Child Abuse Palestinian Style

Millis I sometime wonder why I bother. You have gone completely off the thread which has nothing to do with Rabin's assination but of course you must bring that up to support your notion that anybody not supporting the creation of a Palestinian State is a right wing fanatic - to which I suppose Yitchak Rabin z"l must be added. If had taken the trouble to look at the article I refer you to you will see it starts off -

A photograph of graffiti against Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu that reads “Bibi should burn” opened a stormy discussion on Facebook last week. The star of the discussion was none other than Hagai Amir, brother of Yigal Amir who assassinated Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin in 1995. In response to user comments, Hagai wrote, “There is no connection between ‘incitement’ and Rabin’s elimination. That is just a leftist tool for hounding the right wing, which in its stupidity is going along with it and even bothers to respond to these words of nonsense. We decided to eliminate Rabin two years before hand with the signing of the Oslo Accords,” [which created the Palestinian Authority and ceded some areas of the West Bank to Palestinian control in 1993

And now you are projecting by trying to make out what Rabin would have said he did not say anything of the sort and far from being no doubt there is considerable doubt he would have ever accepted a Palestinian State on Jewish soil. Especially someone who states unequivocally:
Here, in the land of Israel, we returned and built a nation. Here, in the
land of Israel, we established a state. The land of the prophets, which
bequeathed to the world the values of morality, law and justice, was, after
two thousand years, restored to its lawful owners -- the members of the
Jewish people. On its land, we have built an exceptional national home and
state."

Coming from the person who went off topic with Sadat, your post is hilarious. Oh what a tangled web we weave/When first we practice to deceive. - Sir Walter Scott (Marmion, 1808) . Could have been written for you, Advis3r,

I know what Rabin HY"D wrote. And he didn't write in the whole of the Land of Israel. He knew that in order to maintain a Jewish and democratic state, the "exceptional national home and state", an accommodation with the Palestinians in the occupied territory would be necessary. And as he was a pragmatic fellow, he knew that that would eventually include a Palestinian state on the West Bank. And no, there's no such thing as "Jewish soil". Soil is, well, just soil.

Best to keep the sophistry with the blinkered dogma and don't bother.

Millis I did not go off the point with sadt I was comparing him to the current palestinian leadership and its inability to reach an agreement with Israel. and then you set up a straw man argument about Rabin which I totally demolished.

Rabin was prepared to grant the Palestinians some form of autonomy like the Scots in Scotland but not independence read what he says not what you think he said.

I like "he knew that that would eventually include a Palestinian state on the West Bank." and you know this because? You make out he would have done this and said that based on what? Be honest it is total conjecture with not a shred of evidence to support it and you accuse me of sophistry? He held the complete opposite view -live with it.

Mate, you were trying to obfuscate. You always are. That's what I love about you. You twist yourself in knots. As you say, live with it.

Now read what I write: Rabin HY"D was a pragmatist. He would have weighed the situation as he always did and would have come to the conclusion, as so many have - including Shimon Peres, who was probably more "right wing" than Rabin (Ben-Gurionite Rafi party people tended to be more centrist than Achdut Ha'Avodah) - that the only way forward was granting the Palestinians statehood in the occupied territories. I suspect he would have seized the Clinton plan with both hands, had it been on offer then.
Unfortunately it wasn't and both sides lost faith in the process.

Lots of people do things you wouldn't think they'd do, but they do so out of necessity. Otherwise, Churchill wouldn't have sat down with Stalin, Nixon wouldn't have gone to China, sadat wouldn't have travelled to Jerusalem and Rabin and later Netanyahu would not have shaken hands with Arafat. It's what makes life exciting. Just think if we were all dogmatic. There would be no surprises and life would be boring and not worth living.

Just a few corrections for the sake of good order:
"I suspect he would have seized the Clinton plan with both hands, had it been on offer then.Unfortunately it wasn't and both sides lost faith in the process." Israel accepted it the Palestinians refused to even negotiate as Clinton complained to Arafat afterwards. Olmert repeated the exercise in 2008 and was again rebuffed.
"Otherwise, Churchill wouldn't have sat down with Stalin, Nixon wouldn't have gone to China, Sadat wouldn't have travelled to Jerusalem and Rabin and later Netanyahu would not have shaken hands with Arafat."
Ah but Churchill did sit down Nixon did travel and Sadat did travel - Rabin z"l however did not ever endorse a Palestinian State - more than just a slight difference and therefore pure conjecture on your part. Endorsing a Palestinian State for Israel is more than just pragmatic especially when it would entail relinquishing sovereignty over half of Jerusalem. Who says any government of Israel is entitled to do that on behalf of the Jewish people as a whole? The centrality of Jerusalem to Judaism is undeniable.

OK, Advis3r, you are a Karaite. You take things literally. All Judaism - except the karatites - is based on conjecture. It's a textline religion, as the Prophet Amos said. If it weren't based on conjecture, you and I could eat chicken and cheese burgers because chickens are not milk giving animals and therefore their chicks cannot be cooked in their mother's milk. Thankfully, chicken and cheese burgers are off the menu, but this also means that Pollo Parmigiana is too.

But I digress.

Rabin, HY"D, before he was assassinated by Yigal Amir (may his head be smashed in and his heart cut out, and his liver removed and his bowels unplugged. And his nostrils raped and his bottom burned off. And his pen…You get the somewhat vivid picture) was just carrying on long-held Israeli policy. But, like pragmatists everywhere, he would have come to the conclusion that to preserve Israel as a Jewish and democratic state, a Palestinian state in the occupied territories wasn't just an inevitability, it would be in Israel's interests. That's what policy making is all about, and policies change when circumstances change and when more information is at hand.

I don't suppose Rabin would have taken the dogmatic line and joined the Ichud Leumani or Kach.

Now to Jerusalem. How many times over history has the city expended and contracted in size? Is Jerusalem now the same size as it was even in the time of the last Jewish era of sovereignty? Did our ancestors pray to Shuafat? Abu Dis? Izawiyyeh? Jabal Mukabbar? Sur Bakher? Of course they didn't. These were all areas annexed to the municipality's boundaries post 67. In fact, up until Montefiore, there wasn't anything outside the Old City's walls that was Jerusalem.

So there's plenty of wiggle room, mate.

And given that the Jewish people is not a monolith, and the Bible Belt clones in the occupied territories are certainly not the Jewish people, and given that the Israeli government represents the interests of most of the Israeli people, it can decide what it likes on what it thinks are the best interests of its citizens. Here and now. Not there and then. And as in all other democracies, if the majority of the citizenry doesn't like what the government has done, it can boot the scoundrels out. I love democracy, me. It ain't perfect, but it sure as hell beats one-party or theocratic dogma.

Millis I would leave the Jewish religion alone if I were you - you just display your ignorance - as they say a little knowledge is a dangerous thing.

Anyway to fisk your latest offering ...

"may his head be smashed in and his heart cut out, and his liver removed and his bowels unplugged" but Arab terrorists who murder Israeli soldiers are just guerillas? Oh and does that mean you support the death penalty?

"But, like pragmatists everywhere, he would have come to the conclusion ..."

Lets see pragmatist as in "I'm not a thief, I am a pragmatist."

Sorry old chum on that basis one could well say if Hitler yemach shemo had made peace with the Western Allies in 1943 he would have supported the creation of the State of Israel in 1948.

Had Rabin not been assassinated who is to say that he would not have told Arafat - take it or leave it? I rather think he would since that would have been even more pragmatic - reason being whatever you offer the Palestinians they think that's the starting point not the finishing point. That's another reason why there will never be a successful conclusion to negotiations.

"if the majority of the citizenry doesn't like what the government has done, it can boot the scoundrels out." You don't need a democracy for that just ask the Egyptians.

The other point you totally ignore is that not all Jews living in the Bible Belt as you call it are religious. Mr Lieberman for a start. Some people actually consider that their right to settle there is enshrined in International Law and is equal to the right to live in Tel Aviv and furthermore do not rely on biblical sources. A right by the way which the Palestinians presently do not have.

joemillis1959 - You have got it!

Thumbs up to your comments.

Death penalty? Heavens above, no. I'm quoting from Monty Python's Holy Grail, about Brave, brave, brave Sir Robin and all that. Sorry to confuse you about that.

I suggest also that you don't do Judaism either. It's all conjecture and open to interpretation. That's why thousands and thousands of people spends hours a day poring over the Torah, the mishna, the gemara etc. And that's what's great about it, me old china.

I've said it before and I'll say it again: those that base their ultra-nationalism on some religio/ethnic imperative are Bible Belt clones, the observation of whom would be a good way to study early Christianity.

Perhaps I should have explained that kicking the scoundrels out in a democracy is done by way of the ballot box, not the mob. I thought you'd get that. Sorry again, old fruit.

As for people like Lieberman, they're just plain old fascists who latched on to a good financial deal. Simples, as the meerkats in your foreign minister's former homeland would say.

Judaism is not as you say open to conjecture but you carry on believing that if you will.
There is no imperative as you put it - the land was promised to Abraham if not then why bother living here at all - we could have chosen Uganda. This was the land as your hero Rabin said where we returned and built a nation. Here, in the land of Israel, we established a state. The land of the prophets, which bequeathed to the world the values of morality, law and justice, was, after
two thousand years, restored to its lawful owners -- the members of the Jewish people.
I suppose you would call him member of the bible belt brigade too. Face it Millis with tree huggers like Viv supporting you you must surely wonder whether you might have got it all wrong.

"The blonde girl is a fixture at Nabi Saleh protests, which are frequently violent. She is often at the front, "in the soldiers' face"
I believe it is she who appears briefly in a trailer for the documentary 'We are Nabi Saleh' (still looking for co-funding)
She is the daughter of Palestinian “activist” Bassem Tamimi, and appears in some other Nabi Saleh protest videos, marked "Tamimi Press".

Is this girl the sister of the unarmed man who was shot at point blank range in the face and killed by the IDF? I think his name was Mustafa Tamimi. If so, no wonder she's pissed.

Why do you have to be rude about me Advis3r?

I don't really care about who supports me, just like I don't care who supports you. I grew out of that when I left primary school just over 40 years ago. This isn't the school playground.

You talk about the Land of Israel. Fine. That, like Jerusalem, has been a movable feast, expanding and contracting over centuries. And always because of what we like to call geo-political circumstances. So OK, it's the national home of the Jewish people, because that's where most Jews resided before they left during the Roman period. You believe it was God-given. I don't just like I don't believe that the British monarchy has the divine right to rule just cause some watery tart threw a sword at King Arthur, if he even existed.

I believe that the national home is where it is because that's where we originally came from, and that's been proved genetically.

If you want a bit of fun reading, read Hertzl Amar. Great bit of What If… escapism.

Rabin HY"D was a realist, not a Bible Belt clone. He didn't say all the Land of Israel. He didn't even say where in the Land of Israel. And again, you are being too literal. So are you a Kara'ite?

Viv you berate Israel for not doing this or that and have nary a word to say about the Palestinians' rejectionism. These are the same Palestinians who you claim are poor - despite the fact that per capita they have received the most international aid doled out to anyone ever and you wonder at my exasperation when you keep saying the same thing and refuse to accept that whether or not Israel is the stronger despite the fact that there are 220+ million Arabs in 22 humungous Countries and 7 million Israelis in a minuscule country there has to be two sides to a negotiation.
Israel has offered them more than you have suggested all it has actually asked in return is that the Arabs (that's all of them not just the Palestinians) recognise the inherent right of the Jews to the now truncated piece of land that the world promised them in 1920 but they will not even do that.
Millis there you are going off again on one of your rants. You keep projecting and imagining what other people think even when they are no longer with us. Rabin is on record as saying that he would not agree to a state. If he had not been assassinated then there was every chance that he would have got his way and right now there would be an autonomous Palestinian whatever in Judea and Samaria and Gush Katif would still be thriving and providing employment for Gazans - see I can project too!

Jose has the thought ever occurred that the voices you hear in your head might not be what you think they are ?

But anyway here's a present for you.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HGgfuwbTmUM

Joe Millis revisionist historian, supporter of Soros, JStreet and NIF. Boomerang Israeli, anti Zionist who chooses to forget that before 1967 Jews were not able to enter Jerusalem. His selective amnesia prevents him from telling the truth. Synagogues desecrated grave stones used as latrines by the Jordanians who practiced apartheid against Jews (NOT JUST ISRAELIS).

Rabin was not a dead man walking because the right incited against him the whole country turned against him because he signed the Oslo accords and instead of the peace Israelis were promised they experienced terror. People were blown up on buses, in restaurants there were suicide bombers it was worse than the intifada more people died and were maimed. Spin all you like Joe but the Rabin center tells the story of his life truthfully which you are incapable of doing.

"Now let the grown ups continue their sensible debate."

Koff

And that request includes you, sunshine

Say please

Oi, Clifford, I wished that Soros supported me. I'm proud of NIF and JStreet. They show that you can support Israel without kowtowing to the governmen t line. As ambassador Daniel Taub told Limmud last year, we must engage with Israel and Israelis in a way we feel comfortable. And asked whether that included NIF and Yachad, he said yes.

Boomerang Israeli? Anti-Zionist? At least I've lived there? What have you ever done for the country? Smashed up a few keyboards? Drooled on a few computer screens?

You want ad homs, fine. But they'll come straight back at yer, kiddo.

Rabin was not a dead man walking because the right incited against him the whole country turned against him because he signed the Oslo accords

But for once I agree with you. So please tell that to Advis3r. He seems to think that incitement had nothing to do with it.

Now let the grown ups continue their sensible debate.

Interestingly, I see that this thread has been renamed. Is that because it's not Pallywood after all, but staged by the Israelis? And kids demonstrating is not necessarily child abuse - after all, kids demonstrating was a regular feature by those self-delusional settlers who wanted to hold on to the Gaza Strip.

Now Advis3r, of course you can project, imply and conject and interpret,, Advis3r. Did I say you couldn't? After all I implied - nay, said outright - that we both adhered to a religion that made conjecture and interpretation a central tenet. For what it's worth, you could say that he would have moved to annex the Occupied Territories, Jordan, Syria, Iraq and the Gaza Strip u to Nachal Arish and granted the inhabitants therein cultural autonomy as a sweetener as Israel retained full sovereignty. I'd say you were mad, but hey…

So what if Rabin (HY"d) was on record as saying he won't agree to a Palestinian state? If Yigal Amir (may his head be smashed in and his heart cut out, and his liver removed and his bowels unplugged. And his nostrils raped etc etc…) hadn't been caught up in the inciters' hatred, he probably would have. And for Israel's sake, not the Palestinians'.

And you and I both know that the Gaza Strip was evacuated because it was unpopular politically to hold on to it. It wasn't a big political price to pay. What was a huge price to pay was the fact that it was done unilaterally. Unilateralism doesn't work; not the Palestinians' UN bid and not building settlements in the occupied territories.

Yes this habit of linking to nut job blog spots does seem to be catching.

BTW happy when were you last in Nabi Saleh ?

Elder of Zion. Happy, I didn't have you down as someone who uses dubious sources.

When it comes to hasbara-rah-rah, I think the current Israeli government is capable of practically everything.

joemillis1959: Interestingly, I see that this thread has been renamed. Is that because it's not Pallywood after all, but staged by the Israelis?