Israeli ex-president and Nobel laureate Shimon Peres dies

At least he earned his Nobel Peace Prize, not like Obama, who got it literally for giving a few speaches

Oh. You mean the famous Obama "Apology Tour".

Oh. You mean the famous Obama "Apology Tour".

If more American presidents did that, it would greatly improve America's standing in the world.

Some Israelis act in good faith towards the prospect of a 2-state solution. Other Israelis will never accept it, and express it openly.

A third segment -- very troubling -- pretends to support the former, while serving the latter. I honestly don't know if Peres was in this group. No matter; may he rest in peace, and may his family be comforted.

I honestly don't know if Peres was in this group.

Then why would you ever bring it up? You know Trump often does this kind of thing. 'Something, something is possibile. I'm not saying it's true. I am just saying it is possible." Well anything is 'possible'. However, if you have absolutely no reason, and you say you 'honestly don't know', then I think it would have been best if you just wrote your last sentence and left it at that.

Shimon Peres was an honorable man who worked for peace and he deserves respect for that. Would that the current prime minister were a man like him.

Then why would you ever bring it up?

It's extremely important.

and you say you 'honestly don't know', then I think it would have been best if you just wrote your last sentence and left it at that.

Your comment has prompted me to turn to some Israeli publications on the death of Peres. In Haaretz, Gideon Levy writes: "If Israel is on the verge of a moral abyss, then Peres had a part in that. If it’s a country en route to apartheid, he was a founding partner. The truth must be told: Shimon Peres wanted peace, but never saw Palestinians as equal to Jews."

"He was the country’s pretty face but also misleading....Those world leaders who will be coming to his funeral tomorrow will also effusively praise his contribution to peace. But what peace? The man gave us the Dimona reactor and the 1956 Sinai Operation, Upper Nazareth and Ofra, Israel Military Industries and Israel Aerospace Industries – so how much peace (and justice) did he really bring, and how much occupation and settlements?

"There’s no doubt that he wanted peace and worked for it. But he stopped halfway by ignoring the settlement issue during the Oslo process, and there are no half-paths to peace. "

Half-paths...An interesting word

I was giving Peres the benefit of a doubt. You have helped me see my shortfall. Much appreciated.

The truth must be told: Shimon Peres wanted peace, but never saw Palestinians as equal to Jews."

In general, neither side sees the other side as equals. That is the general problem. However, as your quote says, Shimon Peres wanted peace, worked for peace and was awarded the Nobel Prize for his work.

There’s no doubt that he wanted peace and worked for it. But he stopped halfway by ignoring the settlement issue during the Oslo process, and there are no half-paths to peace.

Again, your quote clearly states Shimon Peres wanted peace and worked for peace. Your quote assumes something negative because he did not deal with the settlements in the way that the person you quoted had hoped for. However, the Palestinians did agree to Oslo and the talks were successful at the time.

I was giving Peres the benefit of a doubt.

No, you were not. That was the point of my response to you. Interestingly, even your quotes do not change the truth of what I wrote in response to you above. Both Peres and Rabin started out as hawks. This is a fact and is even mentioned in the article. However both later did work hard for and made huge strides for peace in the region. This cannot be denied.

In general, neither side sees the other side as equals. That is the general problem. However, as your quote says, Shimon Peres wanted peace, worked for peace and was awarded the Nobel Prize for his work.

As my article states: "[Peres] wanted peace. Who doesn’t? But the truth must be told, even in difficult moments; he never perceived the Palestinians as equal to Jews, and certainly not as having equal rights."

"[Peres] contributed a great deal to Israel – to its security, to its prosperity – but not to its justice. So just don’t say he was a man of peace." (Again, this is an Israeli writer.)

As some might say: "No justice; no peace."

However, the Palestinians did agree to Oslo and the talks were successful at the time.

Not according to many Israelis: "[Peres] is being hailed now as the godfather of peace in the Middle East, yet it was Menachem Begin who signed a peace treaty with Egypt and Rabin who reached an accord with King Hussein of Jordan, while Peres’ offspring, the Oslo Accords, stalled and derailed."

"Peres was insulted to the very core of his being when his arch rival Yitzhak Rabin branded him forever as a “tireless schemer” in his 1970’s autobiography Service Book."

The only Israeli politicos to eulogize Peres at his funeral are [three] from Likud. None from the Israeli "peace camp."

As Chemi Shalev writes: Peres was a man of "countless contradictions."

Readers may make of all that what they will. This is my last post on this, as I'm not going to squabble with you.

Peres, just like Obama, is symbolic of the farce that is the Nobel peace prize.

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/shimon-peres-dies-israel-qana-massacre-never-forget-no-peacemaker-robert-fisk-a7334656.html

As my article states: "[Peres] wanted peace. Who doesn’t? But the truth must be told, even in difficult moments; he never perceived the Palestinians as equal to Jews, and certainly not as having equal rights."

You said you check 'Israeli publications', but you should have written that you checked one article of a writer you happen to agree with. What I have noticed is that neither you nor the author of your one article show any evidence of your opinion that Peres did not think Palestinians were equal to Jews. There is no evidence of this. There is also no evidence to suggest that Peres thought Palestinians did not deserve to have equal rights, whatever this was supposed to mean.

I do know you and your author of this one Israeli article mention things Peres did in the distant past. But fail to note that he was for a two state solution, he was against the settlements and he said so publically often.

Not according to many Israelis

Again, one author, not matter how respect, does not equal 'many Israelis'. Levy is no fan of Menachem Begin. I love how people attempt to use people they dislike to claim how great they are in order to further their own agenda. It's like the Trump people who keep going on and on about how Sanders was robbed by the DNC when they really could not care less about the DNC, they are just after Clinton.

As Chemi Shalev writes: Peres was a man of "countless contradictions."

So, was Rabin. So was Begin. So was Arafat. So is Abbas. The Middle East is teaming with contradictions. However, as long as the people work toward peace in the end, that is all that counts.

Yabits

Gideon Levy advocates for the one-state solution. Meaning, for Levy, the two-state solution is going half-way to peace.

Black Sabbath,

Good point.

I had an opportunity to read yabits pasts posts on the subject of Israel and it is clear that yabits also advocates a one state solution.

There are quite a few contradictions.

One reads, 'It matters not.' in one breath and then in the next, 'It's extremely important.'

One reads suggestions that past alleged acts erase peaceful acts that follow. Essentially making the allegation that nothing anyone does can overcome the past. Interestingly, Levy was Peres' spokesman for four years. Yes, that was years, not days. One can assume Levy knew of Peres' hawkish earlier stances, but was still happy enough to work for him for four years. So, does that mean Levy is not a man of peace based on his past actions?

Peres was clearly for a two state solution. Reasonable people are.

Meaning, for Levy, the two-state solution is going half-way to peace.

Black Sabbath: If you had 100 acres of land in your family handed down for generations, and someone came and forcibly removed you and took all your land from you, I seriously doubt if you would consider that a ruling that gave you back 50 acres would be "halfway to justice" in your eyes. Especially when the judge comes from the family of those who stole your land.

Perhaps you would, but I doubt it.

Yabits

Am I to understand from this that you also view the two-state solution as a half-measure to peace?

Half-paths...An interesting word

What is ironic is that the one-state idea, which is supported by Levy, Netanyahu and yabits, is absolutely no path to peace. They prefer the continued blame game somehow continuing to ignore the reality that the has been honest grievances and blood enough on both sides. Flawed as he might have been, Peres at least was working toward a real path to peace: The two-state solution.

There is no other option.

This is my last post on this

Vowing to avoid poison ivy is making a rash promise.

Am I to understand from this that you also view the two-state solution as a half-measure to peace?

No, Black Sabbath. One must be fully committed to peace. South African bantustans were multi-state entities. They were not solutions. I refuse to apply the word "solution" to the situation in Palestine, preceded by "two-state."

This is my last post on this, as I'm not going to squabble with you

"This" means directed to a certain individual on a certain line of thought. Seems obvious.

I refuse to apply the word "solution" to the situation in Palestine, preceded by "two-state."

I understand. I see it differently:

I am no Zionist, and don't care if Israel wants to merge with Palestine, or remain a Jewish state. It really doesn't matter to me.

But I know this:

Few in Israel wish to merge with Palestine.

For this reason, at this point and for the foreseeable future, the one-state idea is not a solution; it is a hinderance to improving things.

One must be fully committed to peace.

Your way continues what has been going on. It is not the way to peace. Look at Iraq, Libya and Syria for a view to the future of your 'peace'.

I refuse to apply the word "solution" to the situation in Palestine, preceded by "two-state."

Sadly this means that you refuse to commit to peace. As I wrote, so do Levy and Netanyahu.

"This" means

This meant this discussion. This article. This topic of Peres and his work toward peace. You are still here. Yes, it is obvious. Looking at your posts now, it is also obvious that you were not being straight forward when you wrote:

I honestly don't know if Peres was in this group.

It is quite obvious you had already made up your mind about Peres and about the two state solution.

For this reason, at this point and for the foreseeable future, the one-state idea is not a solution; it is a hinderance to improving things.

Exactly. For me, whatever would work would be fine. It is obvious however that the one-state is not a solution. It is more of the same misery we see in the Middle East in general.

I see it differently.. I am no Zionist, and don't care if Israel wants to merge with Palestine, or remain a Jewish state. It really doesn't matter to me.

Thank you, Black Sabbath. We can see things differently without any jabs being taken at a person's integrity.

A truly Jewish state -- one that fulfills the original mandate from Mount Sinai as a "light to all nations" -- matters very much to me. Under that code, a thief who keeps any of what he steals is still a thief. Peres seemed to care about that mandate. But he was very much like a chameleon; he could appear many ways to many different people.

I don't like or use the term two-state solution any more than I would the term final solution. I see it than no more than a temporary, flimsy accommodation, and one that will not bring peace. In the end, peace will come and there will be one true Israel in the land -- but that is not the current Zionist state.

Ok. Gotta ask:

Are you a Jew?