Exactly... so how long have we got to wait for you to condemn the illegal settlements?


No you're using your own sources... my sources say that Israel has to vacate its West Bank settements just as a trespasser would have to vacate your garden. It's not one rule for Americans and another one for Arabs you know.


That's the whole point - everyone does apart from Israel and a rather ill-informed or racist element of public opinion in the States.

It's now clear from your attempt to obfuscate the obvious - bluffing over the IRA and ANC and getting it wrong and now trying to confuse the clear requirements of international law that you don't mind Israel taking Arab gardens away from Palestinians as long as no one takes your garden away.

km

I always have ... and what do settlements have to do with each party taking responsibility for their actions? The settlements are illegal -- that doesn't absolve anybody from their responsibilities under international law as a result ...



In the scenario I proposed, my back porch = illegal settlements; the garden = legal boundaries ...



The point *I* was making is that both sides are responsible for their actions. You seem to veering into other areas to make other points that don't really relate ...



Now you're just babbling ...



Remember in another post where I said "You're just going to see what you want to see in what I wrote and throw the rest away -- if not all of it completely -- and recast the rest in your own bizarre light anyways"?

This is one of those times.

I enjoyed to read the anti-israel, antijews,antiUSA commentaries:

"Israel have one of the most powerful army in the world"

"Jews dominate the banks"

"The Jews have influence in the USA Government"

"Israel is the country that receives more economic aid from USA"

Instead I read in my community bulletin:

"The rabbi resigned, we need to look for a new rabbi"

"Kosher meat prices rise"

"The monthly membership price rise"

Your commentaries are music to my eyes.

BTW km, maybe is a good idea to hire for new rabbi one of these RabbisI am sure you we liked them, and we can save money in security for our Synagogue and School.

Of course, the fact that UN Res 181 was accepted by Palestinian Jews and rejected by Palestinian Arabs and the Arab states, and that Israel was attacked by them before the ink was dry is of no consequence.

Must be nice to live such a cut and dried existence, eh? Oy vey!

Okay there are a lot of quotations there that give the impression that you're quoting me so I think you need to make it clear that you're not doing so.

I don't know what all the Rabbi, synagogue stuff was about at the end of your post so perhaps you could clarify that as well?

km

As I said before it was rejected by the Israeli leader of his day Ben-Gurion but as it happens you're quite right - it's not open to anybody to reject the terms of a UN Resolution other than by rescission of it by another one.

km

No that was you... your attempt to distinguish Hamas from the IRA and ANC in the context of unconditional talks was entirely bogus.

km

As I said, you only seem to see what you want to see ...



Since we never even discussed the conditionality of whatever talks there might be, I find it difficult to see how an argument I never attempted to make could be called "bogus" ...

The comparison I did make was the willingness, at the end, of the IRA to live peaceably with the English, and of the ANC to become "victorious" by working from within the system they wanted to change rather than try to destroy it by force of arms ... vs. Hamas and hard-line Israelis who right now disavow the other's right to even exist.

The peace that now exists in the first two instances required a large attitudinal shift by the combating parties; no such change has happened so far in the latter example and is the main reason there are no hints of peace there so far ...

Not really - what I'm seeing are crimes against humanity which is what I don't what to see.


Keep trying... try reading the thread again.

The comparison I did make was the willingness, at the end, of the IRA to live peaceably with the English...[/quote]
Unconditional talks don't depend on what happens in the end -you're getting confused with conditional talks.


You keep saying that but it's historically inaccurate. It was the talks themselves that brought about the shift. The IRA continued bombing even while talking and as I said before the the ANC refused to renounce violence for 27 years after Mandela's conviction until a settlement was reached. If you want to wait until Israel adopts an attitudinal shift it should be pretty obvious to you after 60 years of failure that you'll wait for ever - which is what Israel wants of course.

km

In what way is it inaccurate? We both agree a shift in viewpoint was needed in order to successfully negotiate a lasting peace -- Sinn Fein and even the IRA itself condemned the bombings during the peace talks, and that rejection helped cement the eventual peace; the ANC, as you say after 27 years, finally adopted more peaceful methods of working within the system to effect the change they wanted ...

This contrasting with the current intransigence on both extreme Israeli/Palestinian factions, which seem not at all interested in living together peacefully, even conceptually ...

Given that you seem to agree that an attitudinal shift was required on the parts of the IRA and the English government, of the ANC and the South African government in order to achieve their respective peaces, I really don't see what your issue is here ...