Poll: 59% say W. Bank, Gaza exit would renew peace process

takeo · 05-10-2002, 06:54 PM

http://www.haaretzdaily.com/hasen/pa...ubContrassID=0

What's your opinion???

Vic · 05-11-2002, 06:19 AM

Polls are tricky affairs. In this case: "The telephone poll released Wednesday was conducted by the Dahaf Institute and commissioned by the Peace Coalition, an umbrella group comprising several Israeli peace organizations. It surveyed 504 Israeli adults..." How representative can it be?

Gatorade · 05-11-2002, 07:03 AM

In the poll, 59 percent of those questioned said they believed a unilateral withdrawal of troops and settlers from the West Bank and Gaza Strip would lead to the renewal of the peace process while 72 percent felt it would improve the country's international standing.

For the 59%, who would Israel negotiate peace with after they withdrew?

I agree the withdrawal of the settlements would improve Israel's international standing, but what would it do for Israel's security at home? Would it make Israel appear weak and make it appear that terrorism is successful to gain land.

**NewsGuy** · 05-11-2002, 07:23 AM

Originally posted by takeo
What's your opinion???

What percentage do you think would say that stopping Palestinian massacres against Israeli citizens would increase the chances for peace? I think 100%.

takeo · 05-13-2002, 01:31 AM

of course newsguy, nobody is arguing about that.
But you can no longer say that you reflect the position of the israeli people with your die-hard positions against the palestinians and for occupation and colonisation. Many Israeli people know as well that those policies are logically responsible for much of the current problems israel is facing today.

"I agree the withdrawal of the settlements would improve Israel's international standing, but what would it do for Israel's security at home? Would it make Israel appear weak and make it appear that terrorism is successful to gain land."

No, it wouldn't make israel weaker, on the contrary the terrorists would no longer have a legitimate basis for attacking israel, would loose international and much domestic support, and israel would have more power and means to controll and enforce its real borders and security inside israel.
Many people in Israel are starting to understand this obvious facts, despite propaganda from JP and others.

sharonbn · 05-13-2002, 03:05 AM

Originally posted by takeo
What's your opinion???

I do not agree.
We must not froget why did Arafat start this second Intifadah. It is a direct result of the failure of the Camp David summit of July 2000.

Arafat believes he can achieve political gains through the use of terror. Whenever the peace process comes to a standstill (regardless who's fault it is) Arafat goes back to his old ways. This has been the case since the first intifadah in 1987.

Israel shuold put a stop to this strategy. The same way Israel never negotiated with plane hijacking. Arafat MUST understand that violence cannot replace peace negotiations.

At this time, Israel dhould not perform ANY unilateral actions. Israel should also refrain from reacting to the Palestinian provocations. Israel cannot directly stop the terror attacks. Instead, Israel should focus on presenting its case to the international public opinion. IMO, the ONLY thing that can stop Arafat is international pressure.

**Mediocrates** · 05-13-2002, 05:10 AM

No, it wouldn't make israel weaker, on the contrary the terrorists would no longer have a legitimate basis for attacking israel

I see. Because you would suddenly drop your litany of other demands. Let's see....oh yes

Reparations
Ingathering
Complete control of all of Jerusalem
No border control at all

takeo · 05-13-2002, 06:34 AM

don't twist my words pleas, i didn't say all of jerusalem, the parts of jerusalem internationally recognised as part of israel can remain a part of israel of course, and there can be negociation about the other parts of Jerusalem which belong internationally to the palestinians, palestinians already agreed with this..
i didn't say no border controll, only border controll doesn't mean a total blockade, that's a difference.

But of course the cessation of occupation is the first step, that would gain israel warmer relations with the rest of the world, and particularly with the Arab world. It would also make an end to much of the Arab and Palestinian support for terrorism against israel, this support is crucial for the terrorists to organise, recruit, finance and legitimise themselves.

of course when israel is not prepared to offer the palestinians their internationally recognised and legitime demands trough negociations, it means they can restart their armed struggle. Without intifadeh 1 and 2 nobody would talk now about a cessation of occupation and a palestinians state, israel did not offer this during more than 20 years of occupation before the first intifadeh... it shows that israel is not prepared to give the palestinians what is theirs without pressure from the world and violence.
A war can't stop without negociations, if you are not prepared to negociate there will be no peace. The international community will also not pressure Arafat as long as israel is not prepared to negociate and offer anything that is in accordance to the many un-resolutions.
Of course Arafat preferes negociations over war, but untill now israel refuses to negociate, you can't end a war without negociation...especially a war in which neither side can be military defeated.

**Mediocrates** · 05-13-2002, 07:27 AM

It is we who want to negotiate - for it is a real life process and not a dmand or statement of initial conditions. Maybe it's a cultural thing...do labor unions in France haggle or do they simply strike and wait out success or failure?

**NewsGuy** · 05-13-2002, 07:55 AM

Originally posted by takeo
But you can no longer say that you reflect the position of the israeli people with your die-hard positions against the palestinians and for occupation and colonisation.

Yes, I have an uncompromising view towards Arab terrorism. You can call that "die hard" if you like.

As for occupation and colonialism, like nearly all Israelis and Jews in general, I do not support either of these concepts. But anyway, neither of these concepts apply to the Israeli situation.

No, it wouldn't make israel weaker, on the contrary the terrorists would no longer have a legitimate basis for attacking israel...

You are under a misconception and wishful thinking that the Arab terrorists are swayed by international law concepts.

They are controlled by Islamic incitement based on what they believe is the Koran's commandments to mass murder all non-Muslims, and by nationalist groups who thrive on a state of conflict.

The international law concepts are just used as a ruse to enlist some Europeans to provide political cover for the terrorist operations.

In reality, the situation in Lebanon proves that terrorism will not stop as a result of appeasement, nor as a result of international law being fulfilled.

And even more pertinent is that following Oslo, when Israeli forces withdrew and handed to the Palestinians control over all major Palestinian population centers, the result was ongoing terrorism.

So again, we get back to the heart of the matter, which is that the terrorist infrastructure needs to be destroyed without compromise, so that there can finally be an end to the current state of war.

takeo · 05-14-2002, 03:13 AM

"It is we who want to negotiate - for it is a real life process and not a dmand or statement of initial conditions. Maybe it's a cultural thing...do labor unions in France haggle or do they simply strike and wait out success or failure?"

Israel had a lot of initial conditions in Camp david and today even for starting negociations.
it is like the direction of a company would first ask an end to the strike before negociating. It doesn't work like that, for sure not in france.

"As for occupation and colonialism, like nearly all Israelis and Jews in general, I do not support either of these concepts. But anyway, neither of these concepts apply to the Israeli situation. "

yes, they do, it is hypocrisy not to think so. Israel is occupying westbank and Gaza according to all countries in the world, including the US, they are even not a part of Israel according to the israeli constitution.
colonisation, so how would you call the implantation of israeli settlements in palestinian areas by the use of the idf? According to the old Greek definition, that's colonisation.

"You are under a misconception and wishful thinking that the Arab terrorists are swayed by international law concepts. "

Now, but those laws help them to acquire their legitimate rights to have their land returned to them.

"They are controlled by Islamic incitement based on what they believe is the Koran's commandments to mass murder all non-Muslims, and by nationalist groups who thrive on a state of conflict. "

The PFLP is not an Islamic group, nor is the PLO. They are nationalists wanting a state and rights for the palestinian people, just as Israeli zionists (who also used violence to accomplish their goal).

"The international law concepts are just used as a ruse to enlist some Europeans to provide political cover for the terrorist operations. "

BS, israel had according to international laws made before the establishment of israel no right to ban populations of other etnicity and occupy WB and Gaza.Those laws were not especially made against israel.

"In reality, the situation in Lebanon proves that terrorism will not stop as a result of appeasement, nor as a result of international law being fulfilled. "

No, because israel refused a total solution for the entire region as provided by international resolutions, instead they just withdraw from libanon without negociation or mutual recognition. However the war against Libanon has virtually ended since the withdrawel.

"And even more pertinent is that following Oslo, when Israeli forces withdrew and handed to the Palestinians control over all major Palestinian population centers, the result was ongoing terrorism. "

just read the tread i made with an article in the Jerusalem Post included how much controll palestinians really gained in Oslo... and how well netanyahu and other held to their promise not to build new settlements...

"So again, we get back to the heart of the matter, which is that the terrorist infrastructure needs to be destroyed without compromise, so that there can finally be an end to the current state of war. "

No you got it all wrong. Terrorism against israel has fundamental causes, which is not fundamentalism or terrorism, but the ongoing occupation and desperation of the Palestinian people. Sharon's policy is the one you propose, and it has failed miserably.

takeo · 05-14-2002, 03:16 AM

I see that the majority of israeli people share my views, which means that guys as Netanyahu and sharon will hopefully soon only be a bad memory.

sharonbn · 05-14-2002, 05:46 AM

Originally posted by takeo
I see that the majority of israeli people share my views, which means that guys as Netanyahu and sharon will hopefully soon only be a bad memory.

I can assure you that the majority of israeli people do not share your views. Sharon won the 2001 election by the biggest majority ever recorded in Israeli history.

I can only say:
Arafat will hopefully soon only be a bad memory.

We'll deal with whoever comes after him.

He had his chance in July 2000 and blew it.

ibrodsky · 05-14-2002, 06:19 AM

Originally posted by sharonbn

I can assure you that the majority of israeli people do not share your views. Sharon won the 2001 election by the biggest majority ever recorded in Israeli history.

I can only say:
Arafat will hopefully soon only be a bad memory.

We'll deal with whoever comes after him.

He had his chance in July 2000 and blew it.

Well said -- a sentiment shared by many of us.

**NewsGuy** · 05-14-2002, 08:39 AM

[QUOTE]Originally posted by takeo

colonisation, so how would you call the implantation of israeli settlements in palestinian areas by the use of the idf? According to the old Greek definition, that's colonisation.

I call that building homes on one's homeland -- not in some distant foreign land.

This is not colonialism at all. Considering there is a Palestinian government, Palestinian police force, Palestinian municipal services administration, Palestinian educational system and international communications and trade -- all administered independently by the Palestinians, it is not "occupation" either.

A lot of anti-Israel advocates like to live in the past, pretending that the Palestinians were never given control over every major Palestinian population center, pretending Oslo never existed, and pretending that several Israeli governments didn't try to reach a peace settlement with the Palestinians, which was guaranteed to result in a Palestinian state.

But with all this pretending, it's no wonder that there is no discussion of the reality of the situation, which is that the Palestinians decided to reject an independent state and instead are led by their brutal and corrupt leadership into a national disaster that is their own fault.

No, because israel refused a total solution for the entire region as provided by international resolutions, instead they just withdraw from libanon without negociation or mutual recognition. However the war against Libanon has virtually ended since the withdrawel.

Yes, this a perfect example of no matter what Israel does, it is never good enough for terrorism-apologists, because there is always another excuse and another excuse to justify Arab terrorists like Hizbullah shooting missiles into Israeli population centers.

It wasn't good enough for you that Israel fulfilled the last letterof the law with respect to Lebanon and that even the biased UN certified that there was 100% compliance.

Now you want Israel to solve all other Arab problems in the region. Well, this is not Israel's responsibility. Instead, it is time now for the Arabs to fulfill some international laws which prohibit acts of war and terrorism. Then there will be something to talk about.

just read the tread i made with an article in the Jerusalem Post included how much controll palestinians really gained in Oslo... and how well netanyahu and other held to their promise not to build new settlements...

Maybe you need to read the Oslo agreement, which gave Israel the right to expand settlements, as part of natural urban growth, and which also specified responsibilities for the Palestinians to cease all acts of terrorism.

I realize that apparently this concept is a very difficult one to understand for the Arabs and their apologists, but it is called "reciprocity," and means that BOTH parties have responsibilities. For the most part, the Palestinians have never filled theirs, so why should anyone expect Israel to keep on playing the fool?

No you got it all wrong. Terrorism against israel has fundamental causes, which is not fundamentalism or terrorism, but the ongoing occupation and desperation of the Palestinian people.

Yes, I already know this favorite excuse to justify Arab terrorism, but actually a pretty silly one.

That's like saying that the existence of money causes violent robberies.