Dick discusses the flaws in Obama‘s peace proposal and attacks the idea of a return to 1967 borders for the Jewish state.



  1. As soon as Mr Morris started his conversation with the number of Israelis and then the number of Arabs total in the region his argument fell apart as that is soundly illogical. When we talk about nations we talk about countries and their politics and thus we can talk about Britains or French rather than lumping them as Europeans in such arguments. They can unite for reasons and causes but they are very different both nationaly and politically.

    Morris then starts telling us how “small and indefencible” Israel is – as if that is also a logical reason, it is not. Does Luxembourg demand greater lands space because it is also so think and at risk?

    We can add that Morris said that Obama said give up its land which he akins “rolling on its back like a dog”, Obama did not – he said “land swap”.

    Frankly speaking Morris if following only one line with a blindness to others. This is evident in the very arrogant reference to “the Arabs”.

    He also used the rather sad and tiring Chamberlain excuse with appeasment. That is also a bad direction to go with – because firstly it was not just Chamberlain but it was all leaders of most countries at the time and Chamberlains’ predecessors – that is a point of history but since Morris cannot work that out, what should we think of his argument. The subject he pushes is the word “appease” and it has never had anything to do with that. It has to do with land and ownership and the creation of the Palestinian State. Of course the subject is not easy, of course it has to do with internal Palestinian politics, yes they embrassed terrorism and yes they for the present cannot even get their act together – but make no mistake the subject is to do with land and ownership.

    Land and ownership is critical to the creation of the Palestinian State, it comes also with the recognition of the rights of Palestinians and thus it also comes down to recognition of ownership which is at present avoided by the authorities in Israel.

    The Settler Movement and every square inch that is taken by them is taking the one and only element that is important to the very idea of Palestine – that they were kicked out and yet even in their recreation they have to fight and struggle for it.

    Moriss continues to claim that after 60 years it is naive to talk about taking back and reclaiming and yet the thought behind Israel is something thousands of years in claim, yet he thinks it is different. His argument that the Palestinians did not make the land “bloom” but Israelis did as if that is ultimately important – and then he made some rather bigotted line about a certain American Indian community.d

    Yes security is an issue but history has shown that monumental decisions can change the social and political landscape quickly. If Palestine was created the putrid and vile militant demand to destory Israel will deminish quickly, especially if Israeli protection is garenteed by the West.

    Morris does not know what he is talking about, he is a Pro-Settler Supporter and is not interested in peace. His claim that the existing Palestinian territory is enough is a con, like telling the Irish that a united Ireland is not necessary, their land is big enough, the same with southern Sudan without the oil, no need to claim Gibraltar from the Brits because Spain is big enough, Morocco is big enough no need for Ceuta and Mililia to be returned, etc, etc.

    Morris is sad.

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s