Where are the "good" Arabs?

[Jorge]

From the various issues raised by Reffo in his latest posts that deserve pondered comments I’d like to tackle first one raised in post#244, which seems to me particularly important. Quote:

The bottom line is that Israel and the world has to make it clear to the Palestinians that ultimately the Palestinians themselves are responsible and answerable for what anyone of them does in their name. They need to understand that if they want the right to have their own independent country, then they themselves have to ensure that only their own legal representatives can act on their behalf. They have to understand that unless they are willing and able to control the various factions, they cannot aspire for independence.

The issue of to what extent Palestinians are “responsible and answerable for what anyone of them does in their name” is important not only because it is at the root of the distinction bet. “good and bad Arabs”, the subject of this Thread. Important also because it is part of the rationale of the IDF incursion into the Gaza Strip taking place these days (according to Cabinet Minister Haim Ramon, the incursion is designed to persuade the Palestinian population to pressure the kidnappers to return the missing soldier). Moreover, the issue of collective responsibility transcends the special case of the Palestinians and has preoccupied Western thinkers for centuries.

For the said statement to be valid it has to be applicable to every other nation, not just to the Palestinians. In a more general form it could be stated thus:

The world has to make clear to the citizens of any country that they themselves are responsible and answerable for what anyone of them does in their name.


As I said, it's a problem that has been debated for centuries on end;(earlier, in the form ‘members of a nation’) a trail that may be followed from the Greek philosophers, going through various passages of our Torah ( Cain’s “Am I my brother’s keeper?; Abraham’s arguing with God over the destruction of Sodom, to quote just a few) continuing with European philosophers on the Social Contract, and up to our very days.

To cut the story short, about 60 years ago, the question of the responsibility of the German population for the Holocaust, was intensely debated. Obviously the above pronouncement should have held for all Germans, even to those that did not belong to the Nazi Party. Apparently the world decided otherwise and only a few were considered responsible. One of the points raised in their defense was that populations living under totalitarian regimes cannot be held responsible for crimes committed in their name. The other is that simply they didn't know what was going on.

Not long after that, in the climax of the Cold War, the notion of collective responsibility took a further turn: in the demented minds of those playing with nuclear strategies the death of “innocent civilians” ceased to be a factor; it was only a matter of the number of millions of capitalists to be burned against the number of communists to be burned. Each and every human being on Earth was assumed to be “responsible and answerable for what others did in their name’. It din't even matter any more whether they knew or din't know what others were doing in their name.It is hard to realize that only 30 years ago the whole world went completely and utterly mad.

To be continued...

[Jorge]

Continuin the above and back to the notion that:

The world has to make clear to the citizens of any country that they themselves are responsible and answerable for what anyone of them does in their name.

A few years after the end of the Cold War and the idea was picked up by terrorist organizations under the umbrella of Islamic Fundamentalism to justify the blowing up of innocent civilians. In all fairness to Islam one should reckon that they didn’t invent it, they merely picked it up from Christianity and added the bit of the suicidal assassin.

According to them, Americans as a whole (or Brits, Spaniards or Jordanians as the case may be) are fully “responsible and answerable” for what their Government does in their name, hence they all constitute legitimate targets. A timid Manhattan office clerk is as responsible and answerable as the roughest of the Marines. A Haifa schoolgirl has much responsibility in the Zionist crimes as a frontline soldier.

Within the context of this twisted logic, the distinction between individuals with various degrees of responsibility is blurred completely; the citizens of a country or the members of a nation become just they. They the Jews that bear responsibility for killing Jesus; they the British that bear responsibility for invading Iraq; they the Palestinians that bear responsibility for the firing of Quassam rockets into Israel.

As I was going to finish these rather lengthy comments, the following latest News appeared on my screen:

The IDF distributed flyers warning residents of the northern Gaza village of Beit Hanun, from where Qassam crews have been shooting at Sderot, to leave their homes as the army will begin targeting populated areas in response to the Qassam rocket fire.

Fair enough! After all, they are responsible and answerable.

[Reffo]

Jorge

I don't really care what cabinet Minister Haim Ramon says about what you make sound like the idea of "collective punishment". As far as I am concerned, he can argue his case and I will argue mine. So please, seeing that you and I are debating this issue, I would prefer it if you concentrated on what I say and what I mean and not misinterpret my point. From what you say, he was talking about "collective punishment" which is NOT the same as "collective responsibility"

The bottom line is that no country (let alone a country at war like Israel) can deal with a multitude of disparate factions and elements of another country (or in the case of the Palestinians, an aspiring country). All I was saying was that when Israel get's attacked from within the Palestinian controlled territories, then it's obliged to respond in order to protect it's own citizens. In doing so, no matter how hard it would try, it's just a practical impossibility for Israel to do it in a completely surgical way that spares the innocents and targets only the guilty. It would be nice if it could do it and it should try hard to do it but it's just impossible. So, as in any war, Israel too has been, is and undoubtedly will kill and harm innocents because that is just the nature of war. That's why war is immoral but if someone forces war on you, you have no choice but to fight it as best as you can. Otherwise, as MGB8 pointed out to you: The other party will do the fighting and you will do the dying!

Now, where does the "responsibility" come into it? It comes into it when innocents get hurt or die. Who bears the primary responsibility for that? Well, obviously the side that perpetuates and initiates the war, not the side that responds to it. But then you come along and say that not all the Palestinians want war, not all of them make war, not all of them start it. And I agree, but how do you expect Israel to sort out the mess? All it can do is do it's best to minimise the damage. So who is ultimately responsible? Surely it's the elected representatives of the Palestinians. Surely, they are responsible for maintaining law and order in the territories which are under their control. And if it's not under their control, they should do everything in their power to get it under control, in real terms, not just play lip service to the idea and play politics. And if they cannot (you might say)? Then surely they are not ready for independence and self government so they should either hand over the rein to someone who can. Surely it's an absurdity to expect Israel to put up with daily attacks without responding to it. No country would put up with it. I wonder how Italians would react to daily shootings and terrorism from their neighbours, say the Balkans. I'm sure that their initial response would be to request the respective authorities of their neighbour to control the situation. And if they wouldn't or couldn't, then the Italians would take the matter into their own hands and deal with it appropriately.

Now Jorge, one last small request. I noticed that unlike me (to your posts), you refer to my posts in third person. It reminds me of another poster (michael) who was not a pleasant person. He tended to ignore just about everything that I said, he did not respond to points that I raised nor to questions that I put to him and so on...I'm sure you get the picture. What I would like to ask you is to address your posts directly to me, as if we are having a one to one dialogue, the same way that I address my posts directly to you, I think that's just a bit more polite and respectful. And I don't see any reason why we should be impolite to each other or any reason to talk AT each other rather than TO each other, don't you think?

[Reffo]

According to them, Americans as a whole (or Brits, Spaniards or Jordanians as the case may be) are fully “responsible and answerable” for what their Government does in their name, hence they all constitute legitimate targets. A timid Manhattan office clerk is as responsible and answerable as the roughest of the Marines. A Haifa schoolgirl has much responsibility in the Zionist crimes as a frontline soldier.Jorge, your analogy would be perfectly correct if Al Quaida, Hamas, IJ and the others would target the Israeli and/or western government and the army instead of primarily targeting civilians. Your analogy would still be correct if civilians would be killed or harmed as collateral damage. But the reality is of course different because the terrorist's, unlike westerners and Israel, their primary targets are civilians.

[MGB8]

Jorge falls back on usual leftist tripe - the rush to dichotomy's, black and white.

So I guess the Allies should have, when they invaded Germany, made sure to ask each person whether they were a Nazi or not?

And the fact that these fliers are there to PROTECT the Pal Arabs from the war over launching the Qassams, so that they don't get killed when Israel tries to stop the rockets.

What a joke, Jorge. Are you really that stupid? Because what you are writing is stupid.

If Israel went in to KILL EVERY PAL ARAB, or just to target and kill some, randomly, then your post would have accuracy and relevance. But this is just: Oh no, Israel shouldn't respond to acts of war and terror on its citizens because non-combatants from the opposing group will get hurt.

More excuses for surrender on your part. Ok, Jorge, you want to die. I don't. And I don't feel bad about being willing to kill when its kill or be killed.

Here's what the Pal need to understand - its THEIR responsibility to stop the rockets and attacks, or Israel will do it and things will be uncomfortable.

If the US was allowing men to fire rockets into Mexico, and didn't do anything about it, and locals support it, would Mexico have the right to invade to stop the Rockets..

Of course not... you'd tell the Mexico to let its citizens die...

YOU ARE DISGUSTING, Jorge. You deny the right of self defense. That's immoral, flat out. You are immoral.

[Reffo]

Jorge

Based on your posts, I feel that you need to be enlightened about the differences between terrorist organisations such as Al Quaida, Hamas, Islamic Jihad, Al Aqsa, PRC etc....and governments such as Israel, America and other western democracies.

First, let me acknowledge that the actions of both, lead to the deaths and injuries of innocents. As I said, that's an unfortunate feature of all wars. But that's where all the similarities end. Let me explain why:

Their aims and motivations are different. Israel and other governments fight (and kill) in self defence and as a last resort. They fight to protect their citizens. Terrorists OTOH fight and kill to establish their tyranny and violence is their primary method.
Governments don't target innocents but the terrorists primary targets are innocent non combatants.
Governments are elected and they have accountability. If they make mistakes or they act wrongly, they can be voted out and indeed that happens regularly. Terrorists elect themselves and the only way to vote them out is by arresting or killing them.
Although some individuals of any country may be racists, western governments are democratic and they are inherently non racist because their constitution and Judiciary prevent that. Terrorists OTOH, are inherently racist. All they care about is their own kind (and only for those who share their ideology). They murder, maim and torture anyone who disagrees with them and who is different from them.

Of course that's not all but that should suffice for now. Frankly, I'm somewhat surprised that I had to go into this much detail to clarify it for you. I think you really need to sit down in a quiet spot for a little while and sort out your thought process because, frankly, your analogy was just over the top and wild.

[Reffo]

The IDF distributed flyers warning residents of the northern Gaza village of Beit Hanun, from where Qassam crews have been shooting at Sderot, to leave their homes as the army will begin targeting populated areas in response to the Qassam rocket fire.Is it just possible that they are trying to establish a "no man's land" (a buffer zone) so that they will be able to prevent the terrorists from firing more rockets at Israeli civilians?

If so, why would you call it "collective punishment"? I would call it self defence to ensure that the terrorists will no longer be able to collectively punish Israeli civilians. Of course, the consequent suffering of other Palestinians could have been avoided if the elected Palestinian authority (Hamas) would have exercised it's responsibility (you know: the responsibility that I was talking about in my earlier post, the one you misinterpreted to mean "collective punishment") to maintain law and order. But seeing that this elected authority decided to abrogate it's responsibilities, Israel had no choice but to take control of the situation and it's primary responsibility is to defend it's own citizens (including you), as best as it can.

[Ricky]

If I understand Jorge correctly, he was explaining how the Palestinians justify to themselves their barbarous crimes without claiming to accept their view. At any rate, at the moment we have a full scale confrontation between Israel and the Palestinians
There seems to be an all round consensus that either Israel must either fully carry out her disengagement plan and remove all of IDF troops and all of the settlers from the West Bank, or Israel should both keep IDF troops in the West Bank and all the settlements there.
I suggest that Israel remove from the West Bank all the settlements which are positioned beyond the security fence, but keep IDF troops in the West Bank to prevent the Palestinians from introducing rockets and other heavy weapons there

[Reffo]

Ricky

I hope you are right but I must say that it seemed to me that Jorge went a step beyond that. He seemed to accept and give credence to their point of view. In any case, if I'm wrong, then I fully and unreservedly apologise to Jorge. So let him please clarify the situation.

Over to you Jorge.

[Jorge]

To Reffo: first, I’m sorry if my referring to you in the third person did upset you. No disrespect intended, just a matter of style really; since other persons might read our dialogue or discussion, I feel that by using the “he” instead of the “you” they could be encouraged to participate in it. Although I try to oblige on the first, I don’t think I could regarding your request of not to quote others (like Mr. Ramon for example) to exemplify or reinforce an argument; what leaders of the two sides say or do has a direct bearing in any discussion about the conflict.

Re., your Post # 256: I don’t think I have to be “enlightened about the differences about the differences between terrorist organizations, like AlQueida, etc., and govs. of Western democracies”. I’m quite aware of the differences. I have not been sketching an analogy between them. I have been merely trying to illustrate how the principle of “collective responsibility” has been adopted, interpreted and/or abused by different entities.

Although I happen to believe that the principle of collective responsibility is essentially sound, I’m aware that it has been used consistently to justify the most heinous crimes. Nowadays it is the said terrorist organizations that use the idea to justify their bloody murders, but before them Western democracies and Western kingdoms and the Catholic Church, also abused the principle of collective responsibility in order to justify no lesser crimes. This obviously doesn’t absolve the terrorists from their guilt but neither it should absolve others when they kill or oppress invoking the same justification.

So far I have been discussing the issues of “collective responsibility” and “collective punishment” without stating my views about it. Here they are for what they are worth:

I agree with the notion of collective responsibility. I regard it as a moral imperative to do our outmost to prevent our fellowmen, starting with our countrymen, from actions that are unjust. (You see MGB8, I might be immoral, as you say, but not completely immoral). The Torah, as far as I understand it, is very explicit in insisting about the responsibility of each individual for the behavior of the whole congregation. However, I don’t agree with a one-to-one relationship between collective responsibility and collective punishment.

The moral imperative refers to do our utmost to prevent and fight injustice. The injunction in Deut. XVI,20 “ Justice, justice shalt thou follow” is highly emphatic. But the question of whether a person deserves punishment for failing to fight unjust actions committed by others is perplexing, to say the least.

To rebel against a tyrannical regime, to fight against ruthless exploitation of the weak, and so forth may be moral imperatives but, do the ones that do not rebel or fight deserve to be punished? Within the context of our present discussion, I regard denouncing and condemning the firing of rockets against innocent civilians as a moral imperative, but do the ones that do not do so deserve to be punished?
My personal answer is in the negative but I admit that others may think differently We are not here to administer Divine justice, not to judge men for what might be in their hearts but, according to human justice, only for their actions.

[Reffo]

To Reffo: first, I’m sorry if my referring to you in the third person did upset you. No disrespect intended, just a matter of style really; since other persons might read our dialogue or discussion, I feel that by using the “he” instead of the “you” they could be encouraged to participate in it. Although I try to oblige on the first, I don’t think I could regarding your request of not to quote others (like Mr. Ramon for example) to exemplify or reinforce an argument; what leaders of the two sides say or do has a direct bearing in any discussion about the conflict.OK Jorge, now that you explained your reasons, I don't mind which style you use. If it makes you more comfortable, please use the third person style, I won't mind.

Re., your Post # 256: I don’t think I have to be “enlightened about the differences about the differences between terrorist organizations, like AlQueida, etc., and govs. of Western democracies”. I’m quite aware of the differences. I have not been sketching an analogy between them. I have been merely trying to illustrate how the principle of “collective responsibility” has been adopted, interpreted and/or abused by different entities.Fair enough and like I promised, I in turn apologise to you unreservedly for intimating that you give credence to the terrorists.

Although I happen to believe that the principle of collective responsibility is essentially sound, I’m aware that it has been used consistently to justify the most heinous crimes. Nowadays it is the said terrorist organizations that use the idea to justify their bloody murders, but before them Western democracies and Western kingdoms and the Catholic Church, also abused the principle of collective responsibility in order to justify no lesser crimes. This obviously doesn’t absolve the terrorists from their guilt but neither it should absolve others when they kill or oppress invoking the same justification.

So far I have been discussing the issues of “collective responsibility” and “collective punishment” without stating my views about it. Here they are for what they are worth:Fair enough again but I still have the feeling that you misunderstand what I was saying. I don't deny that the idea of collective responsibility can and has at times in the past led to horrible crimes. Obviously I abhore that when that happens. But what I was saying (perhaps asking): What is the alternative? A country cannot deal with disparate elements of another country. A country has the right to expect that other countries/peoples take responsibility for their own actions and deal with their own lawlessness and (I repeat) if they can't or won't then they effectively forfeit their own responsibilities and the offended country (in our case Israel) has the right to deal with the situation as best as they can, in order to protect their own citizens.

What I also should have said was that it doesn't matter what excuses the terrorists use to justify their crimes, good people should not even give a hint of credence to their arguments. We must also remember that no matter how well we behave, terrorists will always find excuses to justify their hate and crimes, logic or reason have nothing to do with it, if they have no valid reasons for their actions, they will just invent their own myths to justify themselves.

I agree with the notion of collective responsibility. I regard it as a moral imperative to do our outmost to prevent our fellowmen, starting with our countrymen, from actions that are unjust. (You see MGB8, I might be immoral, as you say, but not completely immoral). The Torah, as far as I understand it, is very explicit in insisting about the responsibility of each individual for the behavior of the whole congregation. However, I don’t agree with a one-to-one relationship between collective responsibility and collective punishment.

The moral imperative refers to do our utmost to prevent and fight injustice. The injunction in Deut. XVI,20 “ Justice, justice shalt thou follow” is highly emphatic. But the question of whether a person deserves punishment for failing to fight unjust actions committed by others is perplexing, to say the least.

To rebel against a tyrannical regime, to fight against ruthless exploitation of the weak, and so forth may be moral imperatives but, do the ones that do not rebel or fight deserve to be punished? Within the context of our present discussion, I regard denouncing and condemning the firing of rockets against innocent civilians as a moral imperative, but do the ones that do not do so deserve to be punished?
My personal answer is in the negative but I admit that others may think differently We are not here to administer Divine justice, not to judge men for what might be in their hearts but, according to human justice, only for their actions.As I said, you misunderstand what I said (I think MGB8 as well). I was not talking of the notion of PUNISHMENT. Although I do admit that after a people refuse (or can't) to act in a RESPONSIBLE manner (they refuse or cannot control their own lawlessness), Israel's response may appear to be collective punishment. But the reality is that it's not necessarily so, it is just self defense and they have no other alternative. As MGB8 aptly provided the analogy, in WW2, the allies didn't walk up to each individual German to ask whether they were Nazis, they just had to conduct the war against all of Germany and all Germans. The same applies to Israel too and it's an unfortunate consequence that the innocents too have to suffer together with the guilty because that's the nature of war.

Now Jorge, if I'm wrong then I m willing to listen to a well reasoned alternative logical argument. Please outline PRACTICAL alternatives that would lead to better results (namely: both Israel's self defense needs will be met without causing suffering to innocents).

[Ricky]

It seems that Jorge is of the opinion that when Israel is attacked by rockets, she may not use means of defence that may endanger civilian Palestinian lives. I cannot agree. I should point out that some years ago, the Serbian government brutally expelled and murdered thousands of Albanians from Kosova. Nato gave the Serbs an ultimatum that they must permit the immediate return of all the refugees to Kosova, and if Serbia did not comply, then Nato aircraft would bombard military targets in Serbia until the Serbs agreed to Nato's demand. As the Serbs did not comply, Nato carried out bombing raids against (military) targets for about six months till the Serbs agreed to Nato's demands. As a result of these bombardments, 2000 Serb civilians were accidentaly killed. What conclusion should we draw from this? That Nato should not have bombed Serbia? That all the pilots who accidentally killed Serbian civilians are war criminals?

[Reffo]

Ricky

Great post, I agree with your NATO example totally. And if we go back a bit further to what happened in WW2 then places like Dresden, Hiroshima and Nagasaki come to mind. Of course I'm not advocating such horrendous extremes in the conflict with the Palestinians but the fact that the western allies were prepared to resort to such tactics to help them win their war, illustrates the immorality of war and the lack of alternatives to painful choices which may hurt some innocents.

In summary: War is hell and anything that prolongs it more than necessary also prolongs the, casualties, the deaths and the hell!

[Jorge]

Quote of MGB8’s #246:

If war is repugnant to you, so be it. When its kill or be killed, you will die, and I will live.

This is what you don't get.
Your libelous comparison to Al Queda shows YOUR immorality. You are repugnant, Jorge, in comparing war, where you kill those seeking to kill you (and sometimes, as in every war, tons of non-combatants die) to TERRORISM - the TARGETTING of non-combatants.

As for you - no, your tactic is surrender, and beg.

You WIN THE WAR first, Jorge. If "there will be new terrorists" - you kill them too. And if that means that every single Pal Arabs will join the terrorists and thus become a combatant and be marked for death, you kill them anyways.

This is war, Jorge. If you are unwilling to fight, you die. That is the difference between you and I. You might find me repugnant for my callousness... I find you repugnant for your weakness.

I would kill to save my family, you would not - you would not want to dirty your hands. That is the difference between us.

They will not stop, Jorge. Not if they get all of the WB and Gaza. Not until Israel is destroyed, demographically or otherwise. It IS Kill or be Killed. And you prefer to be killed. Well, bully for you.

To MGB8: First, my apologies for taking so long before answering your latest posts. Second, I do not intend to comment on your remarks about my character (the ones colored red). This because I’m not at all bothered about what you may think of me personally; also, because I think that others, which may read these posts, are not at all concerned about whether or not I am immoral and/or callous enough to let my family be butchered while I go on peacefully seeping my G&T. In my opinion allusions to each other’s character, in Forum such as this, is a waste of time of bith the posters and readers.

What others might be interested in, is in the confrontation of diverse opinions about the subject of the Thread and I intend to keep myself between those bounds.

Now about opinions: You seem to think that the only options open to us are “KILLED OR BE KILLED”. I disagree, I think there are at least two other sound alternatives.

One of them is simply to run away. I understand that close to 200.000 (mostly Christian) Palestinians have chosen that road together with more than 400.000 Israelis that have gone away looking for greener pastures. I myself don’t favor that option but I don’t presume to judge those who’ve done so.

The other option open is to negotiate a settlement of the dispute, that is, to try to resolve the conflict on the basis of each side getting less than what they expect to get by the use of force. In my view this option, with all its disadvantages, is better than the other two.

As they say, no use crying over spilled milk, but had this option been pursued with more determination by successive Israeli governments, we’d be in a far better situation than the mess we are in now, not to forget that thousands of dead people on both sides would be alive today.

For instance, we could have got rid of the conquered territories shortly after the 67 war by handing them over to Jordan (the so-called Jordanian option proposed by some in the Labor Party of the time). Or we could have pursued any of the various peace initiatives proposed by successive US Secretaries of State, which were rejected at the time for not being favorable enough to our interests. Probably true but, looking back in retrospect, they were better than any open to us now.

The classical line of justification had been for decades that there was never someone to talk to. This may or have not been true ( a number of Israeli historians question the assertion) at the time. But the sad fact is that only last year we withdrew without conditions from the Gaza Strip and now we are planning a unilateral withdrawal from the West Bank. Even assuming that there was never a partner for negotiations, why not withdrawal then, 20 or 30 years ago, instead of now?

In case someone is tempted to ask what difference does it make 20 or 30 years, earlier or later, my answer is related to the subject of this Thread. Over the years of continued occupation the number of potentially “good Arabs” had been dwindling and the number of the bad ones increasing. This is an inevitable process, continued occupation breeds hostility and hatred, the more animosity on the part of the conquered, the stronger the repressive measures needed, the stronger the repression, the greater the hatred, all the time spiraling upwards. The dynamics of the Israeli-Palestinians relations in the past yars seems to be such that when we arrive at the “worst scenario” something worse still happens next month.

An end note in this too long Post: one has to be incredibly naïve not to realize that the “negotiations option” is fraught with danger; all sort of things may go wrong and lead to failure. But these are hypothetical events, they may happen or they may not. On the other hand one has to be equally incredible naïve and shortsighted not to appreciate that the policies pursued by Israel, especially since 2000, have been leading nowhere except to an exacerbation of the conflict. So, in a sort of simplistic way, the choice between the two main options discussed, boils down to take risks in negotiations with the hope of improving the situation or to persist following the road of repression and more repression, a road that has been proved to lead to an intensification of the conflict.

[MGB8]

You miss the point, Jorge, still.

What does "negotiate a settlement" mean? What does the "peace" part of land for "peace" mean? It means no more attacks from the Pal Arabs. But, as you are quick to point out, they don't have their own house in order. The attacks won't stop, because large minorities, if not the majority, will disagree with whatever settlement is made.

Then there is the real risk than any settlement is disregarded in the future - this is why Israel must insist on its interests being protected.

For example, under your line of thinking, Israel could retreat to the Partition lines if that would get the Pal Arabs to agree (on paper) to "peace." But what happens if they just tear up the paper. There is a reason that "defensible borders" is the key aspect.

Finally, we are talking Hamas here, not Abbas or the more moderate wings of Fatah (and G-d knows that a large number, if not the majority, of Fatah still believes in the plan of phases). They want Israel's destruction, nothing more. The official 'moderate' Pal Arab position - expell 250,000 Jews from the WB to make it Judenrein, no Israeli security presence on the Jordan Valley, and flood Israel with refugees... again, this appears to be their "red lines!" Their "red lines" STILL CAUSE THE DESTRUCTION OF ISRAEL.

But, again, we are not even talking about negotiations. Right now, we are talking about what to do when attacked! Your answer... "well, we can't attack back, its ugly."

Tell me, lets say Israel expelled all the jews in the WB, just as they did from Gaza, and the rockets and kidnappings etc. still happened. Then what would you do?

This is about what is the proper response to Pal Arab attacks in order to deter future attacks. YOU ADMIT that even a "settlement" will not end attacks. But military victory will, Jorge.

In essence, there can be no political solution to this conflict UNTIL their is a military solution, first.

[Jorge]

From Ricky’s #262:

It seems that Jorge is of the opinion that when Israel is attacked by rockets, she may not use means of defence that may endanger civilian Palestinian lives.

Not quite. Israel is entitled to use means of defense against rocket attacks even at the risk of endangering civilian Palestinian lives.

My point is that Israel should not (not because there’s a law against but merely because, besides being abusive it’s inept policy) harm civilians with the intention that said civilians will prevent rocket attacks against Israel.

Allow me to clarify the distinction: if our Army spots people in the act of (or preparing to) firing Quassams, it should shoot to kill, even at the risk that nearby civilians may be hurt. That would be a legitimate act of self defence.

What I was criticizing was something else: For several weeks the IDF bombarded the Northern area of the Gaza Strip, an area which is densely populated; at the peak of this “operation” more than a thousand shells a day were fired. Since our gunners could not catch the rocket throwers, neither in the act nor before, a thousand sonic shells a day had no other purpose than, to quote some government officials “to make their lives hell”. The shelling was not aimed towards Quassam squads because we never knew where they were, it was untargeted. Idea being that, if we made their lives sufficiently close to hell, the civilians would try to stop the rocket throwers. They didn’t; so the Army was authorized to bombard up to 100 meters from inhabited buildings. One doesn’t have to be a military expert to understand that when firing hundreds of 156 shells a day directed so close to dwellings, the smallest error may result in casualties. Casualties did occur of course and in the end we stopped the shelling. Net result: rockets kept falling as usual in bordering towns but we succeeded in making “their lives hell” for a couple of weeks. That’s what I’d call unnecessarily cruel and inept.

And a worse one: Nowadays we seem to be in the verge of another “solution” for Quassam attacks: the inhabitants of Bait Janun and Lahiyia (close to 100.000 roughly) are urged to leave their homes before we set to erase the towns. Where would they go? How would they live? I hope sanity prevails and we don’t do it, but if we do, how is this new “operation” going to prevent future rocket attacks? It won’t of course, but at least, as some Ministers put it :”The people of Israel will know that this government will do its utmost to defend them”. It boils down, as it happens too often in bloody conflicts, to a question of “prestige” for the Army and/or government. A government that is anxious to show off how strong it can be but that, seemingly, cannot spare the time to consider what’s going to happen the day after. The day after we withdraw after having devastated the Gaza Strip once again.

[MGB8]

It will prevent rocket attacks by creating a buffer zone where Israel can fire with impunity. This, when the rocket launchers do fire, they will have to fire from further back, or risk being hit.

[MGB8]

One more thing. Most people disagreed with the "bomb the empty fields" policy. It was inept, doing something just to do it. As for shelling more closesly - the only possible mishap was the beach incident, and it does not appear to have been such a mishap.

The other two attacks that missed were targetted strikes on missle teams. So, this leads to the obvious question: exactly what fantasy world are you talking about?

[Reffo]

Jorge

You appear to be a decent person but you don't live in the real world, let alone the Middle East.

You seem to pretend (or perhaps you are genuinely misguided), that the path of negotiations have not been tried by Israel. The real fact is that it has been tried. Of course, you seem to say: "Yes, but Israel has not gone far enough in making concessions". Well, let's just say that's your opinion. My opinion is that what you seem to favour is surrender, NOT negotiations. But you know what? I wouldn't even have a problem with that if such a surrender would assure a good future for the Jews and the Arabs. The problem is that your way would not lead to ANY future (let alone a good one) for the Jews of Israel.

I won't say any more. MGB8 summed up the situation aptly, I've nothing to add to it.

[MGB8]

Its beyond that. This is a side issue, but it does bear on the future - what do you do after you have made concessions and they keep attacking. Jorge asks us to make more concessions, and certainly not to cause any discomfort. I don't know where he got the "make their lives hell" quote - but, quite frankly, noise from shells hitting pretty far off northern fields... this is the complaint? then what exactly CAN Israel do in self defense?

Only magically be able to spot and stop (only in the act) qassam brigades... completely unrealistic. In other words, according to Jorge, Israel can do.. NOTHING. Let its people die. and make more concessions.

So, indeed, Jorge, your position is to BEG FOR MERCY. nothing more.

But, you ignore human psychology. When attacks lead to concessions, the Pal Arabs, rightfully, come to the conclusion that attacks are a succesful tactic. When they lead to severe consequences, they come to the opposite conclusion.

Let me let you in on something. The suicide bombings didn't get stopped because of the wall. It makes them a bit more difficult, but there are plenty of places with no wall. They stopped because the consequences kept getting larger and larger, and support for them dropped. It took a little time for the cause/effect to settle in, but, after consistent application, it did.

This current mass response is to make sure the Pal Arabs know that there is nothing to gain from kidnappings, as well as to get them from not crossing the major "act of war" line - to deny them a military victory which, if not responded to, the attack on the outpost would have been.

As for Qassams, again, it will take time, but negative consequences, both on the rocketeers AND the population as a whole that supports them, will work. Again, you exagerrate greatly what "collective punishment" was supposed to entail. It meant round ups and deportation and killings. This is not what we are talking about.

You would have Israel reinforce to the Pal Arabs that TERROR WORKS!

[Reffo]

Jorge

OK, you have outlined all the things that Israel shouldn't do in order to stop the Qassam rockets. While I truly admire your concern for the 100,000 residents of Bait Janun and Lahiyia and I also share some of your cynicism regarding the motives of the Israeli government. But there is only one thing that bugs me about what you said (or rather, what you forgot to mention): You neglected to outline a practical response that would protect the equally innocent residents of Sderot? I know that you concurred with the idea of shooting the attackers directly, but we both know that is not always possible because they use hit and run tactics and they use their own people as human shields.

So, please tell us what other things Israel SHOULD DO, not what it SHOULDN'T DO, to defend Sderot residents? And please don't suggest more concessions because the recent concessions that Israel made (the evacuation of Gaza), seemed to have caused the problems for Sderot! So the idea of more concessions just does not seem to be sensible.

Of course, oddly enough, the solution that you don't favour which is the warning to Gaza residents that thanks to the actions of their elected leaders, their homes will turn into a war zone, has a chance of solving Sderot's problems. How? Israel will be able to immediately shoot back to a wider perimeter of where the rockets come from (as soon as they start the bombardments against Sderot) and they will have a greater chance of hitting the perpetrators. But even if the terrorists don't get hit, the bombardment of Sderot will be cut short.

[Reffo]

Jorge

I know I posted a number of posts but here is another set of questions to you. And even if you don't respond to my other posts, I'd really be keen for you to answer these ones at least, because I'm really trying to understand your POV and that of other like minded people like you.

You mentioned that in your opinion Israel has not gone far enough down the path of negotiations and concessions. I disagreed and suggested that you were actually suggesting surrender. But let me keep an open mind and explore further what you are actually talking about. I am keen to hear your answers to the following questions:

Have you got any red lines beyond which you would not make more concessions?
If yes, what are those red lines?
One of the long standing demands of the Palestinians has been and still is that Israel should allow the "return" of refugees and their descendants (up to 3 million people) and allow them to settle in Israel proper. Would you give in on that demand?
If not, then how would you see reaching a common consensus if they wouldn't give in on their "right of return" either?
And what would you do if despite all your efforts, you could still not reach a consensus with the Palestinians?

[Ricky]

As I understand you, you say that Israel should refrain from any military action that MAY harm Palestinian civilians- unless that action is taken at a time that terrorists are firing at Israeli targets. Virtually all Israelis are certain that they know exactly what to do to bring security and peace to Israel. i am not one of those Israelis, I haven't the faintest idea what to do and I can only comment on matters of principle. I certainly agree that Israel should take the greatest measures possible to prevent civilian Palestinian casualties, but I cannot accept that Israel may not undertake any military action that might cause civilian casualties after all steps have been taken to try to avoid such a situation. I repeat my example of Nato's bombing of military targets in Serbia, which I mentioned in an earlier thread, and which caused the deaths of 2000 Serbian citizens. Are we to say that these military actions were reprehensible? I should also point out that I did not bring the example of the British bombing of Dresden in WW2, which was a purely vengeful act, aimed at harming citizens and today would doubtlessly be considered a war crime

[Jorge]

Quotes from Reffo’s #272:

Jorge,I know I posted a number of posts but here is another set of questions to you. And even if you don't respond to my other posts, I'd really be keen for you to answer these ones at least, because I'm really trying to understand your POV and that of other like minded people like you.

To Reffo: I’ll oblige and answer at least your last Post. I’m aware that I haven’t yet commented on other points raised by you lately, as well of those of MGB8 and Ricky; they are all well thought and argued posts and as such deserve detailed answers; they will be forthcoming, as soon as I can manage.

1. Have you got any red lines beyond which you would not make more concessions?
Plenty.

2. If yes, what are those red lines?

Some of the main red lines: a)The borders between Israel and a future Palestinian State, will not be set eastward of the 1967 lines. b) Palestinian refugees (or their descendants) will not be allowed to re-settle within those borders. c) the area of the future P.S. will be demilitarized d) Jerusalem will remain under Israeli sovereignty, (except for East Jerusalem and part of the Holy Sites if they are internationalized).

3. One of the long standing demands of the Palestinians has been and still is that Israel should allow the "return" of refugees and their descendants (up to 3 million people) and allow them to settle in Israel proper. Would you give in on that demand?

Nope. As said above.

4. If not, then how would you see reaching a common consensus if they wouldn't give in on their "right of return" either?

I don’t like much the word “consensus”in the present context, it’s usually taken as seeing “eye to eye”. which here is well nigh impossible. As I said in an earlier post: in a negotiated agreement each side gets less than what it wants. The Palestinians accept that there’s no right of return, we accept that a sovereign Palestinian State is established East of the Green Line. If one of the sides doesn’t accept those terms, no agreement is reached, that is what “red lines” are supposed to mean.

5. And what would you do if despite all your efforts, you could still not reach a consensus with the Palestinians?

I’d keep trying. I’d never close the diplomatic option (it has been closed since 2000) and accept that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict has no solution.

I've been trying to be concise, even at the risk of being misinterprted. Further details about the red lines could and should be added.

An aside note: I feel we are drifting away from the subject of the "Good Arabs" as tabled by Newsguy. I have a marked dislike for drifting away from a Threads subject, even more so in such a long lived Thread as this one. I'd suggest that we move the discussion on possible outcomes of the I-P conflict to any of the many Threads in the Forum that deal with the subject. We could just post a note telling where we are moving.

[Jorge]

From Ricky's 273:
Virtually all Israelis are certain that they know exactly what to do to bring security and peace to Israel. i am not one of those Israelis, I haven't the faintest idea what to do and I can only comment on matters of principle

Well, that makes two of us because I don't do pressume to know either.

In the more restricted subject we were discussing of what to do to stop the Quassams, it's not surprising that we do not know; after all we are laymen in military matters. The sad part of the story though is that the IDF also doesn't know what to do to stop them.

This is what makes the present flamboyant operation into northern Gaza so pathetic. The IDF is not claiming that it is designed to put an end to Quassams; it is designed, according to IDF sposkmen: "to re-assert the deterrence force ( coach artaah?) in the eyes of the Palestinians". Why should one of the best armies of the world fighting bands of primitive terrorists feel in need to re-assert its deterrence credentials is a complete mistery to me.

[MGB8]

There is good reason for the fact that Israel lost its military deterrence ability. It stopped using its military. The United States for a long time has lost much of its military deterrence capability, because other nations don't believe that the US will use its military. Iraq changed that, to some degree, but, on the other hand, because the US has not acted decisively in post-war Iraq, the US military has been made to look weak again. Even though the US has the strongest military the world has ever seen.

Israel has not had a military victory since 2002 (op defensive shield). That's a long time. Hamas, on the other hand, and all the Pal Arab terror groups, believe very much that they can win. Why do they believe this? Because when they use violence, they are not killed. Instead, Israel responds with either symbolic moves or concessions.

Each time there is a Qassam attack and no effective response, that is a tiny victory for terrorism. And this last strike, on an Israeli military outpost, over the fence, using an anti-tank missle, with even casualties... if not responded to, this creates even more hope for military victory.

Not to mention the Lebanon example (which led to the Oslo war).

As for the negotiation option being closed... not really. Arafat was no partner, so there was no one to negotiate with while he was in charge. In the meantime, we have had the roadmap. Step 1 is very clear - dismantel terrorist infrastructure. Nothing was done on that front.

Abbas could not prove that he could provide "peace", so there is no point in trading "land for peace" with him.

You don't like the roadmap, Jorge. Why? because you don't believe that the Pal Arabs can stop shooting before getting mass concessions? but there is a strong chance that they can't stop shooting either way. In short, we are back to surrender (reward terror) and hope for the best. But we know what happens when terror is rewarded.

Mind you, I would not be opposed to Israel announcing its red lines, having a referendum on the red lines, and telling the Pal Arabs - you can have a referendum on these if you want.

But, Jorge, even presuming that happened.. what would happen when the attacks continued and the Pal Arabs continued to be unwilling to do a thing to stop them. Two options - more Jewish blood spilled cheaply (with Israel not defending its people), or WAR.

[Ricky]

Jorge
The peace settlement that you suggest is very close to the Geneva agreement of Yossi Beilin and I support it in principle, but I have grave doubts as to whether even a Fatah led government will come to terms with Israel on its basis.
Many people, especially those who feel that Israel did not do enough to reach peace during the Barak government, ofter refer to Camp David or Taba.
To my mind, both these events have something very significant in common. No minutes of the discussions have been published so no one except the participants know exactly what happened there. However, between Camp David and Taba, Clinton offered his plan, which was published. The Clinton plan was so close to the (declared) Palestinian position that if the Palestinians are truly in favor of a two state solution, they should have accepted Clinton's plan with open arms. Yet Arafat gave the plan the kiss of death. Ever since then, my belief in the possibility of peace between Israel and the Palestinians is almost non existent

[MGB8]

Chances are that the red lines do not cross. Its as simple as that. For the Pal Arabs, nothing less than go back to 67, (no adjustments), expell all 250,000 Jews in the WB, divide Jerusalem (including the old city) and a pretty much unhindered right of return, would lead to "settlement." Worse yet, the Arabs STILL would likely be UNWILLING to stop attacks against Israel from their land.

In other words, Israel would be in a much more vulnerable position, but nothing will have changed. Except that the plan of phases would be one phase further.

I believe that the average Pal Arab 'wants' peace, but is unwilling to fight his fellow Arab to have it. So terror will not stop, no matter what concessions Israel makes.

Thus, settlement is impossible. There is no partner, not because of Arafat or Hamas, but because of the Pal Arab people. Specifically, because there are still many many many Pal Arabs who believe, who KNOW, that "they will win." They still have hope for victory.

Why? Because they have not been defeated.

And so, Jorge, when you come in and say "No! Do not defeat the enemy, it brings to much harm to non-combatants..." I say that you only are prolonging the conflict and increasing the chance of Israeli defeat.

In order to have peace, Israel must first convince the Pal Arabs that they will be harmed if they do not stop terror. And it must convince the terror groups that they cannot win.

Ask the Arabs, even the ones in Israeli jails, who they think will win, Jorge. Ask Hamas, ask Al-aqsa. Ask them if they will EVER stop with the terror.

[Jorge]

Quotes from MGB8’s post #265:

What does "negotiate a settlement" mean? What does the "peace" part of land for "peace" mean? It means no more attacks from the Pal Arabs. But, as you are quick to point out, they don't have their own house in order. The attacks won't stop, because large minorities, if not the majority, will disagree with whatever settlement is made.

In my view the old “land for peace” slogan is now unrealistic, at least for the short time future. In the present conditions a negotiated settlement should aim not for “peace” as a first stage but for “coexistence” along mutually respected borders. Your forecast that ‘attacks won’t stop’ is probably right; terrorist bands will not sign any agreement and hence they won't consider it binding. What we should be aiming for( or demanding) is not an immediate end of attacks, but that the PA authorities that may agree to such settlement, will do their utmost to stop terrorist attacks.

As Abu Mazen has proposed, the best way to settle your doubts (and those of many others) about large minorities or majorities is through the system of referendums. If the majority disagrees with the points of a hypothetical settlement then the negotiation will have failed.

Then there is the real risk than any settlement is disregarded in the future - this is why Israel must insist on its interests being protected.

History is full with examples of treaties being violated. Nevertheless treaties keep being signed all the time.

For example, under your line of thinking, Israel could retreat to the Partition lines if that would get the Pal Arabs to agree (on paper) to "peace." But what happens if they just tear up the paper. There is a reason that "defensible borders" is the key aspect.

I have never said Partition lines (and neither has anyone I’ve heard in the Israeli Left). The intended borders should run (roughly) along the 1967 lines. If by “defensible borders” you mean those along the present separation fence, they could be taken as temporary borders, to be readjusted in the future (through territorial exchanges). That is the drift of Ami Ayalon’s latest proposal (June 23):

-The Palestinian State’s temporary border should follow the route of the WB security fence as approved by the High Court of Justice, with a combined Israeli and international security force remaining in the Jordan valley, at least until a permanent peace accord is signed, and perhaps even after.

If by “defensible borders” you mean lines eastwards from the security fence then the said Palestinian State is meant as a cute joke.

Finally, we are talking Hamas here, not Abbas or the more moderate wings of Fatah (and G-d knows that a large number, if not the majority, of Fatah still believes in the plan of phases). They want Israel's destruction, nothing more. The official 'moderate' Pal Arab position - expell 250,000 Jews from the WB to make it Judenrein, no Israeli security presence on the Jordan Valley, and flood Israel with refugees... again, this appears to be their "red lines!" Their "red lines" STILL CAUSE THE DESTRUCTION OF ISRAEL.

As I keep saying: in a negotiated settlement each side gets only a part of what it wants. It’s quite possible that many Arabs want Israel’s destruction they may also want “to flood Israel with refugees”. To reach a negotiated agreement those dreams or aspirations would have to be dropped; I think that Palestinians on the whole are no fools, they understand that they haven’t the slightest chance of achieving “Israel’s destruction” in the foreseeable future, neither have they the slightest chance of implementing the right of return; if they want a Palestinian State, they' have to drop unrealistic demands. The 250.000 Jews (in actual fact they’d be much less) that would have to move out of the WB is part of the dreams and aspirations that we would have to drop. If our red lines include leaving all the settlements in place then of course we are ruling out any possible negotiated agreement.

But, again, we are not even talking about negotiations. Right now, we are talking about what to do when attacked! Your answer... "well, we can't attack back, its ugly."

I don’t recall ever saying that we can’t attack back. The killing or imprisonment of active terrorists is in my view a legitimate (and effective) action of self-defense.

Tell me, lets say Israel expelled all the jews in the WB, just as they did from Gaza, and the rockets and kidnappings etc. still happened. Then what would you do?

To the rockets and kidnappings you should add suicide bombings. It is a plausible scenario that terrorist attacks will continue (although less frequent) even after a hypothetical dismantling of all the settlements. In a truly Jewish style I’d retort: and what would you do? Because you ought not to forget the fact that rocket attacks started while we were inside the Gaza Strip and when Jewish settlements there were still in place. Suicide bombings have been happening in the face of our military and settler’s presence in the WB. So, what would you do if in spite of continuing the occupation and the colonizing of the WB, terrorist attacks keep on happening?

This is about what is the proper response to Pal Arab attacks in order to deter future attacks. YOU ADMIT that even a "settlement" will not end attacks. But military victory will, Jorge.

The phrase military victory has become very common in certain circles. I have never understood what a “military victory” could entail in the case of the I-P conflict: a) eradication of terrorism? There seems to be consensus among our army strategists that this goal cannot be achieved by military means alone. b) submission of the Palestinians, so that they’ll be willing on their own accord to live under perpetual occupation?

In essence, there can be no political solution to this conflict UNTIL their is a military solution, first.

[MGB8]

Jorge,

Don't you get what you have said? You have said essentially, I want to give up land, but its "ok" if they keep killing us, and will do nothing to stop it.

Here is what you do if the terror attacks do not stop. You expell them, or you kill them. That's it. Simple as that.

You see, Jorge, you, in a round-about-way, said, when its "kill or be killed" you would rather "be killed."

Do you see that, Jorge. You would rather that Israel has no peace (a long slow death) because terror never stops (and, in fact, would likely get more significant), and when asked what would you do about it... you have no answer.

Live with Jews being killed is your answer. Which, in essence, is "be killed."

Thus, we get back to the immorality issue. You have just condemend your neighbors to constant assault and periodic death. Why? Because, you do not want to dirty your hands.

You would rather that Israelis die than Pal Arabs die.

No.

If they keep attacking. Kill them. If you have to kill every single Pal Arab in order to make the attacks stop, you kill every single one.

"He who is compassionate to the cruel, is cruel to the compassionate." That's biblical. Its also true.

You offer Israel nothing, Jorge. Only a continued status quo, with terror forever. Israel can do that and be in the territories, too, and better control the terror.

ps - do you think the Pal Arabs would agree to such an Israeli/International border? They already rejected a provisional state.


Until the Pal Arabs realize that Israel is willing to kill them all, they will have no incentive to stop attacks.

[MGB8]

Oh, and Jorge, Terror is just a war tactic. And wars are ended all the time. By the complete anhialation of the other side, if need be, or something close enough (Germany, Japan).

[MGB8]

Oh, also, the words "colonize" and "occupy" mean nothing to me. Really, nothing. If the choice is between occupation and a terror state next door, with constant attacks - like from Gaza - the occupation there was better.

Colonize? Israel has legitimate rights and claims in the WB (and had in Gaza). this is not a white man's burden issue. Israelis have the right to move there and live there. It is nothing to feel guilty about. It is NOT Arab land. It is merely land, with various claims over it.

The only bad thing about occupation is that the occupied do not get full democratic rights. Which makes them still better off than most Arabs in the rights that they do get, but that doesn't make it right.

Still, occupation is no worse than living under a monarchy and dictatorship. Its not that terrible. And, since you concede that they likely will not stop committing acts of war if left to their own devices.... well...

[Reffo]

Jorge

We diverged from the topic only slightly because you raised the idea of collective punishment. Of course, most reasonable people agree that not all the Arabs are bad but nevertheless, what MGB8, I (and I think Ricky too), have been saying is that Israel's primary responsibility is to defend it's own citizens from the unscrupulous actions of the "bad Arabs" (the terrorists). And in doing so, it is just patently impractical for them to pick and choose as to who is good and who is bad. The only practical way is that Israel, like all other nations who ever were involved in wars, has to take the attitude that the other side (in this case the Palestinians) have both rights and responsibilities. And if they cannot or will not accept those responsibilities, then Israel has the right to do what's necessary to defend it's own citizens. Of course, in doing so, it needs to take as much care as possible to minimise the likelihood of hurting innocents. But the key thing is that their due care, should not jeopardise the lives and safety of it's own citizens.

OTOH my understanding is that you disagree with such an approach and Israel's past and present tactics. You seem to be of the opinion that Israel hasn't negotiated enough and that it hasn't made enough concessions. I won't argue with you about the former, that's just a matter of tactics and you may or may not be right. But where our disagreement is significant is the latter (the concessions). Given that you too have red lines beyond which you wouldn't be prepared to make concessions, I cannot fathom why you would be prepared to make all your concessions before the Palestinians too would meet you at your red lines. Let me be specific: I cannot understand, how come you'd be prepared to withdraw from the WB and Gaza before the Arabs would give up on their so called "right of return", agree to renounce further claims and guarantee security and peace.

My understanding is that your reason for favouring the above tactic is that you don't see any benefit or advantage for Israel to maintain the "occupation". OTOH, while I accept that the "occupation" is onerous, a nuisance and dangerous, I don't believe that Israel can give it up until it too gets what it wants. Why? Because it's a bargaining chip! We both know that the Palestinians want to get more from Israel than what even people like you (no offence intended) are willing to give them. For instance, they insist on their "right of return". So, if you make all your concessions up front, without giving them everything that they want , what else can you offer them if they consequently still continue their extortion through terrorism? Moreover, wouldn't you then also be in a worse position from a defensive point of view? Don't you think that Quassams would then be landing on Tel Aviv, in the same way that Sderot was targeted after the Gaza withdrawal? Wouldn't that be even a greater nuisance for Israel than the nuisance of the current "occupation"?

[Jorge]

To MGB8: I don’t mind dedicating time in arguing about my opinions or points of view but I do mind wasting time in arguing about opinions which I supposedly hold but which I’ve never written in any of my posts. It’s either that you don’t read my posts with attention before answering them or that you are using unfair tactics with the aim that other readers will form a distorted opinion about the views of the so-called Israeli Left, some of whose views I try to present in this Forum.

For instance, the following are quotes of your post #280:

Jorge, Don't you get what you have said? You have said essentially, I want to give up land, but its "ok" if they keep killing us, and will do nothing to stop it.

No, I don’t get it. I don’t get it for the simple reason that I haven’t written that; not essentially nor really, nor basically, have I written anything of the sort. Never said that it’s OK if they keep killing us, never said either that I(we?) should do nothing to stop it.

On the contrary (and this I have said) I think that the purposeful killing of innocent civilians through suicide bombers or rocket attacks is nothing but cold-blooded murder that can not possibly be justified through any religious or nationalistic premises.

I think also that, because of the former, the imprisonment or killing of terrorists through targeted assassinations is a legitimate action of self-defense. Your imputation that I hold the view that we should do nothing in the face of terrorist attacks is unwarranted. On the contrary I think that the punishment of terrorists should be pursued with determination and without pause.

I don’t think that you’d find any Israeli saying that it’s OK if the terrorists keep killing us and that nothing should be done about it. Your imputations are ludicrous.

Here is what you do if the terror attacks do not stop. You expell them, or you kill them. That's it. Simple as that.

Here you are on firmer grounds. If by “them” you mean that all the Palestinians should be killed or expelled if terrorism continues, yes, I do object.

You see, Jorge, you, in a round-about-way, said, when its "kill or be killed" you would rather "be killed."

Whether it’s “a round-about way” or a straight way, it amounts to prefer to “be killed”. I’m sorry to disappoint you but I have no suicidal tendencies. True, in spite of the warnings printed in the packet: Smoking Kills I resort to puffing cigs. now and then but I regard this as a small weakness of mine and not as a suicidal drive.

Do you see that, Jorge. You would rather that Israel has no peace (a long slow death) because terror never stops (and, in fact, would likely get more significant), and when asked what would you do about it... you have no answer.

No I don’t see that at all. Why should I contemplate with relish Israel’s long slow death? Why on earth I’d prefer that Israel had no peace? Have I ever written anything of the sort?

The second part of your paragraph is though much closer to the truth. It is true that I have no clear answer about how to stop terror. As I said: terrorists should be killed whenever we have the opportunity to do so and their networks disrupted, but I don’t think that said procedure is going to “stop” terrorism. It is but sad comfort that, in not knowing how to completely eradicate terror, I’m not alone. The government doesn’t know, the IDF doesn’t know, the Europeans don’t know, even the all powerful USA doesn’t know.

Live with Jews being killed is your answer. Which, in essence, is "be killed."

A bit too melodramatic, I’d say.

Thus, we get back to the immorality issue. You have just condemend your neighbors to constant assault and periodic death. Why? Because, you do not want to dirty your hands.

Periodic death is not such a bad idea, better than the one-and-only final death that we mortals face. Me and my neighbors will be subject to constant terrorist assaults at least for the short time future. Yes, that’s a plausible scenario. Plausible, irrespective of whether or not I want to dirty my hands. If by “dirtying our hands” you mean indiscriminate killing and cruel repression of Palestinians, it is quite likely, as many have warned, that terror will be exacerbated. Even if we succeeded, as you appear to advocate, to kill or expel all the Palestinians, terrorist attacks would not stop because we’d have to contend later on with “suicide volunteers” from the rest of the Arab countries, highly motivated to avenge the massacre.

You would rather that Israelis die than Pal Arabs die.

Not at all. Quite the contrary. But frankly, if I had the choice, I’d rather that neither us nor they.

If they keep attacking. Kill them. If you have to kill every single Pal Arab in order to make the attacks stop, you kill every single one.

"He who is compassionate to the cruel, is cruel to the compassionate." That's biblical. Its also true.

You offer Israel nothing, Jorge. Only a continued status quo, with terror forever. Israel can do that and be in the territories, too, and better control the terror.

ps - do you think the Pal Arabs would agree to such an Israeli/International border? They already rejected a provisional state.

Until the Pal Arabs realize that Israel is willing to kill them all, they will have no incentive to stop attacks.

I’ve bolded your favorite word. Makes it t look even more heroic, wouldn’t you say?
__________________

[MGB8]

Jorge,

You gave the opinion that even a "settlement" would result in continued terror.

You then, when asked what you would do about it, ducked the question. You threw it back. But, you have established what you would not do about it - and that is kill, at least not in any realistic way (only if the terrorists could be caught in the act).

In short, you were given a scenario where Israelis are being killed, and you are unwilling to kill.

You believe that counter attacks will lead to escalation. That is true, in the short term, and false, in the long term. Sure, British resistance to the Nazis caused more death and violence to the British (and Germans) than did French surrender. But which was the right path? I am not sure that you would say the British.

Yes Jorge, you 100% did say, when it is "kill or be killed", you choose "be killed." That is your position, take pride in it. Oh, you deny it, trying to hide behind some argument that it is not "kill or be killed", but the scenario I painted for you is just that.

Yes, you would be willing to have your innocent neighbors killed instead of innocent Palestinians (as collateral damage.) And that makes you immoral, Jorge. Yes, humans are humans, tragedy is tragedy, but loyalty is part of morality. Your duty is first to yourself, then to your family, and finally to everyone else.

Let me repeat, Jorge, it is weakness, such as you display, that emboldens the terrorists, and that makes it a certainty that the Pal Arabs do not stop the terrorists among them.

Military victory often requires horrific brutality. It requries callousnes towards precious human live. It requires an absolute conviction that "my right to live trumps their right to live." Without it, you either have to surrender and beg, or die.

Deny it all you want, Jorge, but that is your position in this conflict. You have created for yourself, in your paradigm, the idea of "no military victory", but when the other side creates a situation where there is "no political resolution", then all you are left with, Jorge, is "military defeat."

In short, you will be killed. The world is not kind, Jorge, but you need to grow up and deal with it.

[MGB8]

ps... there are tons of alleged massacres and expulsions that Israel did ... where are all these non Palestinian Arab terrorists?

You overrate greatly how much the Arabs care for each other. In the end, they really don't. That's why the Arabs keep the Pal Arabs in poverty and refugee camps, as non-citizens who are constantly discriminated against and periodically massacred (Jordan, Syria, Lebanon) or expelled (Kuwait, Jordan, Iraq, Saudi Arabia).

Please.

[MGB8]

pss... the US and Europe don't know how to stop terror, but the Arabs do. How much terror did Saddam suffer? How much does Syria suffer?

You do not kill every single Palestinian unless you absolutely have to. You only attack their combatants. But if it continues, you keep killing, until you have killed every single man (or woman, or 17 year old suicide bomber such as the one who was caught today) who wants to fight. Every single one.

And you do it ruthlessly. You do it knowing that there will be collateral damage, likely significant, since you must protect your soldiers, and while you must sacrifice their protection somewhat to protect non-combatants, that is a relative requirement.

Honestly, if it gets to the point where it looks like it will require mass non-combatant deaths (or, more likely, just hundreds of thousands of combatants), then expulsion is the more humane option.

But make no mistake, Israel's right to live in peace is GREATER than the Pal Arabs rights to living in those specific plots of land.

There is certainly a military solution, Jorge, its just very ugly. But, again, make no mistake... until the Pal Arabs FACE a real possibility of the ugly military solution, there is NO POLITICAL SOLUTION.

[Reffo]

In the more restricted subject we were discussing of what to do to stop the Quassams, it's not surprising that we do not know; after all we are laymen in military matters. The sad part of the story though is that the IDF also doesn't know what to do to stop them.Although on one level, our Palestinian friends are not very bright because as Aba Eban said: "They never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity", but on another level, they have managed to pull a gigantic scam on everyone. You can read all about it on this thread:

http://www.israelforum.com/board/showthread.php?t=10462

So, once one understands that scam, it's not that hard to work out what needs to be done: JUST FIX UP THE DAMN INFORMATION CHANNELS, SPEAK WITH ONE VOICE AND CONVINCE THE MAIN POWER BROKERS THAT THE TIME HAS COME TO PULL THE PLUG ON THIS PALESTINIAN SCAM!!!!! There would be a number of ways to pull the plug but the one that I would favour is to go after the Hamas leadership BIG TIME!!!! Which means, no more stop starts, Hudnas, Shmudnas but after every single atrocity or transgression that they pull, go after their leadership relentlessly and ruthlessly, NO EXCEPTIONS!!!! It may take a year or two of harsh medicine but it's guaranteed to bear fruit......They will come to their senses, they will beg for negotiations and they will be amenable to compromise.

However, such a strategy requires unity of purpose and the Israeli left must give up the luxury of leniency on the Palestinians. Otherwise, how can we expect the rest of the world to accept that they should allow Israel to administer such harsh medicine? Jorge, you'd be surprised how often the western media excuse their anti Israel bias by claiming that they only repeat criticism of Israel voiced by some Israelis themselves (mostly from the left side of politics). So how can one argue with that??????

[MGB8]

Reffo,

You are wrong. The Pal Arabs have not passed up any real opportunity, in their eyes. That is because, quite frankly, any opportunity that they "grabbed" would END their opportunity to WIN... to have it ALL.

If you have studied negotiations, you are no doubt familiar with the concept of BATNA - the best alternative to a negotiated agreement.

What is the BATNA for a Pal Arab, given the position of Israel, particularly the left, and Europe and the US? The answer is - VICTORY.

The Best Alternative to a Negotiated Agreement for the Pal Arabs is the destruction of Israel. How so? Well, they "know" that Israel won't expell them, so in time, they believe that they will be the majority from the river to the sea and simply overwhelm Israel, demanding a one state solution.

Further, when Israel came up with disengagement, they know that simply by continuing to kill, with greater and greater technology and effectiveness, Israelis, means that Israelis will either die, flee (be expelled), or have to re-control them.

They also know that Israel will not produce any Arab style large scale massacres.

So, the Pal Arabs have NO REASON to make peace. None.

Making peace gives up victory, in their eyes. Why? Because Israel is not willing to fight a war.


How can Israel change the Pal Arab BATNA? (1) it must convince the Pal Arabs that they face a real possibility of DEFEAT! And that means a real fear of expulsion and or mass casualties.

(2) More specifically, Israel should set the terms for what Hamas actions will constitute a declaration of war. It should also set out what it will do in the event of a war - namely:

-1- demand Hamas/Pal Arab surrender;
-2- if they do not surrender, fight the war to victory (until they surrender);
-3- after surrender, go in and announce a pacify and "marshall plan"
-a- confiscate all weapons
-b- ban all hate books and Mosques (any anti-Jew Imam gets expelled or imprisoned, only pro-tolerance Imam's allowed, and if there are none, no open mosques)
-c- impose borders and peace conditions (joint control of borders, etc)
-d- design the new country's constitution and law.


That's it. That's how you end the conflict. Military victory. Chances are, the other Arab nations still do not want to be involved.

All of this should be announced ahead of time, by the way. Why? To create a NEW BATNA for the Pal Arabs.

[Jorge]

Reffo: in your post #283 you say

Of course, most reasonable people agree that not all the Arabs are bad but nevertheless, what MGB8, I (and I think Ricky too), have been saying is that Israel's primary responsibility is to defend it's own citizens from the unscrupulous actions of the "bad Arabs" (the terrorists).

You can count me in as well on this. I would even add criminal to unscrupulous .

But, (there’s always a but) you go on saying:

And in doing so, it is just patently impractical for them to pick and choose as to who is good and who is bad.

Here we part ways. It may be impractical “to pick and choose” whom to hit but maximum effort should be done to discriminate. This has become a bloody confrontation, as such, damage to innocent people is sometimes unavoidable. The difference between the two positions within Israeli public opinion is that some are urging for more restraint(so as to minimize damage to non-combatants) while others are urging for less restraint from the IDF…or none at all.

Now, in a country such as Israel the army acts within guidelines set up by the government and thus the bulk of the criticism is not directed against the IDF itself but towards the political echelon that should clearly delimit what actions are to be undertaken and which not. Moreover, one can hardly criticize soldiers for actions clearly undertaken with the aim of punishing the population at large when those soldiers hear over the radio pronouncements of their responsible gov. Ministers such as “We are out to teach the Palestinians a lesson they’ll never forget” or “We’ll make their lives hell” and others of the kind.

Allow me at this point to quote some excerpts of the Haaretz Editorial of July 6th which voices strongly most of these criticisms:

Israel's strength, as well as its deterrent power, have been damaged not by the under use of force, but by its overuse. The Palestinians' determination and stamina have only increased as their situation worsened. We must acknowledge that every military tactic employed by Israel has given birth to no-less creative and painful Palestinian tactics - suicide bombings, Qassam fire, tunnels - that have managed to harass and wear out the strongest state in the Middle East. There is nothing more debilitating than a feeling of having lost one's way and purpose.

…At this time, it must be reiterated - and it would be appropriate for the prime minister to find the time and the strength of will to do so - that Israel has no option in the long run other than withdrawing from the territories and from the occupation. The Qassam launches' infringement on Israeli sovereignty is intolerable, and Israel must cause it to end. But this problem, grave as it is, is essentially tactical. It is not a reason for returning to Gaza, and a return to Gaza would bolster neither Israel's sovereignty nor its deterrent capabilities. Toppling the Hamas government is liable to result in chaos on the Palestinian side and deter the Palestinians from holding elections in the future, given that Israel and the Western world are not honoring the results.

Continued in next...

[Jorge]

Another excerpt of the same Editorial:

… In any case, and this should also be reiterated periodically, Israel's interest is for the Palestinians to live a life of plenty and well-being, not a life of hunger and humiliation. Therefore, nothing could be more imbecilic than destroying infrastructure and bombing transformer stations,…

And this brings me to a paragraph from your Post #288:

However, such a strategy requires unity of purpose and the Israeli left must give up the luxury of leniency on the Palestinians. Otherwise, how can we expect the rest of the world to accept that they should allow Israel to administer such harsh medicine? Jorge, you'd be surprised how often the western media excuse their anti Israel bias by claiming that they only repeat criticism of Israel voiced by some Israelis themselves (mostly from the left side of politics). So how can one argue with that??????

I’d say that one of the ways “to argue with that” is to acknowledge that Israelis are not united behind their present government’s policies. That there are many that consider them populist, shortsighted and irresponsible. That Editorials such as that quoted above are an expression of their views. That those that dissent, consider their duty to publicly denounce actions that they consider against Israel’s best interests.

Reffo, as you yourself said in #283: Israel…has to take the attitude that the other side (in this case the Palestinians) have both rights and responsibilities. And if they cannot or will not accept those responsibilities …

This is also binding to Israelis, even more so, because we fancy ourselves as a society more structured and with higher values than theirs. Those who oppose the government policy have a right to voice their opinions and they bear the responsibility to do so. I assume that it’s far from your intention, but nevertheless I should remind you that attempts to silence dissenting opinions in the name of the Higher interests of the State are not in the best interests of democracy.

[Reffo]

And in doing so, it is just patently impractical for them to pick and choose as to who is good and who is bad.
Here we part ways. It may be impractical “to pick and choose” whom to hit but maximum effort should be done to discriminate. This has become a bloody confrontation, as such, damage to innocent people is sometimes unavoidable. The difference between the two positions within Israeli public opinion is that some are urging for more restraint(so as to minimize damage to non-combatants) while others are urging for less restraint from the IDF…or none at all.You are saying that "Here our ways part...." but I said:
And if they cannot or will not accept those responsibilities, then Israel has the right to do what's necessary to defend it's own citizens. Of course, in doing so, it needs to take as much care as possible to minimise the likelihood of hurting innocents. But the key thing is that their due care, should not jeopardise the lives and safety of it's own citizens.Our difference seems to be the emphasis. I say:
Do what's necessary to defend Israeli civilians while taking as much care as possible not to hurt theirs.
While you say:
Defend Israeli civilians but not if it involves hurting their civilians
Unfortunately, the people who are in control of the Palestinians, make sure that even when Israel does adhere to your approach (rather than mine), Israel gets demonized and vilified anyway, both in front of their own people and by the left in the rest of the world. In other words, Israel's fight becomes ineffective but they are still being vilified, a lose lose outcome!

[Reffo]

You are wrong. The Pal Arabs have not passed up any real opportunity, in their eyes. That is because, quite frankly, any opportunity that they "grabbed" would END their opportunity to WIN... to have it ALL.

If you have studied negotiations, you are no doubt familiar with the concept of BATNA - the best alternative to a negotiated agreement.

What is the BATNA for a Pal Arab, given the position of Israel, particularly the left, and Europe and the US? The answer is - VICTORY.On one level you are right, that's exactly their strategy, they are still aiming for 100% victory which means the end of Israel and a second Holocaust for the Jews.

But what I was trying to say was that such a strategy DOES NOT serve their best interests because all it invites for them is further suffering, further humiliations and further death. Of course, the same will be true for Israelis. In other words, a lose lose outcome instead of a win win, but I suspect that some of their haters prefer that to a win win alternative!

[MGB8]

The problem is that they don't believe in their hearts that it will indeed only bring them misery and suffering. They believe there will be a light at the end of the tunnel - total victory. And the "morally constrained" left, who is more worried about Pal Arab non-combatants than Israeli non-combatants, gives them this belief.

[Reffo]

MGB8

Well, they were wrong for the last 120 years and all they got was suffering, humiliation and pain. And despite the bankrupt one eyed support that they get from other Muslims and the more extreme elements of the lunar left, they will continue to be wrong, if they will not wake up, for the next 1000 years if need be. Why? Because they just don't realise what a stubborn persevering and enduring people we Jews can be. We have survived worse odds than these amateurs (albeit not when it comes to being haters. They are up with the best of the best on that score :o ).

[Reffo]

Israel's strength, as well as its deterrent power, have been damaged not by the under use of force, but by its overuse. The Palestinians' determination and stamina have only increased as their situation worsened. We must acknowledge that every military tactic employed by Israel has given birth to no-less creative and painful Palestinian tactics - suicide bombings, Qassam fire, tunnels - that have managed to harass and wear out the strongest state in the Middle East. There is nothing more debilitating than a feeling of having lost one's way and purpose.This kinda puts the cart before the horse doesn't it? According to my recollection the Quassams and the tunnels started AFTER Israel withdrew from Gaza, and the re-occupation of Gaza was a consequence of Quassams, kidnappings and tunnels, not the other way around!!!!

The Qassam launches' infringement on Israeli sovereignty is intolerable, and Israel must cause it to end.Yes, I keep on hearing that, even from the left, but the left has no idea how to achieve this. At best, the left has very firm ideas about what Israel shouldn't do, not what it should do about the Quassams. It seems like they want Israel to get into a kind of a paralysis.

… In any case, and this should also be reiterated periodically, Israel's interest is for the Palestinians to live a life of plenty and well-being, not a life of hunger and humiliation. Therefore, nothing could be more imbecilic than destroying infrastructure and bombing transformer stations,… I have no problem with the above. However, I don't believe that it's up to Israel to create their wealth, nor is it up to Israel to stop them getting the good life. Unless of course, they take it upon themselves to make the lives of Israelis miserable in which case, Israel should do whatever is necessary to discourage them from that endeavour. However, my strong gut feeling that any bribery that Israel would offer them will not work, it will just encourage them to extort more bribes. That's human nature, if you reward negative behaviour, it encourages more negative behaviour.

…At this time, it must be reiterated - and it would be appropriate for the prime minister to find the time and the strength of will to do so - that Israel has no option in the long run other than withdrawing from the territories and from the occupation.I don't advocate long term occupation of the Gaza either but on the other hand, it seems that the only way to stop the Quassams is to deepen the buffer zone. And if that's the only way to stop the bombardment of Sderot and Ashkelon, then they will have to stay there as long as necessary to ensure that.

Toppling the Hamas government is liable to result in chaos on the Palestinian side and deter the Palestinians from holding elections in the future, given that Israel and the Western world are not honoring the results.This is the type of logic that is totally beyond my understanding. As far as I am concerned, I don't care what type of government they have, Islamic, democratic, secular, dictatorship monarchy, tribal or whatever else. From Israel's point of view, it should be up to them to choose to govern them as they please. The only thing that is required of them (whoever governs them) is to negotiate a suitable peace and abide by it. Remember, from Israel's point of view, a democratically elected Hamas Government that chooses to kill Israelis and continue terrorism, is not acceptable!!!!

[Ammon]

you can´t blame an entire group of people.

[Reffo]

Ammon

I'm not sure to whom you addressed your comment, to Arabs or to Jews? Hopefully to both of us. But in any case, just for the record, I personally certainly don't blame all Arabs and all Palestinians. However, as I said to Jorge before, when two peoples are at war with each other, it's difficult to separate the innocent from the guilty. We certainly have to try hard to stop innocents from getting hurt but it's not easy to do in war times.

Having said that: It's certainly not an excuse to actually deliberately target civilians as the Hamas, the Islamic Jihad, the Al Aqsa terrorists who openly target Israeli civilians and boast about it.

[Reffo]

Jorge

In my post #296 I said that the Israeli left has no ideas what to do about the Qussams and that they only have opinions what not to do about it. After a bit of further thought, it occurs to me that in fact you already answered this (sort of) by saying that Israel should negotiate and withdraw from all (or perhaps most) of the WB and Gaza. However I pointed out the weakness of that approach in my post #283. I would be keen to hear your opinion about what I said in that post.

[Ammon]

It´s adressed to both sides. but look what is now in israel. terrorists captured israeli soldier...ok that´s criminal and bad. But is it good, to bomb civilians because of that in palestine? to bomb the only power plant, that was build from Germany? Now the people there have no electricity and german property is destroyed. do you really think, such things bring peace?

[Reffo]

Ammon

It's not just for the kidnapping of the soldier which IMO wasn't even a terrorist act because it was directed at the military, unlike most of the previous terrorist attacks which were deliberately targeting Israeli civilians.

In particular, I'm talking about the thousands of rockets that were launched against Sderot's civilians. That was Israel's "reward" for withdrawing from Gaza? Don't you think that Israel has an obligation to respond to such acts? And to the kidnapping and murder of a civilian teenager? And to suicide bombings?

[Ammon]

bombing palestinensian cities is no solution. think about. it create only more hate. maybe the problem will never be solved. Wouldn´t it be better, too create Israel at another place, where it is more safe for the israeli people?
I don´t live there, so it´s not my decission.

[Reffo]

Where?

[Ammon]

USA? For example. Australia.

[ygalg1]

bombing palestinensian cities is no solution. think about. it create only more hate. maybe the problem will never be solved.
actually it is a great solution. we did thinking over and came to conclusion it is suitable. patience.

Wouldn´t it be better, too create Israel at another place, where it is more safe for the israeli people?
NO! if we response with desertion of the country. it will result to Islam's victory over democracy. and why should we? it is our country not theirs!
you should present that question for them. creating Palestine at another place. on the expense of their Islamic brethren lands, instead of ours.

[Ammon]

palestinansians feel the same way like you. And as i heared, palestinansians were there before 1949.

[Reffo]

Oh Amon, Amon, Amon...with respect, you are being very ignorant (no offence). I think you need to learn a lot more about history. Did you know that Jews lived in Israel before 1949 too? Some of them lived there continuously since biblical times, even before the Arab invasion of 1400 years ago? Sure, some of the other Jews migrated there from Europe in the late 1800s. They were fleeing from your European forefathers who didn't like Jews and many of todays Israelis are sixth or seventh generation so Israel is their only home.

In any case, do you think that Australia or the USA would welcome 6 million Jews? And can I whisper something to you? I find your idea offensive because Europeans like you used to hate Jews, they considered them to be strangers and they used to taunt Jews: "Go back to Palestine" and now that Jews made a home there, you come along and tell the Jews to leave their homes again? Why don't you think that Jews don't have the right to have their own country like everyone else?

[Ammon]

1. My name is Ammon. It´s german name with double "m". Amon is an egyptian god.
2. I don´t say, that jews should leave israel. I only think it´s a solution, that would stop that insane murdering on both sides. I know not much about your culture, because we have almost no jews in germany. I never meet one, but i think, that your religion is pro peace and against war. Yes, idiots in Hamas declare war, but i think there are enough israeli idiots too, who have the same way of thinking. We have a nice saying in germany about 2 cows on a small bridge over a river. Nobody of the 2 cows want go step back. At the end, both fall into the river. That describes exactly the situation.

[MGB8]

Let the Pal Arabs go to the other Arab nation in Palestine, then, called Jordan!

But, no, Ammon, you are ignorant of both history (Jews were there before 1949, Pal Arabs were not considered a seperate group from other Arabs until really the 60's).

[Ammon]

I don´t care, it´s their home too.

[MGB8]

Yeah, but you don't seem to have a problem with "Israel being another place." So you do care, you just have chosen a side - expell the Jews from their historic and religious homeland to appease Arabs who conquered that land even though they have other countries right next door.

Which means, for all intents and purposes, you are an enemy, and your morality is at question, too.

[Ammon]

No, why should they leave? That will not happen. You know it, so search a better solution.

[MGB8]

Israel will not leave, either. Deal with it. They will compromise, or they will have compromise forced on them, or, if they are too succesful with their terrorism, they will be expelled (as the Germans were expelled from Poland etc. after WW2, as the Hindus and Muslims had mass transfers with the division of India and Pakistan, and as they expelled the Jews from their countries).

That is their choice. Israel offers compromise, so long as the compromise does not politically destroy Israel and leaves Israel with defensible borders and conditions. If they cannot accept that, then its war.

[Ammon]

My grandmother was exspelled from "Poland". Believe me that is no solution.
It is crime, nothing more.

[MGB8]

Expulsion is better than death, Ammon. If the Pal Arabs aren't willing to stop trying to kill, they will either be killed or expelled. Its really that simple.

[Ammon]

expulsion is not better than death. It is criminal. It takes people their home. It´will destroy peace forever.

[MGB8]

Please, Ammon. Are you really so stupid. I WISH the Nazis had merely expelled the Jews. I'd have another 6-12 million relatives alive.

Expulsion is bad. Its terrible. But its still only moving. It is much better than death. Any argument to the contrary is beyond stupid, its laughable and pathetic.

Plus, you called for the expulsion of Israel, so clearly your caring is one sided. Hence, we are enemies, not by my choice, but by yours.

[MGB8]

expulsion is not better than death. It is criminal. It takes people their home. It´will destroy peace forever.

Um... yeah. Germans were expelled from Poland. How's peace between the two states?

Stop writing stupid (and untrue) things.

[MGB8]

Lets also not forget the Millions of Jews expelled from europe and from the Islamic states. So Israel should forever be at war with them, according to you?

[Ammon]

So there is peace? My grandma hates all polish and wish them death and destruction. she can´t watch pictures pf her home, because she would collapse. If she talk about, she cries. What a good solution...

[MGB8]

Better than the Poles killing her, after what Germany did to the Poles.

[Ammon]

That´s no solution. There is nothing too discuss about. Maybe Israel should change it´s pro war attitude.

[MGB8]

There is no pro-war attitude, Ammon. You are ignorant.

If you want to talk pro-war, talk to Hamas who calls for Israel's destruction (now), or Fatah, which talks of Israel's eventual destruction (in phases), or all those Arab states that don't recognize Israel's right to exist.

You are an ignorant little hypocrite. If you were faced with attacks like Israel is, you would demand more than Israel is doing.

[Ammon]

little? I´m 1,88m ;)

Come on buddy. I don´t want "War" with you. I accept your opinion and you accept mine, ok?

[MGB8]

What opinion, Ammon?

Your stupidity about being forced to move being as bad as being killed? :D

Your lies about Israel? Your ignorance about the facts of the conflict? :rolleyes:

Please.

You may have opinions, but they are about as good as an opinion tha the world is flat.

[Ammon]

Your facts must not be my facts.

[MGB8]

No, Ammon. There is only one truth. WW2 either happened or did not happen. Etc. etc. Facts don't change - there are not "multiple sets of facts." Either something happened, or it did not. Conclusions from the facts, opinions, can change. But facts, history, these are immutable.

[Ammon]

You say pals should leave, i say why shouldn´t the jews leave? You know what would be best? Why don´t both leave?

[MGB8]

You say pals should leave, i say why shouldn´t the jews leave? You know what would be best? Why don´t both leave?

Wrong. I don't say that the Pals should leave. In fact, on this board, on several occasions, I have spelled out how I think a good 2 state solution would work. However, I do believe that if the Palestinians are unable to compromise and want war, then expulsion may be necessary. Israelis right to life is greater than the Pal Arabs right to live in place A as opposed to place B.

But, if they want peace, all they have to do is stop attacking. heck, they could still get something very close to Camp David. And not to mention that Olmert plans on abandoning 91% or so of the WB to them, and Gaza already was.

So, please. you have things backwards. You think the Jews should leave (despite that its "a crime"), I say, NO, it makes more sense for the Pal Arabs to join the other Pal Arabs in Jordan on 78% of "Palestine" (which never existed as a distinct entity), rather than Jews being expelled from their national and religious homeland, to... who knows where.

But, clearly, you have outed yourself again as merely a pro-Arabist. That makes you an enemy. Deal with it.

[Ammon]

I´m german. You would call it Aryan. How could i be pro-arabist? I never meet an israeli. but i was often at holiday in egypt, tuneasia and they were very nice too germans. I don´t see them as hostile people.

[MGB8]

Arab hospitality is famous. That doesn't mean it comes with good will. Plus, there is a big difference between individuals and geopolitics.

The fact that you call yourself "Aryan" is worrying. Aryan is a Nazi invention. Its borrowed from Persian/Indian area. Its not real.

Germans are not "Aryan", they are Germans.

[MGB8]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aryan

Aryan (/ ɑːrjən /)is an English language word derived from the Indian Vedas and Iranian Avestan terms ari-, arya-, ārya-, and/or the extended form aryāna-. The Sanskrit and Old Persian languages both pronounced the word as arya- (/ ɑːrjə /) and aryan. Beyond its use as the ethnic self-designation of the Proto-Indo-Iranians, the meaning "noble/spiritual" has been attached to it in Sanskrit and Persian. In linguistics, it is sometimes still used in reference to the Indo-Iranian language family, but it is primarily restricted to the compound Indo-Aryan, the Indic subgroup of the Indo-Iranian branch.

Among White supremacists the term still sometimes functions as a synonym for non-Jewish "white person."

The Aryan race was a term used in the early 20th century by European racial theorists who believed strongly in the division of humanity into biologically distinct races with differing characteristics. Such writers took the view that the Proto-Indo-Europeans constituted a specific race that had expanded across Europe, Iran and India. This meaning was, and still is, common in theories of racial superiority which were embraced by Nazi Germany. This usage tends to merge the Avestan/Sanskrit meaning of "noble" or "elevated" with the idea of distinctive ancestral ethnicity marked by language distribution. In this interpretation, the Aryan Race is both the highest representative of mankind and the purest descendent of the Proto-Indo-European population.

[Ammon]

I learned that i´m aryan at school.

[MGB8]

Then your school troubles me. What type of school do you go to?

Germans are ethnically distinct from Poles who are distinct from Franks and Gauls who are distinct from Normans or Italians or Irish or Anglos or Russians. Nevertheless, given intermarriage, these play less a difference.

Aryan merely is a filthy way of saying White (non-Jewish). But given the centuries of intermarriage between Jews and gentiles, and the fact that many gentiles where Jews who converted... it doesn't mean anything. Artificial .

Germans are Germans. Not proto-Indo-Iranians.

[Ammon]

I go to gymnasium. That is the highest school form in germany, right under the university.

[Reffo]

Ammon

So what would your grandmother want you to do if Poles would come to your neighbourhood and blow up your friends and neighbours? Would she want you to pack your bags and move to another country peacefully?

[Ricky]

I don't see why Ammon would think that Jews/Israelis should call Germans "Aryans". In the Nazi period, the Germans called themselves Aryans as a claim of their ethnic superiority over other races. I hope, Ammnon, that you do not have such an attitude.
With all the fighting going on at present between the Israelis and the Arabs, it is easy to get into a slamming match over who is doing what to whom.
But I think one differentiation cannot be denied. The Palestinians try deliberatly to kill Israeli civilians, by Kassam attacks aimed directly at civilian populations and by suicide bombers. Whenever Israel kills Palestinian civilians it is always by accident. One might hold the opinion that Israel should try harder to avoid Palestinian civilian casualties. One might hold the opinion that if there is any chance of Israel accidently killing civilians as a result of any military action, Israel should refrain from such action (this is not my view- but it is a legitimate view to take), but one cannot deny that the Palestinians deliberately try to harm civilians, Israel tries not to

[Ammon]

Oh i think, that i´m superior than some other races. Where you ever in Kenia? ...

But i don´t see Jews as race. It´s a religion. Nothing more. And Jews brought many good things for the world.

[Faysal]

Oh i think, that i´m superior than some other races. Where you ever in Kenia? ...

But i don´t see Jews as race. It´s a religion. Nothing more. And Jews brought many good things for the world.

Noooo.. I cant believe this

[ygalg1]

the genuine Aryans [Iranians] are Persians. the name which contributed by the Greeks. Aryans also mention in the scroll of Esther.

[Ammon]

Noooo.. I cant believe this

English isn´t my mother language. So if you understand something wrong, i´m sorry.

[InnaNiGaandmari]

Ammon

So what would your grandmother want you to do if Poles would come to your neighbourhood and blow up your friends and neighbours? Would she want you to pack your bags and move to another country peacefully?

What would your grandmother say if your neighbour that didnt exist 60 odd years ago who now occupies your land, decides to use american backed military might to slowly dispel your race, using every single excuse to show their terrorism/war crimes?

another one, you are on a beach and are about 8 years old, your playing with your brothers and sister, a minute later a cruise missile hits you, all your family members are dead but you are still alive but hav lost your legs, would you hav sympathy for the people who hav bombarded you with the bomb.

anything that isnt the benfit of jahodis, is ANTI_SEMITISM, but what is happening in gaza is a disgrace..

[Ammon]

I would call it another form of racism.

[Reffo]

InnaNiGaandmari

My neigbours who didn't exist 60 years ago? You mean the ones whose parents and whose parents parents and other ancestors lived in:

Hebron continually since biblical times? Since before the Arab invasion of about 1400 years ago?
Who lived in Zefat continually since biblical times? Since before the Arab invasion of about 1400 years ago?
Who lived in Jerusalem continually since biblical times? Since before the Arab invasion of about 1400 years ago?
Who migrated to the holy land in the late 1800s

You mean those Jews? You are critical of those Jews who were content to let their neighbours live but also wanted a life themselves? You mean the Jews who were content to let their Arab neighbours have their independent Palestine as long as they could have their independent Israel? You mean those jahodi neighbours? You want to know what my grandmother would say to me about those neigbours? Are you listening InnaNiGaandmari? Well then, she would tell me to stop attacking them, stop hating them and stop killing them. She would tell me that if I stop doing that, then they would stop too!!!!!

Am I getting through to you InnaNiGaandmari??????

[Reffo]

Oh i think, that i´m superior than some other races. Where you ever in Kenia? ...That statement reveals a lot about you individually. Now let me teach you something that might make you a better human being:

The only fair way to decide whether you, individually, are superior to some other races, is by comparing you to each and every individual member of those other races. I guarantee to you that if one could find a practical way of doing that, the outc