Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/jan/23/palestine-papers-expose-peace-concession

Not from Julian Assange & team, though they did release some cables of their own to support this.

Anyway, the big thrust of the leaks is that the Palestinian authorities basically offered Israel everything they'd been asking for, up to an including ceding the illegal settlements to Israel. Israel categorically rejected the offer though, because as is becoming very bloody obvious to everyone who's paying attention, Israel really has no desire for peace.

It's becoming just as obvious that this situation will not change until real and meaningful pressure is put on Israel to play its part in resolving the issue.

Damn wiki-leaks.

Cannerus_The_Unbearable wrote:Damn wiki-leaks.

This isn't from wikileaks. It's US embassy leaks that ended up with al-Jazeera.

Israel has to do its part, or it can expect more of its people to die.

Secret documents from Palestine say mean things about Israel?

I wonder what the Israeli documents say about those same issues.

Monster Rain wrote:Secret documents from Palestine say mean things about Israel?

I wonder what the Israeli documents say about those same issues.

So you didn't read the link then? Because it has nothing to do with Palestine saying mean things about Israel, and everything to do with the scope of Palestinian concessions to Israel - concessions Palestine would not want public as it would reveal how weak their position is to Palestine.

Monster Rain wrote:Secret documents from Palestine say mean things about Israel?

I wonder what the Israeli documents say about those same issues.

The leaks from the US consulate appear to agree with the Palestinian sources.

My tin foil hat theory is that Israel leaked this stuff so that it will make the current Palestinian leadership appear weak and cause a divide amongst the Palestinians once again. Violence will obviously break out between the factions and once an Isreali is killed they will have some "moral high ground" to respond in kind. The cycle continues.

My personal opinion is, there will never be peace until one side is destroyed completely.

NELS1031 wrote:My personal opinion is, there will never be peace until one side is destroyed completely.

Given the population of both states are growing quite quickly, and that the violence between the two is on the level of minor skirmishes, there is no possibility of one side or the other being destroyed. Instead we have to look at the end-states that might actually happen. Given the long history of nay-sayers declaring that peace is inevitable, and saying it increasingly loudly until peace is actually reached, we have to realise that peace is never impossible, and that it can be reached provided both sides have a reason to seek it.

Right now the problem is that only one side wants peace. This is not because one side is inherently more peaceful or morally superior to the other, it's because one side is in the grips of an Israeli/Egyptian blockade that keeps it's citizens in utter poverty. The other side has no desire for peace, because it operates as it pleases - why would it agree to Palestinian offers of land, when it could just finish the current settlements, then expand again?

This will only change when diplomatic support for Israel drops away, and they are threatened with international sanction unless they attempt peace talks in earnest.

This wouldn't of happened if Wiki-leaks didn't start this.

And removal of support of Israel by the US would be a serious invitation by Islamic nations to consider a more hostile and possibly war-like option against them.

WarOne wrote:And removal of support of Israel by the US would be a serious invitation by Islamic nations to consider a more hostile and possibly war-like option against them.

This is nonsense. For a start, there is no nation in the region with the political, economic, and military capability to threaten Israel. Most notably, Egypt has become a US client state, the recipient of the second greatest amount of US military aid after Israel, and would have nothing to do with future antagonism against Israel.

Second of all, you can maintain close relations with a country and maintain a pact to defend it in the wake of any hostile action, while refusing to condone it's effective imprisonment of a whole population. In fact, you can use one as leverage to gain the other.

Hopefully, as more of the world begins to understand that the idea of Israel as a poor little nation besieged on all sides is nonsense, the above will become politically viable.

Only an idiot would invade Israel. They have nukes. They have stated that they will use them.

Amaya wrote:Only an idiot would invade Israel. They have nukes. They have stated that they will use them.

Indeed

sebster wrote:

Monster Rain wrote:Secret documents from Palestine say mean things about Israel?

I wonder what the Israeli documents say about those same issues.

So you didn't read the link then? Because it has nothing to do with Palestine saying mean things about Israel, and everything to do with the scope of Palestinian concessions to Israel - concessions Palestine would not want public as it would reveal how weak their position is to Palestine.

I read it.

This is not going to change anyone's mind.

In large part because, despite all the trappings about rational security or humanitarian interest, the issue is, for most people, and emotional one.

Monster Rain wrote:I read it.

This is not going to change anyone's mind.

You read it, but going by your first post it's clear you didn't bother to comprehend it. Note when I mentioned in my OP that the reality of the situation is very obvious to everyone who's paying attention... you're one of the ones who isn't paying attention. So no, it isn't going to change your mind, you've got your side and that's enough for you.

Fortunately there's always folk out there who are paying attention, who are thinking about the issue, and as the reality of the situation in Palestine becomes more clear, those people are no longer supporting Israel. The trend is inevitable, and eventually it will be great enough that Israel will have to stop the blockade and the construction of illegal settlements.

I'm paying attention.

Forgive me if I'm skeptical of Al Jazeera airing that they finally proved that Israel is as evil as we always thought they were.

Last night Erekat said the minutes of the meetings were "a bunch of lies and half truths". Qureia told AP that "many parts of the documents were fabricated, as part of the incitement against the … Palestinian leadership".

I also comprehended this part of your story, even though its much more fun to jump to conclusions.

dogma wrote:In large part because, despite all the trappings about rational security or humanitarian interest, the issue is, for most people, and emotional one.

Which is weird, because most folk have no emotional ties. I think the appeal of the narrative, Jews gaining their homeland after the Holocaust, defending it brilliantly against a league of Arabic countries... is a really powerful narrative. So much so that when that story ended in the 1970s, they never bother to keep reading. I can kind of understand why, the narrative became a lot grittier, suddently the Jews weren't so perfectly good anymore, and were allied with half their old enemies, and now the sympathetic guy are the civilians in Palestine, who are coupled with a brutal occupier and a corrupt government of their own... but who wants to read about a victim.

So they just stopped reading in the 70s, and pretend the story never changed.

sebster wrote:
Which is weird, because most folk have no emotional ties. I think the appeal of the narrative, Jews gaining their homeland after the Holocaust, defending it brilliantly against a league of Arabic countries... is a really powerful narrative. So much so that when that story ended in the 1970s, they never bother to keep reading. I can kind of understand why, the narrative became a lot grittier, suddently the Jews weren't so perfectly good anymore, and were allied with half their old enemies, and now the sympathetic guy are the civilians in Palestine, who are coupled with a brutal occupier and a corrupt government of their own... but who wants to read about a victim.

So they just stopped reading in the 70s, and pretend the story never changed.

It gets even stranger. I'm 24, and I know people my age (so, not even conceived in the 70's) whose parents are first-generation Asian immigrants (so, not really connected to that era of American politics, having landed at the end of the CW) that have a strong, visceral reactions to any speech that is critical of Israel. I acknowledge that the narrative is powerful, but I think a larger part (at least in America) may be the extent to which stances on Israel-Palestine are tightly bound to political parties, and therefore the rest of the vitriol that permeates this nation's politics.

Monster Rain wrote:I'm paying attention.

Forgive me if I'm skeptical of Al Jazeera airing that they finally proved that Israel is as evil as we always thought they were.

There's little doubt about the authenticity of the leaks. If you read the article you'd know they contain verbatim transcripts of meetings, which have been verified by sources in diplomatic and intelligence services, and have been matched against leaks from US embassies on the matter.

The only reason to doubt them is to invent a reason to look past them, something a person might want to do if they were trying to avoid asking some hard truths about their political view of the situation.

Last night Erekat said the minutes of the meetings were "a bunch of lies and half truths". Qureia told AP that "many parts of the documents were fabricated, as part of the incitement against the … Palestinian leadership".

I also comprehended this part of your story, even though its much more fun to jump to conclusions.

Of course the Palestinian leadership denies it. They now look like they offered up everything and still couldn't get peace. Their positions are now untenable... what else would they do but deny them?

sebster wrote:
Of course the Palestinian leadership denies it. They now look like they offered up everything and still couldn't get peace. Their positions are now untenable... what else would they do but deny them?

Someone else mentioned it earlier in the thread, but it bears mentioning again (if only because it lends credence to your point) that this is exactly the sort of thing Israel might release in order to undermine Fatah, and thereby justify a much more aggressive policy towards the West Bank if a mor extreme group were to take over.

I mean, its win-win. Even if Israel is found to be responsible for the leaks, it still makes Fatah look impotent.

dogma wrote:It gets even stranger. I'm 24, and I know people my age (so, not even conceived in the 70's) whose parents are first-generation Asian immigrants (so, not really connected to that era of American politics, having landed at the end of the CW) that have a strong, visceral reactions to any speech that is critical of Israel. I acknowledge that the narrative is powerful, but I think a larger part (at least in America) may be the extent to which stances on Israel-Palestine are tightly bound to political parties, and therefore the rest of the vitriol that permeates this nation's politics.

It's very weird, that emotional attachment to the issue.

I'm not sure it's tied to politics, I mean the only political party in the world that's more aggressive in it's defence of Israeli foreign policy than the US Democrats is the US Republicans, and I'm including Israeli parties in that


Automatically Appended Next Post:

dogma wrote:Someone else mentioned it earlier in the thread, but it bears mentioning again (if only because it lends credence to your point) that this is exactly the sort of thing Israel might release in order to undermine Fatah, and thereby justify a much more aggressive policy towards the West Bank if a mor extreme group were to take over.

I mean, its win-win. Even if Israel is found to be responsible for the leaks, it still makes Fatah look impotent.

I can certainly see Palestine becoming more militant. Which would only make Israel's position easier. Here's hoping it doesn't happen.

The US and Judaism has a much longer shared history than the US and Islam. While not always really positive, Judaism has a much more positive place in the American psyche. Islam is typically (even pre-9/11) associated with Terrorism and backwardness. Add in the political dimension and it just ramps up the us versus them attitude. It is emotional becuase most people don't have an inordinate amount of time to research every foreign affair situation they go on cultural shorthand. Hell, how often have we heard the 'modern democracy' associated with Israel? They are modern, the surrounding areas are barely post-barbarism, amiright? Of course not, but the attitude is their. I could go into more points but I am incredibly lazy.

Still, I find it odd that people I know side with Israel, despite having no relationship with Jews, but an extended relationship with Muslims.

dogma wrote:Still, I find it odd that people I know side with Israel, despite having no relationship with Jews, but an extended relationship with Muslims.

I wasn't attempting to be definitive, just add to what you had already posited. I would guess it goes back to the superstructure of the underlying language we use when discussing the problem in the public sphere. Generally. I also think it is our nature to want clear cut good guys and bad guys in situations. If your led to believe for a long period of time someone is a good guy you tend to not want to believe you were wrong the whole time. We want simple answers from an incredibly complicated situation, so they make it simple.

Ahtman wrote:The US and Judaism has a much longer shared history than the US and Islam. While not always really positive, Judaism has a much more positive place in the American psyche. Islam is typically (even pre-9/11) associated with Terrorism and backwardness.

Yeah, I get this and understand much of it about picking the Jews over the Muslims. But if you've got a friend and he's in an ongoing dispute with his neighbour that you don't like, you're going to reflexively back your friend. But at some point over the next 30 years of the dispute, you'd think you'd try and find out what's going on, and when you find out your mate keeps taking the other guy's land, and that the other guy offered to surrender all the stolen land to just make the problem go away...

It is emotional becuase most people don't have an inordinate amount of time to research every foreign affair situation they go on cultural shorthand.

This is the real mystery... "I'm no expert but I've got a strong opinion" indeed. I mean, if you don't have the time to actually learn the why's and wherefores of the problem... just don't form an opinion. Leave it to others. Or spend the time reading.

1. Israel: democracy. Rest of Middle East isn't.

2. Israel: Terrorism against US: 0
Other Guys: lots

sebster wrote:

WarOne wrote:And removal of support of Israel by the US would be a serious invitation by Islamic nations to consider a more hostile and possibly war-like option against them.

This is nonsense. For a start, there is no nation in the region with the political, economic, and military capability to threaten Israel. Most notably, Egypt has become a US client state, the recipient of the second greatest amount of US military aid after Israel, and would have nothing to do with future antagonism against Israel.

Second of all, you can maintain close relations with a country and maintain a pact to defend it in the wake of any hostile action, while refusing to condone it's effective imprisonment of a whole population. In fact, you can use one as leverage to gain the other.

Hopefully, as more of the world begins to understand that the idea of Israel as a poor little nation besieged on all sides is nonsense, the above will become politically viable.

And don't forget that Wiki-leaks has put them in this position!

This is nonsense. For a start, there is no nation in the region with the political, economic, and military capability to threaten Israel.

*Except for Iran and Turkey. Of course when attacked its typically 2-3 countries at a time against Israel so add in Syria. Additionally, it means nothing when Hammas and Hezbullah continue to fire rockets into Israel, daily. But we shouldn't be concerned about that I guess.

Frazzled wrote:
This is nonsense. For a start, there is no nation in the region with the political, economic, and military capability to threaten Israel.
*Except for Iran and Turkey. Of course when attacked its typically 2-3 countries at a time against Israel so add in Syria. Additionally, it means nothing when Hammas and Hezbullah continue to fire rockets into Israel, daily. But we shouldn't be concerned about that I guess.

Which part is nonsense?

Alright, let me actually put on my serious mode rather than be an idiot goading others into addressing my baseless comments.

Extremist reactionaries and relatively peaceful activists are both not going to harm Israel on a militaristic level. There can be outcries of overreaction for what Israel does, and extremists who do not wish to compromise on issues that favor Israel will turn to other means, such as rhetoric, rockets, or whatever gets thrown.

It shouldn't harm Israel so long as Israel does not provoke a neighbor or lose genuine support that is normally enjoys.