Comments on: Response to Joseph Dana: A case for liberal Zionism http://972mag.com/response-to-joseph-dana-a-case-for-liberal-zionism/28549/ Independent commentary and news from Israel & Palestine Sat, 18 May 2013 23:16:07 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.4.1 By: Bosko http://972mag.com/response-to-joseph-dana-a-case-for-liberal-zionism/28549/comment-page-6/#comment-33995 Bosko Wed, 07 Dec 2011 20:23:21 +0000 http://972mag.com/?p=28549#comment-33995 Rose: " ” I don’t think at all that Israel has to be blame for the failure of Camp David. But I do believe that it is a myth and a semplification to blame the counterpart” . Oh, Rose, that's a mighty generous concession of you. What about Taba and Olmert 2008 peace offers then? Is Israel to be blamed for those failures? . Oh, and if Israel is not the sole party to blame for the failure of Camp David then it follows that Israel is not the sole party to blame for the occupation, right Rose? Rose: ” ” I don’t think at all that Israel has to be blame for the failure of Camp David. But I do believe that it is a myth and a semplification to blame the counterpart”
.
Oh, Rose, that’s a mighty generous concession of you. What about Taba and Olmert 2008 peace offers then? Is Israel to be blamed for those failures?
.
Oh, and if Israel is not the sole party to blame for the failure of Camp David then it follows that Israel is not the sole party to blame for the occupation, right Rose?

]]> By: Philip Eways http://972mag.com/response-to-joseph-dana-a-case-for-liberal-zionism/28549/comment-page-6/#comment-33952 Philip Eways Wed, 07 Dec 2011 17:16:23 +0000 http://972mag.com/?p=28549#comment-33952 The Liberal Zionist response to Dana's article leaves out one word "justice". Palestinian Arabs, Muslim and Christian, lived for thousands of years on their land with a minority of their Jewish brethren in peace. The expulsion of 800,000 in 1947, 1948 of Palestinian Muslims and Chrstians was and is a crime of immense historical proportion. The "Jewish" State , Israel, as all other states in this dysfuntional world are supposed to adhere to law, international law, in its dealings with other nations. International law states thet the Palestinian refugees have the right to return to their homeland.No ifs qands or buts. Right to Return, period. Not the right to perpetuate a Jewish majority in Palestine/Israel. Indeed Israel's recognition as a UN member was on the condition that they allow the rfugees to return. Of course that condition has never been fulfilled. Your 'generous' offer of allowing a hundred thousand refugees to return over a decade obviously does not relate in any way to International Law or Justice. The Arab armies, notoriously ill equipped and disorganized did enter the conflict in may 1948 after 3-400,000 Palestinians , Muslim and Christians , werwe already expelled forom their homes and hundreds of their villages wer demolished after being looted and ransacked. These armies came into the terittories that were supposed to be Palestinian under the UN Partition plan and that the Zionist forces ,the Haganah, and the terrorist Irgun and Stern gangs had already seized. The Palestinians themselves were basically an unarmed civilian entity. Your lack of knowledge of Israel's birth is astonishing. Enough history. Suffice to say , a Zionist cannot be a "Liberal" . Your own words show tis to be true no matter what you may call yourself. Do remeber, one word, when you make your next contribution to 972, JUSTICE. Peace. The Liberal Zionist response to Dana’s article leaves out one word “justice”. Palestinian Arabs, Muslim and Christian, lived for thousands of years on their land with a minority of their Jewish brethren in peace. The expulsion of 800,000 in 1947, 1948 of Palestinian Muslims and Chrstians was and is a crime of immense historical proportion. The “Jewish” State , Israel, as all other states in this dysfuntional world are supposed to adhere to law, international law, in its dealings with other nations. International law states thet the Palestinian refugees have the right to return to their homeland.No ifs qands or buts. Right to Return, period. Not the right to perpetuate a Jewish majority in Palestine/Israel. Indeed Israel’s recognition as a UN member was on the condition that they allow the rfugees to return. Of course that condition has never been fulfilled. Your ‘generous’ offer of allowing a hundred thousand refugees to return over a decade obviously does not relate in any way to International Law or Justice. The Arab armies, notoriously ill equipped and disorganized did enter the conflict in may 1948 after 3-400,000 Palestinians , Muslim and Christians , werwe already expelled forom their homes and hundreds of their villages wer demolished after being looted and ransacked. These armies came into the terittories that were supposed to be Palestinian under the UN Partition plan and that the Zionist forces ,the Haganah, and the terrorist Irgun and Stern gangs had already seized. The Palestinians themselves were basically an unarmed civilian entity. Your lack of knowledge of Israel’s birth is astonishing. Enough history. Suffice to say , a Zionist cannot be a “Liberal” . Your own words show tis to be true no matter what you may call yourself. Do remeber, one word, when you make your next contribution to 972, JUSTICE. Peace.

]]> By: Rose http://972mag.com/response-to-joseph-dana-a-case-for-liberal-zionism/28549/comment-page-6/#comment-33907 Rose Wed, 07 Dec 2011 10:48:44 +0000 http://972mag.com/?p=28549#comment-33907 BasicBosko, how I could go away. You are so brilliant and full of knowledge that I cannot be apart from you. Dennis Ross was the appointed KEY MEDIATOR. He himslef was biased and his life testify it. Robert Malley was just a witness and he himself is of jewish origins, does not speak one word of arabic, nor does have any connection with the arab world. If you don't notice the difference, it is your problem. Moreover, I base my observations on my considerations and not just telling you "read read read Dennis Ross...he is great..yes yes I trust to Condi Rice and not you Rose". .... I didn't find in your post a single word about the settlements or about the following issues: ……. 1) “the lack of contiguity that the settlement blocs cause for a Palestinian state, lack of trust in the commitment and/or possibility of the Israeli government to evacuate the thousands of non-bloc Israeli settlers in the 15-year timeline, …. 2) limited sovereignty for Palestinians in Jerusalem (the historically important Arab neighborhoods such as Sheikh Jarrah, Silwan,and At-Tur would remain under Israeli sovereignty, while Palestinians would only have sovereignty over the outer Arab neighborhoods in Jerusalem), … 3) the lack of Palestinian sovereignty over holy sites in Jerusalem (Palestinians would only receive “administrative control” over their holy sites, and the Old City’s Muslim and Christian Quarters, however Israel was to receive complete sovereignty over Jewish holy sites, and the Old City’s Jewish and Armenian Quarters). …. .. .... .... You really think to be funny, brilliant and to have a lot of knowledge: as many people wrote you on this site, you are not. BasicBosko,
how I could go away. You are so brilliant and full of knowledge that I cannot be apart from you.
Dennis Ross was the appointed KEY MEDIATOR. He himslef was biased and his life testify it. Robert Malley was just a witness and he himself is of jewish origins, does not speak one word of arabic, nor does have any connection with the arab world. If you don’t notice the difference, it is your problem. Moreover, I base my observations on my considerations and not just telling you “read read read Dennis Ross…he is great..yes yes I trust to Condi Rice and not you Rose”.
….
I didn’t find in your post a single word about the settlements or about the following issues:

…….
1) “the lack of contiguity that the settlement blocs cause for a Palestinian state, lack of trust in the commitment and/or possibility of the Israeli government to evacuate the thousands of non-bloc Israeli settlers in the 15-year timeline,
….
2) limited sovereignty for Palestinians in Jerusalem (the historically important Arab neighborhoods such as Sheikh Jarrah, Silwan,and At-Tur would remain under Israeli sovereignty, while Palestinians would only have sovereignty over the outer Arab neighborhoods in Jerusalem),
…
3) the lack of Palestinian sovereignty over holy sites in Jerusalem (Palestinians would only receive “administrative control” over their holy sites, and the Old City’s Muslim and Christian Quarters, however Israel was to receive complete sovereignty over Jewish holy sites, and the Old City’s Jewish and Armenian Quarters).
….
..
….
….
You really think to be funny, brilliant and to have a lot of knowledge: as many people wrote you on this site, you are not.

]]> By: Bosko http://972mag.com/response-to-joseph-dana-a-case-for-liberal-zionism/28549/comment-page-6/#comment-33899 Bosko Wed, 07 Dec 2011 10:02:19 +0000 http://972mag.com/?p=28549#comment-33899 Oh Rose, try and assimilate the quotes and links that I presented instead of just ignoring them. But then again, if you ignore them, then please don't complain if I too ignore some of your minute boring little irrelevancies that a lot of my links/quotes negated. . Example: . Both sides acknowledged that they were close to agreement. The only thing they could not agree on was the Right of Return. Which in turn renders your complaints about what Israel offered irrelevant. Which bit of that don't you understand Rose? Oh Rose, try and assimilate the quotes and links that I presented instead of just ignoring them. But then again, if you ignore them, then please don’t complain if I too ignore some of your minute boring little irrelevancies that a lot of my links/quotes negated.
.
Example:
.
Both sides acknowledged that they were close to agreement. The only thing they could not agree on was the Right of Return. Which in turn renders your complaints about what Israel offered irrelevant. Which bit of that don’t you understand Rose?

]]> By: Bosko http://972mag.com/response-to-joseph-dana-a-case-for-liberal-zionism/28549/comment-page-5/#comment-33897 Bosko Wed, 07 Dec 2011 09:51:59 +0000 http://972mag.com/?p=28549#comment-33897 Boring, Rose, now you are ranting and raving and you are being inconsistent too. . I don't know why you think it is your god given right to dismiss what Dennis Ross said about the peace negotiations just because he became a religious Jew after 1967, yet object to me dismissing your Robert Malley Junior for coming from a family who openly displayed their hatred for Israel and sided with the Arab cause for decades. The least you could be Rose, is be consistent. . So, Rose, since you managed to bore me out of my wits, I'll just have a bit of rest from you. I'll let you calm down a bit and come back later to address your long winded repetitive post. Don't go away now, I'll be back. Be sure to wait for me, OK? Boring, Rose, now you are ranting and raving and you are being inconsistent too.
.
I don’t know why you think it is your god given right to dismiss what Dennis Ross said about the peace negotiations just because he became a religious Jew after 1967, yet object to me dismissing your Robert Malley Junior for coming from a family who openly displayed their hatred for Israel and sided with the Arab cause for decades. The least you could be Rose, is be consistent.
.
So, Rose, since you managed to bore me out of my wits, I’ll just have a bit of rest from you. I’ll let you calm down a bit and come back later to address your long winded repetitive post. Don’t go away now, I’ll be back. Be sure to wait for me, OK?

]]> By: ROSE http://972mag.com/response-to-joseph-dana-a-case-for-liberal-zionism/28549/comment-page-5/#comment-33879 ROSE Wed, 07 Dec 2011 06:35:44 +0000 http://972mag.com/?p=28549#comment-33879 Bosko, I am glad to see that your only argument about the points that I wrote you is that "This one I can’t let go because it is a misrepresentation of what was offered in Taba in 2001." And also I am glad to read that you confirm that you don't have opinions and you just rely on Bush' FM Conde Rice and on a selective use of the Israeli FM Shlomo Ben-Ami. The Jew-Iraqi origin Robet Malley is obviously disqualified because Daniel Pipes wrote that his father is not a good guy: wow, your points are really strong. ..... Now, after that you show that you are not able to reply to my points about Camp David and "2008 Olmert", you decided to turn to Taba, that is another chapter of this saga. I don't want to lose too much time. I quote for you few considerations and plus I want to remind you that in Taba many districts of East Jerusalem like sheikh jarrah, at-tur, silwan.ect....would have remain under israeli control, while, no one discussed Palestinian property claims in West Jerusalem. .... The "non-paper" of European Union envoy Miguel Moratinos issued after the negotiations fell apart indicates that there was in fact no agreement: "According to the document, Israel gave up all the Jordan Valley settlements, focusing instead on its security interests in that area. The dispute centered around the large stretch of territory between Ma'aleh Adumim and Givat Ze'ev, which contains both a fairly large Palestinian population and East Jerusalem's most important land reserves. The Palestinians retracted their earlier readiness to include these two settlements in the settlement blocs to be annexed to Israel after realizing that Israel also insisted on annexing the large tract that joins them - which would mean that Palestinian citizens would suddenly find themselves in sovereign Israeli territory. Barak instructed his chief negotiator, Gilad Sher, to tell the Palestinians that the map presented by then foreign minister Shlomo Ben-Ami, which reduced the area of the settlement bloc (including the Ma'aleh Adumim-Givat Ze'ev tract) to only 5 percent of the West Bank, had no validity." http://www.mideastweb.org/lastmaps.htm ....... These maps were provided by FMEP. Though they were not disputed by the sides, according to Dennis Ross they were NOT an accurate reflection of President Clinton's bridging offer. According to the maps, the Palestinian state would have been permanently divided into several sub areas in the West Bank , separated by areas of Israeli Control. Striped areas would have remained under Israeli control for 12 to 20 years. According to FMEP, The calculation that the Palestinians were getting 97% of the land ignores the area of Jerusalem and the striped areas. In actuality, the area of the Palestinian state would initially be about 70% of some 2,200 square miles. .... The Taba Agreement ... The Taba Agreement divides the West Bank, excluding East Jerusalem, into three categories: area A: six major towns (excluding Hebron), from which the IDF redeployed by the end of the year, handing administrative control to the PA with joint PA-IDF patrols, and Israeli security duties including right of ‘hot pursuit’; area B: a patchwork of Palestinian villages, in which the PA has civil authority, while the IDF retains overall "security responsibility"; and area C: Jewish settlements and areas defined by the Israelis as militarily sensitive, where Israel remains in full occupation. In Hebron, the IDF retains full control of the Ibrahimi Mosque, and the central district of the city in which settlers occupy five buildings. A partial IDF redeployment from Hebron was scheduled for March 1996 but subsequently delayed until after the Israeli election in May 1996. In sum, the PA gained various degrees of limited administrative control over 27% of the West Bank, with the Israelis retaining effective control over the entire area. .... ........ ..... If I were a palestinian leader I would be very careful to start a peace negotiation: propagandist like you are just there waiting to blame the part that is occupied because does not accept the peace of the stronger and does not understand why "95% of land" means just the 95% that the stronger is ready to discuss. Instead of writing how shameful is the fact that your government continue to pay for the enlargement of the settlements you spend time discussing your selective perception of taba and camp david. are you that you are not a settler? Bosko,
I am glad to see that your only argument about the points that I wrote you is that “This one I can’t let go because it is a misrepresentation of what was offered in Taba in 2001.”
And also I am glad to read that you confirm that you don’t have opinions and you just rely on Bush’ FM Conde Rice and on a selective use of the Israeli FM Shlomo Ben-Ami. The Jew-Iraqi origin Robet Malley is obviously disqualified because Daniel Pipes wrote that his father is not a good guy: wow, your points are really strong.
…..
Now, after that you show that you are not able to reply to my points about Camp David and “2008 Olmert”, you decided to turn to Taba, that is another chapter of this saga. I don’t want to lose too much time. I quote for you few considerations and plus I want to remind you that in Taba many districts of East Jerusalem like sheikh jarrah, at-tur, silwan.ect….would have remain under israeli control, while, no one discussed Palestinian property claims in West Jerusalem.
….
The “non-paper” of European Union envoy Miguel Moratinos issued after the negotiations fell apart indicates that there was in fact no agreement:
“According to the document, Israel gave up all the Jordan Valley settlements, focusing instead on its security interests in that area. The dispute centered around the large stretch of territory between Ma’aleh Adumim and Givat Ze’ev, which contains both a fairly large Palestinian population and East Jerusalem’s most important land reserves. The Palestinians retracted their earlier readiness to include these two settlements in the settlement blocs to be annexed to Israel after realizing that Israel also insisted on annexing the large tract that joins them – which would mean that Palestinian citizens would suddenly find themselves in sovereign Israeli territory. Barak instructed his chief negotiator, Gilad Sher, to tell the Palestinians that the map presented by then foreign minister Shlomo Ben-Ami, which reduced the area of the settlement bloc (including the Ma’aleh Adumim-Givat Ze’ev tract) to only 5 percent of the West Bank, had no validity.”
http://www.mideastweb.org/lastmaps.htm
…….
These maps were provided by FMEP. Though they were not disputed by the sides, according to Dennis Ross they were NOT an accurate reflection of President Clinton’s bridging offer. According to the maps, the Palestinian state would have been permanently divided into several sub areas in the West Bank , separated by areas of Israeli Control. Striped areas would have remained under Israeli control for 12 to 20 years. According to FMEP, The calculation that the Palestinians were getting 97% of the land ignores the area of Jerusalem and the striped areas. In actuality, the area of the Palestinian state would initially be about 70% of some 2,200 square miles.
….
The Taba Agreement
…
The Taba Agreement divides the West Bank, excluding East Jerusalem, into three categories: area A: six major towns (excluding Hebron), from which the IDF redeployed by the end of the year, handing administrative control to the PA with joint PA-IDF patrols, and Israeli security duties including right of ‘hot pursuit’; area B: a patchwork of Palestinian villages, in which the PA has civil authority, while the IDF retains overall “security responsibility”; and area C: Jewish settlements and areas defined by the Israelis as militarily sensitive, where Israel remains in full occupation. In Hebron, the IDF retains full control of the Ibrahimi Mosque, and the central district of the city in which settlers occupy five buildings. A partial IDF redeployment from Hebron was scheduled for March 1996 but subsequently delayed until after the Israeli election in May 1996. In sum, the PA gained various degrees of limited administrative control over 27% of the West Bank, with the Israelis retaining effective control over the entire area.
….
……..
…..
If I were a palestinian leader I would be very careful to start a peace negotiation: propagandist like you are just there waiting to blame the part that is occupied because does not accept the peace of the stronger and does not understand why “95% of land” means just the 95% that the stronger is ready to discuss.
Instead of writing how shameful is the fact that your government continue to pay for the enlargement of the settlements you spend time discussing your selective perception of taba and camp david. are you that you are not a settler?

]]> By: Bosko http://972mag.com/response-to-joseph-dana-a-case-for-liberal-zionism/28549/comment-page-5/#comment-33834 Bosko Tue, 06 Dec 2011 22:44:46 +0000 http://972mag.com/?p=28549#comment-33834 Rose . Here read this Rose, this is what Shlomo Ben Ami and Erekat said about Taba: . "We made progress, substantial progress. We are closer than ever to the possibility of striking a final deal," said Shlomo Ben-Ami, Israel's negotiator. Saeb Erekat, Palestinian chief negotiator, said, "My heart aches because I know we were so close. We need six more weeks to conclude the drafting of the agreement." . Lack of time was their excuse for the failure of the talks. But had the Palestinian Arabs not insisted on an increasing number for the Right to Return, there would have been time to make peace. That's how Clinton saw it. And Condi Rice said much the same thing in her recent memoirs about what happened in the 2008 peace offer by Olmert. Rose
.
Here read this Rose, this is what Shlomo Ben Ami and Erekat said about Taba:
.
“We made progress, substantial progress. We are closer than ever to the possibility of striking a final deal,” said Shlomo Ben-Ami, Israel’s negotiator. Saeb Erekat, Palestinian chief negotiator, said, “My heart aches because I know we were so close. We need six more weeks to conclude the drafting of the agreement.”
.
Lack of time was their excuse for the failure of the talks. But had the Palestinian Arabs not insisted on an increasing number for the Right to Return, there would have been time to make peace. That’s how Clinton saw it. And Condi Rice said much the same thing in her recent memoirs about what happened in the 2008 peace offer by Olmert.

]]> By: Bosko http://972mag.com/response-to-joseph-dana-a-case-for-liberal-zionism/28549/comment-page-5/#comment-33832 Bosko Tue, 06 Dec 2011 22:29:24 +0000 http://972mag.com/?p=28549#comment-33832 Rose . Robert Malley's religion is of no consequence. He was biased against Israel because he followed in his father's footsteps who hated Israel. Here, read about it again: . "Simon Malley loathed Israel and anti-Israel activism became a crusade for him-as an internet search would easily show. He spent countless hours with Yasser Arafat and became a close friend of Arafat.   He was, according to Daniel Pipes, a sympathizer of the Palestinian Liberation Organization --- and this was when it was at the height of its terrorism wave against the West   . His efforts were so damaging to France that President Valerie d'Estaing expelled him from the country" . As you can see, Robert Malley has a background that would suggest that he is extremely biased against Israel. Rose
.
Robert Malley’s religion is of no consequence. He was biased against Israel because he followed in his father’s footsteps who hated Israel. Here, read about it again:
.
“Simon Malley loathed Israel and anti-Israel activism became a crusade for him-as an internet search would easily show. He spent countless hours with Yasser Arafat and became a close friend of Arafat.   He was, according to Daniel Pipes, a sympathizer of the Palestinian Liberation Organization — and this was when it was at the height of its terrorism wave against the West   . His efforts were so damaging to France that President Valerie d’Estaing expelled him from the country”
.
As you can see, Robert Malley has a background that would suggest that he is extremely biased against Israel.

]]> By: Bosko http://972mag.com/response-to-joseph-dana-a-case-for-liberal-zionism/28549/comment-page-5/#comment-33831 Bosko Tue, 06 Dec 2011 22:17:26 +0000 http://972mag.com/?p=28549#comment-33831 Rose: "4) “…Barak’s demand to annex large settlement blocs (9% of the West Bank) with no Israeli land given to a proposed Palestinian state in return" . This one I can't let go because it is a misrepresentation of what was offered in Taba in 2001. The offer was to have a Palestinian state on 97% of the West Bank with land offsets in exchange. Rose: “4) “…Barak’s demand to annex large settlement blocs (9% of the West Bank) with no Israeli land given to a proposed Palestinian state in return”
.
This one I can’t let go because it is a misrepresentation of what was offered in Taba in 2001. The offer was to have a Palestinian state on 97% of the West Bank with land offsets in exchange.

]]> By: Bosko http://972mag.com/response-to-joseph-dana-a-case-for-liberal-zionism/28549/comment-page-5/#comment-33802 Bosko Tue, 06 Dec 2011 19:42:44 +0000 http://972mag.com/?p=28549#comment-33802 Rose . I don't care what you write, how many times, Rose. You were not at the negotiations. I'll tell you who was at the negotiations and who does know what concessions Israel made: . 1. Bill Clinton 2. Condi Rice 3. Shlomo Ben Ami (your witness you mentioned him) . They all say the same thing Rose. The Palestinians missed opportunities (one in 2000/2001 and another in 2008 - according to Rice) to end the occupation and get their own state. Why? Because they insisted on the Right of Return Demand. They say there was virtual agreement about everything else Rose. Except the Right of Return. So I believe THEM not you Rose. Rose
.
I don’t care what you write, how many times, Rose. You were not at the negotiations. I’ll tell you who was at the negotiations and who does know what concessions Israel made:
.
1. Bill Clinton
2. Condi Rice
3. Shlomo Ben Ami (your witness you mentioned him)
.
They all say the same thing Rose. The Palestinians missed opportunities (one in 2000/2001 and another in 2008 – according to Rice) to end the occupation and get their own state. Why? Because they insisted on the Right of Return Demand. They say there was virtual agreement about everything else Rose. Except the Right of Return. So I believe THEM not you Rose.

]]>