Israelis and Palestinians march together in Jerusalem solidarity rally

QuadpolarNutjob · Oct 22, 2015

the fact of the matter is if Israel wanted there to be no Palestinians, there would be no Palestinians. Israel is a 1st rate power with nuclear, chemical, biological, and conventional weapons galore. Palestine is a 3rd world-style ghetto, at best. Israel has had the capacity to commit virtual genocide on Islam and kill hundreds of millions of Muslims since 1966 Israel | Country Profiles | NTI

anyone parroting the 'Israel is evil/genocidal' claptrap is not aware of the facts. were Israel interested in Palestinian genocide, there would be no Palestinians.

i am pleased that this march occurred, but it's a few hundred sensible people in a nation with millions of indoctrinated psychopaths just waiting for a chance to die for their god.

'but Israel is in Palestine'

ignore the reality if you want, that changes nothing.

faithful_servant · Oct 22, 2015

Ancient Herald said:
There will never be any peace until Israel is destroyed and the Palestinian state is upon their ashes.

According to the Palestinian National Charter, Zionism is an illegitimate organization;

The Avalon Project : The Palestinian National Charter

There could be peace tomorrow if Israel were to take the one step that it never has and simply kill all the Pals. (no, I most certainly DO NOT support doing this). Odd how they have never done that, yet they could do it in a couple days if they really wanted to. They've never even threatened to do so, unlike the Pals. who have made Israel's destruction a major part of their policy.

TheDemSocialist · Oct 22, 2015

CJ 2.0 said:
Hi DS. I really do believe, like with previous peace efforts, a credible partner on the Palestinian side, which demonstrates that it is not just pulling another Arafat on the Israelis, using their desires for peace as a front to prepare for and launch a terrorist war, would very quickly move the needle on the Israeli side.

:roll:
Disregarding the conspiratorial part about "Arafat using peace as a cover to launch some sort of attack", you still ignore Palestinian grievances. Water rights, settlement expansions, refugees, home demolitions, checkpoints, trading rights, etc.

Israelis were ready for peace in 2000.

We can go back and forth for who is responsible for the failure of camp david summit. But we both know one side is not fully responsible for its failure. In reality both sides have legitimate arguments and points for why the peace process failed in 2000.

the Palestinians rejected Israel's offers and instead launch a war against civilians and celebrated every time one of their "freedom fighters" murdered people.

1.)Stop with the conspiratorial bs acting like the Second Intifada was some secretly planned event
2.)There was no offer made. Their were negotiations. They failed to reach an agreement because of disagreement with settlements, Jerusalem, refugees, etc.

Combine that with a shift in Palestinian opinion not being sufficient to have any impact on leadership, the Palestinian leadership's continued efforts to incite against Israel rather than preparing the population for peace, compromise and reconciliation (a process Israel went through in in 90s but the Palestinians did not, by design of their leadership), and the continued cultural glorification of rejectionism and violence and we have a recipe for continuation of the conflict regardless of Israeli actions.

So again. "Its all Palestine's fault"?

Take this whole temple mount thing as a perfect illustration. Israel did nothing wrong and had no plans to do anything wrong. Yet Palestinians decided to incite for violence and use a manufactured "wrong" to launch the latest wave of terror. Nothing Israel did or didn't do could have prevented it, since the triggering event was wholly manufactured by the Palestinians and then supported by their leadership.

Again. Such a simplicit argument holding one side fully accountable and one side fully guilty.
1.)Conspiratorial bull**** is conspiratorial bull****. "In their submissions, the parties traded allegations about the motivation and degree of control exercised by the other. However, we were provided with no persuasive evidence that the Sharon visit was anything other than an internal political act; neither were we provided with persuasive evidence that the PA planned the uprising." http://2001-2009.state.gov/p/nea/rls/rpt/3060.htm
2.)"Ami Ayalon, former head of Israel's Shin Bet (General Security Service), was clear: "Yasser Arafat neither prepared nor triggered the Intifada... Even after the violence broke out, Israel and the PA continued to negotiate suggesting that neither side had abandoned the diplomatic route. During December 2000 and January 2001, the two parties engaged in high-level, comprehensive talks to try to resolve remaining differences. They dealt with substantive issues and considered further concessions.20 This casts doubt on the claim that the Palestinians had abandoned talks for a violent path. Sections two through four outline an alternative and more compelling explanation." https://journals.lib.unb.ca/index.php/jcs/article/view/220/378

Overall this journal is a lot more balanced approach which takes both parties claims, accounts, and political goals in mind in explaining the failure of the 2000 peace process and the second Intifada.

Ill just share the conclusion from the journal:

The problem here is that the Palestinians' goals remain unchanged and remain wholly incompatible with peace. Until they do change, and those changes are reflected in Palestinian actions and intentions, nothing Israel does can have the potential to move the needle towards a peaceful compromise. That's just the reality.

:roll: Not true at all. If you mean "goals" of an indepenedent Palestinian state, then yes you are right they have not changed. But if you mean their demands have not changed, well that is flat out false. And you still are taking this from one side.

CJ 2.0 · Oct 22, 2015

TheDemSocialist said:
:roll:
Disregarding the conspiratorial part about "Arafat using peace as a cover to launch some sort of attack", you still ignore Palestinian grievances. Water rights, settlement expansions, refugees, home demolitions, checkpoints, trading rights, etc.

You shouldn't disregard it. That Arafat prepared for, planned and launched a terror war instead of accepting a peace deal is pretty important if you hope to actually understand what is going on here.

As for the rest of these grievances, all could be dealt with if the Palestinians were willing to compromise and make peace with the Jews. Their grievances are not related to, nor do they justify, their polity's continued rejection of any peace or compromise with the Jews.

We can go back and forth for who is responsible for the failure of camp david summit. But we both know one side is not fully responsible for its failure. In reality both sides have legitimate arguments and points for why the peace process failed in 2000.

We could, though we would be fooling ourselves if we pretended it was the Israeli's fault. Regardless, Israel in the 1990s engaged in a systematic effort to shift public perceptions, attitudes and expectations about a peace with the Palestinians, in order to ensure that any eventual peace agreement would have broad public support. The Palestinians did exactly the opposite, with Arafat continuing to explain that any agreement would just be part of the plan of stages, that Israel is illigitimate and will never have any valid claims, that martyrdom murdering Israelis and continuing the fight against the Jews was noble, and all that claptrap. Israel's society in 2000 was prepared for peace. The Palestinian society by 2000 was prepared for singing and dancing in the streets when children were murdered by suicide bombers.

1.)Stop with the conspiratorial bs acting like the Second Intifada was some secretly planned event

What secret?

Arafat planned and led the Intifada: Testimonies from PA leaders and others - PMW Bulletins

Palestinian Responsibility for the Second Intifada (2000-2005)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CZ-9vBr3q9k

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T-SY8JxyUQA ["Minister of Communications, Imad Faluji: "Whoever thinks that the Intifada started because of the hated Sharon's visit to Al-Aqsa Mosque is mistaken. That was only the straw breaking the Palestinian people's patience. This Intifada was already planned since [Arafat] the President returned from the recent talks at Camp David

2.)There was no offer made. Their were negotiations. They failed to reach an agreement because of disagreement with settlements, Jerusalem, refugees, etc.

They failed to reach an agreement because Arafat was unwilling to make one. And then got into his schtick about how there never was a Jewish temple in Jerusalem, flew home and started implementing his terrorist war plans.

And the years of inciting and brainwashing the population that preceded his decision to launch (which were in contrast to Israeli efforts to develop a peace camp and change public perceptions of peace) were then leveraged to whip up the population into a terrorist celebrating frenzy of evil.

Again. Such a simplicit argument holding one side fully accountable and one side fully guilty.

Just because it's simple doesn't mean it's wrong. The Palestinians' core goals, values, culture, politics and leadership all mitigate against any compromise or peace agreement. Israel has elected leaders since the 1990s in reaction to the Palestinians' actions. When the Palestinians start murdering Jews, Sharons and Netanyahus get elected. When they show they are willing to make peace and compromise, you get more left wing governments. Now all of that may have changed because of the lies and betrayals that the Israeli peace camp suffered on account of being duped by Arafat and the Palestinians' disgusting celebration of terrorist attacks against children, but if the Palestinians were capable of turning inwards and reassessing their own culture, strategies and behaviours I believe we could get passed all of that douchbaggery and work something out.

:roll: Not true at all. If you mean "goals" of an indepenedent Palestinian state, then yes you are right they have not changed. But if you mean their demands have not changed, well that is flat out false. And you still are taking this from one side.

No, the goals upon which the PLO was founded in 1964 and around which the Palestinian people's national identity was founded. Which, again, are obvious for anyone to see in light of how the Palestinians' behaviour.

TheDemSocialist · Oct 22, 2015

CJ 2.0 said:
As for the rest of these grievances, all could be dealt with if the Palestinians were willing to compromise and make peace with the Jews. Their grievances are not related to, nor do they justify, their polity's continued rejection of any peace or compromise with the Jews.

See. This is the whole thing. Palestininas must make all concessions. Israel must make none.

What secret?

Arafat planned and led the Intifada: Testimonies from PA leaders and others - PMW Bulletins

Palestinian Responsibility for the Second Intifada (2000-2005)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CZ-9vBr3q9k

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T-SY8JxyUQA

Claims reinforcing claims? Thats not substantial evidence... Especially when they come from openly biased sources which have a clear and conscious objective to promote one narrative and one narrative alone.
From an investigation done by the US government: "In their submissions, the parties traded allegations about the motivation and degree of control exercised by the other. However, we were provided with no persuasive evidence that the Sharon visit was anything other than an internal political act; neither were we provided with persuasive evidence that the PA planned the uprising... Accordingly, we have no basis on which to conclude that there was a deliberate plan by the PA to initiate a campaign of violence at the first opportunity; or to conclude that there was a deliberate plan by the GOI to respond with lethal force. However, there is also no evidence on which to conclude that the PA made a consistent effort to contain the demonstrations and control the violence once it began; or that the GOI made a consistent effort to use non-lethal means to control demonstrations of unarmed Palestinians. Amid rising anger, fear, and mistrust, each side assumed the worst about the other and acted accordingly. The Sharon visit did not cause the "Al-Aqsa Intifada." But it was poorly timed and the provocative effect should have been foreseen; indeed it was foreseen by those who urged that the visit be prohibited. More significant were the events that followed: the decision of the Israeli police on September 29 to use lethal means against the Palestinian demonstrators; and the subsequent failure, as noted above, of either party to exercise restraint."
-No evidence. None. Media claims years later is not substantive evidence. Broad quotes from the second source, Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs, that mirror constant claims made from militant groups does not equate to "planning an intifada" nor do broad based quotes form leaders within the PA equate to "planning an intifada".

TheDemSocialist · Oct 22, 2015

CJ 2.0 said:
..

But lets look what Israeli academics, and the head of the Shin Bet:
In an especially insightful analysis of Palestinian decision-making, the academic Yezid Sayigh suggested Arafat's approach was the exact opposite: "Contrary to the Israeli account, [Arafat's] behaviour since the start of the intifada has reflected not the existence of a prior strategy based on the use of force, but the absence of any strategy."5 Ami Ayalon, former head of Israel's Shin Bet (General Security Service), was clear: "Yasser Arafat neither prepared nor triggered the Intifada."6 Menachem Klein, an Israeli academic, agreed: "[t]here is no evidence whatsoever that there was any such pre-planned decision by the Palestinian Authority."7 Much of the evidence often cited for a PA-led uprising was misconstrued, as I explain in discussing Palestinian and Israeli military preparations in section three below.

And there is more:
"Arafat said he warned Barak that Sharon's impending visit might cause unrest. Palestinian and U.S. officials urged then Prime Minister Ehud Barak to prohibit the visit."14 PLC Speaker Ahmed Qurei opposed the visit: "The timing is not suitable . . .. It will provoke problems."15 Faisal Husseini, the late Palestinian representative in East Jerusalem, phoned an Israeli negotiator, Yisrael Hasson, and warned against the visit fearing it would ignite the territories. "The warning was relayed to the most senior echelons."16Leaders of the Islamic Movement "adamantly oppose the idea of Sharon visiting the holy site and have asked Barak to stop Sharon from carrying out his 'provocative' plan."17 Ben-Ami claimed Jibril Rajoub, a top Palestinian security official on the West Bank, approved the visit to the Temple Mount/Noble Sanctuary as long as Sharon did not enter the two mosques. Rajoub denied this version. Rajoub's position is backed up by comments he made to theJerusalem Post on the eve of Sharon's visit: "The visit is a provocation which will trigger bloodshed and confrontation . . . Sharon is putting oil on fire." He added: "If Sharon tries to enter the Haram a-Sharif, the Moslems will stop him."18 In short, "Many among the Palestinian leadership sought the assistance of their Israeli counterparts to prevent Sharon's visit. They were turned down."19"

That doesnt sound like a leader and his associates who want to stir up violence. This looks like people who were trying to stop violence from exploding....

Also speaking directly to your Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs source which speaks to many militant groups and the rhetoric they use. You can find it under section "Military Preparations" subsection "Palestinians". Link is here: https://journals.lib.unb.ca/index.php/jcs/article/view/220/378

But to sum up in response to the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs: "The signal one intends to send may be very different from the one that is received. More generally, this case illuminates the operation of a classic spiral of insecurity and two factors that might exacerbate the spiral, namely misperceptions about the relative importance of domestic and external factors for understanding one's adversary, and the linkage of diplomacy to the threat to use force.. Two other factors helped fuel the spiral. Actors may misunderstand the balance between domestic and external motivations for policy. Rather than an intense factional struggle, Israel saw Palestinian militarization as a PA policy aimed at Israel. What the Tanzim did was seen as part of the PA and Arafat's Fatah rather than as a challenge to Arafat and the PA. Klein said there was "total blindness" in Israel to the reality of this Palestinian factionalism.103Israel mistakenly saw the Palestinians as a unitary actor. Israel's reading of Palestinian action, in turn, fed the escalatory spiral of military preparations. The final implication is a reminder of the risks of a policy that links diplomacy with the threat to use force. Some Palestinians implicitly followed Carl von Clausewitz's famous dictum: "War is the continuation of politics by other means."104 Threats to use force, however, may undermine diplomacy, as was the case here. Israel probably saw the Palestinian threat of violence as an alternative to diplomacy; they did not see the two as inter-related. In other words, Israel probably assumed the Palestinian militants preferred to resort to force rather than an Israeli withdrawal to the 4 June 1967 lines."

-It was not a well planed Arafat, Palestinian Authority conspiratorial uprising.

CJ 2.0 · Oct 22, 2015

TheDemSocialist said:
But lets look what Israeli academics, and the head of the Shin Bet:
In an especially insightful analysis of Palestinian decision-making, the academic Yezid Sayigh suggested Arafat's approach was the exact opposite: "Contrary to the Israeli account, [Arafat's] behaviour since the start of the intifada has reflected not the existence of a prior strategy based on the use of force, but the absence of any strategy."5 Ami Ayalon, former head of Israel's Shin Bet (General Security Service), was clear: "Yasser Arafat neither prepared nor triggered the Intifada."6 Menachem Klein, an Israeli academic, agreed: "[t]here is no evidence whatsoever that there was any such pre-planned decision by the Palestinian Authority."7 Much of the evidence often cited for a PA-led uprising was misconstrued, as I explain in discussing Palestinian and Israeli military preparations in section three below.

And there is more:
"Arafat said he warned Barak that Sharon's impending visit might cause unrest. Palestinian and U.S. officials urged then Prime Minister Ehud Barak to prohibit the visit."14 PLC Speaker Ahmed Qurei opposed the visit: "The timing is not suitable . . .. It will provoke problems."15 Faisal Husseini, the late Palestinian representative in East Jerusalem, phoned an Israeli negotiator, Yisrael Hasson, and warned against the visit fearing it would ignite the territories. "The warning was relayed to the most senior echelons."16Leaders of the Islamic Movement "adamantly oppose the idea of Sharon visiting the holy site and have asked Barak to stop Sharon from carrying out his 'provocative' plan."17 Ben-Ami claimed Jibril Rajoub, a top Palestinian security official on the West Bank, approved the visit to the Temple Mount/Noble Sanctuary as long as Sharon did not enter the two mosques. Rajoub denied this version. Rajoub's position is backed up by comments he made to theJerusalem Post on the eve of Sharon's visit: "The visit is a provocation which will trigger bloodshed and confrontation . . . Sharon is putting oil on fire." He added: "If Sharon tries to enter the Haram a-Sharif, the Moslems will stop him."18 In short, "Many among the Palestinian leadership sought the assistance of their Israeli counterparts to prevent Sharon's visit. They were turned down."19"

That doesnt sound like a leader and his associates who want to stir up violence. This looks like people who were trying to stop violence from exploding....

Also speaking directly to your Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs source which speaks to many militant groups and the rhetoric they use. You can find it under section "Military Preparations" subsection "Palestinians". Link is here: https://journals.lib.unb.ca/index.php/jcs/article/view/220/378

But to sum up in response to the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs: "The signal one intends to send may be very different from the one that is received. More generally, this case illuminates the operation of a classic spiral of insecurity and two factors that might exacerbate the spiral, namely misperceptions about the relative importance of domestic and external factors for understanding one's adversary, and the linkage of diplomacy to the threat to use force.. Two other factors helped fuel the spiral. Actors may misunderstand the balance between domestic and external motivations for policy. Rather than an intense factional struggle, Israel saw Palestinian militarization as a PA policy aimed at Israel. What the Tanzim did was seen as part of the PA and Arafat's Fatah rather than as a challenge to Arafat and the PA. Klein said there was "total blindness" in Israel to the reality of this Palestinian factionalism.103Israel mistakenly saw the Palestinians as a unitary actor. Israel's reading of Palestinian action, in turn, fed the escalatory spiral of military preparations. The final implication is a reminder of the risks of a policy that links diplomacy with the threat to use force. Some Palestinians implicitly followed Carl von Clausewitz's famous dictum: "War is the continuation of politics by other means."104 Threats to use force, however, may undermine diplomacy, as was the case here. Israel probably saw the Palestinian threat of violence as an alternative to diplomacy; they did not see the two as inter-related. In other words, Israel probably assumed the Palestinian militants preferred to resort to force rather than an Israeli withdrawal to the 4 June 1967 lines."

-It was not a well planed Arafat, Palestinian Authority conspiratorial uprising.

Yes, yes. A whole bunch of early analyses that don't reflect anything we've since learned, while dismissing videos of Palestinians acknowledging that Arafat launched this thing (and his al-aqsa/fatah militias were one of the primary organizations conducting it) as "biased sources".

TheDemSocialist · Oct 22, 2015

CJ 2.0 said:
Yes, yes. A whole bunch of early analyses that don't reflect anything we've since learned,

Early analysis? The states departments was done a year into the Intifada. The Journal of Conflict Studies was done in 2003.
And you havent really presented anything that proves that the PA planned the uprising, all youve shown is 1.)broad based claims made by officials on media outlets. 2.)various militant factions claims in newspapers, which are jsut mostly recruitment calls... Which by the way is spoken to in my posts several times.

while dismissing videos of Palestinians acknowledging that Arafat launched this thing (and his al-aqsa/fatah militias were one of the primary organizations conducting it) as "biased sources".

No I did not dismiss it. I called your sources biased (because they are), but I did not dismiss them..

So I will go back to the conclusion of my post earlier which you seem to be conveniently ignoring, if not all my points raised by the sources I presented:
""The signal one intends to send may be very different from the one that is received. More generally, this case illuminates the operation of a classic spiral of insecurity and two factors that might exacerbate the spiral, namely misperceptions about the relative importance of domestic and external factors for understanding one's adversary, and the linkage of diplomacy to the threat to use force.. Two other factors helped fuel the spiral. Actors may misunderstand the balance between domestic and external motivations for policy. Rather than an intense factional struggle, Israel saw Palestinian militarization as a PA policy aimed at Israel. What the Tanzim did was seen as part of the PA and Arafat's Fatah rather than as a challenge to Arafat and the PA. Klein said there was "total blindness" in Israel to the reality of this Palestinian factionalism.103Israel mistakenly saw the Palestinians as a unitary actor. Israel's reading of Palestinian action, in turn, fed the escalatory spiral of military preparations. The final implication is a reminder of the risks of a policy that links diplomacy with the threat to use force. Some Palestinians implicitly followed Carl von Clausewitz's famous dictum: "War is the continuation of politics by other means."104 Threats to use force, however, may undermine diplomacy, as was the case here. Israel probably saw the Palestinian threat of violence as an alternative to diplomacy; they did not see the two as inter-related. In other words, Israel probably assumed the Palestinian militants preferred to resort to force rather than an Israeli withdrawal to the 4 June 1967 lines."

This is exactly what your doing: "Israel mistakenly saw the Palestinians as a unitary actor."

Gina · Oct 22, 2015

Moderator's Warning:

Thread closed for review and possible action.

Israelis and Palestinians march together in Jerusalem solidarity rally

QuadpolarNutjob

faithful_servant

TheDemSocialist

Gradualist

CJ 2.0

TheDemSocialist

Gradualist

TheDemSocialist

Gradualist

CJ 2.0

TheDemSocialist

Gradualist

Gina