idrankwhat

Israel did gain a lot of territory in 1949. My understanding is that the state of Israel's footprint is agreed upon, again, officially by all parties involved in negotiations, to be the land that they occupied from 1949 to 1967, unless a mutual agreement for a land swap can be decided upon.

No. Resolutions 242 and 338 have been the keystones of every peace initiative since 1967. They prohibit the acquisition of land by force. Some key provisions in 242: "The inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war and the need to work for a just and lasting peace in which every state in the area can live in security, and the withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict; and the termination of all claims or states of belligerency and respect for and acknowledgment of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every state in the area and their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force." The above was accepted by all parties in Camp David in 1978 and in Oslo in 1993. More recently Powell stated: "The Palestinian leadership must end violence, stop incitement, and prepare their people for the hard compromises ahead. All in the Arab world must make unmistakably clear, through their own actions, their acceptance of Israel and their commitment to a negotiated settlement. Israel must be willing to end its occupation, consistent with the principles embodied in Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338, and accept a viable Palestinian state in which Palestinians can determine their own future on their own land and live in dignity and security." UNSCR 242 and 338 are also part of the Roadmap as it was presented by G W Bush. Sharon stripped it from the Roadmap and Olmert is following his lead.

If it's simply a security barrier then why isn't it being built on Israel's legal border? The wall represents two things, a land grab and a barricade for detaining Palestinians. The land grab is obvious and the 370,000 Palestinians that live on the west side of the barrier will be considered aliens, not having the rights of the Israelis living in the same area. The detention aspect isn't as obvious unless you understand that Israel, as I showed previously, intends to have a barricade on the western, northern and southern sides of the Palestinian "state" and an Israeli militarized zone, with potential Israeli settlements, in the Jordan River valley. There will even be a corridor running from east to west through the Palestinian "state" that will allow Israelis to travel back and forth between Israel and the Jordan River valley but will not allow any Palestinians to even cross. At that point the Palestinians will be sequestered in a non-contiguous "state" that is completely surrounded by a wall and Israeli military, with their food, water, airspace, EM spectrum, ingress/egress and cargo shipments controlled by the Israeli military. I don't know what to call that scenario, detention center, reservation, prison? I do know that it's unfair. And I do know that it will not lead to peace. Quite to the contrary I'm afraid.

again, its a point of view. I don't see Israel as "taking land", Israel has the same rights as the Palestinians (if not more). ........ Your statement above makes my argument for me. This sentiment is why Israel has been blocking peace negotiations. Thank you for your honesty.

The first of my replies to your last post. the fact that there were 14 conditions is not on dispute, your interpetation of their meaning is. once again, the problem is not these conditions, its the lack of will (and later on lack of ability) to control their own extremists that go wild whenever there is some progress in negotiations (remember the exploding busses of 95/96, the riots of 2000 and others?) I don't see how interpretation can be called into question. I provided the direct quote. There's nothing ambiguous about: 1).....In the first phase of the plan and as a condition for progress to the second phase, the Palestinians will complete the dismantling of terrorist organizations (Hamas, Islamic Jihad, the Popular Front, the Democratic Front Al-Aqsa Brigades and other apparatuses) and their infrastructure, collection of all illegal weapons and their transfer to a third party for the sake of being removed from the area and destroyed, cessation of weapons smuggling and weapons production inside the Palestinian Authority, activation of the full prevention apparatus and cessation of incitement. There will be no progress to the second phase without the fulfillment of all above-mentioned conditions relating to the war against terror. The security plans to be implemented are the Tenet and Zinni plans. [As in the other mutual frameworks, the Roadmap will not state that Israel must cease violence and incitement against the Palestinians. 5)The provisional state will have provisional borders and certain aspects of sovereignty, be fully demilitarized with no military forces, but only with police and internal security forces of limited scope and armaments, be without the authority to undertake defense alliances or military cooperation, and Israeli control over the entry and exit of all persons and cargo, as well as of its air space and electromagnetic spectrum. 6)...and to the waiver of any right of return for Palestinian refugees to the State of Israel. 9)There will be no involvement with issues pertaining to the final settlement. Among issues not to be discussed: settlement in Judea, Samaria and Gaza (excluding a settlement freeze and illegal outposts), the status of the Palestinian Authority and its institutions in Jerusalem, and all other matters whose substance relates to the final settlement. 10)The removal of references other than 242 and 338 (1397, the Saudi Initiative and the Arab Initiative adopted in Beirut). A settlement based upon the Roadmap will be an autonomous settlement that derives its validity therefrom. The only possible reference should be to Resolutions 242 and 338, and then only as an outline for the conduct of future negotiations on a permanent settlement. http://www.knesset.gov.il/process/docs/roadmap_response_eng.htm Like I said, dead on arrival. And yes, I do remember 95/96 and 2000. If Arafat had taken the Clinton proposal he probably would have been assassinated. It was a lousy proposition, as is the path that Israel is currently choosing. No lasting peace can be made if apartheid and imprisonment are the solutions. As for 95/96, what was Sharon's public statement to Oslo? He declared it "national suicide" and that “Everybody has to move; run and grab as many hilltops as they can to enlarge the settlements, because everything we take now will stay ours. Everything we don't grab will go to them.” I don't know about you but I can't think of any other way to interpret that one either.

no, simply lack of time and too long of a post. I'd be happy to hear it again, even if your claims are true, they are not relevant because the very first (and mandatory) step of stopping the violence didn't take place. all the other conditions may be a starting point for negotiation, but you have to stop shoot first. My claims are extremely relevant. The Palestinians said they would give it a try. Israel said they wouldn't unless the 14 caveats were included. Actually, that' not accurate. They responded to the roadmap by adding the 14 conditions, then Israel adopted the changed agreement with no one else recognizing the altered plan. I'll write them all down for you if you're interested in reading them. And I'll also provide the text of the roadmap if that will help to clarify things. Everything I wrote earlier is accurate and verifiable. If you have something that disproves it then I'd be more than happy to read it. well your bottom line is simply wrong. Israel has stated (and backed it up with actions) that it is willing for a huge compromise on the land. ... Then why is Israel continuing to take land? Walls, occupation, oppression, missiles, blockades,......all that stuff aside, why is Israel continuing to take and build on land that is not theirs? It violates all previous agreements. It violates the UN resolutions that Israel and even you admit (indirectly). are applicable. It violates the Roadmap, US official policy and runs counter to what Olmert had promised when he was elected. Yet Israel is still expanding the occupation. Why, if Israel wants peace, is it doing everything it can to provoke the Palestinians and keep it from happening? O

I see, nothing to add? Ad hominem.

No comments on Israel's sabotage of the peace process? You speak about directing anger at the elected officials who hinder the peace process. Any anger at your own officials? Seems to me that the bottom line is that Israel isn't interested because they haven't finished with the land grab yet, or "realignment" as they prefer to call it. Yes, the suicide bombers need to quit. But Israel needs to quit continuing to expand the illegal occupation. And our leadership needs stop enabling policies that run counter to our official stated policy.

If you're in NJ the here's some info on tax incentives, relief and loan opportunities. http://www.dsireusa.org/library/includes/map2.cfm?CurrentPageID=1&State=NJ&RE=1&EE=1 As for storage of any excess, if you're not going to go the battery route then you can store the excess on the grid through net metering. http://www.dsireusa.org/library/includes/incentive2.cfm?Incentive_Code=NJ03R&state=NJ&CurrentPageID=1

maybe accepted by words. the FIRST thing that had to be done according to the roadmap is to completely dismantle the militias and cease all terror activities, they didnt even try to do that. You're mixing up the actual Roadmap with the fourteen caveats that Sharon demanded. Phase I of the Roadmap requires that: # Palestinian leadership issues unequivocal statement reiterating Israel's right to exist in peace and security and calling for an immediate and unconditional ceasefire to end armed activity and all acts of violence against Israelis anywhere. All official Palestinian institutions end incitement against Israel. # Israeli leadership issues unequivocal statement affirming its commitment to the two-state vision of an independent, viable, sovereign Palestinian state living in peace and security alongside Israel, as expressed by President Bush, and calling for an immediate end to violence against Palestinians everywhere. All official Israeli institutions end incitement against Palestinians. Sharon's response to the Roadmap, the fourteen caveats, killed any chance of success. It made unrealistic demands from the Palestinians, good faith efforts towards peace count for nothing. And even if the Palestinians were somehow able to collect every gun and transfer it to a third party, a requirement to even proceed to caveat #2, his proposal for the created Palestinian state would still be under Israeli control. Sharon caveat #5: The character of the provisional Palestinian state will be determined through negotiations between the Palestinian Authority and Israel. The provisional state will have provisional borders and certain aspects of sovereignty, be fully demilitarized with no military forces, but only with police and internal security forces of limited scope and armaments, be without the authority to undertake defense alliances or military cooperation, and Israeli control over the entry and exit of all persons and cargo, as well as of its air space and electromagnetic spectrum. Sharon also stripped UNSCR 1397 from the Roadmap and wanted to limit UNSCR 242 and 338 to "outlines for conduct". 242 and 338 are the backbone to each and every peace agreement accepted or proposed since 1967, with the exception of Clinton's proposal in 2000. Sharon and Olmert are the ones who have blocked the Roadmap. And the US won't even call them on it. It's sad to see how blatantly we tout official mantra yet are so lousy at backing it up. i am not talking about who shot first. i'm talking about who kept shooting when one side stopped, huge difference. I don't see much difference. They kept firing rockets and Israel kept firing missiles. Some left small craters and killed a few people. Others leveled buildings with people in them. Innocents died on both sides and the shooting never stopped. less talking, more actions. anyway, the only "good" thing about Hamas as opposed to arafat in his days is that Hamas is at least not pretending, they state exactly where they stand, and accepting peaceful ways is simply not it. They have said that they will if the PA makes a peace agreement. And they have also stated in the past that they would limit their attacks to the occupied territories. Which makes me wonder, how many Palestinian attacks have been in pre-1967 Israel and how may have been in the occupied territories? That would be interesting to know. I'm not sure but it doesnt matter since the whole border is open (if they can carry across missiles, i'm sure they can carry food as well. anyway, i don't have a problem for goods to be supplied through israel (as they run freely at quiet times) but i do have a problem with maintaining an open border with an enemy who is trying to kill you. if they chose the way of war, they will have to find a different way to supply with their people. I understand that years of this conflict can harden people so I don't expect you to be too concerned with Gaza's suffering. But I would hope that you might understand that when you put a population under that much stress that it's shouldn't be surprising when anger and violence arises. O

Irrefutable - of course not. But while your posts continue to talk about how bad Israel is and about all those poor Palestinians (quite one sided despite your protests otherwise) Mine appear one sided because I'm trying to balance the one sided news that you typically get through the US media. AIPAC and CAMERA are very strong influences on our media and our government. Fortunately the internet is helping to balance that bias. while he can see multiple viewpoints and address your claims with actual details, I tend to find his writing more believable. and when you choose to attack his writing as angry propoganda devoid of fact, rather than showing how it was so, it was clear who has a leg to stand on. Did you read the post that I wrote? It had specifics, names, dates, numbers. You seem to be focusing on my frustrated reply to his reply. I was frustrated because I thought I had provided a reasonable list of issues and points. I got the impression that he ignored much of it and went back to stating half truths. The Gaza point is a good example. He keeps mentioning that Israel pulled out of Gaza and all they got was missiles in return. But he, and others are ignoring that they pulled their people and property out of Gaza, but turned it into a prison camp, oppressing and abusing the occupants. And while yes, the Palestinians did indeed continue to lob rockets towards Israeli towns, the Israeli military never quit firing 5000 missiles into Gaza. All we hear about are the Palestinian rockets, rarely the missiles, unless they happen to kill a bunch of kids on a beach and someone gets some pictures. The debate needs to be honest and open if we're ever going to solve this.

From Wikipedia:***These are partial lists of prominent enacted legislation and pending bills. Gee you're right! I don't see anything in there about gay marriage, flag burning or live via satellite medical diagnoses However, don't take the fact that I think that this Congress is just a little bit better than the last one means that I support all that they do.

Simple.... make peace.. so your people can get on with their lives That's my point. Israel won't let them do it. Gaza is a prison camp. The good news though, is that today they're letting some more food come in through Egypt. Now 70% of Gaza's MINIMUM food levels may be met, as opposed to the 21% of a couple of weeks ago rather than wallowing in a cult of death and sending off your children to another country to blow themselves up...HOPING to take innocent people with them. Yea, they need to stop doing that. I've never claimed this was one sided. USE the money raised around the world for your people and to make their lives better... NOT buying guns and explosives....and calling for the murder of Jews and the destruction of Israel. That's hard to do when Israel controls everything that comes in and out, everything that's not smuggled of course. And, out of curiousity, would you condemn Israelis who called for the destruction of the Palestinians?

I'm not copping out of anything. Do you know what the living conditions are like right now in Gaza and the West Bank? You haven't studied it to death if you aren't still studying. Don't take my word for it. Keep reading. Bottom line, they both want to live in peace. And Hamas is willing. They've said it, just not on CNN. Admittedly today might not be the best day to ask them since Israel has been beating the shit out of them for the last couple of days.

What are you saying? That even though the Dems control both houses, they're still little more than the President's bitches? You just like to argue don't you?

And I would think that if people would take the time to read more about the topic that they might actually find that things aren't as black and white as they think. It's the information age. There's no excuse for not knowing other than not wanting to.

Did you read the long post I put up this morning? I thought it was pretty level headed and specific. I provided plenty of facts. The only things that contained any emotion was my lack of sympathy for people who chose to move in to, and get paid to live as illegal settlers in a land that is not theirs and which, according to our local source, Israel, and the entire international community, under the understanding that they're going to have to move out anyway. And yea, I was/am angry about my President's case of serious neglect in the matter. And I do like talking to Falxori because of his location but your assertion that somehow his point of view is irrefutable because of his proximity is severely flawed. Would you put more validity if I were to provide you with opinions from people living in Gaza? How about video?

I didn't see too many "corrections" in your post. All I saw was angry rhetoric. I could cite inflammatory Israeli rantings as well and say that it represents Israeli policy but I was trying to move away from the extreme and present something reasonable for discussion.

Sorry, I just can't pass this up. See attachment

That's correct. They, well, some of them realize that they're not being impacted directly as a result of their actions but that the impact is being absorbed by a third, fourth or fifth party. That bothers them....I mean us.

Hmm.....I'm seeing a pattern here. Members of one voting block seem to think that if you're comfortable, then that's all that matters. Who cares if my government tramples on the Constitution. So long as I can get good TV reception, I'm good. Who cares if we kill thousands of people in another country because of our energy addiction. So long as the juice is flowing and I'm not inconvenienced in the slightest, no problem. Who cares if immigrants are being kept as slaves in Florida. Fruit's and veggies are cheap and that's what matters. Who cares if slave labor is used, the environment is trashed and people are dying of chemical poisoning. The electronic crap that I just have to have is dirt cheap and we don't have to dispose of the waste on our continent. Fuck 'em. Fuck 'em all. Whatever it takes to make me comfortable, that's what's really the most important thing. That sound about right?

Nah, it's simpler than that. See attachment: