Member Profile

Total number of comments: 7 (since 2013-11-28 16:37:33)

David Ender

Showing comments 7 - 1

  • Washington Actions on Palestine don't Differ from Gingrich's Words
    • Thanks Mr. Cole. That's quite interesting.

      Again, though. Instead of looking at the past.
      It doesn't matter if the palestinians created their identity half a year ago, it exists now.
      Israel exists now too.
      So we have to work with what is currently there and try to make it better, in baby steps or in giant leaps. Who cares!

      Offer up solutions. The Israeli government needs to realise that a long-term solution needs to be found. An ethical solution, too.
      The PA and Hamas need to start cooperating again so that deals made with one would reflect upon the other.
      Negotiations should be ongoing on all the issues. There should not be prerequisites for negotiations on either side.
      Let Israel build settlements, if the negotiations say they have to be dismantled, so be it.

      Let Hamas shoot rockets, they're shooting anyway. If after a deal they are still shooting even though Israel is taking care of its side, then there would be problems. But we need solutions.

      This situation is bad for everyone involved.

      By the way I'm from Europe, so it's the other way around, I see a lot of pro-Palestinian media and very little pro-Israeli media. Most of it is focused on how Israel is depriving Gazans of food and essential materials and it never shows the part where daily rockets are hitting Israel.

    • You can point me out if I'm wrong, but I have read in several places that in some places the Arab leadership had promised people that if they went, they would come back to their houses with no problems.

      Of course not all the gangs were founded because of the Arab revolts or protests. I didn't say that. My point was that they didn't just appear out of nowhere to kill Arabs. In most cases it was done to protect themselves from Arabs. As you rightly showed however, some gangs later became much more offensive in their tactics.

      Calling it irrelevant is what's wrong, because it was a direct cause and effect relationship. Israel declares independence -> neighboring countries attack Israel, Jews get expelled from countries.

      My point is that when you talk about Israel, and I'm talking about most of the ones I have read. You usually have a negative tone towards it. And it's not just the Likud Party, but Israel in general.

      While I don't agree with Israel's current policies (which I believe will ultimately lead to the fall of Israel), I do think that people are very one-sided in this conflict - on both aisles.

      I really like your articles, and I'm starting to believe you actually do not understand it. That when you just point out one side doing wrong in this conflict, without pointing out the other side, it will automatically be seen as just that one side doing wrong.

      Apart from that, I think people should start thinking about solutions more than the past.

      I had a good conversation with someone a long time ago.
      But in short:
      - No way to get all Palestinians their homes back, so monetary compensation instead.
      - Back to 67 borders, with some landswaps.
      - Militias need to disarm
      - Israel needs to open up borders.
      - UN needs to take over Jerusalem as a cultural city, managed jointly with Israel and future Palestinian state
      - Safe tunnel needs to be built from West Bank to Gaza
      - Joint border controls.

      and so on.

      I believe these touch on most of the points on both sides.
      It's unfortunate today's leaders only see the past and do not look towards the future. I'd like to encourage people to think like this rather than look at the past.

      Suggest solutions, don't go and dig out old problems.

    • "The European Jews ultimately formed a third of the population in Mandate Palestine, and at the end of WW II, they became militant, formed militias, assassinated officials, engaged in terrorism, and ultimately chased the British out and ethnically cleansed some 700,000 Palestinians, allowing them to create the state of Israel. The 1948 war did not necessitate the ethnic cleansing. Jordanian forces never threatened to come into the territory designated for Israel in the UNGA partition plan.

      Parts of Mandate Palestine — Gaza and the West Bank– escaped the Israelis’ control in 1948. But in 1967 the Israelis conquered these remaining Palestinian territories and have ruled them militarily ever since (they rule Gaza by controlling its air, sea and land borders and occasionally bombing or invading it). Contrary to the law of occupation, the Israelis have been settling on and stealing Palestinian land in the West Bank on a large scale ever since."

      You say the above as if Israel is to blame for all of it. The people in the mandate didn't form militias just for the heck of it, they formed most of them after the Arab Revolt, where they saw that they needed to protect themselves.
      link to
      link to

      You pretend that the entire 700000 people left because of Israel, while there is proof that it was Arab leaders who threatened or told people to leave with the promise of getting their homes back and more. There is proof that in some communities Jews even tried to encourage Arabs to stay.
      You also seem to forget that Israel, being only a few days old was invaded by all its neighbors. You seem to be oblivious to that fact. You seem very hostile towards Israel and you do the exact thing you ask your own politicians not to do, which is to see things from more than one side.

      You also seem to forget the 6-700000 Jews forcefully expelled from their home countries, Arab countries.

      You pretend that Israel wanted to deal with Gaza and the West Bank. The West Bank was owned by Jordan, who apparently are very happy to have gotten rid of 1000000 Palestinians, same with Gaza, but the Egyptians instead. They never wanted their territories back. It was an unforeseen event from a preventive first-strike on Egypt, which yet again pitted Israel against several countries at a time.

      Like I have said before, most of your articles are well-written and are mostly written in a very neutral tone. Your articles about Israel are very hostile and very one-sided.
      I think you need to start reading a bit more on the other side of the fence, otherwise, you'll end up just like one of the drones you try so hard to educate with this blog.

  • Empire by the Numbers
    • So at least something good will come out of all this bickering ...

      "Likely cut in Pentagon budget as a result of failure of super-committee to reach budget deal: 20%"

  • New Libya, Welcomed in Mideast, Rejects NATO Bases
  • Is the Arab Spring Coming to Palestine?
    • A few points on an otherwise good article.

      1. The border fences are not to stop Palestinians from coming. It's to stop anyone from coming in. You live in the US and you know that the US border force would also shoot anyone trying to trespass.
      link to

      So that point is moot when you have hundreds of people trying to get through a border fence.

      2. The Israelis did reneg on most dealing in the Oslo Accords, but so did the Palestinians.

      3. Israel did not usurp a territory of a foreign nation. The West Bank had always been considered "Disputed Territories" by the UN, but when Jordan was in control of the West Bank, most people didn't say anything.

      The West Bank thus does not fall under that article of the Charter of the UN.

      On the good side. I agree that countries should give the Palestinians a Yes vote. I think the Palestinians should unilaterally declare themselves independent after the UN vote, similar to what Israel did.

      If (and this is a big if) the countries of the World really do care for the Palestinian cause (which they probably don't...) then the West Bank should be able to get easier access to border crossings with Jordan and Gaza's border with Egypt should open too allowing for access to trade for good and other materials.

  • Amnesty Int'l: United Nations Must Reject Israeli Campaign to Avoid Accountability for Gaza War Crimes
    • Yeah, I think Phud is right. I also think that Amnesty saying that Goldstone does not dispute their findings of Israel/Hamas trying to minimize civilian casualties is a stupid argument. Goldstone also does not dispute that a leaf can be green. Goldstone only disputes or comments on his own findings compared to how they were thought of when the investigation started. He can't go an refute Amnesty's findings in an op-ed dedicated to his own report.

      I have a mini-summary of Goldstone's op-ed on my blog.

Showing comments 7 - 1

Shares 0