Peter Reynolds

The life and times of Peter Reynolds

Israel And Palestine To Hold Direct Peace Talks

with 32 comments

Allahu Akbar and Shalom

This is the news the whole world has been waiting for.  Israel has been driven to the negotiating table by the outcry against its brutal oppression of the Palestinian people.  Perhaps those nine heroes who sacrificed their lives on the Gaza convoy can take much of the credit for this.

See the BBC News story here

Fantastic news!

Peace and goodwill to all mankind.

Written by Peter Reynolds

August 19, 2010 at 2:19 pm

32 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. …and about bloody time!


    August 19, 2010 at 2:39 pm

  2. I would say about time but, all the same, I suspect the Israelis won’t play fair and will make outrageous demands. We shall see.


    August 19, 2010 at 2:41 pm

  3. I don’t really expect lasting peace, but we can dream and hope for the best. Time will tell.


    August 19, 2010 at 2:50 pm

    • Emphasis on the hope rather than the dreaming please!

      Peter Reynolds

      August 19, 2010 at 3:03 pm

    • On BBC radio this evening they played a radio commercial opposing the construction of the mosque at Ground Zero. It was paid for by the National Republican Trust and it was OUTRAGEOUS! I think it would probably fall foul of the law here for “incitement to racial hatred”.

      The NRT’s spokesman was Scott Wheeler. If the boot was on the other foot he would now be at 30,000 feet on his way to Guantanamo Bay.

      Peter Reynolds

      August 19, 2010 at 7:44 pm

      • I was listening to this too, P. And you know what? I was thinking of YOU! I just KNEW you’d take badly to this. It’s here at –

        It was nothing like “OUTRAGEOUS”. It was an American saying that he did not agree with a mosque being built at Ground Zero. Nothing to be sent to Guantanamo for. No threats to Muslims as people, because they are Muslims. Whereas, boot on other foot time, non-Muslims are threatened and killed daily or at least weekly worldwide, by MUSLIMS. Many read the koran daily and learn by heart its declarations of hatred and death to non-Muslims – khufar – because they are non-Muslims.

        The full PM programme is here at Radio 4.

        Mentioned in the first few seconds then the full interview later on, at 47 minutes in. It kicks off with anti-Iraq war British historian Simon Sharma talking, imho, OUTRAGEOUS nonsense ringing of “moral equivalence”. Then the American speaks in his ad ‘Kill the Ground Zero Mosque.’

        I suppose the reason you are so accusatory on this is that Scott Wheeler seemed to be saying that all Muslims are the same – fundamentalists and therefore jihadists. Perhaps not the wisest choice of words, but this is a view held by some, and for many more the jury is still out.

        On the Sharma suggestion that a mosque would nullify arguments against America I consider Sharma’s words that a mosque there is a “GOOD” idea naive and frankly insulting, as well as puerile. Airy-fairy, even. The USA has ALWAYS been liberal and open. They do not need to allow a mosque near Ground Zero to prove this. Millions migrate to the USA because they already KNOW it. There should be a STOP on advantage taking, IMHO, in great free western nations.

        Muslims, who get upset about drawings and cartoons, should be sensitive enough to SEE this mosque idea is or will be seen to be incitement. THEY should have withdrawn their application. In fact they should never have made it in the first place.

        Perhaps it is a provocation. Would you go and build a Christian Church next to Saddam’s Palace in Baghdad?

        But Wheeler’s answer was confused and confusing, citing Hamas.

        Your issue seems to be that Wheeler sees Islamism itself as Them against US.

        Well, P, some think that IS the position.

        “A memorial to the 19 jihadists?” begs another question. Have Muslims denounced terrorism? Well, some have, of course. But no overall authority has. And why not? Because there isn’t an overall authority.

        Another thought – did Obama’s election stop the jihadists hating America? No. Nor did it stop many ordinary people hating America.

        You should know, P, that there is a valid argument that all Muslims ARE all the same under the skin. If only because the average non-fundamentalist Muslim has no power inside Islam, as is clear from Islam’s lack of structure. Inside Islam is the only place where democracy is permitted. In any Muslim state, Allah’s law rules. Sharia is integral to Islam and until their enlightenment (which is banned in the koran!) there will always be a desire, even a right to fall back on Sharia FUNDAMENTALISM, when the population is a Muslim majority – 50%+1.

        Sharma: “With every call to prayer, liberty of conscience would be declared”.

        Really? Not capitulation to a foreign, anti-democracy, anti-freedom, anti-women, anti-gay, punishing medieval “religion”?

        The reason we have these moral equivalence problems when it comes to someone saying they don’t want a mosque where Islamists killed thousands of Americans is that the liberal intelligentsia (on this occasion it’s Eddie Mair) sound off like the naive they are, sarcasm showing.

        The current media zeitgeist is that OBVIOUSLY, CLEARLY, UNQUESTIONABLY any westerner questioning the wisdom of our own openness to those who come from a culture which is NOT open, must be “evil, right-wing, Muslim haters, racists.”

        I recommend Melanie Phillips’ book – The World Turned Upside Down.


        August 19, 2010 at 9:59 pm

      • Wow! I expected to get slamdunked into a bloody heap by the rednecks there. I never expected that sneaky, out of the blue left hook from you m’lud.

        You’ll see that I’ve gone further now:

        Shamelessly targeted over the pond. ICBMs took off about 30mins ago. Should be getting retaliation soon.

        Hang fire, I’ve still got battlefield weapons I’m targeting in your direction.

        Peter Reynolds

        August 19, 2010 at 10:12 pm

      • Yes, the best argument I heard was Simon Sharma’s. If this proceeds, subject to normal planning controls, it is the best possible proof of the wonderful values enshrined in the US constitution. It is a demonstration of America’s strength. Only cowards and hypocrites will oppose it.

        Mind you, I think the Islamic activists behind this are stupid and they demean their own beliefs by their provocation.

        Yes, Muslims with their silly behaviour about cartoons, etc, would never allow this. So must we descend to that level? How does it benefit us to do so?

        Wheeler wasn’t just wrong, he was incompetent as well but I excuse him for that because his argument has no integrity.

        Extremist Islam has to be resisted but not by abandoning our principles.

        Good always triumphs over evil in the end – and our willingness to sacrifice for it is a measure of our worth.

        Peter Reynolds

        August 19, 2010 at 10:30 pm

      • “slamdunked” by me. As if, P.

        You mean “Islamdunked”, I presume? Yes, I DO have issues with Islam, which I have written about on many occasions at my blog. I never used to have such concerns even after 9/11. I accepted that they were a few odd madmen. I am not so sure any more.

        The reason my thinking has changed is the evidence I have found about the spread of Islam and the dangers that it brings.

        The freedoms we have in the west have been too hard fought-for for us in western democracies to accept the moral equivalence argument. So I don’t and I won’t. None of that means I am against Muslims personally. I dislike burkhas intensely as they are a symbol of women’s lowly, inferior position in their socities. I do not accept the freedom of choice argument regarding wearing burkhas here. They are free to live here FREELY, but not free to stuff their prejudices, bigotry and medieval customs in our liberal faces. And at the same time excluding us. I find that insulting. Yes, you don’t have to be a Muslim to feel insulted.

        Muslims in our largely non-Muslim country shouldn’t be free to do this. But they are! Your kind of argument ascribes to Muslims the mantra or belief – “give them the freedom and they will change and adopt our ways”. This was the multiculturalist ideal for about 30 years. But it hasn’t worked.

        Freedom as we should know by now, isn’t FREE.

        I am afraid that I may have to respond to your posts here, P.

        Nuke on the way, after I put out the recycling. Got to get the priories right, haven’t we?


        August 20, 2010 at 12:33 am

      • What the nuke fizzled out?

        Peter Reynolds

        August 20, 2010 at 3:12 pm

      • No, you’re no redneck John. You’re a refined, elegant gentleman in tight breeches next to them. They don’t just eat Big Macs. They eat whole cows!

        Now what’s this about priories? You mean where all those young nubile novices live, preparing themselves to be brides of Christ?

        John, I’m sure you and I could sort out a few nuns between us. Probably more fun than the mullahs, eh?

        Peter Reynolds

        August 20, 2010 at 12:55 am

      • Yeah it fizzled. I’m actually waiting for a spare part from my friend Amanutjob in Iran. Should be arriving any day now. Special Delivery, he says.


        August 20, 2010 at 11:58 pm

  4. Looks like just another part of the old cycle to me. One of the obvious problems missed in matters like this is that we are really trying to force modern values we haven’t properly established as values on people trapped in very old value systems that have even less openness than ‘ours’.


    August 19, 2010 at 2:53 pm

    • I am a determined optimist but, I agree, there are times when we just have to leave people to get on with it themselves.

      We can’t take responsibility for other countries’ barbaric way of life forever. At some point, if they want to, we have to let them blow each other up.

      Organised religion is responsible for more evil in the world than anything else.

      Peter Reynolds

      August 19, 2010 at 3:00 pm

  5. Web link please, P? Sorry, but your prejudices are showing again. Israel has been working towards the negotiating table for some long time. Those on the Palestinian side – even Abbas’s Fatah have refused. Because they refuse to recognise Israel.

    Anyway I’ll comment no further until I read a write-up or several on this. Can’t find one yet in Google. I prefer to work from fact rather than pictures.


    August 19, 2010 at 3:00 pm

    • I was v.v. excited playing “Hold the front page!” here! I’m waiting for the BBC to come up with some detail. I knew my comments would get you going!

      Peter Reynolds

      August 19, 2010 at 3:02 pm

      • And it did. Got me going. But you are a reasonable man, I now recognise, Peter, even if at times you DO know how to make an enemy of a “friend”.

        It’s now at the BBC website here:

        They mentioned it on the 4:00pm headlines, but I couldn’t be bothered hanging around while they went through all the A* excitement first.

        It looks as though Netanyahu is willing to meet without others recognising Israel’s right to exist.

        “The Israeli Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, has insisted for many weeks that he his ready to come to the negotiating table, but without preconditions.

        But Mahmoud Abbas, President of the Palestinian Authority, wants guarantees that a future Palestinian state would be based on the 1967 ceasefire lines.

        He has also demanded that all construction in illegal Jewish settlements would end before he sits down with the Israelis.

        The international Quartet on the Middle East, consisting of the US, the European Union, the UN and Russia, has been working hard to narrow the gap.”

        I always thought Blair would have been encouraging both sides to talk WITHOUT preconditions, particularly Israel. Remember, Israel is blasted for that kind of positioning, seen as “spoiling”, whereas the Palestinians NEVER are.

        But if Abbas has agreed to this, without pre-conditions, it may be the Palestinians are the “driven” ones. Let’s wait and see what, if anything, is announced later.


        August 19, 2010 at 4:28 pm

      • Thank you!

        I’ll put the link in the main article as well.

        In response to the points you mention:

        No one seriously doubts or believes they can sustain an argument against Israel’s right to exist. Best just to ignore this and rise above it. It’s idiotic. Don’t dignify it by taking the bait.

        Borders should be open to all reasonable negotiation.

        Illegal construction should stop.

        Let’s hope for the best. It is definitely progress.

        Peter Reynolds

        August 19, 2010 at 7:08 pm

  6. Good news, indeed

    Let’s hope both sides enter the negotiations in good fsith, prepared to work together and compromise where necessary to ensure a stable and lasting peace between their two peoples, based on mutual recognition of each other’s ‘rights’.

    Though the cynic in me would not be surprised if these ‘direct’ talks drag on for a good long while – it being politically advantageous for the parties concerned to present an appearance of being ‘reasonable’ to their critics abroad while ensuring that they do not move much from their entrenched positions in order to satisfy their domestic critics at home


    August 19, 2010 at 3:25 pm

    • Spot on Duncs. God this is boring. I agree with everything you say too.

      Peter Reynolds

      August 19, 2010 at 7:09 pm

  7. […] Israel And Palestine To Hold Direct Peace Talks by thewhaler on August 19, 2010 […]

  8. […] the article here: Israel And Palestine To Hold Direct Peace Talks « Peter Reynolds // Israel And Palestine To Hold Direct Peace Talks « Peter Reynolds listing above has […]

  9. We can hope!


    August 19, 2010 at 10:43 pm

  10. This week, Israel began removing one of the ‘border walls’ or ‘security walls’ that was erected 8 years ago.


    August 20, 2010 at 4:16 am

  11. Peter,
    There are many “Redneck” Muslems against the building of the Mosque at Ground Zero. It has nothing to do with bigotry or racism. It has everything to do with the organization behind the building of it. Educate thyself:
    The Imam (Soho General Partners, LLC – based in Bangkok) purchased the 150-yr.old bldg. for 5 Million dollars. The next day, offers came in to purchase it from him for four times that much, and the offers are still coming. Perhaps it is just a smart real estate deal? Perhaps, he knew Americans would be upset and he could make some big bucks off of our indignation?

    little ole American

    August 20, 2010 at 2:54 pm

  12. […] So Peter the self-confessed Tory had this at his blog – Israel and Palestine To Hold Direct Peace Talks […]

  13. “Heros who sacrificed their lives on the convoy for peace ” ? More like cold blooded killers who tried to scupper the chances of any kind of deal with the Israelis.


    August 22, 2010 at 11:50 am

    • Hello Stan. Nice to hear from you again.

      Peter Reynolds

      August 22, 2010 at 1:11 pm

      • Who’s Stan?

        Online ethics, P? Confidentiality?


        August 22, 2010 at 2:10 pm

      • Right, I’ve been meaning to reply to this for some time. I mean, when I’m high up there in the hills above my house, 160 odd metres above my present level, I’ve often thought recently about my reply to this comment.

        You see, in this and this alone, I am, in complete accord and agreement with Mark Zuckerberg, the billionaire geek founder of Facebook who said recently “Having two identities for yourself is an example of a lack of integrity.”

        I do not intend, in any sense, to press or embarrass you or anyone else about anonymity or the use of pseudonyms. This is a standard that I choose to apply to myself because I don’t want to behave in any other way. I wish others were the same but I respect their choice. However, if someone becomes offensive or aggressive while hiding behind an alias I do find that unacceptable.

        You will see that when I email you my telephone numbers are in my signature. Through this blog and my Paradise Valley site I reveal myself entirely and I am happy to do so. Wherever I can on the web I use my real name. It’s good marketing as well!

        Each to their own but this is me, the real me, unexpurgated, uncensored and undisguised.

        Peter Reynolds

        August 29, 2010 at 4:50 pm

      • Ref: “the real me” and aliases, P. Yes, I understand what you’re saying.

        I also understand others preference for anonymity. Or even anonymity on certain occasions.

        I stay confidential becasue the other half is involved deeply in politics with a political party that I don’t find all that easy to support, all that often. So, it helps on a personal basis, AND not to rock the marital boat too much by ranting on about TB to the full knowledge of all!

        As for the Stan reference and online ethics. All I meant was that YOU, Peter, may have been able to put 2 & 2 together from the e-mail of the commenter, but if that commenter wanted to describe himself as “logos”, why draw attention to his real name as in the e-mail?


        August 30, 2010 at 10:50 am

  14. Thanks for the burger, Peter, with the other little gift. But next time, please don’t forget the cheese!

    I’m very cheesy, as you know.


    August 22, 2010 at 2:13 pm

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your 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 )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: