Comments on: Grassroots change we CAN believe in

By: jose

jose — Mon, 12 Oct 2009 13:03:32 +0000

jose linked here saying, “By Khaled Diab, a Brussels-based journalist and wr …”

By: chronikler

chronikler — Thu, 30 Jul 2009 07:23:04 +0000

Aedan, indeed, Mitchell played a good mediating role in Ireland – but the conflict in N Ireland was at a completely different stage in its evolution and he just had to give it that final nudge – at least compared to the Il-Pal situation. In the Middle East, he is and was hampered by both the intransigence of the situation and his own government’s unbalanced foreign policy. More on him here http://chronikler.com/middle-east/israel-palestine/states-of-confusion/

Declan, good one! Indeed, Dr Bernadiner’s PhD seems to be in mythmaking and racism!

By: Declan

Declan — Wed, 29 Jul 2009 12:44:05 +0000

Hello there Dr Bernadiner.. I take it you PHD is not in International Studies or Conflict Resolution. Do you cut and paste that piece into many blogs?

Swiftly moving around the troll..I saw another interesting piece on Comment is Free regarding the Left and it’s relationship with Israel:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/jul/28/israel-free-speech-middle-east

By: Mark Bernadiner

Mark Bernadiner — Tue, 28 Jul 2009 19:14:02 +0000

Israel-Arab Peace Plan Principles

Starting in 1948 from very first day of recreation of the State of Israel on the part of Israel territory, Arab countries waged several wars to eliminate Israel from her historic land. Israel won all wars and now Arab countries propose a peace agreement with Israel under conditions, which they intended to dictate. However, only Israel, who won all the wars and defeated Arab countries, has legal rights to formulate and dictate peace agreement terms and conditions, which, in general, shell include the following provisions:

1. Palestinian muslims must compensate Jews for damages caused by Jews massacres conducted in Palestine in 1920s-1930s under British administration supervision.
2. Arab countries must compensate Israel for damages inflicted on Israel during wars launched by Arab countries.
3. Arab countries must compensate several million Jews expelled from Arab countries between 1948 and 1953, where they lived for centuries, for violation of international law and stilling Jewish properties.
4. Arab countries must recognize Article 24 of the 1964 PLO charter addressed to UN, which stipulates: “Palestinian muslims do not claim Judea and Samaria (West Bank) and Gaza their territories”.
5. Arab countries must comply with Geneva Convention, which recognizes Israel rights on Gaza, Judea and Samaria, historic Jewish land liberated by Israel in 1967 war from Jordan and Egypt occupation.
6. Arab countries must recognize Jerusalem as historic Israel capital.
7. Egypt and Jordan are obligated to relocate Palestinian muslims (their former citizens) from Gaza (Egypt), Judea and Samaria (Jordan) inside their territories within 1 (negotiable) year term.
8. Arab countries have no right to develop or acquire WMD or weapon that can be used against Israel.

If any Arab country denies this peace terms and conditions, Israel has full legal rights for preemptive strike against this country using all available military power.

Mark Bernadiner, PH.D.

[Note: Parts of this comment have been deleted due to their overt racism and incitment to racial violence]

By: Aedan

Aedan — Mon, 27 Jul 2009 20:08:32 +0000

Dear Khaled Diab,

I think there is a key element in Obama’s strategy that you have not referred to here: the appointment of George Mitchell – author of the Mitchell principles and much more.

As an Irishman I watched gratefully as Mitchell played a vital role in the transformation of Northern Irish politics away from endless repetition of negative nationalistic slogans into debate on the provision of good roads, schools, hospitals, jobs… Everything you call for.

He did it by insisting on recognition of the existence and the rights of the other side and an insistence that negotiation is based on a commitment to peace. Until you settle the ground rules and the questions of identity, forget about the efficiency of the infrastructure or any reduction in the US financial commitment to Israeli military.

Ground rules allow people to experiment with other ways of thinking.

If Mitchell is to succeed, Israel has at least as far to travel as its neighbors. Its flag is the religious symbol of one section of its society. Its state does not recognize the language, cultural rights, nor the right to full citizenship of around 20%(?) of its own population. A sustainable peace would require an Israel without second class citizens as well as new relations with its neighbors. That’s a big shift for them to make – a shift to a whole new way of imagining their state and the future.

The barriers are huge. So much in Israel is designed to bolster its image as a state under siege. But it can change. That siege mentality is very familiar to anyone who had contact with Ulster Protestants of 15 to 20 years ago. Their mythology was just as full of sieges as the Israelis.

Israelis will never have the confidence to open the gates (should that be breach the wall?) without the guarantee of American involvement and support. God help Mitchell.