troung

Olmert puts peace on table to free soldier

28nov06

JERUSALEM: Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert said last night he was prepared to release Palestinian prisoners and unblock frozen Palestinian funds in exchange for the release of a captured Israeli soldier.

The concession, to secure the release of Gilad Shalit, followed the withdrawal of Israeli troops from the Gaza Strip after a five-month offensive triggered by the capture of the 20-year-old tank corporal.
"In exchange for Gilad Shalit, Israel is ready to release many Palestinian prisoners, including some who have been sentenced heavily," Mr Olmert said at a ceremony in the desert to mark the anniversary of the death of Israel's first prime minister, David Ben Gurion.
Corporal Shalit was captured by Palestinian militants on June 25 in a cross-border raid claimed by three Palestinian groups, including the armed wing of the ruling Hamas movement .
Mr Olmert said Israel was prepared to withdraw from considerable Palestinian territory in exchange for peace, 24 hours after a shaky ceasefire went into effect in Gaza, handed back to the Palestinians last year.
The Prime Minister used the speech at Sde Boker, in the Negev Desert, to offer the Palestinians wide-ranging concessions if they turned away from violence, saying they would be able to achieve an independent state in the West Bank and Gaza Strip.
Mr Olmert said the Palestinians stood at a "historic crossroads" and could choose to continue on the path of either violence or peace.
If they chose the peace path, Israel would ease checkpoints and release frozen funds to the Palestinian Authority.
"We will agree to leave large territories and dismantle settlements we established," he said. "We will be willing to do this in exchange for real peace."
Palestinian militants have demanded that Israel release hundreds of prisoners in exchange for Coporal Shalit.
AFP

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au...9-2703,00.html

---
Only seen this picked up by one source.

__________________
To sit down with these men and deal with them as the representatives of an enlightened and civilized people is to deride ones own dignity and to invite the disaster of their treachery - General Matthew Ridgway

troung

Israel makes peace offer
Elsa McLaren and agencies
November 28, 2006
ISRAEL'S Prime Minister today moved forward the prospect of lasting peace in Gaza by offering wide-ranging peace concessions to the Palestinians if they turned away from violence.

In a major policy speech, Ehud Olmert said he was reaching out to the Palestinians for peace after five months of bloodshed that has followed the capture of the Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit by Hamas on June 25.

He announced that he was prepared to reduce checkpoints, release frozen funds and free prisoners in exchange for the release of Corporal Shalit and a serious push for peace.

"I hold out my hand in peace to our Palestinian neighbours in the hope that it won't be returned empty," Mr Olmert said.

"We cannot change the past and we will not be able to bring back the victims on both sides of the borders. All that we can do today is stop additional tragedies."

His speech comes one day after Israeli troops pulled out of the Gaza Strip following a ceasefire announced by Palestinian militants yesterday.

However, doubts over lasting peace in the region deepened after Israeli troops shot and killed two Palestinians, one a militant linked to Hamas, in a West Bank raid last night.

One of the dead was said to be a wanted militant affiliated with the Hamas-linked Popular Resistance Committees and the other was a woman who took the dead man's weapon and tried to run off, according to the army.

Mr Olmert said that the resumption of peace talks were on condition of the soldiers release and the acceptance by any future Palestinian unity government of international demands to renounce violence, the recognition of Israel and acceptance of existing interim peace accords.

"With Gilad Shalit's release and his return safe and sound to his family, the Israeli government will be willing to release many Palestinian prisoners, even those who have been sentenced to lengthy terms," Mr Olmert said.

However, Stephen Farrell, The Times's Israel Correspondent, said that many Palestinians were sceptical of Mr Olmert's comments and believed they were for the benefit of US President George W. Bush, who will meet Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki tomorrow.

"There is scepticism in Gaza amongst Palestinians that his words are intended only for Mr Bush's ears ahead of his visit," Farrell said.

The ceasefire is seen as a step to reviving peace talks that collapsed in 2000 before the start of a Palestinian uprising.

The deal appeared to be holding in Gaza early this morning, with no reports of Palestinian rocket fire into Israel. But, the shooting of two Palestinians during a raid by Israeli forces in the West Bank town of Qabatiya last night increases the chances of violence returning to the region.

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au...1-2703,00.html

Yirmeyahu

Returning stolen land belonging to Palestinians, stolen money belonging to Palestinians, and kidnapped Palestinians isn't making a "concession".

Nobody ever calls the offer to return Shalit in exchange for Palestinian prisoners a "concession". Nobody would even think of it.

That inconsistency is instructive, and tells a lot about us.

Stan187

Troll much?


I think whoever set this precedent in Israel of readily exchanging like a thousand terrorists for one or two people, is an idiot. Had to have known that it wasn't gonna just happen once. Idiots, idiots, idiots. After that, everyone and their mother is trying to kidnap an Israeli. Jeez, kidnap like a thousand Israelis and you could have a get out of jail card for every Palestinian terrorist in the next 50 years. Whoever agreed to that first retardedly off kilter deal way back when, screwed Israel worse than a suicide bomber in a crowded market.

Yirmeyahu

It's interesting, for the fact that it reveals your prejudice, that you regard as "terrorists" the thousands of prisoners who have been languishing in Israeli jails without charge or trial.

The violence this summer was sparked, in nearly universal versions, when Hamas abducted Corporal Shalit. The day before, June 24, Israel kidnapped two Palestinians, a doctor and his brother. Kidnapping civilians is a far graver crime than abducting soldiers.

As noted, thousands of Palestinians have been abducted by Israel. Most languish in prison without charge, without any evidence of wrongdoing--other than simply being Palestinian, that is.

Which, in some cases, as is patently evident with Stan 187, is enough.

We needn't get into the racism behind this phenomenon.

Stan187

Did you just accuse me of racism? Cuz if you did you're quite a bit out of line partner.

So wait, by your logic, even if we go so far as to say that Israel is this horrible entity that kidnaps people from their beds with teleportation and laser beams for no apparent reason, its MORE right to kidnap a soldier than a civilian?

Not only is this more right, but furthermore this soldier has of course been charged in some kind of legal process of the crimes that he committed, for which he deserved to get kidnapped, right? He has been given a fair trial and a right to defend himself?


Thanks for a lesson in retard logic. Now go kill yourself. (Just not in a kamikazi type way).

Yirmeyahu

Stan187,

I observed that the element of racism exists in the phenomenon of considering every Palestinian a "terrorist". Whether you are racist, I know not, but your prejudice, as I observed, is apparent, and I don't reject the possibility.

You asked me whether it was "MORE right to kidnap a soldier than a civilian". This is an invalid question, since I don't believe either is "right". The abduction and killing of Israeli soldiers in this case was wrong. However, it is a far more serious crime to kidnap civilians. This is true just as it is true that it is a crime to kill civilians during war, but is not a crime to kill soldiers.

As for the rest, it's nonsense that warrants no response. I would merely suggest you try to respond what I actually say, rather than trying to construct strawman arguments. It's of little practical use to do so, and it's dishonest. Telling me to "go kill yourself" is also unconstructive, albeit instructive as to your ability or willingness to meaningfully engage in a discussion of the facts.

Stan187

That was rhetorical question. You already answered it previously.

If its a graver crime to abduct civilians, its less of a crime to abduct soldiers. So then it follows that it is more right to kidnap soldiers.


Of and for the record, most members of Hamas are civilians. Hizballah are civilians. They are not part of an official national army. They are ''normal'' people with weapons and twisted view of morality. That does not make their crimes less grave. And it does not exempt them from being killed for their actions.

There is no such thing as discussing facts with someone who you are diametrically opposed to in viewpoint. Just like the Israelis and Palestinians don't see eye to eye on who has the right to the land. Agreeing on definitions of terms and "facts" is the hardest and last thing to ever be agreed on.

With that said, I still think your views are idiotic. And calling me prejudice is a nice copout on actually saying something intelligent, and pretty much the same thing as calling me a racist. Luckily, most members of this board can easily see through peeps like you, and they don't tend to last very long.

Yirmeyahu

Incorrect. "Less wrong" doesn't equate to "more right". For something to be MORE right than something else, it would have to have at least a modicum of rightness. I don't believe that is so in this case.

I'm not interested in debating semantics. As I said, kidnapping civilians is a far graver crime than abducting soldiers, just as it is a far graver crime to kill civilians during time of war than it is to kill soldiers.

Do you disagree?

Incorrect. Any individual that actively participates in hostilities, by definition, is a combatant, not a civilian.

Do you think Israel has a "right" to the land inhabited by Palestinians? If so, do you think Israel also has a "right" to forcibly remove the Palestinians in order to construct more illegal settlements? Do you believe Israel has some sort of "right" to commit theft, murder, and ethnic cleansing?

As for the rest, its nonsense that warrants no response. I would merely suggest that you try to refrain from ad hominum arguments, as you will find they serve you no constructive purpose.

Stan187

That's exactly how I feel about everything you're saying. Arguing about who's land it is, is indeed a questions of semantics. Arguing about morality of kidnapping someone, is indeed a question of semantics.

There is no war. You can't kidnap a soldier. I'll repeat, there is no war. Israel has the capbility to wipe the Palestinians off the face of the map in a week flat.

Your arguments are pretty lame really. You are trying to convince yourself a lot more than trying to convince anyone else. Your notions of legality are construced on a double standard that offers no validity to rational people. You're a cherry picker. You're willing to gloss over the things Palestinians do, and blame everything on Israelis. You've offered no constructive solution at any point, only whining and *****ing that serves no point.

Bluesman

The point he's making, and his point is a dam' good one, is that the combatants - the ILLEGAL combatants, since you're so eager to make this into a matter for the bar - the Israelis face are not subject to responsible command and control nor discipline, do not dress in distinctive uniform, do not carry their arms openly, do not, in fact, respect ANY of the laws of war, including most particularly the restriction on striking civilian targets to the point that civilian targets are their first choice...

The point is, the 'fighters' employed by Palestinians are savage killers, not merely a civilian militia. They are not the protectors of their people; their people are the protectors of THEM, as the bastards hide - literally - behind the skirts of women and the tiny bodies of children, relying upon the decency of the IDF to keep them alive.

You're cheering for the wrong side. You can't see that, because of your prejudices, which is why I find it ironic that you'd lecture anybody else on theirs.

__________________
"The quickest way of ending a war is to lose it, and if one finds the prospect of a long war intolerable, it is natural to disbelieve in the possibility of victory."
- George Orwell

Stan187

Then are the families of the militants, who hide and feed them and thus help them carry out their terror acts, also combatants? Because they're certainly participating. This is why everything IS a question of semantics.

Yirmeyahu

As I said, kidnapping civilians is a far greater crime than abducting soldiers. The Israeli occupation of Palestinian territory is brutal and illegal.

The suggestion has been made that something I've said demonstrates a "double standard". Instructively, no example was given to demonstrate the validity of the claim.

On the contrary, the double standard is to "gloss over", to borrow the phrase, Israeli crimes and blame everything on Palestinians, while offering no constructive solution.

The first step towards a solution is simple. The occupation must end. That's a prerequisite for a peaceful solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

I also regard it as a moral truism the principal of universality, which says that standards must apply equally, rather than in hypocritical fashion. This is the "first remove the plank from your own eye" doctrine of the Bible.

I am an American. I do not support Palestinian crimes, such as suicide bombings or the indiscriminate firing of rockets into Israel. I do, however, by virtue of being an American, support Israeli crimes. We support Israeli crimes financially, militarily, and diplomatically.

It's a moral and intellectual coward who can criticize the other and place sole blame on them while failing to hold oneself to the same standard and recognize one's own fault and responsibility.

No. No more than Israelis or Americans who pay their taxes and support the crimes of the Israeli government.

You, yourself, support Israel's crimes. Therefore, if you want to do something about the violence, there is something you can do, which would be to stop supporting criminal violence. Wailing about the criminal violence of others while supporting far worse crimes yourself is the height of hypocrisy.

ZFBoxcar

Yirmeyahu, do you consider all of British Mandate Palestine to be occupied, or "just" the territory captured from Egypt and Jordan in 1967?

As well, why do you laugh at the notion of Palestinians recognizing Israel's right to exist while demanding that Israel hand the Palestinians a state? This is in reference to what I've read on your website, not necessarily anything you have written here.

As well, you offer no constructive solution because you fail to recognize that Israel's presence West Bank and Gaza is not the only cause of Intifadah and violence. Like others have said, the violence began before the occupation, the PLO was formed in 1964, three years before Israel entered those territories. Furthermore, the cause of the Second Intifadah (not the excuse, but the cause) was Barak's offer to hand over to the Palestinians 95% of the West Bank, 100% of the Gaza Strip, and most of East Jerusalem. After brainwashing their children for generations about the evil parasitic Jews, they could not just accept a peace offer from them. The Palestinian leadership's ambition is to create a Palestinian state REPLACING Israel, not living along side them. Hamas admits it. Islamic Jihad admits it. The PFLP admits it. Arafat admitted it in Arabic although not in English. I have no idea what Abbas wants, I will give you that. Maybe he does want peace, but if he does he would be a change in the pattern, not a representative of the typical Palestinian leader.

Yirmeyahu

To clarify, when I refer to the "occupied territories", I am referring to those territories occupied since 1967.

I don't know where you've ever seen me "laugh" at the notion of Palestinians recognizing Israel's "right to exist". I've certainly pointed out the absurdity and hypocrisy of demanding that Palestinians recognize Israel's "right to exist" while Israel continues to deny the same right to any Palestinian state.

And I've certainly never "demanded" that Israel "hand the Palestinians a state". A Palestinian state is not something which Israel can give. It's not theirs to give. Obviously, though, the illegal occupation must end as a prerequisite to achieving that goal.

You say I "offer no constructive solution". This is puzzling. The solutions I have proposed are not mystifying. If we want to end the violence, we can stop committing violence. If we want there to be a Palestinian state, we can stop rejecting a Palestinian state.

These elementary steps are not in heaven, that one should say, "Who will ascend into heaven for us and bring it to us, that we may hear it and do it?"

As for the "offer" you speak of, it's a myth. What Arafat was offered no leader could possibly have accepted. But even if such an "offer" had been made, I ask you: If someone stole a dollar from you, would you consider the thief offering you back 95 cents as somehow being gracious? And would you not demand the other 5 cents? Or would you be willing to let it go out of fear or intimidation from the bully?