A Call to Reality

[michael]

"Now is not the time to completely dismiss the "road map." This makes Israel's supporters look like the obstacle to peace."(ibrodsky- "A Call to Action")

Which is of course, a very dire state of events, as it goes close to accurately describing the situation. Israel and the US have lead the rejectionist camp since the late 1970's when the international consensus (including the PLO) was for a 2 state solution.

Since the late 80's this hasn't been possible as it ran the risk ibrodsky identifies, correctly, that it "makes Israel's supporters look like the obstacle to peace."
Hence Oslo and now the 'Road Map', which basically gives Israel all it wants - vagueness about settlements, control over borders and resources and sub-contracting the security of the settlers to the PA. It doesn't satisfy the extremists who want complete expulsion of the Palestinians, just as Palestinian extremists want the destruction of Israel.

What is most interesting is the euphoria over the Israeli cabinet decision. Why the excitement? Afterall, isn't it Israel that is the ever forlorn peace seeker, desperately hoping for a "partner in peace"?
The reason is that this is the first time an Israeli Govt has explicitly agreed to a basic 2 state settlement. What has been the international consensus, forming the basis of the 2 main UN Resolutions, for 30 years is finally accepted by Israel in 2003.

Crack the champagne!

But never fear, the decision is so covered by caveats (14 "reservations") and mired by internal dissent that there's a good chance the Israeli Govt can avoid any meaningful implementation. A few quotes from Government members in the Israeli press should calm your frayed nerves;

Minister without Portfolio Uzi Landau, declared that "the road map is the most dangerous diplomatic document of the last 50 years for Israel's diplomatic standing and security."

Defense Minister Shaul Mofaz, who voted for the
road map in the Sunday session said in comments broadcast on Army Radio;
"We did not vote on an international agreement. In
fact, this is not a legal document, there is no
sort of commitment here, rather this is a
declaration of diplomatic intentions."

On Yehiel Hazan MK, who heads the Knesset settlements
lobby, concerns that he wasn't sure if it meant
his son would be able to build his home in Ariel,
Sharon said "natural growth in the settlements can continue and you can build your children and your grandchildren homes inside
the settlement."

Netanyahu abstained.

Likud activist Yoram Karr had an interesting take on the whole thing;
"The Land of Israel is not the private property of the
government of Israel, nor of the Knesset, nor of
our elected leaders."

When asked about a poll in Yedioth Ahronoth
published Monday that showed 56 percent of
Israelis responding believed that the nation
should agree to the road map, versus 34 percent
who said the plan should be rejected, former MK and Hebron settler Elyakim Haetzni responded;
"Yes, of course. And the Jews also willingly
boarded those trains [to the Nazi concentration
camps], believing everything that the Germans
told them. The Jews have always posed a danger to
themselves. They have brought Holocausts upon
themselves throughout the course of their
history."

So don't worry, rejectionism is alive and well.

Apologies, I'm being a little disingenuous. I think there is some, albeit small, chance that Sharon is serious.

A few months ago at the height of Israeli glee over the US invasion of Iraq an article appeared in Ha'aretz which posed a question. Basically it said - now that Israeli is so firmly in step with George W., what will Sharon do if George W. actually takes seriously his own statements that he will "concentrate" on resolving the Palestinian issue straight after Iraq?

Stay tuned.

[ibrodsky]

You conveniently left out one key point: a real peace settlement has to be between the parties involved in the conflict. It can't be imposed by outside parties.

You mock Shaul Mofaz, but he is absolutely correct: the "road map" is simply a guide to a process that could lead to a settlement if both parties want it.

More importantly, you dishonestly ignore the fact that rejecting peace with or even the existence of Israel has been a real cornerstone of Arab policy for 50+ years.

A call to reality? You don't have a clue.

[Mediocrates]

But it highlights the core problem. Israel says no - it's wrong. Israel says yes - and it's lying and people know the 'real truth'. Israel says nothing at all and it's being passive aggressive. Israel says it has reservations and it's called a bully.

People like michael don't even accept that Israel even has any say in the final determination of whether it exists or not. Or am I putting words in your mouth michael?

[ibrodsky]

It's widely reported that the planned US-Israeli-Palestinian summit has been postponed by Yaser Arafat.

It seems that the "reality" is that the Palestinians are already in blatant violation of the Road map. Of course, that won't stop them from proclaiming that they "fully accept" the Road Map. Why should they stop lying--and start abiding by agreements--now?

[michael]

Originally posted by ibrodsky

More importantly, you dishonestly ignore the fact that rejecting peace with or even the existence of Israel has been a real cornerstone of Arab policy for 50+ years.


50 years of Arab rejectionism is certanly the standard line but there are some indicators of a different picture.

Sadats visit to Israel in 1977 was historic according to the standard line. Less celebrated was the offer by Nasser in 1970 of “durable peace….if Israel evacuates the occupied territories and accepts a settlement of the problem of refugees.” An offer in line with the basic UN Resolutions at the time but totally unacceptable to Israel and therefore not even worth mentioning,

Then Sadat in February 1971. A possibly more generous offer to Israel ( no mention of a Palestinian state) than 1977’s but again, rejected, as it apparantly aroused “panic” in Israel (Amos Elon - Ha’aretz Nov 13, 1981) Again this 1971 proposal was in line with the international consensus at the time (the Rogers Plan).

In 1976 the Arab states continued to advocate a peace settlement with Israel according to the international consensus (now including a Palestinian state). The US vetoed a Security Council resolution in January. The Res. was backed by Jordan, Egypt, Syria and the PLO. It would “…guarantee …. territorial integrity, independence of all states in the area….their right to live in peace within secure and recognised boundaries”. Chaim Herzog, UN Ambassador at the time, claimed that it was the PLO who prepared the peace plan and so too the 1981 Fahd plan, again rejected by Israel. (Ha’aretz, November 13, 1981)

The PLO also endorsed the 1977 Soviet-American plan to end the conflict. Israel again rejected the proposal via the excuse of ‘imposed settlement’ – that is they disagreed because recognition of Palestinian rights was unthinkable.

Next was Syria’s turn in 1982. It proposed a “termination of the state of war between the Arabs and Israel… and a…Palestinain state…alongside Israel”. An article in Ha’aretz commented sarcastically that “We must not underestimate the danger posed by the Syrian plot , and must do our best to kill it while it’s still small” (Ha’aretz, Feb 12, 1982).

The PLO certainly matched Israel for rejectionism up till the mid-70's and for years after PLO statments were deliberately vague or duplicitous, but they where far more accommodating to a peaceful settlement than Israel or the US, as shown above.

The 'imposed settlement' excuse has been around for a long time and it simply means that a proposal is unacceptable as it departs from rejectionist principles (otherwise no sane person would care if it was imposed or not).

[michael]

Originally posted by Mediocrates

People like michael don't even accept that Israel even has any say in the final determination of whether it exists or not. Or am I putting words in your mouth michael?


Quite possibly.
Does it exist? I'm fairly sure it does.

My general opinion could be summed up as ;

"A free people in a free land"

However, this is either universally valid or not valid at all.

I opt for the former, with the obvious implications.

[michael]

Originally posted by ibrodsky
It's widely reported that the planned US-Israeli-Palestinian summit has been postponed by Yaser Arafat.




Not as far as I know. Last I heard it's going ahead next week in Jordan.

The meeting between Shaon and Abbas has been delayed until tomorrow as Sharon had to attend the Knesset to vote on the Pension Reform plan.

[yoyo]

Originally posted by ibrodsky
More importantly, you dishonestly ignore the fact that rejecting peace with or even the existence of Israel has been a real cornerstone of Arab policy for 50+ years.

Exactly! This whole businnes of "recognizing the existence" says it all. It is like me saying to Michael "I don't recognize your right to exists... but if you give me your house, your garden, your car, you rchildren and your dog, I'll think about it". After centuries of dhimmitude at the hand of the follower of Allah, after 120 years of active massacre in what is now the State of Israel, after 55 years of arab wars against Israel which only aim was to "liquidate the zionist entity/cancer", we should plead with them to let us live????? "Oh thank you recognize that I have a right to live after all..." Yeah, right!

Israel is alive precisely because they managed succefully to vanquish over the arabo-muslims. The dhimmi has become stronger than the master, a whole region strong of 14 million square kilometers has not managed to prevent a small people with 25 000 square kilometer to live. THAT IS WHAT THEY CALL HUMILIATION. And if "HUMILIATION" is what it takes for arabs to behave like human being, then let's hope it continue avitam eternam.

[ibrodsky]

Originally posted by michael
50 years of Arab rejectionism is certanly the standard line but there are some indicators of a different picture.

Sadats visit to Israel in 1977 was historic according to the standard line. Less celebrated was the offer by Nasser in 1970 of “durable peace….if Israel evacuates the occupied territories and accepts a settlement of the problem of refugees.” An offer in line with the basic UN Resolutions at the time but totally unacceptable to Israel and therefore not even worth mentioning,

Nasser made no effort to open negotiations with Israel. His offer was the standard "Israel must withdraw from territories we lost trying to drive the Jews into the sea to borders we never recognized, and must allow us to flood Israel with hundreds of thousands of angry Arabs, and then we'll talk."

Then Sadat in February 1971. A possibly more generous offer to Israel ( no mention of a Palestinian state) than 1977’s but again, rejected, as it apparantly aroused “panic” in Israel (Amos Elon - Ha’aretz Nov 13, 1981) Again this 1971 proposal was in line with the international consensus at the time (the Rogers Plan).

Complain, complain, complain. Israel made a peace deal with Egypt. Israel kept its part of the deal, returning the entire oil-rich Sinai, while Egypt continues to this day to spew anti-semitism.

In 1976 the Arab states continued to advocate a peace settlement with Israel according to the international consensus (now including a Palestinian state). The US vetoed a Security Council resolution in January. The Res. was backed by Jordan, Egypt, Syria and the PLO. It would “…guarantee …. territorial integrity, independence of all states in the area….their right to live in peace within secure and recognised boundaries”. Chaim Herzog, UN Ambassador at the time, claimed that it was the PLO who prepared the peace plan and so too the 1981 Fahd plan, again rejected by Israel. (Ha’aretz, November 13, 1981)

This is laughable. You paint the Arab states as peace-loving. They cannot get along with each other. They cannot get along with their own minority populations. They solve every dispute, including change of leadership, through violence.

The UN proposed a Palestinian state. Israel offered a Palestinian state two years ago. The Palestinians rejected it. The PA's FM said during a visit to Lebanon that a "state" was not that important to the Palestinians. (No surprise here, they didn't even know they were a nation until 1967.)

Even now, Israel accepts a "road map" that virtually guarantees a Palestinian state if the Palestinians merely pretend to go along.

Your statements are so intentionally misleading... any relation to Comical Ali?

The PLO also endorsed the 1977 Soviet-American plan to end the conflict. Israel again rejected the proposal via the excuse of ‘imposed settlement’ – that is they disagreed because recognition of Palestinian rights was unthinkable.

Oh yes, the peace-loving PLO which pioneered hostage taking and murderous attacks on school buses, and branches of which even today don't recognize the right to live for Jews, has "endorsed" peace proposals...

The PA (formerly PLO) didn't even respond to Israel's peace proposal with a counter offer. Instead, they violated every agreement they signed and started a war.

Next was Syria’s turn in 1982. It proposed a “termination of the state of war between the Arabs and Israel… and a…Palestinain state…alongside Israel”. An article in Ha’aretz commented sarcastically that “We must not underestimate the danger posed by the Syrian plot , and must do our best to kill it while it’s still small” (Ha’aretz, Feb 12, 1982).

[sarcasm on]
Aren't you leaving out other glorious examples? What about the desperate efforts of Saddam to make peace with Israel? Hasn't Iran said all along it hopes for a future of peace and harmony with Israel? Let's not pull any punches here... didn't Al Qaeda beg the US to listen to reason before they were forced to drive jumbo jets into office buildings?
[sarcasm off]

The PLO certainly matched Israel for rejectionism up till the mid-70's and for years after PLO statments were deliberately vague or duplicitous, but they where far more accommodating to a peaceful settlement than Israel or the US, as shown above.

The PLO was "accommodating"? You have no credibility.

[michael]

Originally posted by ibrodsky
Nasser made no effort to open negotiations with Israel. His offer was the standard "Israel must withdraw from territories we lost trying to drive the Jews into the sea to borders we never recognized, and must allow us to flood Israel with hundreds of thousands of angry Arabs, and then we'll talk.".........

Complain, complain, complain. Israel made a peace deal with Egypt. Israel kept its part of the deal, returning the entire oil-rich Sinai, while Egypt continues to this day to spew anti-semitism.....

The PLO was "accommodating"? You have no credibility.


You're right there were no negotiations with Nasser as he recieved no reponse from Israel despite its 'longing for peace' (See Israel - Amnon Kapeliouk, p. 281).

The Camp David accords are quite interesting in showing how Israel dealt with the peace plans. Sadat argued for a "comprehensive peace" ie all Arab states rather than a "partial " peace just between Israel and Egypt. The Accords in the end didn't deliver on the former but even then, the Knesset approved "Government Policy Guidelines" that expressly contradicted the limited provisions in the accords. As Abba Eban commented at the time it was hard to find a precedent,
"..in the jurisprudence of any government for such a total contradiction between an international engagement and a national staement of policy".

So, no, Israel did not keep it's part of the deal.

As for the PLO I said there were "more accommodating". It's interesting to look at what was said about the PLO in Israel at around this time (1982) of the invasion of Lebanon, to supposedly fight PLO terrorism.

"the war's central aim was to deal a crushing blow to the national aspiration of the Palestinians "

"the goals of the war have been ...political and are not directly connected with Israels security " (Mordechai Bar-On, New Oulook Nov 1982)

As usual it is the threat of a negotiated putcome that must be avoided at all cost. Certainly, Isreal displayed admirable judgement in these matters as it, correctly, guessed it could rely on US support to avoid such an unpleasant result.

The overall strategy was clear to Yehoshua Porath;

"...the hope is that the stricken PLO...will return to it's earlier terrorism....in this way the PLO will lose part of its political legitimacy..undercutting the danger....that [the PLO] might become a legimate negotiating partner for future political accommodations" (Ha'artez, June 25, 1982)

As so it was. But, as we know, the "two-legged beasts" do not have equal claim to even choose their own leaders, let alone to be 'a free people in a free land'.

[humus_sapiens]

ADDRESS THE HATE, THEN THE STATE
(by Rabbi Ariel Bar Tzadok)

There is a wise old saying attributed to Abraham Lincoln. "How many legs does a dog have if you call the tail a leg? Answer, four. Calling a tail a leg does not make it a leg."
...
Let us rephrase old Abe's question. How can the Road Map bring peace between Israel and the so-called Palestinians? Answer, it cannot. Palestinians truly do not want to live in peace with Jews.

You can call the Road Map a way to bring peace, but this is like saying a tail is a leg. Simple plain logic shows it simply is not true, no matter how hard you want to believe the opposite.

The problem with the so-called Palestinians will not be solved with the creation of a Palestinian State. Such a state could have been created numerous times in the past, with Israeli leaders ready to surrender almost everything. However, the Palestinians, as Abba Eban used to say, never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity. Nothing has changed and nothing will change until we have the courage to address the real issue.

The real issue is that the most virulent forms of nazi like anti-semitism is still being taught daily in all Palestinian / Moslem schools. This problem has nothing to do with "land for peace." It is not limited to the Middle East. Indeed, in a recent article
published in the New York Daily News, such racial hatred against Jews is taught in Islamic private schools right here in the U.S. within English language textbooks.

The problem is not one of "land for peace." The problem is one of
hatred. Simply put: we must address the virile hatred of Jews
swallowed whole in every corner of the Moslem world today. Fight the hate and kill it. Maybe when Moslems and Palestinians stop hating Jews they may accept living in peace side by side with us.

As long as the Palestinians and their Moslem brethren continue to
hate the Jews, this entire planet will not be big enough to hold us
both. Address the hate or we will ultimately have to face a global
"shootout at the OK Corral," where only one side will come out alive. Address the hate, or WWIII is unavoidable.

For those of us who truly wish to live in a sincere peace, with all
people everywhere, we must realize, accept and act upon the real problem. The problem is not one of land or statehood. Moslems worldwide are not trying to destroy America and Western Civilization because of Israel. The creation of a Palestinian State would not have prevented 9/11; not will it prevent the next horrific terror attack that we do not have a name for yet.

Old Abe already told us, a tail is not a leg regardless of what you
say. The Road map will not bring peace, regardless of what you say. As sorry as it is, we Middle East watchers are ready to watch the next "season" of Middle East sitcom drama, the newest episodes in the continuing story of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Like an afternoon Soap Opera, the drama will continue, politicians will continue to talk, new secret schemes will be hatched, and Jews will continue to be murdered. On and on the story goes.

The Road Map plan is not worth the paper it is written on. More than this, I believe the politicians in Israel and around the world know this. They will nonetheless pursue the Road Map because it is the
easiest path to follow.

It is easier to throw a dog a bone that to train it to behave.

It is easy to call a tail a leg, but it still does not make it so. It is easy to say the Road Map will bring peace. Time will prove
that this will not be the case.

Mr. Sharon, like Ehud Barak, Shimon Peres, and Yitzhak Rabin will
fail to bring peace to Israel simply because, like his predecessors,
he is trying to cure a cancer with a Band-Aid.

The only way to remove a cancer is with serious intervention and
surgery. The only way to remove the cancer of Palestinian / Moslem hatred of Jews and Western Civilization is with serious intervention and surgical strikes to remove its head. Strikes against Afghanistan and Iraq are a beginning, but there is a tremendous amount of work left to be done before the battle against global terrorism fired by the anger of racial / religious hatred is won.

Creating a Palestinian State now will only fire these flames of hatred and world terrorism. Do not call a tail a leg. At best, you are mistaken; at worst, you are a liar. First, address the hate, then the State.


michael (a Jewish name, BTW. Does it make you feel a little queezy?), so you feel there's nothing wrong with your Pal Arab friends? It's the Jews' fault all along, just like the suicidal fuhrer said.

[JustPat]

Originally posted by ibrodsky
You conveniently left out one key point: a real peace settlement has to be between the parties involved in the conflict. It can't be imposed by outside parties.

You mock Shaul Mofaz, but he is absolutely correct: the "road map" is simply a guide to a process that could lead to a settlement if both parties want it.

More importantly, you dishonestly ignore the fact that rejecting peace with or even the existence of Israel has been a real cornerstone of Arab policy for 50+ years.

A call to reality? You don't have a clue.
In considering the "Call to Reality", I have to ask, how can you have a unilateral peace? To date the Pals have not bargained in good faith, seem reticent to negotiate honestly, and have offered NO ... that was ... NO! alternative plan that would guarantee Israel's security and stop the terrorism Arafat began. In the real world, it still takes two to tango.

[michael]

Originally posted by humus_sapiens

michael (a Jewish name, BTW. Does it make you feel a little queezy?), so you feel there's nothing wrong with your Pal Arab friends? It's the Jews' fault all along, just like the suicidal fuhrer said.

The quote you provided is simply the extended re-mix of “it’s all the Arabs fault”, ala ibrodsky and Mediocrates.

I think the most interesting feature of the posts is the assumption of carte blanche approval of the Arab states and the PLO. Recalling the historical facts is not a judgement of those regimes or of the merits (few) of the PLO.

No matter how many times the mantra of Arabs;
“ ….rejecting peace with or even the existence of Israel ….”
is repeated, it does not stand up to the most cursory scrutiny, except for committed idealogues, for whom the facts matter little.

Many criticisms could be made of the various peace plans put forward by the Arab states and the PLO, but the simple denial of their existence seems to be the favoured aproach.

[humus_sapiens]

Originally posted by michael
[B]The quote you provided is simply the extended re-mix of “it’s all the Arabs fault”, ala ibrodsky and Mediocrates.

So you just conveniently and logically dismiss all the points made. Just as the article says, address the hate first. [Ad hominem attack deleted.]

[ibrodsky]

Originally posted by michael


Many criticisms could be made of the various peace plans put forward by the Arab states and the PLO, but the simple denial of their existence seems to be the favoured aproach.

No, we don't deny that Arab states have issued several "peace plans" over the years.

But unlike you, we don't carefully overlook the fact that most of these "peace plans" called for Israel to make a series of dangerous, unilateral concessions without negotiations and without any guarantees the Arab side would ever comply.

For example, Saudi Arabia floated a "peace plan" about a year ago. The Israeli government responded publicly that the plan looked interesting and suggested direct, face-to-face negotiations be opened between representatives of Saudi Arabia and Israel.

The Saudis refused. What did they not like about Israel saying their plan looked interesting?

At various other times, Arab leaders have suggested that if Israel withdraws from the territory the Arabs lost due to their own folly and belligerence that there would be "peace." Yet while one leader said these things to the West, other Arabs were busy carrying out mass murder raids against Jews inside Israel and insisting the only solution was to replace Israel with an Arab/Muslim state.

[ibrodsky]

Originally posted by michael


No matter how many times the mantra of Arabs;
“ ….rejecting peace with or even the existence of Israel ….”
is repeated, it does not stand up to the most cursory scrutiny, except for committed idealogues, for whom the facts matter little.



If people who ignore facts are "committed idealogues," you must be one of them.

In 1967 the Arab League met in Khartoum and issued their famous "three 'No's"

NO peace with Israel
NO recognition of Israel
NO negotiations with Israel

This was a public commitment made by eight Arab countries. There certainly had been no talk by the Arabs of peace with Israel up till then. I defy you to show any Arab peace proposal prior to 1967.

The purpose of the Khartoum resolution was, in the aftermath of Israel's stunning victory in The Six Day War, to ensure Arab leaders held the line in refusing to recognize and make peace with Israel.

It was the Arab response to Israel's magnanimous declaration to the effect "If you just make peace with us we will hand back the territory we siezed."

Looking back, it is now clear the "three 'No's" were actually the first recognition that some Arab countries, particularly Egypt, would be tempted to make "peace" in order to get their land back. This they eventually did, and only a committed ideologue would refuse to see the Arab "change of heart" was motivated by a desire to retrieve the Sinai oil field--not some sudden eruption of anti-war sentiments.

[michael]

Originally posted by humus_sapiens
So you just conveniently and logically dismiss all the points made. Just as the article says, address the hate first. [Ad hominem attack deleted.]


Not enough detail? Anything to please.


“Palestinians truly do not want to live in peace with Jews.”

In his opinion.


“You can call the Road Map a way to bring peace, but this is like saying a tail is a leg. Simple plain logic shows it simply is not true, no matter how hard you want to believe the opposite.”

Well yes, a tail is not a leg- he has me there!


“Such a state could have been created numerous times in the past, with Israeli leaders ready to surrender almost everything.”

I’d agree with the first part. The second, as I demonstrated, is a little harder to prove (eg the 1978 Camp David accord and the ensuing Knesset vote making into law provisions totally at odds with it.)


“The real issue is that the most virulent forms of nazi like anti-semitism is still being taught daily in all Palestinian / Moslem schools.”

This is at least arguing a point which could be demonstrated (which it isn’t). However, I will at least accept it as being true. The logic being that anti-Jewish hatred is the real block to peace. By the same logic then, anti-Arab bigotry is equally to blame if such a thing could be demonstrated. I would argue that it could quite easily eg Begins “two-legged beasts”. If you need a number of examples to accept that such a thing could be demonstrated, I will happily comply.


“The problem is one of hatred. Simply put: we must address the virile hatred of Jews
swallowed whole in every corner of the Moslem world today. Fight the hate and kill it. Maybe when Moslems and Palestinians stop hating Jews they may accept living in peace side by side with us.”

An interesting cure. If someone hates you, kill them? Thankfully, the hate only exists on the Arab side, right?


“ The creation of a Palestinian State would not have prevented 9/11; not will it prevent the next horrific terror attack that we do not have a name for yet”

I agree. Though it may reduce the number of Israeli and Palestinian deaths, surely an outcome everyone would want.


“It is easier to throw a dog a bone that to train it to behave.”

Yep, those Palestinian untermensch could really do with some training.

“It is easy to call a tail a leg, but it still does not make it so. It is easy to say the Road Map will bring peace. Time will prove that this will not be the case.”

True, it’s not a case of “will bring peace” but whether the will exists, among those who have the power to do so, to allow it to bring peace.


“Creating a Palestinian State now will only fire these flames of hatred and world terrorism. Do not call a tail a leg. At best, you are mistaken; at worst, you are a liar. First, address the hate, then the State.”

So the occupied should grow to love their occupiers, then they can have their state. This may be quite a task. Very similiar to the call of “security then peace”. Convenient, but not necessarily the order that comes naturally. Not surprisingly, I opt for the reverse order, but without any compelling reasons except that it ‘seems’ more logical. If by security you mean closures, incursions, arbitrary arrest and detention without trial, torture and the like, I think that this can bring something – fear, humiliation, revenge, cowed silence, apathy, and all maintained by force, which cannot be lifted. However, I don’t think that this is peace.

The quote is very strong on opinion and violent rhetoric but not so strong on reasoned argument. Everyone has a right to express their opinions, no matter how misguided, but I would draw a line, as would most, at incitement to violence (“kill the hate”).

I haven't been on for a few days so I missed your "ad hominen attack". I'm very unhappy about that, as I usually find them very funny, as well as telling a great deal about the person making them.

[michael]

Originally posted by ibrodsky
But unlike you, we don't carefully overlook the fact that most of these "peace plans" called for Israel to make a series of dangerous, unilateral concessions

For example, Saudi Arabia floated a "peace plan" about a year ago. The Israeli government responded publicly that the plan looked interesting and suggested direct, face-to-face negotiations be opened between representatives of Saudi Arabia and Israel.

The Saudis refused. What did they not like about Israel saying their plan looked interesting?


The nasty 'unilateral concessions' were compliance with UN Security Council resolutions.

The Saudi plans' major deficit in Israeli eyes was that it did the same thing as previous plans - requested compliance in line with the international consensus.

Certainly, junior ministers made noises about it being"interesting" whatever that might mean. The usual plan was put in place - be non-committal, propose 'discussions' on minor points, but never express in-principle approval, which was what the Arab League requested. The Israeli media reorted that Sharon was vehemently opposed, but he made no public statements (that I'm aware of). Fortunately, subsequent events directed attention away from that unwanted threat of peace. A rather familiar pattern, ala Beirut.

[michael]

Originally posted by ibrodsky
If people who ignore facts are "committed idealogues," you must be one of them.

In 1967 the Arab League met in Khartoum and issued their famous "three 'No's"

This was a public commitment made by eight Arab countries. There certainly had been no talk by the Arabs of peace with Israel up till then. I defy you to show any Arab peace proposal prior to 1967.




“The PLO certainly matched Israel for rejectionism up till the mid-70's”(Michael - post #1)

That is they rejected a 2 state solution (ie recognition of Israel), not just in 1967 but up until the mid 1970’s (Egypt till '71), as I said. Clear enough?

The Israeli position is some what misrepresented, as usual. Moshe Dayans’ famous statement was that he;
“preferred Sharm el-Sheikh [in Sinai] without peace, to a peace without Sharm el-Sheikh".

Not quite a case of ”just make peace with us we will hand back the territory we siezed”, as you suggest.

I won't show you a pre-67 Arab peace proposal, because as the above shows, I made no claim of one.

And I'll have to disagree with your opinion on Egypts motivation for a peace treaty - I think there is good reason to believe that is was brought about by Egypts' desire to move out of a close arrnagement with the USSR and enter into a client-state relationship with the US.

[Johnny Yuma]

Originally posted by michael
And I'll have to disagree with your opinion on Egypts motivation for a peace treaty - I think there is good reason to believe that is was brought about by Egypts' desire to move out of a close arrnagement with the USSR and enter into a client-state relationship with the US.

Out of curiosity, I must ask why you frame those countries that desire a relationship with the United States into one with the negative connotation of a "client-state" (read "puppet"), as opposed to simply wanting to have better relations in trade and diplomacy?

[ibrodsky]

Originally posted by michael
The nasty 'unilateral concessions' were compliance with UN Security Council resolutions.

The Saudi plans' major deficit in Israeli eyes was that it did the same thing as previous plans - requested compliance in line with the international consensus.

Certainly, junior ministers made noises about it being"interesting" whatever that might mean. The usual plan was put in place - be non-committal, propose 'discussions' on minor points, but never express in-principle approval, which was what the Arab League requested. The Israeli media reorted that Sharon was vehemently opposed, but he made no public statements (that I'm aware of). Fortunately, subsequent events directed attention away from that unwanted threat of peace. A rather familiar pattern, ala Beirut.

This is all your mean-spirited interpretation of what Israel did and said. Actually, Sharon asked Washington to relay to the Saudis that Israel was ready for immediate, face-to-face negotiations.

The fact is that the Saudis refused to discuss their plan--not the Israelis.

Had the Saudis been sincere, they would have been willing to discuss it. Do you know why they weren't willing to discuss it? Because Arab rejectionists don't want Arab leaders discussing anything with "the Zionist entity."

[ibrodsky]

Originally posted by michael
“The PLO certainly matched Israel for rejectionism up till the mid-70's”(Michael - post #1)

That is they rejected a 2 state solution (ie recognition of Israel), not just in 1967 but up until the mid 1970’s (Egypt till '71), as I said. Clear enough?

The Israeli position is some what misrepresented, as usual. Moshe Dayans’ famous statement was that he;
“preferred Sharm el-Sheikh [in Sinai] without peace, to a peace without Sharm el-Sheikh".

Not quite a case of ”just make peace with us we will hand back the territory we siezed”, as you suggest.

I won't show you a pre-67 Arab peace proposal, because as the above shows, I made no claim of one.

And I'll have to disagree with your opinion on Egypts motivation for a peace treaty - I think there is good reason to believe that is was brought about by Egypts' desire to move out of a close arrnagement with the USSR and enter into a client-state relationship with the US.

You have to understand that Israel is a democracy and Arab states are dictatorships. Moshe Dayan was free to state his opinion as was every other Israeli. He was not Prime Minister, however. Menachem Begin went on to make a deal that completely contradicted Dayan's view.

As for Egypt's motivation, it is well documented that Egypt broke with the Soviets well before the deal was made. Wanting better relations with the US may have been part of the equation, though. I wouldn't dispute that. But wanting the oil-rich Sinai back was even more important to Egypt.

To have Israel holding the entire Sinai was a major embarassment for the Arabs. Sadat calculated that he would gain more by getting the Sinai back than he would lose by making peace with "the Zionist entity."

[ibrodsky]

Originally posted by michael

The Saudi plans' major deficit in Israeli eyes was that it did the same thing as previous plans - requested compliance in line with the international consensus.



Maybe this will jog your memory:

Saudi Peace Sham
By Charles Krauthammer
Wednesday, March 6, 2002; Page A19


In 35 years of studying the Middle East, I have rarely seen anything to rival the Saudi "peace plan" for cynicism (of those pushing the plan) and gullibility (of those buying it). If it were not so tragic it would be comic. Israeli civilians are being blown up almost daily in restaurants, at bus stops, at prayer. Retaliatory attacks are launched by the hour. A new "peace plan" is then floated whose essence is this: When peace is achieved between the two parties killing each other on the ground, the Saudis will give it their blessing and make peace too.

Forgive me, but this is entirely beside the point. The point is not what the Arab states will do after peace dawns -- And what would they do? Keep the war going after the Palestinians make peace? -- but to find a way to stop the violence today.

Apart from the fact that the plan is an obvious Saudi ploy to blunt American anger at the shockingly deep Saudi role in Sept. 11 by posing as peacemakers, apart from the fact that it gives make-work to U.N., EU and other underemployed diplomats with not an idea in their heads how to stop the violence, the plan has a very specific objective: misdirection. The plan -- a repetition of maximal Arab demands from which they have not budged in two decades -- is a transparent attempt to take world attention away from the source of the violence.

Ever since the devastating suicide bombings of Dec. 1 and 2 in Jerusalem and Haifa that murdered 25 Israelis, world attention has been on Yasser Arafat. Shortly before Dec. 1, the Bush administration had bent to Arab demands and became seriously reinvolved in brokering peace, explicitly advocating a Palestinian state and sending a special envoy, Gen. Anthony Zinni, to lead the negotiations. Zinni arrived in Jerusalem and was greeted by an orgy of Palestinian violence.

A furious and embarrassed U.S. administration then insisted that Arafat re-arrest the terrorists he had deliberately released from jail at the beginning of the intifada and crack down on the terrorist infrastructure that he had made common cause with under the umbrella of the "National and Islamic Forces." Even the European Union, normally a wholly owned subsidiary of the Arab League, agreed.

It is three months later and Arafat has done nothing. On the contrary. The suicide bombings are coming with increasing frequency and with ever-increasing adulation in Arafat's media and propaganda. More ambushes, more bombings, more missiles, more bloodshed.

Everyone knows that if Arafat would call a stop, Israel would reciprocate. But for 17 months, he has refused. Why? Because he is winning. Israel is bleeding, demoralized, leaderless, economically devastated. Arafat knows that he may yet get what he wants -- unilateral withdrawal. For Arafat, such an Israeli capitulation, mirroring its capitulation in Lebanon, would be the sweetest of victories: land without peace.

He has a serious obstacle, however. American pressure. How to relieve it? Change the subject. Make the issue not the Palestinian campaign of terror but newfound Saudi peacefulness.

What is the key symbol of the U.S. pressure on Arafat? Its support of Israel's confinement of Arafat to his headquarters in Ramallah until he shuts down the terror. What then do you imagine is the newest key demand of the Saudi plan? You guessed it. On Monday, Palestinian Planning Minister Nabil Shaath, who had just met with Saudi Crown Prince Abdullah, revealed that the Saudis would refuse to present the plan to the Arab League meeting in Beirut on March 27-28 -- unless Arafat is allowed to attend.

The clouds part. The fog lifts. The peace plan turns out to be a device for springing Arafat from his confinement -- without having acceded to U.S. demands to shut down the terror. His resumption of globe-trotting would publicly demonstrate his successful defiance of the American effort to stop the violence. (President Hosni Mubarak's invitation yesterday to Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon for a summit in Egypt -- on condition that Arafat attend as well -- dovetails perfectly with the Saudi breakout strategy for Arafat.)

It would be a spectacular diplomatic victory -- a triumphal return to Beirut to a thunderous reception from his fellow Arabs -- and dramatic vindication of his policy of the past two years: rejecting Israel's Camp David 2000 peace offer, tearing up the Oslo accords, then waging terror and guerrilla war. Such success for his war policy is guaranteed to increase the violence.

The audacity of this maneuver is breathtaking. But why not? It is working. The New York Times bought the Saudi peace plan (last Sunday alone, lavishing two feature stories and nearly a dozen photographs over five pages). The Europeans bought it. The diplomatic-media complex bought it. All that stands in the way of pulling this off is for the Bush administration to buy it.

Thus far and to its credit, the administration has not. But the pressure to cave, already applied by the visiting Mubarak, is growing. It must be resisted. This phony plan will do nothing but relieve the pressure on Arafat to stop the war.


© 2002 The Washington Post Company

[JustPat]

Originally posted by michael
Moshe Dayans’ famous statement was that he;
“preferred Sharm el-Sheikh [in Sinai] without peace, to a peace without Sharm el-Sheikh".
Perhaps if you had led men who were willing to lay down their lives to defend Israel against the Egyptian agressors you too would have shared Dayan's opinion. How long must the blood of Israel's fallen cry out for justice against the Arab hoards that have sought to erase Istael from the earth? You know the UN won't lift a finger to help Israel. The EU shows their hatred for Isarel in many ways. Even the US is a sometimes two-faced ally. Let's face it, Israel is on her own to defend her existence and secure her people. How can that be done with an enemy imbedded in her bosom?

[michael]

Originally posted by Johnny Yuma
Out of curiosity, I must ask why you frame those countries that desire a relationship with the United States into one with the negative connotation of a "client-state" (read "puppet"), as opposed to simply wanting to have better relations in trade and diplomacy?

Because the available facts point to that conclusion.

Egypt has become the second biggest recipient of US foreign aid behind Israel (and a long way behind), well over half for military use - a classic sign of a client state. Such an arrangement only works if by providing the aid the client government is asssited to remain in place. In the case of Egypt the threat is an internal as in most of the arab countries. Hence the human rights abuses, lack of free media, and general repression that the members of this forum so love to lament.

[humus_sapiens]

Originally posted by michael
In the case of Egypt the threat is an internal as in most of the arab countries. Hence the human rights abuses, lack of free media, and general repression that the members of this forum so love to lament.

I knew it. It's never the Arabs' fault. Israel and America...
Just as the suicidal fuhrer said.

From michael's posts one can imagine how huge powerul Israel surrounds tiny and threatened Arab nations who only put forward one peace plan after another.

[michael]

Originally posted by ibrodsky
This is all your mean-spirited interpretation of what Israel did and said. Actually, Sharon asked Washington to relay to the Saudis that Israel was ready for immediate, face-to-face negotiations.

The fact is that the Saudis refused to discuss their plan--not the Israelis.

Had the Saudis been sincere, they would have been willing to discuss it. Do you know why they weren't willing to discuss it? Because Arab rejectionists don't want Arab leaders discussing anything with "the Zionist entity."

The proposal was basically a watered down version of UN Res 242 which Israel has never accepted. Perhaps then it was no surprise it never got anywhere.

This is the opinion of Sharons' tactics on the Saudi Plan, from Akiva Eldar, a columnist for Ha'aretz,

"The idea is to always say, 'Yes, but' to give the Israeli public and his Labor party coalition partners the impression that there can be negotiations. But, in fact, there will be no real negotiations, since that would mean freezing the settlements, which violates his ideology and gives fuel to his rivals in the Likud Party."

"If Bush says Sharon is a man of peace, how can the Israeli Labor Party say otherwise. As long as Bush is covering for him, and is satisfied with him, Sharon is quite safe."

[michael]

Originally posted by ibrodsky
You have to understand that Israel is a democracy and Arab states are dictatorships. Moshe Dayan was free to state his opinion as was every other Israeli. He was not Prime Minister, however. Menachem Begin went on to make a deal that completely contradicted Dayan's view.

As for Egypt's motivation, it is well documented that Egypt broke with the Soviets well before the deal was made. Wanting better relations with the US may have been part of the equation, though. I wouldn't dispute that. But wanting the oil-rich Sinai back was even more important to Egypt.

To have Israel holding the entire Sinai was a major embarassment for the Arabs. Sadat calculated that he would gain more by getting the Sinai back than he would lose by making peace with "the Zionist entity."

Begin may have “negotiated” but he did not intiate. Remember Sadat made a more generous offer to Israel in 1971. The ’71 proposal did not include the formation of a Palestinian state. If Israel really was willing to “give up almost everything” what was the difference between the ’71 and ’77 proposals put forward by Sadat?

1973. ’73 demonstrated that contrary to the Israeli (and Kissingers) view that the Arab armies were no threat, the initial advances made by the Egyptian forces were a nasty shock which resulted in an eventual change of policy. The resulting peace deal cemented Egypts’ alliance with the US and freed Israel to concentrate on the ‘northern front’.

[michael]

Originally posted by JustPat
Perhaps if you had led men who were willing to lay down their lives to defend Israel against the Egyptian agressors you too would have shared Dayan's opinion. How long must the blood of Israel's fallen cry out for justice against the Arab hoards that have sought to erase Istael from the earth?

Again this is a commonly held view-that Egypt attacked Israel in 1967, though without a great deal of justification.

This is what Menachim Begin said about it,

“In June 1967 we had a choice. The Egyptian army concentrations in the Sinai approaches do not prove that Nasser was really about to attack us. We must be honest with ourselves. We decided to attack him.” (Speech to the National Defense College August 8, 1982.).

[ibrodsky]

Originally posted by michael
Again this is a commonly held view-that Egypt attacked Israel in 1967, though without a great deal of justification.

This is what Menachim Begin said about it,

“In June 1967 we had a choice. The Egyptian army concentrations in the Sinai approaches do not prove that Nasser was really about to attack us. We must be honest with ourselves. We decided to attack him.” (Speech to the National Defense College August 8, 1982.).

In 1967 Egypt blockaded Israel's southern port, kicked the UN "peacekeeping" force out, and massed troops in the Sinai.

Any reasonable person would recognize that was causis belli. Egypt's belligerent actions started the Six Day War.

I'm deeply impressed that you go to Menachem Begin for the correct interpretation of events. Or do you? That quote, which is almost certainly doctored (if not a complete fabrication), appears on dozens of Palestinian and pro-Palestinian websites. Interestingly, it doesn't appear anywhere else.

But I would expect no less from you, Michael.

[ibrodsky]

I believe the source of this lie is Noam Chomsky.

Of course, everyone knows that Israel launched the first military attack. There is no dispute about this. A tiny country could not hope to win against such overwhelming odds without being daring.

The Palestinian liars, aided by Jewish liars, probably took a statement about how Israel had to strike the first blow in order to defeat the Arab aggressors and twisted it into a absurd "admission" that Egypt meant no harm.

Michael wrote:

Again this is a commonly held view-that Egypt attacked Israel in 1967, though without a great deal of justification.

Commonly held by who? This is a Big Fat Lie. Every credible book on the Six Day War says Israel launched the first military strike. But reasonable observers recognize that blockading ports, kicking out peacekeeping troops, massing troops, and publicly declaring your intention to "drive the Jews into the sea" is causis belli.

I'm anxious to hear from you, Michael, where this is a "commonly held view." It certainly isn't a commonly held view in Israel. It isn't a commonly held view in the Jewish community in the US. Please, show me who doesn't admit Israel made the first military strike during the Six Day War.

But try to use some credible sources this time.

[ibrodsky]

Originally posted by michael
The proposal was basically a watered down version of UN Res 242 which Israel has never accepted. Perhaps then it was no surprise it never got anywhere.

This is the opinion of Sharons' tactics on the Saudi Plan, from Akiva Eldar, a columnist for Ha'aretz,

"The idea is to always say, 'Yes, but' to give the Israeli public and his Labor party coalition partners the impression that there can be negotiations. But, in fact, there will be no real negotiations, since that would mean freezing the settlements, which violates his ideology and gives fuel to his rivals in the Likud Party."

"If Bush says Sharon is a man of peace, how can the Israeli Labor Party say otherwise. As long as Bush is covering for him, and is satisfied with him, Sharon is quite safe."

Again, you pretend that the opinions of leftwing Jews settle everything. At least, when they serve the Palestinian cause.

How many times do I have to explain this to you? This is one man's opinion. There may be only one acceptable view in totalitarian Arab states, but that's not how it works in Israel.

Someone's opinion about Sharon's intentions is not an adequate substitute for the facts. And the fact is that Israel responded positively to the Saudi offer and asked for face-to-face negotiations. The Saudis declined.

We can also speculate endlessly about the Saudis' intentions. But there is no point to that. They floated a "peace proposal" and then refused to negotiate with the party they were presumably proposing peace. Regardless of their intentions, they chose not to follow through. That's how the matter ended.

[michael]

Originally posted by humus_sapiens
I knew it. It's never the Arabs' fault. Israel and America...
Just as the suicidal fuhrer said.



I aim to please!

I can't see exactly where I said "it's never the arabs fault". Quite the contrary. I said the threat is "internal". That is, Arab regimes oppressing their own citizens. Sounds rather like their fault to me.

The interesting question from the US alliance point of view is obvious; how is support for such brutal regimes justified?

After all, we've just emerged from an invasion of Iraq where the regimes appalling human rights record was a concern.

And which of the Arab regimes has been the most steadfast - Saudi Arabia, where there are no political parties, no voting, repression, execution, few rights for women etc. After 80 years (?) of first British and now US support, a few people are finally asking - what's going on here?

[ibrodsky]

Originally posted by michael
I aim to please!

I can't see exactly where I said "it's never the arabs fault". Quite the contrary. I said the threat is "internal". That is, Arab regimes oppressing their own citizens. Sounds rather like their fault to me.

The interesting question from the US alliance point of view is obvious; how is support for such brutal regimes justified?

After all, we've just emerged from an invasion of Iraq where the regimes appalling human rights record was a concern.

And which of the Arab regimes has been the most steadfast - Saudi Arabia, where there are no political parties, no voting, repression, execution, few rights for women etc. After 80 years (?) of first British and now US support, a few people are finally asking - what's going on here?

No, it's just that some people simultaneously condemn the US for deposing dictators and not deposing dictators.

Grownups understand that the US can't impose democracy on the rest of the world. Realists understand that we can't ignore the rest of the world, either.

One of the great modern myths is that the US "supported" Saddam Hussein. We didn't put Saddam Hussein in power. We never defended him against those seeking democratic reforms in Iraq. In fact, those people have been living in exile in the US since before the first Persian Gulf War.

Does the US "support" the Saudi Royal Family? We didn't put them in power. We have given them tactical support against other totalitarians. It's legitimate to question that tactical support.

The Left, however, uses past US tactical support as an excuse for defending the most brutal, repressive regimes when the US is finally forced to take action against them.

[michael]

Originally posted by ibrodsky
In 1967 Egypt blockaded Israel's southern port, kicked the UN "peacekeeping" force out, and massed troops in the Sinai.

Any reasonable person would recognize that was causis belli. Egypt's belligerent actions started the Six Day War.

I'm deeply impressed that you go to Menachem Begin for the correct interpretation of events. Or do you? That quote, which is almost certainly doctored (if not a complete fabrication), appears on dozens of Palestinian and pro-Palestinian websites. Interestingly, it doesn't appear anywhere else.

But I would expect no less from you, Michael.


So Egypt didn't attack Isreal, it provoked Israels' attack. Well, it's amazing how conciliatory you can be!

Don't tell me that I detect just the slightest hint of recognising the nuances and complexities of the real world?

Quid pro quo.

Yes, the actions of the Arab states were provocative. Some argue that Israels' response fell under the UN Charters' right to self-defense. Michael Walzer argues that it was one of the clearest cases of a "Just War". Personally, I disagree strongly.

Just to make you happy, Begin went on to say,
"This was a war of self-defence in the noblest sense of the term" (quoted in the New York Times, August 21, 1982, taken from the Jerusalem Post).

Others disagreed, for example former Commander of the Air Force, Ezer Weizman who argued that the war's aim was to ensure Israel could "exist according to the scale she now embodies", and that "there was no threat of destruction" (Ha'aretz, March 29, 1972)

John Cooley's book, "Green March, Black September" gives more detail on the views of Israeli generals that Israels' risk of destruction in 1967 was all bluff.

[Canajew]

Whatever anyone wants to say, and notwithstanding my views about international law, the blockading of a port is internationally recognized an act of war. And Egypt blokaded the Gulf of Aquaba. QED

But with respect, when a foreign (hostile) nation mobilizes and puts almost its entire air force and a huge chunk of its army on your borders and starts spewing venom, and where other bording countries make alliances with that one belligerant, any nation should be entitled to pre-empt, regardless of the internationalist "self-defence" doctrine.

And by the way, the consistent shelling of the Gallillee by Syria should also qualify as an act of war, except even back then very different standards were applied to the Arab world and Israel. Little appears to have changed - look at Lebanon.

[ibrodsky]

Originally posted by michael
So Egypt didn't attack Isreal, it provoked Israels' attack. Well, it's amazing how conciliatory you can be!

Don't tell me that I detect just the slightest hint of recognising the nuances and complexities of the real world?

Quid pro quo.

Yes, the actions of the Arab states were provocative. Some argue that Israels' response fell under the UN Charters' right to self-defense. Michael Walzer argues that it was one of the clearest cases of a "Just War". Personally, I disagree strongly.

Just to make you happy, Begin went on to say,
"This was a war of self-defence in the noblest sense of the term" (quoted in the New York Times, August 21, 1982, taken from the Jerusalem Post).

Others disagreed, for example former Commander of the Air Force, Ezer Weizman who argued that the war's aim was to ensure Israel could "exist according to the scale she now embodies", and that "there was no threat of destruction" (Ha'aretz, March 29, 1972)

John Cooley's book, "Green March, Black September" gives more detail on the views of Israeli generals that Israels' risk of destruction in 1967 was all bluff.

Show me where I ever said or suggested Egypt launched the first military strike of the Six Day War?

What's interesting is that you admit Israel may have had causis belli, but then go on to present quotes suggesting Israel attacked in quest of an empire.

The world is complex. But that doesn't excuse you for trying to hide the truth. Canajew summed it up perfectly. There was no doubt in anyone's mind at the time that Egypt's actions would lead to war--particularly given that the Arab world was clamoring for war. To pretend otherwise is dishonest.

[michael]

Originally posted by ibrodsky

Of course, everyone knows that Israel launched the first military attack. There is no dispute about this. A tiny country could not hope to win against such overwhelming odds without being daring.

Commonly held by who? This is a Big Fat Lie. Every credible book on the Six Day War says Israel launched the first military strike. But reasonable observers recognize that blockading ports, kicking out peacekeeping troops, massing troops, and publicly declaring your intention to "drive the Jews into the sea" is causis belli.

I'm anxious to hear from you, Michael, where this is a "commonly held view." It certainly isn't a commonly held view in Israel. It isn't a commonly held view in the Jewish community in the US. Please, show me who doesn't admit Israel made the first military strike during the Six Day War.

But try to use some credible sources this time.


How about Michael Walzers’ classic tome “Just and Unjust Wars”. I think it is a fairly well known book ,would you agree, of some repute, perhaps even credible. And, I think, believed to be rather liberal and humane in its view of war.

In it Walzer cites what he believes to be “clear cases” of aggression in his review of 2500 years of war;

“….German attack on Belgium in 1914 , the Italian conquest of Ethiopia….the Nazi conquest of Chechoslovakia [and the rest]…… and the Egyptian challenge to Israel”.

Quite esteemed company the Egyptians are keeping here.

To justify this amazing piece of deduction, Walzer creates a special category, of one (over 2500 years), for the Egypt/Isreal case – “legitmate anticipation”.

So in this scholarly study, Egypt’s actions are judged to be on a par with those of Nazi Germany – guilty of the crime of aggression (ie. war).


How about the Anti-Defamation League, which in a letter to the New York Times (June 19, 1982) told of the Arabs "five attempts at military means" as they "invaded Israel , bent on her destruction".

Though I don't think the ADL is at all a credible source, but it may be credible in the way you meant.

[ibrodsky]

Originally posted by michael
How about Michael Walzers’ classic tome “Just and Unjust Wars”. I think it is a fairly well known book ,would you agree, of some repute, perhaps even credible. And, I think, believed to be rather liberal and humane in its view of war.

In it Walzer cites what he believes to be “clear cases” of aggression in his review of 2500 years of war;

“….German attack on Belgium in 1914 , the Italian conquest of Ethiopia….the Nazi conquest of Chechoslovakia [and the rest]…… and the Egyptian challenge to Israel”.

Quite esteemed company the Egyptians are keeping here.

To justify this amazing piece of deduction, Walzer creates a special category, of one (over 2500 years), for the Egypt/Isreal case – “legitmate anticipation”.

So in this scholarly study, Egypt’s actions are judged to be on a par with those of Nazi Germany – guilty of the crime of aggression (ie. war).


How about the Anti-Defamation League, which in a letter to the New York Times (June 19, 1982) told of the Arabs "five attempts at military means" as they "invaded Israel , bent on her destruction".

Though I don't think the ADL is at all a credible source, but it may be credible in the way you meant.

I haven't read Walzers' book, but you have not provided any evidence he said Egypt made the first military strike.

Do you understand the difference between justifying a first strike versus falsely claiming the other side struck first?

The bottom line here is that you deny the Arab world has been trying to destroy Israel since she declared independence. Of course, when you are surrounded by forces 20 - 30 times larger you sometimes have to strike first when war seems imminent.

The Six Day War was clearly provoked by the Arab side. Fortunately, the Arabs were so overconfident they decided to torment Israel for a while. Tiny Israel took advantage of the Arabs' arrogance and stupidity, and dealt them a crushing defeat.

[Johnny Yuma]

Originally posted by michael
Because the available facts point to that conclusion.

Egypt has become the second biggest recipient of US foreign aid behind Israel (and a long way behind), well over half for military use - a classic sign of a client state. Such an arrangement only works if by providing the aid the client government is asssited to remain in place. In the case of Egypt the threat is an internal as in most of the arab countries. Hence the human rights abuses, lack of free media, and general repression that the members of this forum so love to lament.

Egypt...... Let me rate Egypt on my hmm-mometer. Hmmmm..... Ya bet gamil t'ali! :cool: Oh yeah... Great place! That reminds me. Did you know that it was revealed to French biographers Christophe Boltanski and Jihan El-Tahri in their 1997 book, Les sept vies de Yasser Arafat , that Arafat was born on August 4, 1929, in Cairo, Egypt, not Palestine; not in the Gaza, as the Palestinian propaganda would have you believe. Don't you find that fascinating? :rolleyes:

[ibrodsky]

So much for the Arabs' supposed quest for peace:

Report: Sharm summit delayed over normalizing ties with Israel

By The Associated Press and Haaretz Staff

The Qatari-based Al-Jazeera satellite channel
reported that the opening of the Sharm el-Sheikh
summit on Tuesday between U.S. President George W.
Bush and Arab leaders was postponed by two hours
due to Arab leaders' rejection of Bush's demand to
advance the normalization of ties with Israel.

[michael]

Originally posted by ibrodsky
I haven't read Walzers' book, but you have not provided any evidence he said Egypt made the first military strike.

Do you understand the difference between justifying a first strike versus falsely claiming the other side struck first?

The bottom line here is that you deny the Arab world has been trying to destroy Israel since she declared independence. Of course, when you are surrounded by forces 20 - 30 times larger you sometimes have to strike first when war seems imminent.



Let me clarify Walzers remarks for you. He claimed the Egypt / Israel case was one of his "clear" examples of "aggression". Aggression is international lawspeak for the illegal act of waging war on a sovereign state, ala Nazi Germanys invasion of Czechoslavakia and Russia's invasion of Poland.

But perhaps Poland and Czechoslavakia also made a "first strike" against their aggressors, so as to put these aggressors in the same category as Egypt in this study.

I certainly understand the difference between a first strike and fasley claiming the other side struck first, but as I suggested in my original claim and shown in the quoted example , others, even credible (supposedly) scholars, seem to have some difficulty.

By your logic, any provocative action by a neighbouring country validates an Israeli attack. So by the same token Israeli provocation would legitimate an attack on Israel?
Perhaps you should read the book by Cooley I mentioned earlier and go to your local library and look up the January 1968 article by Charles Youst in the journal "Foreign Affairs" which document some of the simultaneous provocative actions and threats made by Israel in the lead up to the war.


Do I disagree with your claim about the Arab world - of course. To maintian your view of the persistent threat of destruction its best to forget incidents such as the 1956 attack on Egypt by Britain, France and Israel, as naturally it's only the Arab states that forever threaten Israel, rather than vice versa.

[michael]

Originally posted by ibrodsky

The bottom line here is that you deny the Arab world has been trying to destroy Israel since she declared independence. Of course, when you are surrounded by forces 20 - 30 times larger you sometimes have to strike first when war seems imminent.

The Six Day War was clearly provoked by the Arab side. Fortunately, the Arabs were so overconfident they decided to torment Israel for a while. Tiny Israel took advantage of the Arabs' arrogance and stupidity, and dealt them a crushing defeat.

Perhaps, again, it wasn’t quite like this.

My personal view is worth little, though it's just possible that Israeli Generals at the time may have an opinion that is “credible”. For instance Reserve General Mattityahu Peled wrote in Ha’aretz that Israel held the numerical advantage in the Sinai in ’67, as well as a technological edge (Ha’aretz March 13, 1972), views similar to Gen Weizmann, as quoted earlier.

Yitzhak Rabin also holds a different explanation for the genesis of the conflict, from the one you suggest,
“..there is a difference between concentrating forces in order to get into war and making a move that, while it might end up in war, is not aimed at war…[Nasser] preferred the danger of war, to backing down.” (Ha’aretz- December 22, 1967).

There is a history of rather complex interactions between Israel and the arab states, much more than simply the "arab world...trying to destory Israel....". This is empty rhetoric which does nothing to advance an understanding of the past. As a starting point it should be acceptable to, at least, explore the range of views that exist within Israel. This seems to be particulary problematic in the US where such discussion is, apparantly, not consistent with 'supporting Israel'.

So what? ibrodskys' thread "A Call to Action", I think, is a perfect example. The Road Map is a "A dead end for the Israelis" (-L@amplighter) and "the madness should be halted as soon as possible"(-Moskal') because "I would love to see the Arab occupation of our homeland ended. It is outrageous that we are reviled the world over for offering these bloodthirsty barbarians part of our homeland... which they stole from us"(-ibrodsky).

On this rather pathetic note, again a voice (Israeli) from the past can demonstrate the broader debate possible within Israel itself,

"It is not true that the arabs hate the Jews for personal, religous or racial reasons. They consider us - and justly from their point of view- as Westerners, foreigners, invaders who have seized an arab country to turn it into a Jewish state" (Gen. Moshe Dayan, LeMonde July 9-16, 1969)

And even earlier, Ben Gurion stated,

"I do not wish to see the realisation of Zionism in the form of a new Polish state with Arabs in the position of the Jews and the Jews in the position of the Poles, the ruling people...this would be the complete perversion of the Zionist ideal"

"Over the generations in which we were persecuted and exiled and slaughtered, we learned..contempt for tryanny. Was that only a case of sour grapes? Are we now nurturing the dreams of slaves who wish to reign?" (quoted in Aharon Cohen, 'Israel and the Arab World'. 1970, p67-9)

Only a rather selective understanding of the historical background can lead to such views as expressed by ibrodsky. A more complete version shows the Road map to be a rather great success for Israel, confirming as it does, US support for a rejectionist proposal. Jerusalem, refugees and borders all left quite vague. The parameters of UN 242 will not be met under the Road Map - a basic feature of any rejectionist proposal. Yet for all this, the Road map is a disaster. Such comment belongs to the fanatical fringe, the "land redemptionists", who used to be at the extreme. The Road Map promises less to the Palestinians than even Oslo - the Palestinian state will not be a state in any conventional sense of the word. It will have powers in line with those of a city municipality - roads, sewerage and collecting the garbage, guaranteeing "neo-colonial dependancy" (-Ehud Barak), as required.

This should be a dream come true for those opposed to a real Palestinian state - but instead there is wailing and gnashing of teeth. Why? - it's still not enough.

[ibrodsky]

Originally posted by michael
Perhaps, again, it wasn’t quite like this.

My personal view is worth little, though it's just possible that Israeli Generals at the time may have an opinion that is “credible”. For instance Reserve General Mattityahu Peled wrote in Ha’aretz that Israel held the numerical advantage in the Sinai in ’67, as well as a technological edge (Ha’aretz March 13, 1972), views similar to Gen Weizmann, as quoted earlier.

You present an impressive range of Israeli opinions. Now show us a comparable range of Arab opinions.

No one suggested Israel didn't have the technological edge. An industrious society will always have a technological edge... I am sure there was also an edge in training and leadership. But so what? The Arabs had a huge edge in manpower and artillery.

On this rather pathetic note, again a voice (Israeli) from the past can demonstrate the broader debate possible within Israel itself,

...but such broader debate is next to non-existent in the Arab Middle East.

"It is not true that the arabs hate the Jews for personal, religous or racial reasons. They consider us - and justly from their point of view- as Westerners, foreigners, invaders who have seized an arab country to turn it into a Jewish state" (Gen. Moshe Dayan, LeMonde July 9-16, 1969)

This is one man's opinion from 1969. No reasonable person would look at Hamas today and say there is no hate directed at Jews for religious or racial reasons.

To pretend otherwise is thoroughly dishonest.

"I do not wish to see the realisation of Zionism in the form of a new Polish state with Arabs in the position of the Jews and the Jews in the position of the Poles, the ruling people...this would be the complete perversion of the Zionist ideal"

"Over the generations in which we were persecuted and exiled and slaughtered, we learned..contempt for tryanny. Was that only a case of sour grapes? Are we now nurturing the dreams of slaves who wish to reign?" (quoted in Aharon Cohen, 'Israel and the Arab World'. 1970, p67-9)

And if the Palestinian barbarians were not totally focused on mass murdering Jews, Israel would be helping them improve their education, healthcare, and industry.

Now, o self righteous one, show me quotes from Arab political and intellectual leaders decrying terrorist mass murder. Show me the Arab leaders and thinkers questioning and challenging the Arab world's rejection of a tiny Jewish state in the Jews' historic homeland.

Only a rather selective understanding of the historical background can lead to such views as expressed by ibrodsky.

You claim Israel started the wars, that the Arabs are willing to live in peace, and that terrorist mass murder is Israel's fault... and you claim I am the one with a selective understanding of history.

Really, what you have proved is that Israel is a free society and Arab countries are totalitarian dictatorships.

[Mediocrates]

michael all I came with from your last post was that Palestinians want to exterminate all the Jews not because of antisemitic racial hatred but because of post modernist cum Marxist political reasons. That apparently is self justification to you. And you use the recognition of that point from some Israelis as justfication of that rationale.

It's completely hollow. I'll do you one better. IT DOESN'T MATTER. In the 20s Jabontinsky wrote in the Iron Wall a frank dissection of that:

1) We (the Jews) ARE coming - many of us (and this in the pre Israel days before it was apparent that Jews could have a state and might instead simply have to live among an entrenched Arab population).

2) If we manage to live together w/o bloodshed that is entirely up to you (Arabs).

Once could even postulate that it was the Arabs who tossed out, as early as 1920 any plausible outcome that could embrace Jews and Arabs living together and by extension the vialbility of any Palestinian state. Basically they drew a brinksmanship game and lost. And have continued to lose over and over again. In the last 80 years one thing has remained constant. Everytime they try to ultamize Arabs (sweep all the Jews into the sea) they lose and wind up with less.

Every single time. And the only rational conclusion one comes to is that Ultamism- the political philosophy that Arab 'culture' must spread limitlessly over the land wiping everything else out, is a complete failure and only demonstrates the bad brain wiring of the people who believe it.

The story of Arab history in the region as it regards Jews and Israel is that the arabs have always made catastrophically bad decisions. Country ending decisions on a par with the Austro-Hungarian empire deciding to embark on WW1. Over and over and over.

Now I'm no sociologist like Jared Gardiner so I don't really care why they make such poor national decisions (and not just vis a vis Israel - just read the UNDP reports on Arab development 1995-2000). All I can do is sit and watch it all go into the ditch. All anyone can do seemingly is work around their failures. Plot a course that doesn't require their political or national success in anything.

So is it germane that Arabs don't kill because they're racist? No not all. What is germane is that their culture or their history or their decision process has turned them into kill junkies. It's the all purpose answer for everything. Brutality uber alles. And if you accept that, which I do then you take the appropriate steps to achieve your own goals and objectives. Israel can and should work with the PA to resolve something but only to the extent that they understand the kill junkie approach. There is no rational justification to believe any set of circumstances will override the kill junkie syndrome. So if pulling back makes sense it makes sense - but not because it will ameliorate the kill junkies. And this is why I said earlier that now both sides should be forced to negotiate under fire.

[michael]

Originally posted by ibrodsky


Now, o self righteous one, show me quotes from Arab political and intellectual leaders decrying terrorist mass murder. Show me the Arab leaders and thinkers questioning and challenging the Arab world's rejection of a tiny Jewish state in the Jews' historic homeland.


You claim Israel started the wars, that the Arabs are willing to live in peace, and that terrorist mass murder is Israel's fault... and you claim I am the one with a selective understanding of history.


With pleasure;

“As Palestinians, albeit the victims, we too have to admit our share of blame and ask ourselves those questions that have remained silent or whispered in the privacy of closed-door discussions...Why and when did we allow a few from our midst to interpret Israeli military attacks on innocent Palestinian lives as license to do the same to their civilians? Where are those voices and forces that should have stood up for the sanctity of innocent lives (ours and theirs), instead of allowing the horror of our own suffering to silence us?………
How did we allow ourselves those modes of behavior that we abhor and condemn in others? When and why did our nation-building process become subject to the narrow agenda of the few who consider themselves above the law and beyond accountability, and who have persisted in their politics of proprietorship despite their dismal record and inability to deliver? How did our principles of democracy and the rule of law become subsumed by practices of intimidation, exclusion, and lawlessness?” (Hanan Ashrawi- 12/11/01)

A petition was published in Al-Quds on June 19, 2002 signed by 55 Palestinian intellectuals and public figures, which read in part;
“We the undersigned feel that it is our national responsibility to issue this appeal in light of the dangerous situation engulfing the Palestinian people. We call upon the parties behind the military operations targeting civilians in Israel to reconsider their policies and stop driving our young men to carry out these operations. Suicide bombings deepen the hatred and widen the gap between the Palestinian and Israeli people….We see that these bombings do not contribute towards achieving our national project which calls for freedom and independence. On the contrary they strengthen the enemies of peace…”


An interesting case is that of Mubarak Awad who established the Palestinian Centre for the Study of Non-Violence and advocated peaceful resistance, such as the tax-revolt, marches, and boycotts in the first intifada. A commendable initiative surely, compared to the alternative. For his troubles he was deported by the Israeli Government.

Leading into the Aqaba meeting there were even signs of moderation from Hamas;
"Hamas leaders openly declared their willingness this weekend to enter a temporary cease-fire (hudna) with Israel, for the first time since the establishment of the movement in 1987. If such a cease-fire is attained, it would mean a cessation of terror attacks against civilians in Israel. A senior Hamas spokesman in Gaza, Abdel Aziz Rantisi, who usually represents movement hardliners, said on Friday: 'The Hamas movement is prepared to stop terror against Israeli civilians if Israel stops killing Palestinian civilians ... We have told (Palestinian Authority Prime Minister) Abu Mazen in our meetings that there is an opportunity to stop targeting Israeli civilians if the Israelis stop assassinations and raids and stop brutalizing Palestinian civlilians" (Ha'aretz, Arnon Regular, May 25, 2003).

But Sharon knows how to deal with such threats, as he demonstrated 2 weeks after this story appeared in Ha’aretz.



As for "Israel starting the wars", what I actually said is there was a "complex interaction" between Israel and her neighbours - provocation and threats from all sides, rather than the simple Arab lust to destroy Israel.

[michael]

Originally posted by Mediocrates
michael all I came with from your last post was that Palestinians want to exterminate all the Jews not because of antisemitic racial hatred but because of post modernist cum Marxist political reasons.


And this is why I said earlier that now both sides should be forced to negotiate under fire.

I'm afraid you'll have to explain "post modernist cum Marxist" for me, as I can make no sense of it.

Your summary is correct, I do think that Palestinians are killing Jews for "political reasons". That should be obvious enough, just as Jewish terrorists killed in the pre-state period, not becasue of "anti-semitic racial hatred" but for political reasons.

If you mean by "self-justification" that this condones it, no I don't think it does. Terrorism is terrorism no matter what the justification.



Negotiation - by all means. I won't mention your least favourite body so how about a spelling variation. What would you say to a US peace-keeping force?

[elke]

Originally posted by michael
With pleasure;

“...

This is such a crock! Your pleasure is misplaced, as if you read these quotations and items carefully, you would see why no one with a brain and a scintilla of knowledge of history, took them seriously.

First, let's look at the Hanan Ashrawi's quote. She is grudgingly allowing that Palestinians should not have birthed the monster of suicide murders. However, she is still very much in denial of what was the initiating event: the initiating event of the "Israeli military attacks on innocent Palestinian lives" were the Arab attacks on the innocent Jewish ones; before and after the Israeli independence, and well before the "occupation". Unlike the proverbial "what came first, the chicken or the egg", - in this case, it's all clear to anyone willing to look at it objectively, what came first.

The Petition is nice, but Sari Nusseibeh, one of its' most prominent signatories, was caught red-handed giving target info to the Iraqis during the Gulf War I. Hanan Ashrawi, another prominent signatory, we discussed above. In addition, it is fairly obvious that this did not go further than the signing of the Petition: ultimately, its signatories have not been able to influence anyone other than the publishers of Al Quds.

I do not know enough about Dr. Awad to judge fully what has happened to him. The non-violent approach is very attractive, but longtime membership in far from non-violent PLO, as well as apparent statement that "if you are against PLO, you are against Palestinians," would give me pause regarding the veracity of the claim that he is truly "non-violent".

As far as the Hamas' "hopeful" attitude, there are three things that you have skimmed on:
1) The "moratorium" was to apply "Within Israel" only. Does that include Jerusalem? Does that include Haifa? We can, I suppose, safely assume that it includes New York; but where exactly does Hamas draw the "Israeli border", and who gave them the right to do so?
2) The "moratorium" was to be temporary. What the hell does that mean? Who decides when it ends?
3) Most importantly: attack on Rantissi came AFTER the shoot-up of 3 Israeli soldiers, carried out by 3 terrorist organizations. It also came AFTER Mr. Abu Mazen proclaimed to all and sundry that he will not, repeat, - NOT, - use force to dismantle these groups. As it is clear to anyone with a brain, - which I must assume Mr. Abu Mazen does not possess, based on that unfortunate statement, - these guys are not highly likely to just lay down their arms. The "talks" between Abu Mazen and Hamas, - a harebrained idea to begin with, - broke down BEFORE the statement that PA will not use force to disarm the lunatics, which was BEFORE the attack on Rantissi.

Nice try, but no cigar.

[ibrodsky]

Originally posted by michael
“As Palestinians, albeit the victims, we too have to admit our share of blame and ask ourselves those questions that have remained silent or whispered in the privacy of closed-door discussions...Why and when did we allow a few from our midst to interpret Israeli military attacks on innocent Palestinian lives as license to do the same to their civilians? Where are those voices and forces that should have stood up for the sanctity of innocent lives (ours and theirs), instead of allowing the horror of our own suffering to silence us?………
How did we allow ourselves those modes of behavior that we abhor and condemn in others? When and why did our nation-building process become subject to the narrow agenda of the few who consider themselves above the law and beyond accountability, and who have persisted in their politics of proprietorship despite their dismal record and inability to deliver? How did our principles of democracy and the rule of law become subsumed by practices of intimidation, exclusion, and lawlessness?” (Hanan Ashrawi- 12/11/01)

This is a quote from a Christian Palestinian confirming my point: very few Palestinians speak out against Islamist mass murder.

But Ashrawi is dishonest. She pretends the conflict is about Palestinian aspirations for statehood. She knows full well that it isn't. She pretends "democracy and rule of law" are Palestinian principles; she knows they are not.

A petition was published in Al-Quds on June 19, 2002 signed by 55 Palestinian intellectuals and public figures, which read in part;
“We the undersigned feel that it is our national responsibility to issue this appeal in light of the dangerous situation engulfing the Palestinian people. We call upon the parties behind the military operations targeting civilians in Israel to reconsider their policies and stop driving our young men to carry out these operations. Suicide bombings deepen the hatred and widen the gap between the Palestinian and Israeli people….We see that these bombings do not contribute towards achieving our national project which calls for freedom and independence. On the contrary they strengthen the enemies of peace…”

This petition was not against killing Jewish civilians on moral grounds. It was against sending Palestinians to their deaths in homicide attacks that aren't bringing the Palestinians victory.

An interesting case is that of Mubarak Awad who established the Palestinian Centre for the Study of Non-Violence and advocated peaceful resistance, such as the tax-revolt, marches, and boycotts in the first intifada. A commendable initiative surely, compared to the alternative. For his troubles he was deported by the Israeli Government.

Sort of like a conscientious objector who offers to serve the mass murderers in a non-violent capacity... So he dreams up additional ways to fight and make it look like the Palestinian mass murderers are engaged in a noble struggle for civil rights.

Leading into the Aqaba meeting there were even signs of moderation from Hamas;

Oh yes, the Hamas jihad genocide army is willing to talk about *temporary* halts to mass murder attacks when their leaders are being knocked off... so they can regroup and figure out how to prevent or avoid being killed.

The cowardly scum are willing to send others to blow themselves up, but they don't like it when *they* get blown up.

As for "Israel starting the wars", what I actually said is there was a "complex interaction" between Israel and her neighbours - provocation and threats from all sides, rather than the simple Arab lust to destroy Israel.

"Complex interaction": a dishonest person's way of obfuscating the issues. Things are more "complex" than the facts suggest--take my word for it.

Michael, you have not provided any proof that there is an Arab peace movement. You have not provided any proof that Arab Muslims oppose mass murdering Jews because it is morally wrong.

But you have tried to obfuscate the nature of the Islamist mass murder gang Hamas.

[michael]

Originally posted by elke
This is such a crock! Your pleasure is misplaced, as if you read these quotations and items carefully, you would see why no one with a brain and a scintilla of knowledge of history, took them seriously.


As far as the Hamas' "hopeful" attitude, there are three things that you have skimmed on:
1) The "moratorium" was to apply "Within Israel" only. Does that include Jerusalem? Does that include Haifa? We can, I suppose, safely assume that it includes New York; but where exactly does Hamas draw the "Israeli border", and who gave them the right to do so?
3) Most importantly: attack on Rantissi came AFTER the shoot-up of 3 Israeli soldiers, carried out by 3 terrorist organizations. statement that PA will not use force to disarm the lunatics, which was BEFORE the attack on Rantissi.




Yes indeed what comes first?

There were no terroist attacks launched from the occupied territories in the 1980s so what was going on there – benign occupation by all accounts. This is an extract from a detailed account of the first 6 months of the Milson administration,

“The civil administration orchestrated by Professor Milson is nothing but another attempt to revive an old well known colonial method in a new original Israeli form”, “an Israeli Bantustan, which imposes on the Palestinians the role of hewers of wood and drawers of water for Israeli society”,
It “intends to destroy every social institution in the occupied territories….leaders and activists are arrested , inhabitants are expelled, meetings are banned, demonstrators are detained, and the demonstrations themselves are brutally dispersed, curfews and confinements are imposed, houses are blown up, and quislings from the Village Leagues are used in a terror campaign against the population; newspapers and universities are shut down, journalists are detained or prevented from interviewing leaders, who, in turn, are not allowed to be interviewed anyway; censorship is applied in newspapers and books, and humiliation, harassment and terror are inflicted on the population by Jewish settlers in towns and villages alike”- ‘Do Not Say that You Did Not Know’, 1982.

An interesting little read that takes you through a day-by-day account of the enlightened Milsons’administrations first 6 months, including the dismissal of popularly elected Mayors.

Elias Rishmawi who lead the tax-resistence movement in the first intifada says that now, “the circumstances are driving every Palestinian into a corner….How do you expect someone being treated worse than a dog to behave? Is he expected to send you a kiss?” Whereas in 1988, “We felt that we were at the same level with the Israelis, not beneath them. ….I think that many Palestinians believe now that if you do anything with the Israelis, then it indicates giving up, but not peace. This is because there is no balance between the 2 sides. In 1988, through non-violence, we felt that we were equal, that we had will. But there were neither F-16s nor Merkava tanks then – weapons were not being used as they are now.”

Even the 2nd intifada started with non-violent protest. That didn't stop the IDF from killing 107 Palestinians in the first month. As reported in Ma'ariv, an IDF officer called the project "a bullet for every child" in reference to the massive firepower unleashed. (Ma'ariv, September 6, 2002)




On the moratorium - "but where exactly does Hamas draw the "Israeli border", and who gave them the right to do so?"

International law actually. I realise that this is a mere detail for some, but international law recognises that the pre-June 1967 borders, the "green line", are the recognised borders, and all else is occupied territory, as even Arial Sharon is able to recognise. Armed reistence against the IDF is legally sanctioned in this area.


And "Most importantly: attack on Rantissi came AFTER the shoot-up of 3 Israeli soldiers".

An attack on armed combatents in occupied territories is legimate reisitence, not terrorism, under international law. Unless of course, in killing Nazis, the French resistence were terrorists also.

Armies of occupation always strive to label armed resistence as terrorism, and their individuals as terrorists and seek either to kill or imprison them. By this same logic Nelson Mandela was a terrorist and the ANC was recognised as a terrorist organisation by the US.

While the illegal occupation continues, it hard to see why Palestinians should not contine to resist. My preference is for peaceful means, but the past has demonstrated quite clearly what peaceful resistence gets - very little.

[Mediocrates]

Originally posted by michael
I'm afraid you'll have to explain "post modernist cum Marxist" for me, as I can make no sense of it.

The current morphing mutation of antiIsraelism is one flavor of the radical Marxist pan Arab politics of the 70's.

Your summary is correct, I do think that Palestinians are killing Jews for "political reasons".

So you feel comfortable then defending it since it's not racist.


That should be obvious enough, just as Jewish terrorists killed in the pre-state period, not becasue of "anti-semitic racial hatred" but for political reasons.

Your loaded terms not mine. You like to call everything terrorism therefore it has no meaning as a definition. This is how it becomes self-legitimizing.

If you mean by "self-justification" that this condones it, no I don't think it does. Terrorism is terrorism no matter what the justification.


See above.


Negotiation - by all means. I won't mention your least favourite body so how about a spelling variation. What would you say to a US peace-keeping force? [/B][/QUOTE]

[michael]

Originally posted by ibrodsky
This is a quote from a Christian Palestinian confirming my point: very few Palestinians speak out against Islamist mass murder.

Confirming your point? This was your question - "Show me the Arab leaders and thinkers questioning and challenging.. "

Which I did. A nice example of 'moving the goal posts' - when your question is answered, ask a new question pretending that it was your question in the first place.


[B]She pretends "democracy and rule of law" are Palestinian principles; she knows they are not.[B]

In your opinion.


[B]Michael, you have not provided any proof that there is an Arab peace movement.[B]

True, it is quite small - the IDF keep shooting it. Like Shaden Abu Hijla, a women in her 60s, well-known as a peace activist with a West Bank womens organisation. It incident was widely reported late last year.

So of course there's none- by definition. Calls for non-violence, an end to suicide attacks, official acceptance of the road map (without reservations), it's all meaningless.

Why?

Because the only thing that will satisfy people like mediocrates is the complete surrender of the Palestinians to the occupying forces. Then they should pack their bags and go to "Arabia" (-ibrodsky). Or in other words - ethnic cleansing, that's the acceptable definition of peace.

Damn stupid Arabs , why can't they see how reasonable it all is?

[Canajew]

Originally posted by michael
Because the only thing that will satisfy people like mediocrates is the complete surrender of the Palestinians to the occupying forces. Then they should pack their bags and go to "Arabia" (-ibrodsky). Or in other words - ethnic cleansing, that's the acceptable definition of peace.

Damn stupid Arabs , why can't they see how reasonable it all is? [/B]

Here's another scenario. The Palestinians permanently renounce violence and integrate that pronouncement into their culture. They throw all their guns into the street, and turn on the terrorists. then they all flow out into the streats carrying flowers singing we shall overcome and that sort of thing. Give up demands for the fictional "right of return" and turn towards trying to build a better country rather than destroying Israel.

If they would have tried this, they would have had their own peaceful and prosperous state a long time ago. They don't need to "go back from where they came from" but it would be nice for them to stop saying exactly that to the Israelis.

And with respect to all your examples and the "shifting goalposts" generally when proofs are requested they must be legitimate proofs. Each of your examples was contextualized and explained by through cogent argument and rational analysis. This analysis indicates that the motives which you ascribe to these people for their comments are not the real motivations which belie their actions. As such, you have not proven the point which was asked of you. It is not a case of shifting goalposts, rather you were kicking for the wrong set.

[michael]

Originally posted by Mediocrates

Your loaded terms not mine. You like to call everything terrorism therefore it has no meaning as a definition. This is how it becomes self-legitimizing.



I go by the standard definition, which is in short - The deliberate use of violence, or threat of its use, against innocent people, with the aim of intimidating some other people into a course of action they would otherwise not take.

So I clearly don't call everything terrorism, a charge though, which could be easily levelled against many on this forum. There is an example just a few posts earlier by elke who suggested that the killing of 3 IDF soldiers was a terrorist attack, which it clearly was not.

[michael]

Originally posted by Canajew
Here's another scenario. The Palestinians permanently renounce violence and integrate that pronouncement into their culture. They throw all their guns into the street, and turn on the terrorists. then they all flow out into the streats carrying flowers singing we shall overcome and that sort of thing. Give up demands for the fictional "right of return" and turn towards trying to build a better country rather than destroying Israel.

There would be quite a precedent in modern history. The occupied people give up resisting occupation and instead turn on those who resist the occupation through immoral means. That would be quite something.

An alternative might be for the occupying forces to renounce violence and comply with international law.

Perhaps the later is a slightly more "rational prospect" than the one you outline, which is in essence the logic of Israels 1982 invasion of Lebanon ( I'd quote Abba Ebans' "rational prospect" in this regard , but I couldn't be bothered)


And with respect to all your examples and the "shifting goalposts" generally when proofs are requested they must be legitimate proofs. Each of your examples was contextualized and explained by through cogent argument and rational analysis. This analysis indicates that the motives which you ascribe to these people for their comments are not the real motivations which belie their actions. As such, you have not proven the point which was asked of you. It is not a case of shifting goalposts, rather you were kicking for the wrong set.

They weren't intended to be proofs, but merely support for a point, as opposed to bald assertion which reigns supreme on this forum.

Are you a fan of French philosphy by any chance?

[yoyo]

Originally posted by michael
An alternative might be for the occupying forces to renounce violence and comply with international law.

And WHICH "international law" may that be?

[Mediocrates]

Semantics michael are very important at this point. Its important to remind everyone that the Jews mere existance in Yesha is what you find so abhorrent. Occupation of.....well women and children, mostly. The fact you've been unsucessful in killing them all merely makes the army necessary.

How about you give up your requirement for Jew Free Palestine? Is that a compromise you're willing to sign up for? Of course not. It's not about Palestinians, it never has been. It's about Jews.

[Canajew]

Originally posted by michael
There would be quite a precedent in modern history. The occupied people give up resisting occupation and instead turn on those who resist the occupation through immoral means. That would be quite something.


It would be quite a precedent in modern history. Like ghandi. but that was, and is, the best way for them to get what they want (assuming all they want is a state of their own).


An alternative might be for the occupying forces to renounce violence and comply with international law.


Maybe, but if all that would do is get Israel annialated, then it is not really an option at all. And I would suspect that israeli appeasment of terrorism would only increase its occurrence. There are lots and lots of palestiniasn and Arabs who want israel destroyred. They would not stop if Israel stopped fighting back.

But all of Israels actions since the start of this war have been in reaction to Palestinian terrorism. All the roadblocks, crefews, targeted killings, house demolitions and the like are responses, not precursors, to Palestinian terrorism. Were the palestinians to stop, things could get a little better. Of course they will not get completely better until the Palestinians stop raising their children to believe that the highest honour they can achieve is by murdering Israeli civilians.

And with respect to international law, what are you specifically talking about? Things like the geneva convention are one thing, and I do not mean to appear insensitive to that sort of thing, but palestinians have been making up "international laws" to support their position for a long time. The Palestinians are, at law, not really legally entitled to anything they claim. They do not have a legal claim on the west bank or gaza, they do not have a right of return, and they are not even really refugees as that term is properly constituted. they do have moral imperitives which dictate self-determination and the like, but strictly speaking these are different things. And moral imperatives are not absolute, rather they must be tempered with functional concerns and can be vitiated by the subsequent moral conduct of the people claiming the moral entitlement.

And your use of occupation, in, "these people are living under occupation" is quite proper, but I wonder if you would also be able to perceive the territories to be disputed territories. because they are both. The armistance lines ARE NOT borders. they never were. And the Palestinians have never had sovereignty. those territories were captured in a defensive war from sovereigns who had used the territory for decades to launch both armed wars and terrorist attacks (the terrorism has been going on since the 40s, not since 67 as the palestinians would like everyone to believe). The final borders will not be, and legally speaking, do not have to be, the armistance lines of 1949. Thus the territories are disputed as well.


Perhaps the later is a slightly more "rational prospect" than the one you outline, which is in essence the logic of Israels 1982 invasion of Lebanon ( I'd quote Abba Ebans' "rational prospect" in this regard , but I couldn't be bothered)


Its not a rational prospects type of thing. Well, it is from the Palestinians perspective, but they do not really have a legal "right of return" anyways, so from my perspective it is more about at least being honest enopugh to recognize what is an entitlement and what is not.


They weren't intended to be proofs, but merely support for a point, as opposed to bald assertion which reigns supreme on this forum.


True enough, and I see your point. However, this "support" as you have termed it has been deconstructed and explained by others on this site. Either their positions must be countered or it becomes intellectually dishonest to continue asserting that this "support" actually lends credence to the perspective they were meant to support. They explained why your inferring proper motives from these statements was in error, thus putting back your original assertion to square one.


Are you a fan of French philosphy by any chance? [/B]

I don't know. I haven't read much, to be sure. But I draw on what I have read in all disciplines and try to come up with my own moral and philosophical bearings. Sometimes what i end up with is remarkably similar to what is already out there, but usually with differences of opinion on the minutia.

[ibrodsky]

Originally posted by michael
Confirming your point? This was your question - "Show me the Arab leaders and thinkers questioning and challenging.. "

Which I did. A nice example of 'moving the goal posts' - when your question is answered, ask a new question pretending that it was your question in the first place.

No, you haven't shown any Arab leaders saying terrorism against innocent civilians is wrong and must be unconditionally opposed. You presented a quote from Hanan Ashrawi questioning the effectiveness of suicide attacks while excusing them as an equal response to Israeli self-defense.

My point was not that you can't find one person out of 300 million Arabs. My point is that there is no Arab peace movement. My point is that no group in Gaza or the West Bank wouild dare to demonstrate against Hamas. My point is that the Palestinians' leaders almost universally oppose Israel's right to exist.

Hanan Ashrawi was a favored Palestinian spokesman during the Oslo "Peace Process" because she is a Christian and does not bow to all of the Islamists' restrictions for women. But she has been largely sidelined since the beginning of the current intifada.

[elke]

I do not have the time right now to respond to the additional willful thinking on your part, Michael, but will say just one thing: it may be convenient to forget the chunk of history between late 1800 and 1980; but it is still intellectually dishonest to do so.

[elke]

I have a few minutes today, so will give it a shot

Originally posted by michael
[QUOTE][B]Yes indeed what comes first?

There were no terroist attacks launched from the occupied territories in the 1980s so what was going on there – benign occupation by all accounts. This is an extract from a detailed account of the first 6 months of the Milson administration,

“The civil administration orchestrated by Professor Milson is nothing but another attempt to revive an old well known colonial method in a new original Israeli form”, “an Israeli Bantustan, which imposes on the Palestinians the role of hewers of wood and drawers of water for Israeli society”,
It “intends to destroy every social institution in the occupied territories….leaders and activists are arrested , inhabitants are expelled, meetings are banned, demonstrators are detained, and the demonstrations themselves are brutally dispersed, curfews and confinements are imposed, houses are blown up, and quislings from the Village Leagues are used in a terror campaign against the population; newspapers and universities are shut down, journalists are detained or prevented from interviewing leaders, who, in turn, are not allowed to be interviewed anyway; censorship is applied in newspapers and books, and humiliation, harassment and terror are inflicted on the population by Jewish settlers in towns and villages alike”- ‘Do Not Say that You Did Not Know’, 1982.

An interesting little read that takes you through a day-by-day account of the enlightened Milsons’administrations first 6 months, including the dismissal of popularly elected Mayors.

Elias Rishmawi who lead the tax-resistence movement in the first intifada says that now, “the circumstances are driving every Palestinian into a corner….How do you expect someone being treated worse than a dog to behave? Is he expected to send you a kiss?” Whereas in 1988, “We felt that we were at the same level with the Israelis, not beneath them. ….I think that many Palestinians believe now that if you do anything with the Israelis, then it indicates giving up, but not peace. This is because there is no balance between the 2 sides. In 1988, through non-violence, we felt that we were equal, that we had will. But there were neither F-16s nor Merkava tanks then – weapons were not being used as they are now.”

Even the 2nd intifada started with non-violent protest. That didn't stop the IDF from killing 107 Palestinians in the first month. As reported in Ma'ariv, an IDF officer called the project "a bullet for every child" in reference to the massive firepower unleashed. (Ma'ariv, September 6, 2002)

I think your facts are wrong regarding no terrorism in the '80s, and it is unclear where the "detailed description" came from and who wrote it. It is equally unclear what exactly you have been trying to say by this, other than possibly showing off your google and copy/paste skills, since if there was no terrorism coming from the territories in the '80s, when the "occupation" was in full swing, it becomes obvious that the occupation is what kept the terrorism from occurring.

If you believe that the 2nd intifadah started with "non-violent" protest, I have a bridge to sell you. You cannot possibly be young enough not to have read the news reports less than 3 years ago on how that started.


On the moratorium - "but where exactly does Hamas draw the "Israeli border", and who gave them the right to do so?"

International law actually. I realise that this is a mere detail for some, but international law recognises that the pre-June 1967 borders, the "green line", are the recognised borders, and all else is occupied territory, as even Arial Sharon is able to recognise. Armed reistence against the IDF is legally sanctioned in this area.

International law has yet to set Israel's borders, it recognizes that they are up for negotiation. As far as Hamas paying attention to the self-same international law, - it would be a good laugh, if it wasn't all so serious. Armed resistence against seven-year-olds is rarely sanctioned in any area. Hamas' adversary apparently is not the IDF, it's seven-year-olds.



And "Most importantly: attack on Rantissi came AFTER the shoot-up of 3 Israeli soldiers".

An attack on armed combatents in occupied territories is legimate reisitence, not terrorism, under international law. Unless of course, in killing Nazis, the French resistence were terrorists also.

Armies of occupation always strive to label armed resistence as terrorism, and their individuals as terrorists and seek either to kill or imprison them. By this same logic Nelson Mandela was a terrorist and the ANC was recognised as a terrorist organisation by the US.

While the illegal occupation continues, it hard to see why Palestinians should not contine to resist. My preference is for peaceful means, but the past has demonstrated quite clearly what peaceful resistence gets - very little.

If in the midst of "negotiations" it is legitimate for Hamas to kill anyone, even combatants, then it's legitimate to target the combatants on the other side. And by the way, I did not refer to the murder of the 3 Israeli soldiers as a "terrorist act", although it does smell like one. Hamas' main target, however, is not the IDF: it's mothers reading bedtime stories to their children, teenagers in discotheques, and senior citizens on a holiday. If you can see this as "legitimate resistence", we really have very little to talk about, your "preference for peaceful means" notwithstanding.

[frizzer1]

I just read this entire thread...I'm pooped...and I have to give Michael credit for his stamina and courage in standing up to practically the entire membership of this board.
But Michael..here is my opinion.
Israel needs and wants peace, but
The arabs want no jewish state on sacred muslim soil.
And that is the basis for this whole mess...
I suggest you ask the muslim believers themselves..They will tell you that Israel has no right to exist and that they will never change their minds.
All the rest is details.
And I arrived at my opinion after about 40 years of observing the israeli/arab conflict. And finally I realised that no matter what Israel does or doesn't do,there will never be peace in the ME until/if the arab/muslim mindset changes.