The spoiled leftist radical

[Aliyah1995]

Not sure if this is the right section of the forum (Dayag, feel free to move it to another section if you wish), but this is brilliant:

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4219636,00.html


The spoiled leftist radical
Op-ed: Provocative foreign activists exploit Israel’s tolerance and comfortable lifestyle
Tal Dror
Published: 04.23.12, 11:06 / Israel Opinion



During my first year at the Hebrew University I worked at a typical Jerusalem bar – coffee and pastry in the morning, hamburgers for lunch and plenty of beer in the evening. The bar's proximity to Jerusalem's city center made it popular with the foreign peace activists who arrive in Jerusalem quite often. On numerous occasions I spoke to those who grabbed a drink after another day of protesting in Sheikh Jarrah or Bi'lin. Time after time I found myself wondering – why do they even bother coming here? How can a 20 year old Danish boy wake up one morning and tell his parents he's flying to the Middle East?

A foreign reporter from Spain, who loves Israeli red wine, told me once how every foreign correspondent dreams of being stationed in Israel. "This is a foreign correspondent's paradise!" she said. "Where else can you go to restaurant in a city such as Tel Aviv, grab a drink, or go dancing on Dizengoff Street, and sleep at a fancy hotel, when the only thing that separates you from your authentic 'battle field' report is a 45 minute drive into Jerusalem or Bil'in and Naalin?
Fighting Back
Confront the bashers of Israel / David Ha'ivri
Op-ed: Israel is not the cause of anti-Western sentiments; at best, it is a convenient excuse
Full story

Indeed, Israel holds a strange dissonance that we have developed throughout our years of living by the sword. The south is bombed, one million citizens sit in bomb shelters, but 15-20 kilometers away – everything is just the same. We have created a situation where little Israel consists of two parallel universes. The foreign activists fit perfectly into one and only one of those universes – the good, comfortable and quiet one.

The second reason was explained to me by two Swedish activists who loved the mixture of Arak and fresh grapefruit juice in their cocktails. I asked them once this one clichéd question that always comes to mind – "So why Israel of all places? Why not Syria? Egypt? Russia or China?" One of them put on a serious face. "Are you insane?" he asked me. "These are all extremely dangerous places!"

And that's when it hit me.

These people know that nothing bad is going to happen to them here. The massive exposure of the high-ranked Israeli officer who struck a protestor, and the amount of condemnation it received, proves how unusual this incident was. When the worst thing that could happen to you is to get smacked on the face and become a war hero among your friends – why wouldn't you hold up a sign? Why wouldn't you throw a stone at a soldier or a police officer?

This is just a game
After all, in Egypt or Syria you would become another dead body on the street. In China or Russia you would find yourself imprisoned for the rest of your life if you even attempted to raise your hand against a local police officer or soldier.

"So wait," I asked in all seriousness. "You wouldn't have come here if you thought you could get badly hurt?" My Swedish friend grinned. "I don't think so," he said. "I may be a radical, but I'm also a spoiled one!" And they both burst out laughing.

That's when I realized that for many of those foreign peace activists, this is all just a game. And in this game we, the Israelis and Palestinians, are the pieces. They come from all corners of the world to a faraway country they have never been to before. They confront soldiers and policemen, blocking roads and holding signs. Moreover – as long as they have their cold beer by the end of the evening, as long as they lay their heads in a comfy and friendly hostel – they will continue to arrive.


They take advantage of what we're most proud of: Our freedom, democracy and the tolerance that we're so afraid to lose. They take advantage of the strange system we have developed, the one that lets us disconnect ourselves from reality and continue with our lives even when real fighting takes place so close to us.

I hope that once they are here, beyond the screens of blind hatred, they will be able to find the light in the existence of Israel. I hope they will embrace how lucky they are to be “spoiled radicals” here with us. Then they might take a step back and scale back the “Palestine will be free from the River to the Sea" calls a bit. Hopefully they will realize that if that actually happened, and Israel disappeared, they will not have anywhere else to go.

Tal Dror is a second-year student in international relations and Mideastern Studies at Hebrew University of Jerusalem

[Reffo]

I hope that once they are here, beyond the screens of blind hatred, they will be able to find the light in the existence of Israel. I hope they will embrace how lucky they are to be “spoiled radicals” here with us. Then they might take a step back and scale back the “Palestine will be free from the River to the Sea" calls a bit. Hopefully they will realize that if that actually happened, and Israel disappeared, they will not have anywhere else to goFat chance. As the writer said: to them it's just a game, kind of like a rite of passage like the running of the bull in Pampolna ...

[sharonbn]

I have mixed feelings about these publications:

On one hand, I agree with the injustice that is pointed out in this article: the mid east conflict gets way too much attention compared to other conflicts around the world, and Israel is unjustly portrayed as the ultimate villain and the Pals as the ultimate victim. there are many reasons for this, starting from childish adventure seeking like the European protestors, going through naive liberalism like Emma Thompson, ending with outright blatant antisemitism a-la Gunter Grass.

On the other hand, I maintain that this conflict was dragged to long. It should have been resolved 25-30 years ago, but Israeli gov'ts chose not to take bold and unpopular decisions and to be led by extremists into the situation we are in at the present. I maintain that time goes against Israel and it should be our priority to reach an agreement. if it is not possible to reach one now b/c of the other side we should at least not make steps that further complicate the situation like expanding the settlements.

so I do believe that pressure should be applied to Israel to steer it in the right direction. However, an equal or greater pressure should be applied to the Palestinian Authority and Hamas - and that isn't done at all.

[Aliyah1995]

Sharon, you have been away from Israelforum for a while, so you might have missed some of the threads I've started. I think you might find this one interesting:

http://www.israelforum.com/board/showthread.php?21113-Difference-between-the-pragmatic-left-and-the-radical-left&highlight=

Anyway, I will be the last one to say Israel is perfect and without her flaws. I don't have an issue with doing soul searching and trying to make our country a better place, including how we treat our minorities, as well as coming to agreements with our neighbors. What I take issue with is when people who have no connection to Israel (or "Palestine") have an obsession with Israel. I can accept the "just because other countries are worse, doesn't mean we shouldn't try to be better" line from people like you, who are actually living here and can appreciate what Israel has to deal with, but when individuals come here from thousands of miles away, get their "been to Israel/Palestine" t-shirts and go back home, preach to us, hold us to higher standards than the rest of the world, call us an "apartheid" state, when there are multiple Muslim countries where Jews can't even visit and Christians lives are made miserable, or when leaders are killing their own civilians for protesting my blood, quite frankly, boils.

[sharonbn]

I generally agree with you, Aliyah. Israel and the Arabs should be left to themselves to sort out their conflict.
Furthermore, I agree with the article that the young Europeans come here for the "adventure" and less for the Palestinian cause (otherwise there are indeed better and more urgent causes elsewhere in the world).

OK, we agree on that point.
what's next?

[Aliyah1995]

"what's next?"

beats the heck out of me; one things for sure....This week is a short week and I have a LONG weekend thanks to Yom Ha'atzmaut:cool:

[Reffo]

so I do believe that pressure should be applied to Israel to steer it in the right direction. However, an equal or greater pressure should be applied to the Palestinian Authority and Hamas - and that isn't done at allBingo!!!!

And that's why Israel will get the peace that it has been fighting for in the long term. As long as Israelis will not waver and doubt the basic justice of their cause. The right to live in peace, security and without being threatened by their neighbours. Even Israel's enemies will realize that they can't continue to play a zero sum game forever and that if they want to get something then they must also concede other things (especially if the 'other things' are totally unreasonable - like the demand that Israel has no right to exist).

Of course it will take longer if Israel's own extreme leftists are seen to be the fiercest critics of Israel. Outsiders see that then they too follow suit. I am not advocating a policy of no criticism of Israel. But there is a difference between constructive criticism which is democracy as opposed to destructive criticism which really is subversion when a country is in a war in which it's very right to existence is being questioned. And if you want to give you an example of what I consider to be destructive criticism, sharonbn, then go and read the +972 magazine. I posted there for a while but I had to leave them in disgust. I just could not stomach them anymore.

[sharonbn]

Of course it will take longer if Israel's own extreme leftists are seen to be the fiercest critics of Israel. Outsiders see that then they too follow suit.
It will take even longer if Israel's own extreme right wing keeps building more illegal settlements on land we know we're going to give away.


I am not advocating a policy of no criticism of Israel. But there is a difference between constructive criticism which is democracy as opposed to destructive criticism which really is subversion when a country is in a war in which it's very right to existence is being questioned.
Funny, this was said on the leftists who criticized the post six days war euphoria and arrogance of the Israeli gov't and public and foresaw the Yom Kipur war (like the play writer Hanoch Levin). Until the Yom Kipur war suddenly broke out.
this was said on the leftists who went and secretly talked to Fatah members in the 1980s. Until Rabin's gov't changed the law and went ahead and talked to them itself.
This was said (and some insist in it to this day) on the leftists who negotiated and signed the Oslo accord. Until Netanyahu adopted the two states solution and the notion became mainstream.
This was said (and some insist in it to this day) on the leftists who advocated that Jer'm should be split between Israel and future Palestine. Until PM Barak accepted the Clinton plan from 2001 and the notion became mainstream.

judging by history, you can look at today's leftist extremist and envision the mainstream Israeli 10 years on.

in 2003 elections, former general Amram Mitzna was head of the Labor party. His campaign revolved around his plan for unilateral withdrawal from Gaza. He lost the elections to Ariel Sharon (then heading the Likud party) by a large margin. We all know what happened only two years after that...
That is the tragedy of the left - it will always be looked at as either lunatic or traitor, but when the right wing come to it senses and suggests (or implements) the same policy, it is all of the sudden accepted.

[dayag]

...illegal settlements...

Sharon, what's your definition of "illegal settlements", Migron?, those in the Gush Etzion?, the Jewish quarter of the Old City? Tel Aviv?

[sharonbn]

settlements deemed illegal according to the Israeli security authorities (e.g. the Police) and/or Israeli gov't authorities and/or Israeli judicial system (i.e. the court)
out of the places you named, I think Migron would fit the bill.

[Aliyah1995]

Sharon, my question to you is where is the red line that the overwhelming majority of Israelis can agree on that we can NEVER cross? Giving up Israel's identity as a Jewish State? Accepting the PA's demand for the "right of return" for "refugees" born overseas to within the '67 lines? If I recall, judging by your posts (both recently and when you were in this forum before you lost your old account) these would also be red lines for you. What, in your opinion, can NEVER become "mainstream"?

[sharonbn]

the red lines that come to my mind are
1) Israel must maintain a strong Jewish majority out of its citizens.
2) Israel must maintain its definition as the homeland of the Jewish people, and maintain its purpose to serve as safe heaven for Jews from persecutions and to preserve and promote Jewish culture.
regarding the PA's demand for the "right of return", I am not against it per se, however, it seems that if fully realized, this demand would contradict the two red lines I outlined above. If, for instance, the "right of return" is translated in real life into some kind of formal apologetic declaration and monitory compensation, then I am willing to pay that price for the sake of ending the conflict.
I purposefully didn't mention "borders" since I don't think I have red lines in that respect. of course, I do expect the final agreement to be very close to the green line. I do not think I have to specify that Tel Aviv or western Jer'm are red lines simply b/c they are not on the table.

[Aliyah1995]

the red lines that come to my mind are
1) Israel must maintain a strong Jewish majority out of its citizens.
2) Israel must maintain its definition as the homeland of the Jewish people, and maintain its purpose to serve as safe heaven for Jews from persecutions and to preserve and promote Jewish culture.
regarding the PA's demand for the "right of return", I am not against it per se, however, it seems that if fully realized, this demand would contradict the two red lines I outlined above. If, for instance, the "right of return" is translated in real life into some kind of formal apologetic declaration and monitory compensation, then I am willing to pay that price for the sake of ending the conflict.
I purposefully didn't mention "borders" since I don't think I have red lines in that respect. of course, I do expect the final agreement to be very close to the green line. I do not think I have to specify that Tel Aviv or western Jer'm are red lines simply b/c they are not on the table.

I can agree with #'s 1 & 2. Regarding your last statement though, based on your last post in this thread, what seems outlandish today cannot become so outlandish in the future. I don't believe dividing Jerusalem, for example, was on the table until fairly recently. So, what is to stop Yafo (also for example) from being on the table in the future?

FWIW, I think this is a good and important discussion. Especially, being tomorrow is Yom Haatzmaut, I think we (i.e. all Israelis) need to come to a consensus once and for all as to what we can agree our red lines are (at least the OVERWHELMING majority of us) and stand by them. Easier said than done, but I think Sharon and myself can serve as a good microcosmic example of Israelis (who have their share of disagreement) discussing some very tough issues. My wish for Israel's 64th birthday is for more Israelis to be able to talk like this and come to some kind of consensus, even if not agreeing about everything.

[sharonbn]

I don't believe dividing Jerusalem, for example, was on the table until fairly recently
It was first discussed in Camp David summit of 2000, it was explicitly specified in Clinton plan and was agreed by both sides in Taba summit of 2001. that's more than a decade ago...


what is to stop Yafo (also for example) from being on the table in the future?
nothing. however, I don't recall the far left (Meretz?) or extreme far left (Hadash is far enough?) saying Israel should give up Yafo. The demand is for withdrawal to the border of June 4th, 1967. not the 1947 partition plan. so I don't see any danger of the mainstream accepting what the far left is not saying today.


FWIW, I think this is a good and important discussion. Especially, being tomorrow is Yom Haatzmaut, I think we (i.e. all Israelis) need to come to a consensus once and for all as to what we can agree our red lines are (at least the OVERWHELMING majority of us) and stand by them. Easier said than done, but I think Sharon and myself can serve as a good microcosmic example of Israelis (who have their share of disagreement) discussing some very tough issues. My wish for Israel's 64th birthday is for more Israelis to be able to talk like this and come to some kind of consensus, even if not agreeing about everything.
I wholeheartedly agree with you, in principal. However, I fail to see it happening. I don't see how people who voted for Liberman can agree with YOU (let lalone with me) on the red lines. I am not talkig about Liberman himself, he may only talk propaganda and is actually more moderate then how he presents himself, but his voters believe him and subscribe to his agenda. and they seem to be growing in numbers.

[Aliyah1995]

Sharonbn-


It was first discussed in Camp David summit of 2000, it was explicitly specified in Clinton plan and was agreed by both sides in Taba summit of 2001. that's more than a decade ago...

Ok, but before then it was considered taboo to divide Jerusalem, even to the point that there was a petition of which the belated Yitzhak Rabin was the first to sign. Olmert was also against it.



nothing. however, I don't recall the far left (Meretz?) or extreme far left (Hadash is far enough?) saying Israel should give up Yafo. The demand is for withdrawal to the border of June 4th, 1967. not the 1947 partition plan. so I don't see any danger of the mainstream accepting what the far left is not saying today.

I hope you are right, but I do have my fears and skepticism.



I wholeheartedly agree with you, in principal. However, I fail to see it happening. I don't see how people who voted for Liberman can agree with YOU (let lalone with me) on the red lines. I am not talkig about Liberman himself, he may only talk propaganda and is actually more moderate then how he presents himself, but his voters believe him and subscribe to his agenda. and they seem to be growing in numbers.

This is the most important part of your response to my last post. I wasn't implying that we could all agree on everything, certainly not right away for sure. However, we need to keep talking with each other, including (nay, especially) with those we are likely to disagree with and try to agree on core things that ARE important to us. If we are supposed to talk with those, amongst whom are a high percentage who don't believe our country has a right to exist, how much more so do we need to keep talking amongst ourselves. Regarding Liberman, specifically, he said he would be willing to leave his home for the sake of peace (I assume he means a TRUE peace). So, he is not as "kitzoni" as people make him out to be. Granted, he is hardly my favorite Israeli politician for personality reasons more than anything else. But, that is besides the point. Woe unto us if we give up talking with each other, while running to hold hands with our enemies. I HONESTLY hope those we call our enemies will, one day, be our friendly neighbors, but if we can't even make peace with each other (or at least have civilized discussions with each other about pressing issues), then what hope do we have? So, what do you say Sharon? Do we (obviously by "we" I don't mean you and me specifically, but Israelis in general) keep talking or just stay in our corners?

[Reffo]

sharonbn

There is no need for you to reflexively turn defensive. From what you say, although you and I may have our differences, we are in broad agreement. I was not talking about leftists like you and Pleepleus when I criticized the 'left'. I was talking about the extreme left. And yes, I am critical of the extreme 'right' too, but more so of the extreme left. Let me explain why:

Yes, the extreme right too made and continues to make mistakes but at least they are on OUR side. They want what's best for Israel and the Jewish people. Unfortunately though, as the saying goes, the road to hell is paved with good intentions and many of the things (not everything), brings harm to Israel.

The extreme left on the other hand has completely gone over to the other side. They don't profess to be Jewish and they certainly don't consider themselves Zionists. The only thing that is important to them is their leftist ideology. Moreover, they have strong connections with other international leftist organisations and collectively they set out to harm the state of Israel. They espouse the one state solution and they call the present day Israel apartheid. Even though some of them too I believe are motivated by good intentions, who are idealists and are committed to creating perfect societies, they do immense harm to Israel because their solutions would never work. Believe me, if I thought that they would, I would support them. But there have been too many Rwandas, Zimbabwes, Lebanons, Yugoslavias and other places that showed us where their solutions lead to. Yet they tirelessly promote their discredited theories to the world. So how can we expect non Israelis, non Jews, who are also leftists, to be less extreme than they are? That's why they do more harm to Israel. Because they are much better organised and connected to the rest of the world than the extreme rightists.

Like I said sharonbn, if you don't believe me, then go and read the +972 magazine. You will find their misguided idealism as well as a lot of malice there against Israel. I am not saying that all of them there are lunatics or that all of them are malicious. But too many of them are that exactly ...

PS
Oh, and I nearly forgot to add: The extreme leftists that I am talking about, never (yes I said never) criticize the other side. Not Hamas, not Hezbollah, not Iran, not even terrorists who deliberately butcher Israeli children. They always end up blaming Israel for everything.

[sharonbn]

Ok, but before then it was considered taboo to divide Jerusalem, even to the point that there was a petition of which the belated Yitzhak Rabin was the first to sign. Olmert was also against it.
goes to prove my point. once this topic was taboo, but no more.


I hope you are right, but I do have my fears and skepticism.
I have nothing to say to unfounded fears and skepticism.


This is the most important part of your response to my last post. I wasn't implying that we could all agree on everything, certainly not right away for sure. However, we need to keep talking with each other, including (nay, especially) with those we are likely to disagree with and try to agree on core things that ARE important to us. If we are supposed to talk with those, amongst whom are a high percentage who don't believe our country has a right to exist, how much more so do we need to keep talking amongst ourselves.
We probably couldn't agree on everything and we needn't strive for that unrealistic goal.
We are 'allowed' to have different views on the optimal resolution to the conflict, and it doesn't diminish our collective strength as one people. as long as we battle each other inside the sandbox on the democratic system and remember that we are one people.
I agree that we need to keep talking to each other, agree on our core common values (call it red lines if you like) and we can agree to disagree on the rest, hopefully less important, topics.
and I think we already started that exact process, didn't we?
However, I maintain my doubts as to just how representative are both of us of the Israeli public. More on that later in this post.

I also have some doubts regarding letting non-Israeli residents into our little discussion. I mean, in real life, they don't get to say much about Israel's fate. So why is it different here? I understand that this is an online forum and everyone is 'technically' equal in the sense they can post on every thread and say what they like, etc. but I must say that I do subscribe to the Israeli policy of 'let us decide our own fate' since we're going to eat the fruits of that decision. and I don't subscribe to the nonsense of 'Israel belongs to the entire Jewish people'.


Regarding Liberman, specifically, he said he would be willing to leave his home for the sake of peace (I assume he means a TRUE peace). So, he is not as "kitzoni" as people make him out to be.
I have three points to say to that
1) He may have paid lip service to int'l public opinion. I mean, he said some pretty extreme stuff as well, so which is his true views?
2) even if he meant it, he may be unable to act like a moderate when the moment of truth comes, as he will have committed himself to the hard line by his electorate.
3) which leads me to my most important point, and one that I already mentioned before - I don't care about Liberman as an individual. His followers are hardliners and they, the masses, are what's important. Once they were Tchia, then Tzomet, then Likud and now Yisrael Beiteinu (and the Feiglin faction in the Likud). They seem to be growing in numbers since the 2nd intifadah (and I can't really blame them). and it is them I think I have no way to talk to and agree with, and I think they are missing from our discussion.

[Aliyah1995]

Aliyah [previous post]: Ok, but before then it was considered taboo to divide Jerusalem, even to the point that there was a petition of which the belated Yitzhak Rabin was the first to sign. Olmert was also against it.

Sharonbn: goes to prove my point. once this topic was taboo, but no more.

Aliyah [current post]: THAT is my worry with regards to Yafo, for example. See my next response.

Aliyah [previous post]: I hope you are right, but I do have my fears and skepticism.

Sharonbn: I have nothing to say to unfounded fears and skepticism.

Aliyah [current post]: I don't see why my fears and skepticism are unfounded. Your response right above is EXACTLY why my fears and skepticism are NOT unfounded. This is not to say they will come to be, but even you admitted in a previous post that there was nothing stopping them from coming to be, just that they are not on the table (for now).

Aliyah [previous post]: This is the most important part of your response to my last post. I wasn't implying that we could all agree on everything, certainly not right away for sure. However, we need to keep talking with each other, including (nay, especially) with those we are likely to disagree with and try to agree on core things that ARE important to us. If we are supposed to talk with those, amongst whom are a high percentage who don't believe our country has a right to exist, how much more so do we need to keep talking amongst ourselves.

Sharonbn: We probably couldn't agree on everything and we needn't strive for that unrealistic goal.
We are 'allowed' to have different views on the optimal resolution to the conflict, and it doesn't diminish our collective strength as one people. as long as we battle each other inside the sandbox on the democratic system and remember that we are one people.
I agree that we need to keep talking to each other, agree on our core common values (call it red lines if you like) and we can agree to disagree on the rest, hopefully less important, topics.
and I think we already started that exact process, didn't we?

Aliyah [current post]: Nothing to argue about here.

Sharonbn: However, I maintain my doubts as to just how representative are both of us of the Israeli public. More on that later in this post.

Aliyah [current post]: Ok, I admit it would be a stretch to say that the two of us are representative of the Israeli public. However, I think if two individuals like us can discuss things civilly, it can serve as a good example. After all, I live in a "settlement", while you live in Tel-Aviv. I live an "observant" life style, while you live a more "secular" life style. You vote left of center, while I vote right of center (although, at this point I would vote for a party, left, right, or center, whose main battle is to rid this country of corruption, but that is another story). For sure, we disagree on quite a bit (although probably less now than we would have when I first joined this forum in 2005). The bottom line is, you are right, Israeli society is way too complicated to be "represented" by two posters, but I hope you and I can keep having civilized discussions about the future of Israel, nevertheless.

Sharonbn: I also have some doubts regarding letting non-Israeli residents into our little discussion. I mean, in real life, they don't get to say much about Israel's fate. So why is it different here? I understand that this is an online forum and everyone is 'technically' equal in the sense they can post on every thread and say what they like, etc. but I must say that I do subscribe to the Israeli policy of 'let us decide our own fate' since we're going to eat the fruits of that decision. and I don't subscribe to the nonsense of 'Israel belongs to the entire Jewish people'.

Aliyah [current post]: I don't think it is possible to stop non-Israeli residents (Jewish or not) from talking and arguing about Israel's policies. If this forum was in Hebrew, it might cut down the percentage of non-Israeli residents (probably not by 100% though). I do believe that Israel belongs to the entire Jewish people as long as the Law of Return exists (hence every Jew has the potential to be a citizen of Israel). However, when it comes to voting for/in Israel the buck stops for non-citizens (Jewish or not). You want to have the right to vote, then make aliyah.

Aliyah [previous post]: Regarding Liberman, specifically, he said he would be willing to leave his home for the sake of peace (I assume he means a TRUE peace). So, he is not as "kitzoni" as people make him out to be.

Sharonbn: I have three points to say to that
1) He may have paid lip service to int'l public opinion. I mean, he said some pretty extreme stuff as well, so which is his true views?
2) even if he meant it, he may be unable to act like a moderate when the moment of truth comes, as he will have committed himself to the hard line by his electorate.
3) which leads me to my most important point, and one that I already mentioned before - I don't care about Liberman as an individual. His followers are hardliners and they, the masses, are what's important. Once they were Tchia, then Tzomet, then Likud and now Yisrael Beiteinu (and the Feiglin faction in the Likud). They seem to be growing in numbers since the 2nd intifadah (and I can't really blame them). and it is them I think I have no way to talk to and agree with, and I think they are missing from our discussion.

Aliyah [current post]: I will just respond to #3. I have always voted to the right of Likud, yet wallah here I am wanting to have a discussion with you (and any other Israelis, right, left, or center) about the future of Israel.

[sharonbn]

Yes, the extreme right too made and continues to make mistakes but at least they are on OUR side. They want what's best for Israel and the Jewish people. Unfortunately though, as the saying goes, the road to hell is paved with good intentions and many of the things (not everything), brings harm to Israel.
I do not believe so. the extreme right has proven it is only interested in advancing its own goals. They are not interested in the welfare of the Israeli public, they do not concern themselves with long term fate of Israel, all they care is they're agenda and themselves. They view everyone who is not with them as against them. They consider the Israeli left as their enemy - as much or even worse then Arabs. this went so far as to murder Israelis, effectively committing terrorist attacks. When Netanyahu was forced to wear bullet proof vest - it was to protect him from extreme right.
so, no, I don't believe they are on our side at all.


The extreme left on the other hand has completely gone over to the other side. They don't profess to be Jewish and they certainly don't consider themselves Zionists. The only thing that is important to them is their leftist ideology. Moreover, they have strong connections with other international leftist organisations and collectively they set out to harm the state of Israel.
If you're talking about extreme leftists like Udi Adib, then I agree with you. However, Israelis that want to apply pressure on the Israeli gov't in order to make it agree on something like the Geneva Accord, - in my eyes they are right. Their methods may be harsh and they may hurt Israel in the short term, but they mean good in the long term. They certainly do not mean to destroy Israel.


They espouse the one state solution
You know that the extreme right advocates binational state (http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/2963/one-state-solution), don't you? all for the sake of not giving up land to Palestine.


and they call the present day Israel apartheid.
Apartheid may be harsh, but Israel is not innocent of racism against Arabs.



PS
Oh, and I nearly forgot to add: The extreme leftists that I am talking about, never (yes I said never) criticize the other side. Not Hamas, not Hezbollah, not Iran, not even terrorists who deliberately butcher Israeli children. They always end up blaming Israel for everything.
and the extreme right never (yes I said never) criticize when violence occurs on innocent Arabs or leftists. see the recent case of Lt. Col. Shalom Eisner.

[sharonbn]

I don't see why my fears and skepticism are unfounded. Your response right above is EXACTLY why my fears and skepticism are NOT unfounded. This is not to say they will come to be, but even you admitted in a previous post that there was nothing stopping them from coming to be, just that they are not on the table (for now).
I will clarify - there is nothing stopping the Arabs from demanding Yafo. Some of them do demand it today (or at least to "return" and live there)
However, there is no fear of the Israeli mainstream public agreeing to this demand b/c the Israeli left never agreed to that demand. The process I described was how leftists ideas were considered radical in the past and then over time got accpeted by the mainstream public opinion. There is no fear that this will happen with Yafo.

So if you have fears that the Arabs will demand Yafo, let them. Israel will never give up Yafo since it is impracticle to do so (regardless if the demand is justified or not).
If you have fears that Israel mainstream public opinion will accept this demand, like it did with the division of Jer'm - then your fear is unfounded.


I live in a "settlement", while you live in Tel-Aviv.
You do know that according to the Geneva Accord, Gush Etzion was to remain under Israli control?


For sure, we disagree on quite a bit (although probably less now than we would have when I first joined this forum in 2005).
There goes my point proven again... :)


I do believe that Israel belongs to the entire Jewish people as long as the Law of Return exists (hence every Jew has the potential to be a citizen of Israel). However, when it comes to voting for/in Israel the buck stops for non-citizens (Jewish or not). You want to have the right to vote, then make aliyah.
Israel belongs to Israelis. Specifically, to Israeli Jews.
Like I said, Israel must maintain its position as the homeland of the Jewish people, and serve as safehaven for Jews who flee persecutions. It must also continue urging Jews to return and participate in the building of their homeland.

[dayag]

Aliyah [previous post]: Ok, but before then it was considered taboo to divide Jerusalem, even to the point that there was a petition of which the belated Yitzhak Rabin was the first to sign. Olmert was also against it...

Olmert may have opposed it at one time, but in 2008 he offered to divide Jerusalem and even more, to give up sole Israeli sovereignty over the "Holy Basin". The Palestinian negotiators were surprised that he agreed to give up the Temple Mount so easily.

I am not too worried about Yafo, but fear that giving up the Temple Mount, Old City, City of David for peace might become acceptable to a future Israeli public tired of war. I would not give up a centimeter of any of them even for a real peace. On this topic I am a kitzoni and even a meshuganeh.

[Reffo]

If you're talking about extreme leftists like Udi Adib, then I agree with youI don't even know who he is. I never heard of him but I am glad that you agree with me/us about the extreme left.

For what it's worth, after thinking about it more, I too agree with you about the extreme right. They are just as dangerous and just as much a threat to Israel's future. All extremes are dangerous. The extreme right is a danger too because they already assassinated an Israeli prime minister (Rabin) and they threaten to do more of the same to others. That is just as dangerous as what the extreme leftists do.

I will however say that I don't include ordinary Israelis who live in what they erroneously describe as "settlements", especially the main blocs, I don't call them extreme rightists. They may be rightists but most of them are not extremists.

I hope we can agree on the above, sharonbn?

[Reffo]

but fear that giving up the Temple Mount, Old City, City of David for peace might become acceptable to a future Israeli public tired of war. I would not give up a centimeter of any of them even for a real peace. On this topic I am a kitzoni and even a meshuganehI don't think that makes you a kitzoni (extremist). The Temple Mount belongs to Israel it is the holiest site for all Jews. Yes, it is holy for Muslims too because a few hundred years ago they chose to build a mosque on top of the Jewish holy site. It has always been a Muslim custom to appropriate holy sites of other religions. That's life, we don't hold it against them. And even more than that, we should respect their holy site too (in spite of what they did - that's just history ...). But to expect Jews to totally give up their holiest site, that's another matter. That is not on. That should not happen. It is not even negotiable. I am 100% with you dayag. There should be a limit to the compromises that Israel should be prepared to make.

[sharonbn]

I don't even know who he is. I never heard of him but I am glad that you agree with me/us about the extreme left.
You can read about him here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ehud_Adiv)


I will however say that I don't include ordinary Israelis who live in what they erroneously describe as "settlements", especially the main blocs, I don't call them extreme rightists. They may be rightists but most of them are not extremists.

I hope we can agree on the above, sharonbn?
well, we have a shiny example of a moderate settler in the form of Aliyah1995, so I really can't argue with you :)
I believe that most settlers are level headed people who can be reasoned with.
btw, my parents live in Gilo, a southern neighborhood of Jer'm which is considered a settlement in the eyes of the world. My parents are leftists like me ... :)

I believe it is (still) possible to draw the border between Israel and Palestine in such a way that leaves most of the settlements in Israeli control. However, we also need to understand we will not hold Hebron or Beth Lehem and the bulk of Judea and Samaria and we need to stop building there and stop the settlers who go to live there - it is counterproductive.

Perhaps we (Israel) can invest in developing areas like Gush Etzion, Givaat Zeev and Maale Edumim. All of them are settlements that are to remain in Israel according to the Geneva Accord.

[dayag]

We kind of got off topic and it was my fault. I have created a new thread titled "Should Israel give up the Temple Mount for a real peace?"

http://www.israelforum.com/board/showthread.php?21548-Should-Israel-give-up-the-Temple-Mount-for-a-real-peace&p=337946&viewfull=1#post337946