sincerely seeking to go beyond the demagoguery and political propaganda, in a sincere effort to objectively understand the conflict and its possible solutions, I strongly invite you to view the following clips :

1) An interview with Norman Finkelstein, giving his impressions of the Clinton's and Netanyahu's comments in front of AIPAC, a few days ago.

http://www.democracynow.org/2010/3/23/norman_finkelstein_responds_to_clinton_netanyahu

2) A most enlightening interview with Norman Finkelstein, sharing his views on the 'Next Steps Towards Resolution in Israel-Palestine'.

3) The complete Bill Moyer Interview of Richard J. Goldstone

Richard J. Goldstone: (born October 26, 1938), a former South African Constitutional Court judge who served as the chief prosecutor of the United Nations International Criminal Tribunals for the former Yugoslavia and for Rwanda from 15 August 1994 to September 1996, and in 2009 led an independent fact-finding mission created by the United Nations Human Rights Council to investigate international human rights and humanitarian law violations related to the Gaza War.

Judge Goldstone signed the Goldstone Report, investigation of the Gaza war during the winter of 2008-2009 .

Part 1:
Judge Goldstone signed the Goldstone Report.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Iya6reWxxg0&feature=related

Part 2 :
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mM4x_YCJppg&feature=related

Part 3 :
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xD-SFXpXqGU&feature=related

Part 4 :
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t6CAYrANXSI&feature=related

Part 5 (conclusion):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QiZfvC0_7vs&feature=related


It would be great to have an exchange on substance, based on a great number of issues raised, and observationsmade in the different clips listed above.

Any takers?!?!?!

The Government of Israel, with its dogmatic insistence on the position of an indivisible Jerusalem, is unconditionally violating International law.

The State Israel, along with a great number of other free Nations, have signed internationally binding conventions, and must uphold and abide by the 'rule of law'.

The US administration recent words reminding Israel of this fact, were very diplomatically soft words given Israel intransigence and arrogance, appearing to take US unconditional support for granted.

The current coalition, with its dogmatic leader, leading the Israeli government for the time being, may very be leading the people of Israel and its friends and partners, full speed into a legal and diplomatic brick wall.

With respect to the 'rule of law', there is nothing in the Charter of the United Nations that even remotely hints of a power or entitlement in the Security Council to change international borders.
Even Resolution 242 only calls for a withdrawal of forces, and makes no mention of a permanent change in boundaries.

As far as the Israeli settlements are concerned, they are clearly illegal; an occupying power has no right to 'de facto' annexation of portions of the territory by population transfers.

Overshadowing the arguments in Paragraph 8 of resolution 242, is the undeniable fact that the Kellogg-Briand Peace Pact of 1928, as definitively glossed by the International Tribunal at Nuremberg in 1948, HAS ABOLISHED FOREVER THE IDA OF ACQUISITION OF TERRITORY BY MILITARY CONQUEST.

No matter who was the aggressor, international borders cannot change by the process of war.

Resort to war is itself illegal, and while self-defense is of course legal, the self-defense cannot go so far as to constitute a new war of aggression all its own.

And if it does, the land taken may at best be temporarily occupied, but cannot be annexed. Thus after all the wars, the bloodshed, aggressions and counter-aggressions, acts of terror, reprisals, and attendant UN resolutions, nothing has changed the legal situation as it existed after Resolution 181 in 1947. The legal boundaries of Israel and Palestine remain today exactly as they were delimited in Resolution 181, AND JERUSALEM EAST IS 'OCCUPIED TERRITORY' AND WILL HAVE TO BE FULLY RESTORED TO THE PALESTINIAN, THE SOONER THE BETTER FOR ALL PARTIES.

Anything else violates simple rule of law principles.