Israels "Peace Partners"?

[Sweet_Caroline]

José, Coyote, et al,

This all, actually, ties together; not exactly the path I was headed down, but it got there just the same.

While I accept that as the better way, I also feel that the folks should shut up about the Palistinians commemerating their "martyrs" when Israel has done the same thing. Were they to truly want moral improvement, they should adjust their historical narratives and commerations. Perhaps the "right" thing would be to admit that yes, their heros were terrorists, but lets learn from that and celebrate a better way of life instead of terrorists.

(COMMENT)

There are two important concepts here that both sides (Brand "X" and "Y") need to appreciate. History and key events, are a summation of a compilation of cultural actions. (Yeah - what does that mean?)

The Analogy: In science, one of the key breakthrough that will for ever be indelibly imprinted on humanity was that of Sir Isaac Newton. His Mechanics and Mathematics are still with us today; YET, he didn't get it quite right. It wasn't until Albert Einstein that we saw a better picture. But Newton was so close, that we still venerate him today as one of the Greatest Minds ever to emerge out of humanity. Incidentally, many believe that both Newton and Einstein has something in common; they exhibited symptoms of Asperger's Syndrome (Newton more than Einstein). The trail of scientific discovery is the story of a trail of major contributors who didn't quite get it right, but we celebrate because of the contribution they made.​

Politically and Militarily, history shows us that we commemorate those that successively make contributions towards some imperative; whether they were Brand "X" or "Y", moving us ever closer to some distant objective that the society under change can't quite bring into focus.

Second is that, in most cases, nations, states, cultures and societies --- which operate as a collective based on common cause and loyalty --- seldom make decisions on the basis of a moral imperative. They make most decisions based on the probability that a given course of action will have an outcome that functionally approximates the goal or objective set at the outset. I can tell you from personal experience, for most rational people, a firefight is not about some great moral issue of the day. It is about survival and winning the moment, the summation of which wins the battle, the summation of battle wins will lead you victory and the end of the conflict (ultimately peace). But the technique, whether it is a conventional air/sea/land strategy, engagement via proxy combatants, an insurgency operation, or asymmetric (4th Generation) warfare, or a nuclear strike scenario (or some combination thereof), is truly a functional decision based on any number of factors that have to be taken into consideration if there is to be a reasonable expectation of reaching the goal or objective. And this is no less true when considering the use of "terrorism as a tactic" as it is in the consideration of a "nuclear strike." And therein is the danger and the importance in the evolution of averting conflict in favor of peaceful settlements. It become a matter of functional tradecraft.

Rarely is it the case that either Brand "X" or Brand "Y" will take a seat at the conference table and negotiate for peace in good faith if either or both believe that they have a reasonable expectation of functionally defeating the other; assuming they have the will to sustain the conflict.

KEY: The paradigm is not driven by some higher moral value, but the functional ability to achieve the goal or objective. And to achieve a peaceful solution, something has to be introduced that inverts this paradigm.

In most conflicts (certainly not all) this is achieved by:

• Breaking the will to continue the struggle; or,
• Achieving a point in which their is no expectation of success; or,
• Invalidating the original goal and objective; fruitless confrontation.

In this case, what we are suggesting is the development of a strategy that will approximate peace and cooperation between the belligerents in common cause. This is rare and requires a dramatic shift in the approach that both sides take in regards to the other. This is exceptionally difficult to accomplish.
​

(COMMENT)

Again, rarely are major decisions made on the basis that it is: "the right thing to do." While I applaud your idea behind the abandonment of "terrorism" as a viable tactic, such a shift takes a considerable amount of coordination, popular support and time to implement. It is extremely hard to demonstrate to the opposite number and requires something dramatic to achieve the surprise and political shock value that would shift the way in which the opposite number perceives its former combatant.

The idea of inducing compromise by means of "unilateral action to disengage" is an advanced concept that bares risk and complexity in its implementation. Not saying that it cannot be done, but usually --- unilateral disengagement is done by the stronger of the two belligerents.

Rather (just an opinion), I suggest a coordinated disengagement that is executed in baby steps, given the duration of the conflict and the time it is going to take for the two concerned populations to adjust. It might start with the lifting of roadblock and travel restrictions coupled with an announce and program within the occupied population to avoid confrontations and demonstrations. This is going to require a much improved civil affair component and the soft hand of counterintelligence to maintain fingers on the pulse of the communities (both sides). In the mean time, behind the scenes, the Occupation Settlements are going to have to be gradually prepared (mentally and physically) to expect they will be dismantled. (Which requires a relocation program planned well in advance.)

There is no question that such an effort would require extraordinary tolerance on the part of the Occupation Force; as well as a strong and disciplined Palestinian Police to maintain law and order - and an internal security surveillance program to neutralize elements within the population that are slow to change and adapt. It is unreasonable to assume that in a population that has been under occupation restrictions for so long, that there will not be moments of weakness, confrontations erupt, and minor incidents escalate out of control from time to time. But a phased disengagement is preferable. And if the initial phase looks promising, external assistance will resume on a scale not attainable in the past.

(EPILOG)

Now, do I have a reasonable expectation that any of this will occur. No! At least not under the leadership current to either belligerent. While it might be said that one belligerent is more advanced than the other, it appears that both sides have been traumatized by six decades of conflict; and are both ruled by leaders that have not transitioned into the 21st Century. While Israel may have a superior advantage in commerce, industry and technology --- it is most clear that the leadership is rooted in 20th Century concepts and envision a model of Israel that has long since been overtaken by events; and they simply won't let it go and adapt. The Palestinian is simply an unknown quantity, even unto itself. While Palestine suffers similarly as Israel, being rooted in a model of Palestine that has long since been overtaken by events; it is also influence by adverse external influences that may retard its advancement even further. It is a fractured society on the mend.

Most Respectfully,
R

In this case, what we are suggesting is the development of a strategy that will approximate peace and cooperation between the belligerents in common cause. This is rare and requires a dramatic shift in the approach that both sides take in regards to the other. This is exceptionally difficult to accomplish.

Indeed, and there are those who are taking that initiative in a non violent way.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w56AP_cjDYw]Rafeef, Ben and Mbuyiseni on Israeli Apartheid Week - 22.2.12 - YouTube[/ame]

Can you precis this 16 minute video. Most of us don't have time or inclination to watch videos that long in duration.

 

[P F Tinmore]

José, Coyote, et al,

This all, actually, ties together; not exactly the path I was headed down, but it got there just the same.


(COMMENT)

There are two important concepts here that both sides (Brand "X" and "Y") need to appreciate. History and key events, are a summation of a compilation of cultural actions. (Yeah - what does that mean?)

The Analogy: In science, one of the key breakthrough that will for ever be indelibly imprinted on humanity was that of Sir Isaac Newton. His Mechanics and Mathematics are still with us today; YET, he didn't get it quite right. It wasn't until Albert Einstein that we saw a better picture. But Newton was so close, that we still venerate him today as one of the Greatest Minds ever to emerge out of humanity. Incidentally, many believe that both Newton and Einstein has something in common; they exhibited symptoms of Asperger's Syndrome (Newton more than Einstein). The trail of scientific discovery is the story of a trail of major contributors who didn't quite get it right, but we celebrate because of the contribution they made.​

Politically and Militarily, history shows us that we commemorate those that successively make contributions towards some imperative; whether they were Brand "X" or "Y", moving us ever closer to some distant objective that the society under change can't quite bring into focus.

Second is that, in most cases, nations, states, cultures and societies --- which operate as a collective based on common cause and loyalty --- seldom make decisions on the basis of a moral imperative. They make most decisions based on the probability that a given course of action will have an outcome that functionally approximates the goal or objective set at the outset. I can tell you from personal experience, for most rational people, a firefight is not about some great moral issue of the day. It is about survival and winning the moment, the summation of which wins the battle, the summation of battle wins will lead you victory and the end of the conflict (ultimately peace). But the technique, whether it is a conventional air/sea/land strategy, engagement via proxy combatants, an insurgency operation, or asymmetric (4th Generation) warfare, or a nuclear strike scenario (or some combination thereof), is truly a functional decision based on any number of factors that have to be taken into consideration if there is to be a reasonable expectation of reaching the goal or objective. And this is no less true when considering the use of "terrorism as a tactic" as it is in the consideration of a "nuclear strike." And therein is the danger and the importance in the evolution of averting conflict in favor of peaceful settlements. It become a matter of functional tradecraft.

Rarely is it the case that either Brand "X" or Brand "Y" will take a seat at the conference table and negotiate for peace in good faith if either or both believe that they have a reasonable expectation of functionally defeating the other; assuming they have the will to sustain the conflict.

KEY: The paradigm is not driven by some higher moral value, but the functional ability to achieve the goal or objective. And to achieve a peaceful solution, something has to be introduced that inverts this paradigm.

In most conflicts (certainly not all) this is achieved by:

• Breaking the will to continue the struggle; or,
• Achieving a point in which their is no expectation of success; or,
• Invalidating the original goal and objective; fruitless confrontation.

In this case, what we are suggesting is the development of a strategy that will approximate peace and cooperation between the belligerents in common cause. This is rare and requires a dramatic shift in the approach that both sides take in regards to the other. This is exceptionally difficult to accomplish.
​

(COMMENT)

Again, rarely are major decisions made on the basis that it is: "the right thing to do." While I applaud your idea behind the abandonment of "terrorism" as a viable tactic, such a shift takes a considerable amount of coordination, popular support and time to implement. It is extremely hard to demonstrate to the opposite number and requires something dramatic to achieve the surprise and political shock value that would shift the way in which the opposite number perceives its former combatant.

The idea of inducing compromise by means of "unilateral action to disengage" is an advanced concept that bares risk and complexity in its implementation. Not saying that it cannot be done, but usually --- unilateral disengagement is done by the stronger of the two belligerents.

Rather (just an opinion), I suggest a coordinated disengagement that is executed in baby steps, given the duration of the conflict and the time it is going to take for the two concerned populations to adjust. It might start with the lifting of roadblock and travel restrictions coupled with an announce and program within the occupied population to avoid confrontations and demonstrations. This is going to require a much improved civil affair component and the soft hand of counterintelligence to maintain fingers on the pulse of the communities (both sides). In the mean time, behind the scenes, the Occupation Settlements are going to have to be gradually prepared (mentally and physically) to expect they will be dismantled. (Which requires a relocation program planned well in advance.)

There is no question that such an effort would require extraordinary tolerance on the part of the Occupation Force; as well as a strong and disciplined Palestinian Police to maintain law and order - and an internal security surveillance program to neutralize elements within the population that are slow to change and adapt. It is unreasonable to assume that in a population that has been under occupation restrictions for so long, that there will not be moments of weakness, confrontations erupt, and minor incidents escalate out of control from time to time. But a phased disengagement is preferable. And if the initial phase looks promising, external assistance will resume on a scale not attainable in the past.

(EPILOG)

Now, do I have a reasonable expectation that any of this will occur. No! At least not under the leadership current to either belligerent. While it might be said that one belligerent is more advanced than the other, it appears that both sides have been traumatized by six decades of conflict; and are both ruled by leaders that have not transitioned into the 21st Century. While Israel may have a superior advantage in commerce, industry and technology --- it is most clear that the leadership is rooted in 20th Century concepts and envision a model of Israel that has long since been overtaken by events; and they simply won't let it go and adapt. The Palestinian is simply an unknown quantity, even unto itself. While Palestine suffers similarly as Israel, being rooted in a model of Palestine that has long since been overtaken by events; it is also influence by adverse external influences that may retard its advancement even further. It is a fractured society on the mend.

Most Respectfully,
R

In this case, what we are suggesting is the development of a strategy that will approximate peace and cooperation between the belligerents in common cause. This is rare and requires a dramatic shift in the approach that both sides take in regards to the other. This is exceptionally difficult to accomplish.

Indeed, and there are those who are taking that initiative in a non violent way.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w56AP_cjDYw]Rafeef, Ben and Mbuyiseni on Israeli Apartheid Week - 22.2.12 - YouTube[/ame]

Can you precis this 16 minute video. Most of us don't have time or inclination to watch videos that long in duration.

So don't watch it. Ignorance is a choice.

 

[Sweet_Caroline]

Indeed, and there are those who are taking that initiative in a non violent way.

Rafeef, Ben and Mbuyiseni on Israeli Apartheid Week - 22.2.12 - YouTube

Can you precis this 16 minute video. Most of us don't have time or inclination to watch videos that long in duration.

So don't watch it. Ignorance is a choice.

In other words you haven't watched it and are not obviously interested in explaining to those of us who are at work what it is about. Fine. Another fail.

 

[toastman]

Tinmore still can't comply with the fact that Palestine was not a country when the Jews arived from Europe haha.

 

[Gardener]

Tinmore still can't comply with the fact that Palestine was not a country when the Jews arived from Europe haha.

so why do yuo guys say that palestine was a jewish country simnce 1922?

 

[Coyote]

Coyote, et al,

Evolution! Human evolution and civilization.


(COMMENT)

A century ago, and maybe even a half century ago, insurgencies and terrorism may have been considered acceptable. But humanity evolves.

To say that Brand "X" pursued terrorism type actions a half century ago, and therefore it must be acceptable for Brand "Y" to pursue the same barbarity more than a half-century later, is to admit that humanity will never evolve out of that endless cycle.

At some point, the community of nations has to take a stand, and were it can, improve the behaviors from war-like to peaceful settlements. Otherwise, our species is doom to commit the same mistakes, over and over again. For nearly a century, Brand "X" and Brand "Y" have been at odd, and committing some of the most heinous act imaginable, and still unable to even sit down like human being and talk it out.

Unacceptable!

At some point, evolution towards the better way must kick-in.

Most Respectfully,
R

While I accept that as the better way, I also feel that the folks should shut up about the Palistinians commemerating their "martyrs" when Israel has done the same thing. Were they to truly want moral improvement, they should adjust their historical narratives and commerations. Perhaps the "right" thing would be to admit that yes, their heros were terrorists, but lets learn from that and celebrate a better way of life instead of terrorists.

The Palestinians are commemorating their 'martyrs' to this very day. Including Abbas. Don't put the blame equally. It is not equal. The Palestinians glorify their 'martyrs.'

There is no difference - commemerate/glorify - really, what is the difference? Because one is Israel and one is Palestine? Seriously? They were terrorists. Either condemn them all, or commerate them all. Enough with the hypocrisy.

 

[Sweet_Caroline]

While I accept that as the better way, I also feel that the folks should shut up about the Palistinians commemerating their "martyrs" when Israel has done the same thing. Were they to truly want moral improvement, they should adjust their historical narratives and commerations. Perhaps the "right" thing would be to admit that yes, their heros were terrorists, but lets learn from that and celebrate a better way of life instead of terrorists.

The Palestinians are commemorating their 'martyrs' to this very day. Including Abbas. Don't put the blame equally. It is not equal. The Palestinians glorify their 'martyrs.'

There is no difference - commemerate/glorify - really, what is the difference? Because one is Israel and one is Palestine? Seriously? They were terrorists. Either condemn them all, or commerate them all. Enough with the hypocrisy.

Perhaps I should have emphasized last time, "to this very day." How can we be sure the Palestinians want peace when they glorify war.

 

[Gardener]

Perhaps I should have emphasized last time, "to this very day." How can we be sure the Palestinians want peace when they glorify war.

u know for a fact that the Israleis also glorify war and bloodshed


threy are not peacre partners when all they do is demand and order.

 

[Coyote]

The Palestinians are commemorating their 'martyrs' to this very day. Including Abbas. Don't put the blame equally. It is not equal. The Palestinians glorify their 'martyrs.'

There is no difference - commemerate/glorify - really, what is the difference? Because one is Israel and one is Palestine? Seriously? They were terrorists. Either condemn them all, or commerate them all. Enough with the hypocrisy.

Perhaps I should have emphasized last time, "to this very day." How can we be sure the Palestinians want peace when they glorify war.

I think any people who are fighting for self determination "glorify war".

 

[Sweet_Caroline]

There is no difference - commemerate/glorify - really, what is the difference? Because one is Israel and one is Palestine? Seriously? They were terrorists. Either condemn them all, or commerate them all. Enough with the hypocrisy.

Perhaps I should have emphasized last time, "to this very day." How can we be sure the Palestinians want peace when they glorify war.

I think any people who are fighting for self determination "glorify war".

War against innocent civilians. If they have to fight, they should fight like men, not like the cowards they are and target civilians which of course is a crime against the Geneva Convention for war. This has just reached the news:

Fatah Honors Terrorist for Murdering 61 Israelis
As "peace talks" approach, PA President's party honors terrorist responsible for multiple atrocities against Israeli civilians​

By Gil Ronen
First Publish: 7/25/2013, 6:27 PM

As western leaders push for negotiations between Israel and the Palestinian Authority, urging Israeli concessions - including the release of convicted terrorists - the PA leadership is continuing in its longstanding tradition of honoring terrorists who murdered Israeli civilians, report Itamar Marcus and Nan Jacques Zilberdik of Palestinian Media Watch.

PMW points to a picture that appeared on an official Fatah Facebook page, glorifying five of the suicide bombings for which Barghouti prepared explosives, which killed 61 "Zionists."

The graphic was posted by the administrator of the official Facebook page of the Enlistment and Organization Commission of Fatah. Terrorist Barghouti was honored as the "brave prisoner" and his attacks as "self-sacrificing activity" and "Martyrdom-seeking operations."

"Martyrdom-seeking operations" is the Palestinian euphemism for suicide bombings.

Barghouti is serving 67 life sentences for preparing explosives for terror attacks in which 67 people were murdered – Sbarro restaurant (15 killed, Aug. 9, 2001), Sheffield Club (15 killed, May 7, 2002), Moment Café (11 killed, March 9, 2002), triple attack at Ben Yehuda pedestrian mall (11 killed, Dec. 1, 2001), Hebrew University (9 killed, July 1, 2002), and Bus 4 in Tel Aviv (6 killed, Sept. 19, 2002).

Following PMW's exposure of the visits this past May by PA TV to the homes of terrorist Barghouti and two other arch terrorists who between them are serving 166 life sentences, PA TV criticized PMW saying they are not terrorists but "heroes" and attacked PMW for calling them "terrorists".

Palestinian Authority gets a "free pass"​

Israeli commentators have long pointed out that whilst the Israeli government is subject to widespread pressure to make concessions to encourage "good will," no such requirements are made of the Palestinian Authority.

Following the European Union's announcement that it would boycott Jewish communities in Judea, Samaria, the Golan Height and parts of Jerusalem, the Anti-Defamation League accused the EU of giving the PA leadership a "free pass"
ADL: PA Got ?Free Pass? From EU - Middle East - News - Israel National News
to continue inciting and encouraging violence against Israelis.

In a letter to the EU's foreign policy chief Catherine Ashton, ADL National Director Abraham H. Foxman challenged that “President [Mahmoud] Abbas has blocked the [peace] process with his preconditions, so who does the EU pressure? Israel. Who gets a free pass? The Palestinians.”

Foxman called on the EU to end its “long-standing habit of not holding the Palestinian Authority responsible for its actions and inactions that are unequivocally obstacles to peace."

Those "actions" included the constant stream of antisemitic incitement by official and unofficial organs of the PA. Israeli politicians and commentators will no doubt be waiting to see what reaction - if any - western leaders will have to this latest incident.

Fatah Honors Terrorist for Murdering 61 Israelis - Middle East - News - Israel National News

 

[RoccoR]

Sweet_Caroline, Coyote, et al,

There are three issues here:

• Glorification,
• Cause (exemplified by the "right to self-determination")
• Good Will - First Move

Perhaps I should have emphasized last time, "to this very day." How can we be sure the Palestinians want peace when they glorify war.

I think any people who are fighting for self determination "glorify war".

Israeli commentators have long pointed out that whilst the Israeli government is subject to widespread pressure to make concessions to encourage "good will," no such requirements are made of the Palestinian Authority.

(COMMENT)

Glorification:

There always have been and there always will be the guild of warriors/hunters/protectors in our species. It is both a profession and a tradecraft.

It is not about "glorification;" although in most dangerous occupations there is some of that - driven by the courage. It is about pride and accomplishment --- coupled with recognition of valor by one's self and others. The warriors/hunters/protectors is an important element to society; and all successful civilizations have them. And the necessary attribute of courage, in the face of danger, is as every bit the inspiration behind it. It is the very essence of becoming legendary.​

Cause:

Cause and justification are mutually exclusive to the recognition of courage and the glory derived from it. You seldom hear of anyone amplifying an "evil" cause as a reason to pursue conflict. It is almost imperative that the cause must be found "worthy or righteous" if it is to be supported by the clan of "warriors/hunters/protectors." Without justification, conflict is not sustainable. Thus, is the importance of leadership to build consensus, and propaganda to set the morality of the action. The society must be molded so that it comes together and frames the justification and which influence the behavior to pursue the conflict.​

Good Will - First Move in Concessions:

The word is very seldom spoken; but, good will gestures are a form of "Chivalry," the code of conduct associated with the conflict. And yes, while the word itself is very rarely used, its influence and demand is everywhere in the discussion. The demand to abide by humanitarian law, the issue of protected persons, and invoking the Geneva Code are all demands for the expression and extension of "Chivalry." So too, is the concept of the first move in extending a "Good Will Gesture." However, in the case of the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict, it is also a weapon. This is KEY!

While the Palestinian sees "Chivalry" as something beyond their need to perform, because they can use any and all means necessary to pursue Jihad, they can exploit the weakness of the Western World by demanding that Israel extend "Chivalry." And when they do not extend "Chivalry" the Palestinians will shame the Israelis in the eyes of the Western World. And this is the great circle. The shame feeds back to the idea of "just cause" as well as "courage and valor."​

The propaganda frames, that exhibit young women and little girls confronting armed Israeli soldiers, is an example of the exploitation of the Chivalry concept, it projects the idea of an unjust cause, and steals the valor and courage of the "warriors/hunters/protectors." The entire campaign on the issue of humanitarian law and the protection of children, is another example of the exploitation of the Chivalry concept, it projects the idea of an unjust cause, and steals the valor and courage of the "warriors/hunters/protectors."

AND, the demand that, on the field of honor (peace negotiations), Israel make the first concession, is an example of the exploitation of the Chivalry concept, they project the idea of an unjust cause, and steals the valor and courage of the "warriors/hunters/protectors." When Israel refuses, they are shamed; because clearly, Israel has the upper hand.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[MJB12741]

How does anyone or any nation even begin to negotiate peace with a people who prefer death over life?


QUOTE=Sweet_Caroline;7576697]

The Palestinians are commemorating their 'martyrs' to this very day. Including Abbas. Don't put the blame equally. It is not equal. The Palestinians glorify their 'martyrs.'

There is no difference - commemerate/glorify - really, what is the difference? Because one is Israel and one is Palestine? Seriously? They were terrorists. Either condemn them all, or commerate them all. Enough with the hypocrisy.

Perhaps I should have emphasized last time, "to this very day." How can we be sure the Palestinians want peace when they glorify war.[/QUOTE]

 

[P F Tinmore]

Can you precis this 16 minute video. Most of us don't have time or inclination to watch videos that long in duration.

So don't watch it. Ignorance is a choice.

In other words you haven't watched it and are not obviously interested in explaining to those of us who are at work what it is about. Fine. Another fail.

I have watched it and you haven't. One thing is very consistent among Israel supporters.

They refuse to learn anything.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w56AP_cjDYw]Rafeef, Ben and Mbuyiseni on Israeli Apartheid Week - 22.2.12 - YouTube[/ame]

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Not watching an "infomercial" is not the same as "refusing to learn."

So don't watch it. Ignorance is a choice.

In other words you haven't watched it and are not obviously interested in explaining to those of us who are at work what it is about. Fine. Another fail.

I have watched it and you haven't. One thing is very consistent among Israel supporters.

They refuse to learn anything.

(COMMENT)

BTW, this is the fourth or fifth time this video has been re-published in the discussion group.

The "right of return" does need to be addressed and either refined or completely aborted for the Palestinians. But I have yet to see a pro-Palestinian cite the complete truth about the issue. They just regurgitate the same old story of a half century ago about how they came to be refugees. They don't actually talk much about the current law and who is allowed in and who is not. They don't talk about the realities of today and what the legal and practical obstacles are. They just play victim.

I have very little sympathy for a culture that has raised six generations of unproductive victims that refuses to repair or rebuild their culture.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[ForeverYoung436]

Syria and Egypt are both on fire, and Israel is supposed to trust Palestinian Arabs? Why should Israel believe that they're any less savage?

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Not watching an "infomercial" is not the same as "refusing to learn."

In other words you haven't watched it and are not obviously interested in explaining to those of us who are at work what it is about. Fine. Another fail.

I have watched it and you haven't. One thing is very consistent among Israel supporters.

They refuse to learn anything.

(COMMENT)

BTW, this is the fourth or fifth time this video has been re-published in the discussion group.

The "right of return" does need to be addressed and either refined or completely aborted for the Palestinians. But I have yet to see a pro-Palestinian cite the complete truth about the issue. They just regurgitate the same old story of a half century ago about how they came to be refugees. They don't actually talk much about the current law and who is allowed in and who is not. They don't talk about the realities of today and what the legal and practical obstacles are. They just play victim.

I have very little sympathy for a culture that has raised six generations of unproductive victims that refuses to repair or rebuild their culture.

Most Respectfully,
R

Of course if you would watch the video some of your concerns would be answered.

Or you could just refuse to learn anything.

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

I did watch the video.

Of course if you would watch the video some of your concerns would be answered.

Or you could just refuse to learn anything.

(COMMENT)

It is more about the organization of the protest, the roll of the protester, and the scope of the theme than any real solutions.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

I did watch the video.

Of course if you would watch the video some of your concerns would be answered.

Or you could just refuse to learn anything.

(COMMENT)

It is more about the organization of the protest, the roll of the protester, and the scope of the theme than any real solutions.

Most Respectfully,
R

OK, expound.

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

What do you want, an outline?

P F Tinmore, et al,

I did watch the video.

Of course if you would watch the video some of your concerns would be answered.

Or you could just refuse to learn anything.

(COMMENT)

It is more about the organization of the protest, the roll of the protester, and the scope of the theme than any real solutions.

Most Respectfully,
R

OK, expound.

(THUMBNAIL OUTLINE)

• It opens with a brief history of "Apartheid" week, where it has been and attendance success.
  
• Then the organizational theme and structure. Why not the focus on the Occupation but rather on the central theme of Apartheid and the view of the refugee. The opening speaker does promote the view that all of Palestine was stolen.
  
• The #2 speaker talks about the "Apartheid Week" participation at pro-Palestinian Universities; then identifying organization that have shown support. On the second tier, he talks about expansion of the program beyond the university cohort.
  
• Speaker #2 wants to redefine "Apartheid" in terms of separateness. Taking it outside the legal and technical framework. Emphasis was placed on the belief that Israeli is creating a "Jews Only" society at the expense of the Palestinian.
  
• The third speaker talks about the agenda of the event and that discussions will address the differentiation between "Apartheid" in strictly Gaza and the West Bank context; or they are expressing the view of "Apartheid" as it is viewed from the larger context of everything East of the Jordan; and that leading to what is experienced under the Israeli Regime, different groups of people are given different sets of rights on an "Ethno-Religious" basis (again deviating from the definition of Apartheid without ever telling the view what "Apartheid" means). He talks about the discussions on the exclusion of Palestinians from Israel (as a territorial unit - never mentioning sovereignty).
  
• Back to the first speaker, they discuss the impact of the debate and the fact that the discussions are on Palestinian terms as opposed to Israel terms and representation.
  
• Back to the second speaker and what one International Apartheid Week (IAW) program in South Africa may do to help the IAW Program for the Palestinian.
  
• Back to Speaker #1 (Palestinian) and the discussion of the question of Justice.
  
• Back to Speaker #3 and the vision of the future: What they could be versus what they are now. But not actually saying what that vision is.
  
• Speaker #1 closes with the agenda about starting with "Justice" for her and Palestinians. But agenda lines outside the world of academia and studies.

(COMMENT)

It is a pro-Palestinian video, that is to target the audience that might be pro-Palestinian. It sounds very peaceful and righteous --- yet does not match any deeds that would afford justice or the past decision of the International Community.

Most Respectfully
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

What do you want, an outline?

P F Tinmore, et al,

I did watch the video.


(COMMENT)

It is more about the organization of the protest, the roll of the protester, and the scope of the theme than any real solutions.

Most Respectfully,
R

OK, expound.

(THUMBNAIL OUTLINE)

• It opens with a brief history of "Apartheid" week, where it has been and attendance success.
  
• Then the organizational theme and structure. Why not the focus on the Occupation but rather on the central theme of Apartheid and the view of the refugee. The opening speaker does promote the view that all of Palestine was stolen.
  
• The #2 speaker talks about the "Apartheid Week" participation at pro-Palestinian Universities; then identifying organization that have shown support. On the second tier, he talks about expansion of the program beyond the university cohort.
  
• Speaker #2 wants to redefine "Apartheid" in terms of separateness. Taking it outside the legal and technical framework. Emphasis was placed on the belief that Israeli is creating a "Jews Only" society at the expense of the Palestinian.
  
• The third speaker talks about the agenda of the event and that discussions will address the differentiation between "Apartheid" in strictly Gaza and the West Bank context; or they are expressing the view of "Apartheid" as it is viewed from the larger context of everything East of the Jordan; and that leading to what is experienced under the Israeli Regime, different groups of people are given different sets of rights on an "Ethno-Religious" basis (again deviating from the definition of Apartheid without ever telling the view what "Apartheid" means). He talks about the discussions on the exclusion of Palestinians from Israel (as a territorial unit - never mentioning sovereignty).
  
• Back to the first speaker, they discuss the impact of the debate and the fact that the discussions are on Palestinian terms as opposed to Israel terms and representation.
  
• Back to the second speaker and what one International Apartheid Week (IAW) program in South Africa may do to help the IAW Program for the Palestinian.
  
• Back to Speaker #1 (Palestinian) and the discussion of the question of Justice.
  
• Back to Speaker #3 and the vision of the future: What they could be versus what they are now. But not actually saying what that vision is.
  
• Speaker #1 closes with the agenda about starting with "Justice" for her and Palestinians. But agenda lines outside the world of academia and studies.

(COMMENT)

It is a pro-Palestinian video, that is to target the audience that might be pro-Palestinian. It sounds very peaceful and righteous --- yet does not match any deeds that would afford justice or the past decision of the International Community.

Most Respectfully
R

IAW was an informational event. A year late the Palestinians called for BDS. This matched the goals of IAM and they have virtually merged. BDS is specific in its goals.

Are there some items on your list that you disagree with?